1959-05-05

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on external affairs-Mr. White.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to inform hon. members of an announcement which is being made this afternoon jointly by Hon. Louis P. Cecile, minister of public welfare of Ontario, and myself concerning the welfare of immigrants residing in Ontario.
As hon. members know, an agreement was signed in March, 1952 whereby the Ontario department of public welfare and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration shared equally the costs of certain welfare assistance and hospitalization in the case of immigrants who had less than one year's residence in Canada and became indigent through accident or illness.
Hospitalization costs will continue to be shared under the agreement of March, 1952 although in the light of the federally sponsored provincial hospital insurance plan this aspect of the agreement is under discussion with the provincial authorities with a view to possible amendment.
In the case of welfare and in the interests of improved administrative practice, Ontario has agreed as of May 1 to treat immigrants in Canada less than one year the same as other persons in that province under the terms of the Ontario general welfare assistance act, and to share with the federal government such expenses as are applicable under the agreement in force under the federal Unemployment Assistance Act rather than through a separate agreement.
This new arrangement provides that should the need arise an immigrant in Ontario, regardless of length of residence, will be entitled to all the social and welfare benefits available under provincial legislation, including direct relief under the Ontario welfare assistance act, and immigrants will be treated exactly the same as other persons resident
in that province. The proviso that an immigrant must become indigent through accident or illness, which applied in the case of the earlier agreement, has been removed. This in our opinion will greatly assist newcomers who occasionally after their arrival in this country require social and welfare benefits. My department and the national employment service will continue, as in the past, to assist immigrants in their establishment in employment and integration into the Canadian community.
Ontario becomes the first province to accept this responsibility in respect of welfare which affects the majority of immigrants, as something slightly in excess of 50 per cent of the immigrants who come to this country establish themselves in that province. I may add that negotiations have been initiated with some of the other provinces with a view to concluding similar arrangements.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I am sure that the sporting nature of the house will understand the joy that attended the minister in making this particular announcement in the light of the misfortune that pursued her with respect to that order in council which militated so decidedly against so many immigrants.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: However, in this new arrangement, the minister has been assisted by the government of the province of Ontario. I suspect, of course, that it is only by mere coincidence that the announcement is made a day after the premier of that province had announced his intention to ask for a further mandate for his government. Not only is this obviously a pre-election arrangement-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinion):: And this is a pre-election speech.


Mr. Speaker:: The comment which is acceptable at this time relates to the subject matter of the statement, not to the circumstances attendant upon it whether real or fancied. I would appreciate it if the hon. member would confine himself to the subject matter of the statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You would not expect me to allow this occasion to pass
3324	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry without putting the minister in the favourable position in which this particular announcement puts her, in the light of the situation attendant upon the unfortunate order in council of some time ago. May I say the	minister has made an important
announcement. The last observation I know she would want me to make is that whatever social benefits these immigrants will have will be largely due to legislation introduced by Liberal governments.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House, Ottawa, May 5, 1959
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, May 5, at 9.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
Lionel Massey
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative)



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to advise the house as to when he proposes to name a secretary of state for external affairs.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, when I am in a position to do so the announcement will be made. In that connection I might refer the hon. gentleman to the immortal words of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) when, speaking in the House of Commons on April 2, 1946, he dealt with a similar situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Prime Minister if he would remind me of my immortal words?
[Later:!


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a question of the Prime Minister supplementary to the one I asked at the beginning of the orders of the day. In view of the fact that I have now had an opportunity of perusing the immortal words of the hon. member for Essex East in 1946, may I ask the Prime Minister whether


those words are an indication of the policy that is to be followed by the government in 1959 in respect of this matter?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer is of course no; but I thought I ought to draw to the attention of the hon. member for Essex East the words he spoke on an occasion when he was preaching for a call. At that time he felt that the portfolios of secretary of state for external affairs and prime minister should be kept by one person. I do not share that view today and the appointment will be made as soon as convenient. I thought it only fair, for the edification of the hon. gentleman, to point out exactly what he had said on another occasion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will the Prime Minister not agree that the words of the hon. member for Essex East on that occasion were abundantly justified by the personalities and circumstances involved?


John George Diefenbaker: I would not want to join in that and accept entirely the point of view of the hon. gentleman as totally unprejudiced.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Since the Prime Minister is in such a good mood, may I ask him if he had not spent a very happy week end reading those immortal words?


John George Diefenbaker: No; they came to me some days ago and I have been awaiting the opportunity to pass on those words to the hon. gentleman.
(Translation):


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the reply just given by the Prime Minister, and in view of the statement you made a moment ago to the effect that tonight we shall proceed to the other place for the royal assent to certain bills, I ask the Prime Minister or the leader of the house, the Minister of Public Works, if this march to the other house will constitute another stage in the appointment of parliamentary secretaries?
(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I must say that whether or not the suspicions of the hon. gentleman may bear any practical results will be ascertained in the next few days.


[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister's attention been drawn to newspaper reports of the explosion which occurred on the Norwegian freighter Ferngulf at 4.15 on Friday afternoon outside Vancouver harbour, resulting in the captain sending an SOS at 4.23 and again at 4.37 because men were burned and dying? If so, will the Minister of Transport investigate as to why an SOS sent from a ship on fire within sight of Canada's third largest city was not immediately responded to with all possible medical and fire fighting equipment? May I at the same time ask if the Minister of Transport would also comment on the reported statement of the port manager of Vancouver this morning of the need for a coastguard service.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, my department is well aware of the unfortunate accident. We are looking into it. I have had no indication of the reported statement made by the port manager.


Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard):: have a supplementary question. I wish to assure the house that there is great interest in this matter in western Canada. Pending completion of the investigation, can the minister say whether vessels owned by Canadian National Steamships and the national harbour board could meet a distress signal in a similar situation?


George Harris Hees: As I said, Mr. Speaker, my deparmental officials are looking into the whole situation.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I should like to ask him if he will be in a position soon to announce the terms and the scope of the royal commission on transportation?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I hope to do that shortly.



LAKEHEAD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Because of the serious concern at the Canadian lakehead over the inadequacy of grain facilities for handling ocean ships, and the fact that the lakehead harbour commission has not yet become active, can the minister explain what is the hold-up in making the harbour commission active in order that it can face and act on these particular problems?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would think the hon. member would get the answer quickest by finding out from his people back home.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have a supplementary question. The lakehead harbour commission is under federal jurisdiction. I should like to know why this commission is not active as yet.


George Harris Hees: I have no idea why it is not active. The commission was set up some time ago, and as far as I know there is no reason why it should not be active and getting on with the job as it was fully expected it would some time ago.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South):: I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Have the government as yet received the final report of the Borden royal commission on the marketing of oil? If they have not yet received it, can he indicate to the house when it might be available?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I communicated with the chairman of the royal commission on energy, and he advised me that while it was expected that the commission would be able to complete its report by the end of this month, there will be a lapse of several further weeks before the report is delivered to the governor in council. Consideration, of course, has to be given by the commission to substantial changes in the world and Canadian positions in connection with crude oil, and the exemption of Canadian crude from United States import quotas which becomes effective June 1.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the Prime Minister say whether before dealing with the resolution setting up an energy board we will have available to us the final report of the Borden commission on energy?


John George Diefenbaker: On the information I have just given, and following my communication with the chairman of the board, it is apparent that the rest of the report will not be available when the legislation is introduced to set up the board.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: May I ask a supplementary question. Has the Prime Minister any further information to impart to the house about the hearings of the Borden commission on coal in the eastern provinces?


John George Diefenbaker: I am sorry I cannot give any further information about that matter.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice arising out of a report in this morning's press that he informed the members of the association of Canadian advertisers yesterday that certain amendments to the anti-combines law will be introduced this session, and that the government was giving specific study to legislation to outlaw loss leader selling and legislation dealing with related problems. Would the minister bring the house up to date on any statements made outside of this house, and say whether these amendments will be introduced?


Hon. E. D. Fulion (Minister of Justice):: am sorry the hon. gentleman is not up to date but if he will be good enough to consult the speech from the throne delivered at the opening of the session he will discover that it was announced as the intention of the government to introduce amendments to the anti-combines legislation.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would inform the minister that the speech from the throne did not spell out what amendments were to be made to the anti-combines legislation, and I would appreciate a reply to the second part of my question, as to whether the amendments the government has in mind also deal with resale price maintenance?


Edmund Davie Fulton: As far I understand it the problem of loss leaders and the problem of resale price maintenance are inextricably intertwined.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: May
I ask the minister if the proposed legislation will arrest the "osmotic" principle in order to prevent large business absorbing small retailers?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think my hon. friend will have to await the presentation of the legislation which will be introduced later this session.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice whether he would care to comment on the statement made, according to certain radio reports, by the deputy attorney general of Ontario, who announced that the Minister of Justice proposed to introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code having to do with the suspension of licences of motor car drivers.


Edmund Davie Fulton: do not think I am in a position to make any definite statement on that subject. I have had discussions with the attorney general of Ontario in connection with this and other matters relating to the Criminal Code and we shall, I expect, shortly be introducing a number of amendments to the Criminal Code which will deal with this among other subjects.
(Translation):



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister inform the house if the Canadian Catholic Confederation of Labour was consulted in regard to the appointment of a commissioner to the Unemployment Insurance Commission? If so, what kind of talks were held, and where?
(Text):


Hon. Michael Sfarr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I heard the hon. member's question correctly. Communication was had with the Canadian federation of catholic unions in Quebec, and a reply was received by telegram that they concurred in the recommendations of the Canadian Labour Congress.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MANITOBA  FEDERAL AID IN PROVINCIAL DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In the light of his answer to the leader of the official opposition some weeks ago to the effect that consultations were taking place between the right hon. gentleman and the premier of the province of Manitoba, I wonder whether the Prime Minister is in a position to inform this house whether we may expect an announcement before May 14, as to possible extraordinary financial aid to projects in Manitoba.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know what "extraordinary financial aid" means, but stripping the question of that portion-that decorative portion- I may say that no decision has yet been reached.



PRICE SPREADS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister tell the house when the government expects to receive the report of the royal commission on price spreads?


John George Diefenbaker: I am sorry, but I am unable to answer that question directly. I shall get in touch with the chairman at once, and hope to be able to give an answer shortly.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government investigated in the St. Lawrence the effect on shipping of the regulation to which he referred to yesterday dealing with trucks in bond?


John George Diefenbaker: Naturally the entire field has been looked into. As no doubt the hon. gentleman has read in the press, the situation on the St. Lawrence waterway will naturally be the subject of discussion in the event that there is anything in the nature of a search or interference with the cargoes of ships using that waterway.
66968-9-211
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue arising out of my continuing curiosity about government regulations for pension plans.
As over three months have elapsed since the minister informed the house that the administrative tortoise responsible for the preparation of the long-expected blue book on pension plans was near the finish line, would the minister inform the house when he is expected to cross that line by the publication of this long-awaited book?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I am sure that our mutual and venerable friend to which the hon. member has just referred will be greatly heartened when I tell it of the solicitude which the hon. member is showing with regard to its progress along the difficult road on which it embarked some considerable time ago. I can tell the hon. member that it is very near the finish line; it has gone around the last curve and the finish line is in sight, and in order that there may be no doubt about it in the mind of the hon. member I think I will ask the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to have cameramen present to take a picture as it crosses the line.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister comment on the statement released by a Metro Toronto housing company that increases in the last five years in the borrowing rate from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to the present peak of 5J per cent have caused a 72 per cent increase in rental rates on apartments for elderly citizens? Can the minister say what consideration has been given to the request that a standard rate of 3 per cent for such loans be established in order that low cost housing may be available to our elderly citizens?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I did not receive the notice of the hon. member's question in time to get a detailed answer from the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. However, I did notice this same newspaper article myself, and it refers to limited

Inquiries of the Ministry dividend housing. That type of housing is not subsidized by the federal government at all. This fact, of course, answers the last part of my hon. friend's question, which was whether consideration was being given to reducing the rate to 3 per cent.
Then with regard to the allegation in this article that increases in interest on money loaned by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have brought about a great increase in rents, the statement is not accurate at all. The article states that some years ago suites were renting at $29 a month, and any that were then renting at that rate should still be renting at the same rate. There has been some increase in the interest rate, but I am informed that such increase would account for an increase of only about $3 in the rental. The remainder of the increase in rentals which are now being charged arises from an increase of about $8 a month in operating costs, and an increase in the payments being made to the other bodies which have put money into this housing. The increased rate on federal money would account for only $3 a month.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. E. Nixon (Algoma West):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the Minister of Fisheries if he would make a statement in the near future as to what the program will be to deal with the lamprey eel situation in lake Superior during the coming summer?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, this question can be discussed at some considerable length on my estimates. I do not think it is a question that can be suitably answered on the orders of the day, but I shall be glad to discuss it when my estimates are before the house.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I may ask the Prime Minister if he expects soon to be in a position to recommend the appointment of a chairman of the civil service commission, in view of the many important problems now before that commission?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, sir.



WAYS AND MEANS

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

[Stage Direction]
Resolved that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act to provide:
1.	that the excise tax on each five cigarettes or fraction of five cigarettes contained in any package be increased from 2 cents to 25 cents;
2.	that the wording of the exemption from sales tax for "stock conditioners, condiments and feed supplements for addition to poultry, cattle and other stock feeds" in schedule III be changed to read:
"Feed supplements for addition to poultry, cattle and other stock feeds and materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture thereof";
3.	that the exemption from sales tax for tanks for collecting milk be extended to include complete parts therefor including materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture of such tanks and parts;
4.	that the definition of "producer or manufacturer" be extended to include any person who packages toilet articles, preparations, cosmetics or pharmaceuticals for sale except where they are packaged by a retailer in his retail premises for sale therefrom directly to consumers or users;
5.	that the definition of "manufacturer or producer" be extended to include any person who markets, except by sale at retail directly to consumers or users, toilet articles, preparations, cosmetics or pharmaceuticals manufactured under his own brand;
6.	that the sales tax be imposed, levied and collected on goods purchased or imported by a licensed wholesaler and retained for his own use or for rental to others;
7.	that any enactment founded upon this resolution be deemed to to have come into force on the 10th day of April, 1959;
and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
The Chairman:: Order. We were discussing paragraph 4. Is there any discussion?
Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 agreed to.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: We shall now turn to paragraph 1.


Mr. Benidickson:: Are we going to hear your ruling with respect to this resolution?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. After lengthy deliberation we have finally come to a ruling. I must tell the committee that it is rather a lengthy document, and I shall appreciate their kindness in listening to it. Yesterday when paragraph 1 of the Excise Tax Act resolution was being considered by the committee, the hon. member for Trinity proposed the following amendment:
That paragraph 1 be stricken out of the resolution and that the following paragraphs be renumbered accordingly.
The Minister of Finance then raised a point of order to the effect that the amendment was out of order in that it was a straight negative. He also suggested that it would be possible

to propose a similar amendment on each subsequent paragraph of the resolution and thereby effect a negative of the whole resolution. Later on in the discussion the minister, in support of his point of order, quoted section 4 of citation 266 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, to the effect that the amendment, if carried, "would alter the balance of ways and means".
With regard to the first point raised by the Minister of Finance, I agree with him that the amendment if carried would be a negative of the proposal contained in paragraph 1 of the resolution. However, in a careful review of the authorities I am unable to find any support for his contention that such an amendment is irregular. In this regard citation 201 of Beauchesne's fourth edition reads as follows:
The object of an amendment may be to effect such an alteration in a question as will obtain the support of those who, without such alteration, must either vote against it or abstain from voting thereon, or to present to the house an alternative proposition either wholly or partially opposed to the original question. This may be effected by moving to omit all the words of the question after the first word, "that", and to substitute in their place other words of a different import. In that case the debate that follows is not restricted to the amendment, but includes the motives of the amendment and of the motion, both matters being under the consideration of the house as alternative propositions.
A motion may be amended: (a) by leaving out certain words; (b) by leaving out certain words in order to insert other words; (c) by inserting or adding other words.
In view of the latter part of the foregoing citation and in the absence of any authority to the contrary, I am inclined to say that the amendment as to form is not irregular.
The second point raised by the minister, namely that the deletion of clause 1 of the resolution is not in order because it alters the balance of ways and means, is one which has been raised time and again during the past 10 or 15 years, and in several cases rulings to that effect have been appealed to the house. The authority for these rulings was initially contained in citation 500 of Beauchesne's third edition, and as a result of the use of this citation a ruling was made in 1951 which now appears as section 4 of citation 266 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. This section reads as follows:
It is not in order to move deletion of a particular clause in an excise tax resolution because it alters the balance of ways and means. Chairman's decision confirmed by the house on a division.
It will be noted that the ruling made by the chairman of the committee of ways and means in 1951 rested entirely on the premise that the amendment would alter the balance of ways and means. In concluding his ruling, 66968-9-211J
Excise Tax Act
as reported on page 2662 of Hansard, May 3, 1951, the then chairman said:
We are agreed all along the line except on that one point. If the hon. member will look at citation 500 of Beauchesne, third edition, he will see why it would be very difficult for the chairman in the Canadian house at least to agree with him that a complicated question can be divided by a member moving that a certain portion of the resolution be deleted. Citation 500 says very clearly that it must not affect the balance of ways and means. Certainly the hon. member will admit that if this amendment should carry, deleting the first paragraph which provides that the rate of the general sales tax shall be increased from eight per cent to ten per cent, the balance of ways and means would be altered. Therefore I would have no alternative but to declare the amendment out of order.
As the meaning of the phrase "must not affect the balance of ways and means for the service of the year" presented something of a mystery, and because the repeated use of it seemed to present an insuperable barrier to the moving of amendments by private members; and moreover, since the phrase was extracted in the first instance from May's thirteenth edition, the Clerk of our house sought the advice of the clerk of the British house in regard to the validity of the principle enunciated in the phrase.
If I may have the indulgence of the committee a little longer I should like to quote several paragraphs from the letter written in reply by the clerk of the British house. This letter is dated January 23, 1959, and I quote from it as follows:
I would like straight away to express my respectful agreement with the ruling of your chairman to the effect that an amendment to reduce a tax is in order.
This paragraph, I should say, refers to a ruling made in 1957. The clerk of the British house continues:
If that were not so, the position would be that the house could reduce a tax to nothing by rejecting the proposal for imposing it but could not moderate the original proposal or ever initiate any moderation once the tax was in existence. That has never been the position at Westminster as is shown by the proceedings in committee on any finance bill.
A committee which is considering a "charge", whether upon the people or upon the revenue, has either to approve, disapprove or reduce that "charge" but may not extend it either in amount or in the area of its operation. (See May 16th edition, pages 772 and 801).
I now turn to the words "must not affect the balance of ways and means for the service of the year". The use made of this quotation seems to me to illustrate the danger of taking words out of their context and I venture to quote the whole passage:
"Proposals for the variation or modification of taxation can therefore be made in the committee: but these proposals must be grafted upon the financial scheme submitted by the government, and must not affect the balance of ways and means voted for the service of the year. Amendments, therefore, can be proposed to substitute another

Excise Tax Act
tax, of equivalent amount, for that proposed by the government, as, for instance, a proposal to substitute probate and legacy duty on real property as an alternative for an inhabited house duty; the necessity of new taxation, to that extent, being already declared on behalf of the crown."
Although I do not propose to quote the passage in full I think a reference to the historical passage on pages 704 and 705 of the 16th edition is necessary fully to comprehend the statement of the present practice which is set out on pages 801 and 802 of the same edition. I think from this it is clear that the passage cited from page 544 of the 13th edition referred to a practice of substituting one charge for another providing the total amount of taxation remained unaltered, and that this practice is now obsolete.
The reference to the thirteenth edition in this paragraph is citation 500 of Beauchesne's third edition. The clerk's letter ends with this paragraph:
In conclusion, to insist that the house can only accept or reject but not modify the financial proposals of the government, which is in fact what the minister was claiming, seems to me a great extension of the financial powers of the crown and to be one which has never been, or is likely to be, accepted by the House of Commons at Westminster.
I regret very much having taken so much of the committee's time with my lengthy statement but in view of the importance of this question I considered it incumbent upon me to deal at length with this problem.
Accordingly, under the circumstances I feel impelled to rule that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Trinity is in order. Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Hellyer) negatived: Yeas, 28; nays, 121.


Erhart Regier: I rise to a point of order. I noticed that a number of members entered the chamber while the vote was in the process of being taken. I have particular reference to the hon. member for Stanstead. I feel this is a blot on our democracy, that a member should enter this chamber and cast a ballot without having heard the issue under discussion, and without even knowing what he is voting upon-


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: You are worse than the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: On this particular point of order I must, in fact, agree that it is quite out of order for members to enter, walk out of or across the house or make any noise or disturbance while the Speaker or the Chairman is putting the question. Consequently it was quite out of order for the various members to move in and out of the chamber while the question was being put.
[The Chairman.]
It was also completely out of order for the hon. gentlemen on my immediate left to be making as much noise and disturbing the order of the chamber as they were while the question was being put.


Erhart Regier: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. You mentioned the members to your immediate left. I hope you will absolve me from being one of the members accused, because I kept silent until after the vote.


Hazen Robert Argue: Further to the point of order, Mr. Chairman; is it not a well known rule of this house that not only has a member no right to come in when the vote is being taken, but that if he should rise in his place and have his vote counted, his vote should be removed from the total? I have no idea, myself, whether or not the hon. member for Stanstead came in while the vote was being taken. I did not see him. But if in the opinion of the Chair he did come in while the vote was being taken, his vote should be removed from the total.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The point of order raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia is quite correct. Members who come in while the vote is being taken should not be counted in the final vote. However, in the present instance I did not see those members who were coming in while the vote was being taken.
I should like to say a further word concerning the noise and disturbance by various members to my left. I did not direct my remarks to any one member in particular, but I directed my remarks to the members on my immediate left who were the ones actually making the noise and causing the disturbance. They know who they are. It would be appreciated by the Chair if from now on they respected the order which must reign in this chamber.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
1. Resolved,
(a)	that it is expedient to amend the english version of the Customs Tariff by adding to section two thereof the following subsection:
(3) The word "machinery" wherever it appears in this Act shall be read and construed as "machines";
(b)	that it is expedient to amend the Customs Tariff by striking out section 13 and substituting the following therefor:
13. (1) The minister may order that, in lieu of the ad valorem rate of duty or the free rate of duty, the specific duty provided for in tariff items 87, 92, 94, 95 and 95a shall apply to goods described in the order imported through ports in a region or part of Canada during such period or periods as may be fixed by the minister.
(2) If before, the coming into operation of an order under subsection (1), a person purchased

goods for importation through a port in a region or part of Canada specified in the order, in the expectation in good faith that the ad valorem rate of duty or the free rate of duty would apply to the goods, and at the time of the coming into operation of the order the goods were in transit to the purchaser in Canada, the ad valorem rate of duty or the free rate of duty shall apply to the goods, notwithstanding the order.
William Moore Benidickson: This is an innocent looking resolution, but I think it has implications that are worthy of a fuller explanation than was given by the minister in his budget address. The first part of the resolution concerns the definition of the word "machinery" and "machines". The minister did, of course, refer to this at page 2424 of Hansard for April 9. He summed up his comments by saying:
Thus, there will be no change.
I am not satisfied about this, Mr. Chairman. I should like a more complete explanation from the minister. We have here specifically six types of machines which are to be deemed machines or machinery made in Canada, and the minister has indicated to the house that this involves no change. I should like the minister to give the greatest possible explanation of the reason for this change in definition because I believe at least two of the items to which reference is made, and I think of soft drink and hoist machines, actually were the subject of appeals to the tariff board as to whether or not they were in fact machinery that was made in Canada. I understand the tariff board ruled that they were not. In any event I think paragraph (a), which places a new subsection 3 to section 2 of the Customs Tariff requires more explanation from the minister before we are asked to amend the statute.
Now, if he would like me to deal with this whole resolution, the next amendment is to section 13 of the Customs Tariff. Again I should like a full explanation from the minister as to the reason for this very substantial change in the wording of our statute, and particularly whether or not under the proposed amendments the Minister of National Revenue will have discretion in the matter of imposing higher duties than we would normally contemplate and the number of weeks that will be referred to as the special seasonal period for the various items in the schedule.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If my hon. friend will permit me, Mr. Chairman, may I suggest we deal with the two parts of the resolution separately, that is to say part (a) and part (b). They relate to two different subject matters. I believe you called part (a), Mr. Chairman, and it will contribute to more orderly discussion if we can deal with them separately, if that meets with your approval.
Customs Tariff
Then, Mr. Chairman, if I may take up the point the hon. gentleman was raising with respect to part (a) of the resolution, I would say this concerns a matter of definition, and a matter of definition only. I think the hon. gentleman has confused this matter of definition in resolution 1 (a) with provisions that are to be found in resolution No. 4 at pages 24 and 25 of the printed booklet of ways and means resolutions. We will be coming to those in due course, Mr. Chairman. Those are to be found under item 427 on pages 24 and 25. where certain machines are set out in detail, but the present resolution concerns definition and definition only.
I may say that the problem does not arise in the French version of the Customs Tariff. The English version uses the words "machine" and "machinery" apparently almost indiscriminately, certainly with no clear line of distinction evident. On the other hand the French version uses the one word "machine". What is proposed here is an amendment to the English version of the Customs Tariff Act, and the English version alone.
Lacking any definition or reconciliation in the act of the two words "machine" and "machinery", it seemed to us that it was highly desirable, for the reasons I set forth in the budget speech, that it should be made quite clear in the act what is meant. In ordinary English use the word "machine" suggests at once some individual machine that is capable of some independent operation. The word "machinery" is a broader word. It connotes something in the nature of a mechanical system which might involve the connecting together and operation together of what might otherwise be regarded as a number of individual machines.
Here is the problem, Mr. Chairman. Because this distinction, which I suppose would be apparent to most persons using these words in the English language, does not explain the use of these two words in the customs tariff, we are proposing in this resolution that the word "machinery" is to be given the meaning of "machine" in order that where the word "machinery" is used in the act, it shall be quite clear that it embraces the individual machines which may be part of a mechanical system.
I think the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River will recall that in the budget speech I referred by way of illustration to the machines that are enumerated under item 427 of the tariff, which we will be coming to under resolution No. 4. If it would be of assistance to hon. members I could just make that reference for purposes of illustration, because we will be coming to the changes that are proposed in item 427 when we reach the fourth resolution.

Customs Tariff
There are two items in the tariff under which most imports of machines are classified. Item 427 covers machinery which is ruled by the customs authorities to be "of a class or kind made in Canada" and carries relatively high duties. The other item, 427a, covers machinery which is ruled by customs to be "of a class or kind not made in Canada" and carries relatively low rates of duties. Both these items refer to machinery. Consequently it might be argued that a group of machines whose operation is linked together in one way or another should all be classified under one item or the other as machinery. In this case, if one of the machines in the group was of a class or kind not made in Canada, then the whole group would carry the lower rate of duty notwithstanding the fact that all the other machines in the group were ruled to be made in Canada. This change is proposed in order to make it clear that each machine must be classified on the basis of its particular made in Canada status.


William Moore Benidickson: Just having reference to the last few remarks of the minister may I say this. I take it that this question of whether or not a machine would be deemed to be made in Canada and thus be subject, as the minister says, to a higher rate of duty, would have some practical relationship to the size of the machine. In the rewording, is consideration being given to sizing in a realistic way? In other words, when these six particular items are selected as machinery deemed to be made in Canada, it is possible that machinery of a certain size is not made in Canada, but if required by an importer, he would have to pay an extremely heavy rate of duty on it simply because of a change in description in the tariff item and the suggestion that it is now deemed to be made in Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No change is proposed in the criteria by which it is established that a machine is or is not of a class or kind made in Canada.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is there any further discussion on resolution 1 (a)? Is there any discussion on resolution 1 (b>?


Donald Methuen Fleming: As to part (b) there is an amendment which I shall ask my colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys to move. It is one which applies strictly to the second resolution relating to fruits and vegetables, but there is an incidental amendment required to resolution

1 (b) in addition to the proposed new wording of section 13 (1) of the act. The amendment simply strikes out of the proposed wording of section 13 (1) the reference to tariff item 95a.
The reason for this is as follows. There will be actually three amendments arising out of this point I am about to mention now.
I gave copies to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and the hon. member for As-siniboia. I should say that this is one of three amendments all pertaining to the same matter. It concerns the placing of muskmelons in the same category as cantaloupes in the fruit and vegetable item to which we will be coming under resolution No. 2. This one is simply incidental.
I might say that following the conclusion of negotiations with the United States respecting the proposed changes in the tariff items on fruits and vegetables, the resolution was brought forward in the present form with the understanding that in this form it was fully acceptable to the United States following our negotiations pursuant to the provisions of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. They have drawn to our attention their understanding that muskmelons were to be treated in the same category as cantaloupes for this purpose. We have no serious quarrel with them on this point.
I might explain to the committee what the difference will amount to. In the original budget resolution it was proposed that cantaloupes should be free of duty during the off season and that muskmelons would continue to be dutiable at 10 per cent during the off season. It is now proposed in this series of three amendments to introduce duty free entry in the off season for both cantaloupes and muskmelons by making provision for muskmelons in the same item as cantaloupes. The three amendments that are necessitated are the ones I have just mentioned. There will be another in resolution 2(b) respecting item 95, and the third will be in resolution 2(c) which will propose the deletion of item 95a, which relates to muskmelons. I may say for the assurance of hon. members that the Canadian horticultural council was consulted on this subject and offered no objections.


William Moore Benidickson: I do not think the minister has answered the question which I think has greatest relevancy at this stage of the debate. He is proposing to substitute new wording for the existing section 13 of the Customs Tariff. In particular this involves-and this is of great interest to the

public and to the house-ministerial discretion of a very important nature in the matter of setting rates of duty on these articles which go on the tables of our families across the land.
I asked the minister whether or not we would have in the new statute something to provide some restriction on the ministerial discretion, namely such as the words in the existing section 13, subsection 2. This is rather confusing because there has been an alteration of the points in Nos. 1 and 2. They have been interchanged, and so on. But the minister's discretion under the existing statute, as I understand it, was not to exceed for each regional part of Canada the number of weeks mentioned in the individual items. That to me means that if there were an in season extra duty with respect to some of these vegetables, shall we say for 12 weeks, the minister's discretion was to be limited on each of the vegetable items to that extent. I do not see in the resolution an indication that it is proposed that the minister should be similarly restricted, according to the new phraseology.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that I overlooked the point raised by the hon. member, and in my remarks concentrated upon the amendment. The hon. member raised this point, and it is a proper question. The view of the Department of Justice is that the proposed amendment will make no difference whatever as applied to ministerial discretion. In other words, if the house approves the present amendment there will be no change whatever created in the ministerial discretion now provided in the existing act in relation to this matter of applying special seasonal duties on a regional basis.


William Moore Benidickson: In other words, while it is not to be spelled out in the new statute, the Department of Justice has indicated that the minister will still be confined in his discretion to the particular number of calendar weeks which are referred to in the particular items in the Customs Tariff schedule. Is that right?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, as I see it this is the clause we are asked to agree to in principle which will amend the Customs Tariff, as proposed by the minister in the budget address and, as detailed in the many items which are now before us.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether I correctly understand the point raised by the hon. gentleman, but this particular resolution, No. 1 (b), has quite
Customs Tariff
limited application. It applies simply to section 13 of the act and varies the language of that section having reference to certain changes that follow in the later resolutions.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the minister has understood me. I have noticed that as a result of our endorsing the principle contained in section 1 (b), "Resolved, that it is expedient", we are faced with amendments which are detailed from page 7 right through to page 36. Therefore this is a clause which introduces the whole question of whether or not it is expedient to amend the Customs Tariff.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, if I may say so I think my hon. friend is quite wrong. The proposed amendments to the Customs Tariff are in different form from the resolutions proposing amendments to the other four statutes with which we have already dealt in the sittings of this committee. In other cases there was simply one resolution with respect to all the amendments to each act. The one resolution was divided into various paragraphs. But under the Customs Tariff, Mr. Chairman, we have a series of separate resolutions; there are five in all. The fifth one is consequential. There are four principal ones, but they are all separate and distinct in their nature. For instance, No. 1 (a) embraces the definition which has been approved, and then part (b) is the amendment to section 13 of the act. Resolution No. 2, to which we shall be coming, embraces the changes in the tariffs on fruits and vegetables, and also the amendment to the New Zealand Trade Agreement Act of 1932, which is consequential upon the proposed changes in the tariff on fruits and vegetables. Then the third resolution, which begins about two-thirds of the way down page 16, embraces the package which is submitted to the house following our negotiations with respect to the restoration of the full preferential margin on those woollen goods on which the tariff was changed a year ago. In this same resolution No. 3 hon. members will see the concessions which are being made as part of the package agreement arising out of these negotiations. Then resolution No. 4 deals with a great number of miscellaneous items. Resolution No. 5 is the usual and consequential resolution respecting the dates on which the various proposed changes come into effect.


Erhart Regier: I think, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister misunderstood my intent. I would like to express my appreciation of his outlining to me the various detailed proposals which we will be asked to approve. However, I wish to add a few words as to the overriding question of whether or not it is expedient at this time for the government or

Customs Tariff
the minister to amend the Customs Tariff as a whole. I believe the minister will agree with me that this is the only place at which I can say something which has a general application to the specific matters he is proposing to amend at this time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I suppose it is well that we should clarify this point now. We have already adopted resolution 1 (a). The hon. member is proceeding now to discuss resolution 1 (b) and he is proposing, as I infer from his remarks, something of a general discussion. I would have thought Mr. Chairman, that the proper place for that was in the budget debate. We are here dealing with a series of specific resolutions proposing specific amendments to the Customs Tariff. I would have thought that discussion of each of these should be relevant to the particular item.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I hope we will not spend any more time on this. However, I was being kind to the minister. I realize at once that resolutions 1 (a) is a matter having to do with terminology and that really the operative clause is 1 (b). The minister, in answer to something which was said by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River a while ago, indicated that he himself regarded 1 (a) as being a matter concerned only with terminology and having very little to do with the overriding principles.
We in this group are not necessarily opposed to each and every one of the amendments which are being offered to the Customs Tariff, but we have a feeling, and we have had it for a number of years, that what the minister is attempting to do, and what he was attempting to do last year, by offering us a multitudinous array of amendments as to detail is attempting to apply axle grease to an intercontinental ballistic missile, and that the amendments in their entirety are completely outmoded in the day and age in which we now live.
We realize that the over-all effect of all these amendments must amount to one thing and one thing only, as was the case a year ago, and that is a higher level of tariffs. I know the minister can haul out all kinds of arguments pointing to where he is in effect reducing tariffs. He did this a year ago. However, in the main a year ago he raised the tariffs and he raised the cost of living to the Canadian consumer. All one need do is look at the expectations, as announced in the budget, and then at the figure actually realized. The minister cannot deny that he is expecting more revenue in the current fiscal year than he obtained in the preceding fiscal year from the changes or amendments in the Customs Tariff which he is proposing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do deny that. As f stated in the budget speech, there is no material effect contemplated in the yield from the Customs Tariff as a result of the proposed changes. I am excepting, of course, those that correspond to the Excise Act changes which were discussed last night.
May I remind the hon. member of the statistics I gave the house in the budget speech as reported in Hansard on page 2422, in the second column, where I said:
It might be of interest to note that 142 tariff items and subitems are affected by the resolutions. In the case of 32 items the rates of duty are being increased. In the case of 40 items the rates are being reduced. In the case of nine items, all involving fruits and vegetables, rates are being both increased and decreased depending on the season. Finally, there are 61 items for which rates of duty are left unchanged and for which the changes proposed are, for the most part, purely formal.
So I think the hon. member will realize that on balance, while one cannot always give changes of this kind equal weight, the result in the total is as much to reduce the tariff as to increase it. And so far as revenue is concerned, apart from those duties affecting spirits which I mentioned last night, we do not, as I indicated in the budget speech, expect any material effect whatever on the revenue from the Customs Tariff as a result of the enactment of the proposed changes.


Erhart Regier: Well, may I inform the minister that a year ago we were faced with a proposition along very similar lines to the amendments to the Customs Tariff which are proposed this year, and the hon. gentleman on that occasion went to considerable length to impress the committee with the fact that the Customs Tariff was being reduced in more cases than it was being increased. However, I notice from the budget papers, as they are reproduced in Hansard of Thursday, April 9, that whereas the forecast of revenues from customs import duties was $450 million, the revenues actually received amounted to $486 million. In other words the revenues exceeded the minister's announced expectations by the sum of $36 million.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But that had
nothing to do with the changes in the tariff. We have to make a forecast using the best judgment we can as to what may be the yield from the customs duties having regard to the imports which may be expected. We came reasonably close, but to the extent that the result does not tally precisely with the forecast, that is not attributable to the changes in the tariff but to the over-all effects of imports.


Erhart Regier: All I can say in reply is that in a year when our imports were well below

expectations we had the minister underestimating the results oi the operation of the Customs Tariff by some 7 per cent. Last year we suffered a decline in imports of a radical nature, yet despite this decline there was this substantial underestimate. If our imports had remained at a normal level, or if they had continued to increase, the minister would have been very much further out in his estimates than he was.
I can understand the minister being out in his estimates to a reasonable extent. However, at a time when imports were declining, and after the minister had left an impression throughout Canada that he had been able to reduce import tariffs more than he had raised them, one would have expected a decline in net revenue under the Customs Tariff rather than receipts $36 million over and above the expectations of the department.
I do not think we can ride several horses at once. This government is either reducing tariffs, or it is leaving them as they are, or it is raising tariffs. There is a feeling abroad now that the Tories have learned nothing since the hungry thirties, and that by one means or another they are continuing to behave as if our economic salvation as Canadians lay in higher tariff rates. The minister may haul out all kinds of details and say, look at the number of items on which I have reduced the tariff. However, if he raises the tariff on a few key commodities he raises the cost of living for all Canadian consumers, and the total effect is a rise in the tariff revenue.
Only a year ago the minister underlined the pressing need to raise the Customs Tariff on British woollens. I was out in rural Ontario over the week end, and I drove past an idle plant in Hespeler. I was told that this plant was at one time the greatest woollen textile factory in the whole British commonwealth of nations. Yet despite the aid which the minister sought to give the industry a year ago by amending the Customs Tariff, that plant has since had to close down. One of our most enterprising industries in that whole area of west central Ontario has had to shut its doors, despite the fact that the minister added to the cost of living of all Canadians who have to buy textiles by the amendments he offered a year ago.
I know the minister realizes that he is somewhat isolated in the world of today in his approach to the Customs Tariff, because hardly anywhere in the whole world, except in the United States and the Dominion of Canada, does one find this age-old approach, this seeking of a solution to our problems based on high tariffs versus low tariffs.
66968-9-212
Customs Tariff
Most modern nations of the world today have adopted the policy of assessing their import needs and their export requirements, and for that purpose have established import and export boards. They live in a planned and in a sensible way, instead of continuing this nonsensical farce of attempting to make some people in Canada believe that we are a high tariff people, and making other people in Canada believe we are opposed to high tariffs. The net result of this ridiculous economic nationalism that we have been sowing the seeds of for a number of years now in Canada has always in all history resulted in unemployment, misery, poverty, want and, in many instances, world war.
If the minister, rather than making these proposed amendments, were to offer an overall amendment whereby we might ally ourselves with the European economic union now being formed, he would be breaking new ground, he would be making a real contribution to the restoration of Canadian prosperity. If the minister had a word to say, or an amendment to offer, in regard to enhancing our trade with the British West Indies rather than sitting idly by and offering them congratulatory things-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The hon. member is completely out of order. At present he is making a budget speech and is straying really all over the field. At the present time we are discussing one specific resolution and I must ask the hon. member to adhere to the resolution being discussed and make his other remarks at some other time when there is more latitude in the debate.


Erhart Regier: All I can say is that the amendment reads that it is expedient to amend the Customs Tariff. It is my contention that it is not wise or expedient that we amend the Customs Tariffs in the manner in which the minister is indicating in all the pages that follow, and with all respect to your ruling, I can do no other than say that I have to find myself in disagreement with your ruling. I do not like the minister's continued insistence on what he considers to be the rules of this house in order to block effective debate.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is the committee ready for the amendment as amended? All those in favour of the amendment please indicate.


William Moore Benidickson: With respect to the (b) paragraph of this resolution, I can understand that. The minister has cleared up one point that I had raised when I compared the new phraseology with the old. I am not proposing to debate the merits of this at this time since we shall have an opportunity to do that on the presentation of the bill, but I realize that

Customs Tariff
there has been a change in the key tariff item numbers which necessitated the amendment of this particular section of the existing act. I should like to hear from the minister a little better explanation of why he has completely revamped the language of the section and has gone far beyond just simply substituting for the old tariff item numbers the new ones that result from the tariff board report and the resolutions which are to follow.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the proposed new language is a drafting improvement on the language of the existing section 13; it is very much clearer. It does not change the essence of the old provisions at all as applied to ministerial discretion, which is the point the hon. member raised earlier.
It is in this section 13 of the Customs Act that we find provided the authority for the regional application of the seasonal duties on fruits and vegetables. As hon. members are aware, many of those products are first available from domestic production on the west coast. Then, somewhat later they are available in Ontario, Quebec, the maritimes or the Atlantic areas. In certain instances they are produced in only one region of Canada; for example, apricots in British Columbia. Of course, in some areas, owing to poor growing conditions, there will be a short crop in a particular region. It is for these reasons that the special seasonal duties have been applied, with statutory authority, on a regional basis, the three regions being, first, the maritime provinces; second, the provinces of Ontario and Quebec; and, third, the provinces west of Ontario.
The proposed new wording of section 13 introduces no change in the powers of the minister, but it is a most desirable clarification of the language of the existing section 13. I think my hon. friend will realize this is a matter of drafting in the interests of clarification. I think on study he will agree that the proposed new language is a decided improvement on the old language.


William Moore Benidickson: I did not want to be unduly suspicious. I wanted an assurance along those lines that that is the sole reason for the very extensive changes in the language of the old section.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am informed that that is the only effect of the changed language of section 13.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall section 13 (1) as
amended carry?
Section 13 (1) as amended agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: We shall now deal with
resolution 2 on page 7:
2. Resolved,-
(a) that schedule A to the New Zealand Trade Agreement Act, 1932 be amended by striking out tariff item 106 and 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 Rates on Goods ,	the Produce or Manufacture of New Zealand
Tariff
Item
106. Fruits, prepared, in airtight cans or other airtight containers, the weight of the containers to be included in the weight for duty:
(1)	Apricots	
(2)	Cherries	
(3)	Peaches	
(4)	Pears	
(6) Prunes	
(8) N.o.p	
11 cts. per pound 11 cts. per pound 11 cts. per pound
I	ct. per pound
II	cts. per pound 1 ct. per pound
(b) that schedule A to the Customs Tariff be amended by striking out tariff items 83b, 84, 85, 87, 89, 90e, 92, 93, 95, 99d, 105i, 106 and 505c, 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:


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall item 106 carry?


Mr.   Carier@: Mr. Chairman-


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I suggest,
Mr. Chairman, that in the order of calling these we do not call item 106 but resolution 2 (a), the (a) part of resolution No. 2 being the one that proposes an amendment of schedule A to the New Zealand Trade Agreement Act? Then, if that is adopted I suggest that you call part (b), which is to be found on the same page.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I think
there would be general agreement with the minister's suggestion except that the whole package of resolution No. 2 does deal with the fruit and vegetable division. It is true that paragraph (a) relates specifically to the necessary change that the minister has already explained in the New Zealand trade agreement, but I know there are a few hon. members who would perhaps just simply like to deal with the fruit and vegetable matter as a package. I do not think it will delay debate in the committee. I myself have no desire to labour individual items, but I know that one of my colleagues was just about to speak in a particular way about the fruit and vegetable matter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Whatever may
meet the convenience of the committee in that respect is satisfactory. Perhaps I should

point out that part (a) is a consequential amendment. Part (b) of resolution No. 2 is the one that embraces the tariff changes in the fruit and vegetable items. It was necessary when we were making these changes to introduce a change in the New Zealand Trade Agreement Act and that is the reason for the introduction of part (a) of this resolution.
In the hope of possibly being of assistance to hon. members, perhaps I might say a word in relation to this question. Resolution No. 2 is the main resolution dealing with the tariff changes arising out of negotiations respecting fruits and vegetables. Hon. members will recall that in November, 1957 I tabled a report of the tariff board on fruits and vegetables. In each case where the tariff board had recommended an increase in duty the item concerned was bound under a trade agreement and it was necesary, therefore, to negotiate with the countries concerned. Hon. members will realize that to offer satisfaction to other countries for these tariff increases Canada had either to offer compensation to them by way of reductions in the duty under other tariff items in which they were interested or else face the possibility of retaliatory action through increased tariffs against Canadian exports to these other countries. The United States is Canada's chief supplier of these products and both the increases and decreases negotiated with the United States are contained in part (b) of this resolution. Last year I was asked, in cases where we negotiated with a country and arrived in the end at a package with some increases and some decreases, that we show them in that form, and that is what we have sought to do in this case.


William Moore Benidickson: The trading is all confined to the fruit and vegetable items.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Resolution No. 2 embraces the entire result of our negotiations with the United States respecting fruits and vegetables. There are two items which are not fruits and vegetables and when we come to them in due course I will be glad to point them out. Similarly, when we come to resolution No. 3 hon. members will see there that we have included in the resolution the concessions that we gave in the course of the negotiations respecting woollens to the other countries concerned.


William Moore Benidickson: I thought it gave a better picture this year than we have had.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hon. members will have noted that part (a) of the resolution relates to the New Zealand Trade Agreement Act and these changes have come about in an interesting way. The general agreement 66968-9-212-i
Customs Tariff
on tariffs and trade precludes the creation of new or increased margins of preference. Consequently where we are increasing the most-favoured-nation rate of duty it is also necessary to make corresponding increases in the preferential rates of duties in order to avoid the creation of any new preference or any enlargement of the existing margin of preference.
The increases in the duties on the canned fruits listed in part (a) of this resolution correspond exactly with the increases which are proposed in the most-favoured-nation rate of duty in part (b). The items for canned pears, 106, sub 4, and canned fruit n.o.p., 106, sub 8, appear in this resolution simply because they are being renumbered. There is no change in the rates of duty. I might mention that there appear to have been no imports of canned peaches, canned apricots, canned cherries or canned prunes from New Zealand into Canada since the New Zealand trade agreement was signed in 1932.
The government has, of course, consulted with the government of New Zealand and we have their agreement to the changes proposed in part (a) of the resolution.


William Moore Benidickson: Was there a quid pro quo necessary?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. In the same way in part (b) we have the changes resulting from the negotiations with the United States. There is a part (c) to this resolution as well. It contains changes all of a purely formal nature. I have already referred to the changes in the numbering of the tariff items concerning canned fruit. In fact, there have been a great many changes made in the numbering of the tariff items throughout the fruit and vegetable section of the tariff and the changes proposed in part (c) of the resolution all arise out of renumbering of the items. In some cases the wording has been altered but in no case is there any change in the rate of duty.


Mr. Carter:: I want to thank the minister for consenting to the discussion of parts (a) and (b) at the same time. I think it will save time and also eliminate some amount of repetition. We have before us now a resolution proposing tariff changes in a number of tariff items dealing with fruits and vegetables, fresh, frozen and canned, and including both domestic and imported varieties. The minister has just repeated what he told us in his budget presentation, that these changes flow from a report of the tariff board which was tabled in November of 1957. Elsewhere in his budget prese itation I believe he also indicated that these changes will not

Customs Tariff
result in any net gain in revenue and are more of a protective nature than anything else. He confirmed this point when he said, as found on page 2423 of Hansard of April 9:
Turning to the canned and frozen products there are modest increases of duty consequential upon the increased protection received by the fresh products.
A few minutes ago the minister referred to three separate regions of Canada, the west coast, central Canada and the maritime provinces. In the province from which I come conditions are such that we should be considered as a separate region. Conditions there are totally different from those that obtain anywhere on the mainland. I realize how difficult it is for the government to lay down one single rule that will bear evenly on all sections of a large country like Canada. While it is difficult to see how anyone is going to benefit from this extra protection, certainly no consumer anywhere in Canada will benefit and in the case of my province it is going to constitute a real hardship.
In Newfoundland we already have the highest cost of living in all Canada and the effect of these tariff changes will be to push it higher still. One of our main complaints as a province since confederating with Canada has been and still is that we are a captive market forced to buy on the mainland and particularly in the central provinces. This, however, does not hold true in the case of fresh fruits and vegetables. As far as Newfoundland is concerned, this protection will not benefit mainland producers at all because we are not able to buy in that market in any case. The reasons for that are obvious. In the first place, our population is scattered around a 6,000-mile coastline and is broken up into about 1,300 isolated settlements. There are no refrigeration facilities for storage of fresh fruits and vegetables, and there is a lack of transportation facilities as well.
We are handicapped also by the fact that we have a narrow gauge railway which prevents our importers from buying in carload lots. A fruit vendor in Halifax can buy a carload of fruit originating in California or Florida and have it delivered to his door in Halifax. This is impossible for the Newfoundland merchant because our narrow gauge railway prevents it. Instead, we are forced to buy from brokers in Montreal and this, in itself, makes the cost of fruits and vegetables much higher than in the maritime provinces. In addition to that, we have to go to the extra expense of packaging the goods and pay for the extra handling involved in unloading the foods from trains to the boat, then unloading them from the boat

into railway cars again for transportation to the centres of distribution and from there to the smaller settlements.
This extra packaging must be of the same quality as that required for export, which is much more expensive than the packaging required for the domestic market on the mainland. If all that were not enough, we find that the Maritime Freight Rates Act apparently does not apply to fruits imported into Canada through maritime ports. I have just had a case brought to my attention where a buyer in Newfoundland bought a carload of fruit in South Africa and had it routed through Saint John, New Brunswick. He then found that instead of the special maritime freight rates applying from Saint John, New Brunswick to Newfoundland, he had to pay an extra 20 per cent freight charge and another i\ per cent terminal charge. We are greatly handicapped, therefore, with respect to fresh fruits and vegetables. Even in St. John's and the large urban centres of our province, fruits and vegetables are at least double the cost in the maritime provinces and are sometimes three or four times as expensive as they are in central Canada.
Now, for these reasons, our Newfoundland people have to rely to a large extent on canned products, particularly canned fruits and vegetables. We have been told that fruits are essential to health. They are a source of minerals and vitamins necessary for the maintenance of health, particularly for the health of children. The only way in which we can maintain a balanced diet in that respect is by the use of canned products. We all know that tariff changes result in price increases that are much greater than the amount of the tariff itself. We have had proof of that recently when a two cent increase in the tax on a package of cigarettes resulted in a four cent increase in the retail price. The result of this tariff change on tinned fruits in particular, plus the other taxes applicable, will prevent our Newfoundland fishermen from obtaining these essential foods at all because they will be priced right out of his pocket.
Apart from that, we have heard a lot from the present government about their intention of encouraging commonwealth trade. Since a great deal of our imported fruit in Newfoundland comes from New Zealand, South Africa and other commonwealth countries, these tariff increases seem to be a peculiar way of achieving that objective. In view of the problems which I have outlined to the minister, I would be most grateful if he would look into the matter to see if it would be possible to create a fourth region which would at least take into account the particular conditions which obtain in my province. I have

particular reference to the way in which the fishermen and poorer people living in the isolated settlements of my province may be affected.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The remarks of the hon. member will be brought to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue who has the power, under section 13 of the act with which we dealt in the first resolution, to establish regions.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, the members of parliament from the Niagara district have always been greatly interested in the tariff on fruits and vegetables. I was reading the debates in May, 1926, in which the Hon. J. D. Chaplin, who was then the member for Lincoln, was talking about the difficulty the producers had in disposing of their fruits and vegetables at favourable prices when fruit from the United States was coming in and was very competitive. He was the minister of trade and commerce in the Meighen administration. During that time, and afterwards, there were only minor changes in the tariff.
In May, 1930 Hon. Charles Dunning brought in a budget and made a real attempt at that time to apply a specific duty over specific periods of time that would correspond to the harvest time of different fruits and vegetables. In presenting his budget at that time he said, and I will paraphrase it, that a combination of specific and ad valorem duties would meet the urgent needs of the growers, acute instability of prices, and at the same time guarantee to consumers at all seasons of the year supplies of these products at reasonable prices. The specific seasonal duties were applied to practically all fruits and vegetables grown in Canada and the application of them has been continued up to the present time.
I have often said in this house that these particular periods for the application of specific duties do not correspond to the harvesting periods of the different fruits and vegetables. One of the reasons for this is that producers have developed different varieties of fruits and vegetables that ripen over a longer time. Another reason is the modern development of cold storage facilities. In other words, importers are able to bring in fruits and vegetables from the United States ahead of the time for the application of the specific duty, those fruits and vegetables could be placed in Canadian cold storage and would be very competitive with our fruits and vegetables when they come on the market. Then, too, at the end of the season the United States producers are able to keep their fruits and vegetables in cold storage in the United States, then bring them in to Canada in competition with our fruits and vegetables at that particular time at the end of our season.
Customs Tariff
I think there is no doubt but that the prolonging of the period during which the specific duty may apply to the different fruits and vegetables will have a marked effect in eliminating competition, particularly from the United States. I think our fruit and vegetable farmers in the Niagara district, and in other parts of Canada, will be pleased with these amendments to the Customs Tariff.
I have raised this matter previously here in the House of Commons. I know that these arrangements have been made through GATT. I am not sufficiently informed to pass any judgment on the effect of the increase or decrease of duty on any particular fruit or vegetable. In his budget speech I think the minister said that certain negotiations were under way now and I think he said that some were concluded or virtually concluded. I should like to ask him whether they have all been concluded.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Those respecting fruits and vegetables have been concluded.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall paragraph 2 (a) carry?
Paragraph (a) agreed to.
(b) that Schedule A to the Customs Tariff be amended by striking out tariff items 83b, 84, 85, 87, 89, 90e, 92, 93, 95 , 99d, 105i, 106 and 505c, 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:


William Moore Benidickson: 
Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it that we are now on paragraph 2 (b), Mr. Chairman.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Yes.


William Moore Benidickson: The question was raised about the change in the tariff on potatoes. I think you will find that there is a tariff now all year round on potatoes whereas previously there was a free period.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the budget speech on April 9, at page 2423, I indicated the highlights of the proposed changes in the tariff on fruits and vegetables. If the hon. member looks in the first column, the second

Customs Tariff
paragraph, he will see that I drew attention there to three of the most important changes.
I said this:
The duty on potatoes, table and seed, new and old, will hereafter, as recommended by the tariff board, be 37J cents per cwt. throughout the year.


William Moore Benidickson: That would account for this press report on April 10, the day after the budget, that potatoes were up 4J cents.


Donald Methuen Fleming: 
William Moore Benidickson: You had to negotiate afterwards.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, yes. Such changes as there are were in some cases arrived at in the course of negotiations with the United States. Some were the result of giving compensation and for other reasons.


William Moore Benidickson: What about the recommendation of the board? I should be familiar with the matter but I am not. What about the reference in the tariff board report to the recommendations from the industry about some further change being necessary on the pre-packaged vegetables? Is that a 5 per cent protection? Did you follow out the recommendation of the tariff board with a 5 per cent protection, having regard to the practice of bringing in such a high percentage of vegetables in a pre-packaged state?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. That is carried into the resolution. The hon. member will find it at page 11 at the very top of the page. It is in resolution 2 (b).


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is there any further discussion on paragraph 2 (b)?


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, if you intend to call the individual items? As I indicated earlier, I have one amendment on page 13, item 95.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: If it is the wish of the committee I will call each item.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a few remarks which I think would probably be appropriate on subclause (b). In the minister's budget statement he had this to say as reported at page 2422 of Hansard:
The house will recall that on November 17, 1957 I tabled an extensive report by the tariff board on fruits and vegetables.
Then of course the minister goes on to say that as a result of the extensive report and the recommendations contained in that report and the subsequent negotiations and so on, he has these particular changes to recommend to the house. My question has to do with whether or not the minister feels that the inquiry that was undertaken and completed by the tariff board and to which he refers was an adequate one or a proper one and whether it is the intention of the minister to have these particular items referred to the tariff board again for a full report? The reason I ask these questions is as a result of the comment of the tariff board itself in the report it makes, and to which the minister has referred. On page 26 and under the heading entitled "Results of Inquiry" I find this statement:
In the brief time at its disposal, the tariff board could not conduct the full-scale inquiry that a reference such as this warrants and should receive. There has been no opportunity under the timetable envisaged in the letter from the minister of finance, to explore thoroughly many aspects of the problem, much less all of them.
The board in its report goes on to say that under these circumstances it had done all that was physically possible on very short notice to ask the producers for their submissions. But the question I have is this. As a result of the admission of the board itself that its report was not an adequate one, that it brought in the report under the pressure of the letter by the Minister of Finance to complete this report in a hurry, does the minister feel that the report itself is adequate? Is any further inquiry going to be made? Apparently the board itself felt that its report was not adequate, that it did not have the opportunity to conduct a full scale inquiry that a reference such as this warrants and should receive. It seems to me that the tariff items which the house is being asked to pass are extremely important ones. I know that the minister has been in consultation with producers' organizations, and I am not complaining at this time about the changes that are being made. However, I am concerned as to whether or not these recommendations are the best that can be made since, in the words of the tariff board itself, they were made in a great hurry.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I remind the hon. member that the reference to the tariff board of the items of the tariff respecting fruits and vegetables was directed not by myself but by my predecessor, Mr. Harris. The letter to which reference has been made in the passage he has quoted is the letter evidently written by Mr. Harris to the tariff board. The note of urgency which appears in that letter is, of course, to be ascribed to him.
As to the adequacy of the inquiry, I think it may best be judged by the results. I tabled this report in the house a year and one-half ago. The representations that we received were all in the interests of the earliest possible implementation of the recommendations of the tariff board report. We have followed the procedures prescribed by the general agreement on tariffs and trade and have submitted these recommendations to the house as the result of the tariff board's inquiry and its report, the public knowledge of the recommendations contained in its report and the subsequent negotiations which were carried on with the United States. It is significant- and I think is the very best answer to the question raised by my hon. friend-that we have not had one adverse recommendation or representation from either producer or consumer with regard to these recommendations. Indeed, we have had very generous and widespread commendation of the recommendations which are now submitted to the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question which I asked earlier, and which he did not answer, although perhaps the answer is implicit in his statement. I take it that there is no intention to have any further inquiry in this general field in the near future, in spite of the statement by the board itself that in its opinion its report was not comprehensive?
^r- Fleming (Eglinton): No, Mr. Chairman. We see no occasion for any further inquiry by the board into this subject. In any event, the board has some other and pressing burdens awaiting it, some heavy references which will have to be given priority under any circumstances.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the minister would be kind enough just to bring me up to date on whether or not all the positions on the board have now been filled and whether the board is up to full strength?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Chairman. This is the fifth day of May. For the past four days the board has not been at full strength. It was at full strength until April 30.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is it short of just one member at the moment?
Customs Tariff


Donald Methuen Fleming: Two vacancies arose on April 30.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister tell us whether it is the intention of the government to fill these vacancies? I hope the government will not follow the many precedents it has established in delaying appointments to other bodies and unduly delay appointments to this board. It seems this government is certainly not in a hurry to fill any of these positions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are about 100 vacancies which this government is not filling.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member for Essex East is also interested in this question. I wonder if the minister can tell the committee when the government will fill those important vacancies?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this is quite out of order. We are discussing recommendations and changes in tariff rates. I will be glad to deal with this subject on a proper occasion, but I think if we go into this question further we will be clearly out of order.
Paragraph (b) agreed to.
Items Nos. 85, 87, 89 90, 92 and 93 agreed to.
Customs tariff-95a. Cantaloupes, the weight of the package to be included in the weight for duty, per pound: British preferential tariff, free; mostfavoured-nation tariff, 11 cents or free; general tariff, 11 cents or free.
In any 12 month period ending March 13, the specific duty shall not be maintained in force in excess of eight weeks, and the free rate shall apply whenever the specific duty is not in effect.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On item 95a, Mr. Chairman, this is the second of the group of three amendments I mentioned at the outset, and I would ask my colleague, the Minister of Labour, to move the amendment. I have furnished copies to hon. gentlemen opposite.


Michael Starr: I move the following amendment:
That resolution No. 2 (b) of the budget resolutions relating to the Customs Tariff be amended by deleting therefrom tariff item 95 and by substituting therefor the following:
95. Cantaloupes and muskmelons, the weight of the packages to be included in the weight for duty, per pound.
British preferential tariff, free; most-favourednation tariff, 11 cents or free; general tariff, 11 cents or free.
In any 12-month period ending March 31, the specific duty shall not be maintained in force in excess of 8 weeks, and the free rate shall apply whenever the specific duty is not in effect.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister what is the mechanism for applying these specific duties? Supposing

Customs Tariff
fruits are on the way to the Canadian market from the United States. Do these specific duties go on overnight or is there notice given?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member will look back to his copy of the pamphlet containing the resolutions, he will see in subsection 2 of section 13 the provision which is made for goods in transit.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Items Nos. 99d, 106 and 107 agreed to.
Customs tariff-187d. Sensitized photographic rolls consisting of a photo-sensitive layer and a positive receiving layer, for use in cameras for making positives: British preferential tariff, free; mostfavoured-nation tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, on this point how does this item happen to get into the fruits and vegetables section?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman,
these two items, 187d and 505c, are the two items not pertaining to fruits and vegetables which are part of the package deal made with the United States. The hon. member will see these are reductions being made in our tariff as part of the negotiated price we pay for obtaining from the United States agreement to the increases which are being made in the tariff rates on vegetables imported into Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items Nos. 187d and 505c agreed to.
(c) that Schedule A to the Customs Tariff be amended by striking out tariff items 95a, 95b and 107, 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-84. Onion sets and shallots, in their natural state:	British preferential tariff,
free; most-favoured-nation tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, on this item I would like to bring in a little bit of local viewpoint. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo said something about the regional difficulties in not having an appropriate designation for his territory other than the Atlantic maritime group. I would like the minister to convey to his colleague a report which I received to the effect that regardless of the changes which will be made in the tariffs here, it is not likely to change very much our likelihood of purchasing, shall we say, from eastern Ontario fruits and vegetables at the same season as I imagine one would purchase in northwestern Ontario. I think our natural marketing is through Winnipeg, and there is a great deal of importing from the United States in that

area. Therefore I think northwestern Ontario should not properly be included in the entire Ontario grouping, because the minister will recognize that we are a thousand miles away from the eastern Ontario producer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The point of division between those two regions is at Port Arthur.


William Moore Benidickson: That is not the way it is worded, though. The minister's references have been to Ontario as such.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, that is the way it stands at the moment.


William Moore Benidickson: I am glad to hear that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items Nos. 84, 85a, 85b, 87, 89, 90 and 92 agreed to.
Customs tariff-95a. Muskmelons, the weight of the packages to be included in the weight for duty, per pound: British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, 11 cents or 10 per cent; general tariff, 11 cents or 10 per cent.
In any 12 month period ending March 31, the specific duty shall not be maintained in force in excess of 8 weeks, and the 10 per cent duty shall apply whenever the specific duty is not in effect.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman,
item 95a gives rise to the third of this group of amendments, and I would ask my colleague, the Minister of Labour, to move the amendment.


Michael Starr: I move
That resolution No. 2(c) of the budget resolutions relating to the Customs Tariff be amended by deleting therefrom tariff item 95a.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This pertains, of
course, to the changes made with respect to muskmelons.


William Moore Benidickson: On that point, Mr. Chairman, the rates are the same? You are simply deciding to put these two products together, but there is no change in the rates? The muskmelon is be to lumped together with cantaloupes?


Donald Methuen Fleming: As I pointed
out earlier, there is a change as far as the muskmelons are concerned. In the form of the original resolution, the cantaloupes were to be free of duty during the off season, and muskmelons were to continue to be dutiable at 10 per cent during the off season. The effect of the change is to make the muskmelons duty free in the off season.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Items Nos. 95b, 95c, 105i, 106 and 107 agreed to.
Resolution agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: Resolution 3.


William Moore Benidickson: I see it is getting very close to five o'clock. I have a request from my deskmate, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who had to leave the house for a short period. He did wish to speak on resolution 3 and he wondered if it would be possible to deal with resolution 4, and then revert to the one in which he is interested.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would be quite agreeable to that.


Charles Edward Rea: Is it agreeable to
Customs tariff-134.
All sugar above number sixteen Dutch standard in colour, and all refined sugars of whatever kinds, grades or standards, not covered by tariff item 135,
When not exceeding eighty-eight degrees of polarization, per one hundred pounds	
When exceeding eighty-eight degrees but not exceeding eight-nine degrees, per one hundred
pounds	
When exceeding eighty-nine degrees but not exceeding ninety degrees, per one hundred pounds When exceeding ninety degrees but not exceeding ninety-one degrees, per one hundred pounds .. When exceeding ninety-one degrees but not exceeding	ninety-two	degrees,	per	one	hundred
pounds	
When exceeding ninety-two degrees but not exceeding ninety-three degrees, per one hundred
pounds	
When exceeding ninety-three degrees but not exceeding	ninety-four	degrees,	per	one	hundred
pounds	
When exceeding ninety-four degrees but not exceeding	ninety-five	degrees,	per	one	hundred
pounds	
When exceeding ninety-five degrees but not exceeding	ninety-six	degrees,	per	one	hundred
pounds	
When exceeding ninety-six degrees but not exceeding ninety-seven degrees, per one hundred
pounds	
When exceeding ninety-seven degrees but not exceeding ninety-eight degrees, per one hundred
pounds	
When exceeding ninety-eight degrees but not exceeding ninety-nine degrees, per one hundred
pounds	
When exceeding ninety-nine degrees, per one hundred pounds


William Moore Benidickson: On this substantial item with respect to sugar, what is the reason for the presentation in the budget of this item?


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect to items 134 and 135 which apply to sugar, both raw and refined, the only change in these two items is the elimination of the provision specifically limiting the application of special duty.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs Tariff
the committee that we should deal now with resolution 4?
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
4. Resolved,-that schedule A to the Customs Tariff be amended by striking out tariff items 28, 72a, 82f, 134, 135, 143, 156, 180a, 296g, 351c, 399a, 409f, 414a,	427,	438b,	438c,	438d,	438e,	438m,	440c,
440k, 442b, 442c, 446e, 462d, 462i, 502, 502c, 504a, 505a, 682, 691(1) and 696a 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:
Tariff items 27, 27a, 72a, 79h, 79i, 82i, agreed to.
British Preferential Tariff	Most- Favoured- Nation Tariff	General Tariff$ .83	$1.50	$1.50.85	1.53	1.53.87	1.55	1.55.89	1.58	1.58.91	1.62	1.62.93	1.65	1.65.95	1.68	1.68.97	1.70	1.70.99	1.74	1.741.01	1.77	1.771.03	1.80	1.801.09	1.89	1.891.09	1.89	1.89
Items 134a, 135, 143, 152j, 156, 180a, 296g, 351c agreed to.
Customs tariff-399a. Pipes or tubes of iron or steel, commonly known as "oil-country goods", being casing or tubing and fittings or couplings therefor; sucker rods, pony rods, polished rods and couplings therefor; all of the foregoing for use in connection with natural gas or oil wells; British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.


William Moore Benidickson: This item seems to have some reference to some of the changes that

Customs Tariff
were made last year in regard to some of the iron and steel pipes items, particularly those used in the natural gas and oil industry. What has occasioned a change this year after the very extensive revision which took place last year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The changes
proposed under 399a affect rods known as sucker rods, pony rods and polished rods which are used in oil wells and which are now being made in Canada. In future, the same rates of duty will apply to sucker rods, pony rods and polished rods as apply to casing or tubing in oil wells.
The hon. member is correct in saying that this change stems from the revision last year of the tariff with respect to pipes and tubes. The rods used in oil wells are now being given the same rates as the tubes in connection with which they are used. The rods were not, of course, included in the reference to the board; that reference was confined to pipes and tubes.


William Moore Benidickson: But it would appear this is an increase with respect to some of the items mentioned.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is the addition of these particular rods to the tubes which were dealt with last year, and the reason is that at the time of the tariff board inquiry these rods were not being manufactured in Canada. The proposed change does not require negotiation, because it is not an item which is bound in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 409f, 414a, 423a agreed to.
Donald Methuen Fleming: On item 427,
Mr. Chairman, there are amendments which I will ask my colleague the Minister of Labour to introduce. Perhaps if you will call the sub-clauses one at a time it might simplify our dealing with them. There are two amendments, one affecting sub-item 4 and the other, sub-item 5.
Items 427(1), 427(2), 427(3) agreed to.
Customs tariff-427 (4). Power shovels and cranes, convertible, with nominal dipper capacities, as shovels, from three-eighth to two and one-half cubic yards, inclusive, n.o.p.; parts of the foregoing: British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, 221 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.


Michael Starr: I move that resolution No. 4 of the budget resolutions relating to the customs tariff be amended by deleting therefrom item 427(4) and by substituting therefor the following:
427(4) machines, commonly known as convertible power cranes or shovels, crawler mounted, with nominal dipper capacities as shovels from three-eighth to two and one-half cubic yards inclusive, n.o.p.; parts of the foregoing: British preferential

tariff, 10 per cent; most-favoured-nation tariff, 221 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-427(5). Power cranes, truck or wagon type, with rated lifting capacities of 10 to 40 tons inclusive, computed on the basis of 12-foot radius with 50 foot boom, n.o.p. parts of the foregoing: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; mostfavoured-nation tariff, 221 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I move that resolution No. 4 of the budget resolutions relating to the customs tariff be amended by deleting therefrom item 427(5) and by substituting therefor the following:
427 (5) machines, commonly known as convertible power cranes or shovels, truck or wagon mounted, with nominal dipper capacities as shovels from three-eighth to two and one-half cubic yards inclusive, n.o.p.; machines, commonly known as revolving power cranes, truck or wagon mounted, with maximum rated lifting capacities of ten to 40 tons inclusive, n.o.p.; parts of the foregoing: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent. Most favoured nation tariff, 221 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.


William Moore Benidickson: I did raise this question earlier, but I do not think the minister replied to it specifically. Perhaps I could refer to it again, now. I think it deals with these machines which are the subject of the amendment and also with soft drink vending machines. I am reading from the Financial Post of April 18 in which an analysis of some of the tariff changes proposed in the budget appeared, and the staff writer makes this assertion:
The tariff board has rejected "made in Canada" appeals involving soft drink and hoisting machines.
I do not think the minister replied to the question which I raised on that point earlier.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That statement is definitely not a true interpretation of the effect of this resolution.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Batten:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister if I am right in assuming that all the articles mentioned in item 427 are deemed to be of a class or kind made in Canada whether in fact they are, or are not?


Donald Methuen Fleming: They are all ruled
to be made in Canada.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Then by what criteria does the minister classify these items? Are they classified by size or by performance? What method is used?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Minister of National Revenue has so ruled. Under the act the criterion is to be determined by the minister and, naturally, the minister satisfies himself that these particular machines are of a class or kind which are in fact made in Canada. Inquiries are being made all the time of manufacturers and producers. This sort of inquiry is a constant routine.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I recognize all that, but my problem is this: I want to know how the Minister of National Revenue is going to decide that an item which is not made in Canada is to be considered of a class or kind which is made in Canada. How is he going to decide that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I presume the hon. member is aware that the decision of the minister is subject to appeal to the tariff board, and that a decision of the tariff board is subject to appeal to the Exchequer Court of Canada.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does this section, as it stands now, mean that importers who disagree with the ruling that a particular item is of a class or kind made in Canada still have the right to appeal to the tariff board or to the courts?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member has, perhaps, failed to appreciate the effect of item 427 as proposed. These machines have all been ruled, hitherto, to be of a class or kind made in Canada. That is a ruling which was made before the budget was brought in. Here we are simply dealing legislatively with a fact and with a ruling already made by the minister under the statutory powers given to him and, in some cases, by the tariff board itself.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I understand the amendment to 427 (4) and to 427 (5). There is some indication in the wording here as to how these items would be described as being of a class or kind made in Canada or not. For example, 427 (6) refers to paper machines, slitting, winding, and so on. There is no indication here at all as to what criteria will be used to decide whether these items are deemed to be made in Canada or not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, all paper machines have been ruled hitherto, without exception, to be of a class or kind made in Canada.


William Moore Benidickson: By whom and how
recently?
Private Bills-Divorce


Donald Methuen Fleming: Ruled by the minister and in some instances by the tariff board on appeals.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Was there not an appeal before the tariff board in February of this year regarding paper machines and winders, and no decision was made?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, that is correct, and the tariff board in- its decision upheld the ruling of the minister.


Herman Maxwell Batten: My information in this particular case, Mr. Chairman, leads me to believe that the appeal began on February 17 of this year and my understanding is that no decision was given on this appeal.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The decision by the tariff board was given on April 30.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall 427 (6) carry?


William Moore Benidickson: My hon. friend may wish to pursue his point.


Charles Edward Rea: Does the hon. member wish to pursue his question further.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Yes.


Charles Edward Rea: Since it is five o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15 to leave the chair and allow the house to proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Speaker:: There are a number of divorce bills standing for second reading. Is it the pleasure of the house that these bills be taken in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill SD-191, for the relief of Emilia Mildora Kavalas Chesna.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-192, for the relief of Clarice-Mae Barraclough King.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-193, for the relief of Margherita Elaina Milano Di Pietro.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-194, for the relief of Lucille Gagne Labonte.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-195, for the relief of Jean Louis Mathieu.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-196, for the relief of Llui-Amoy Wheatley Fraser.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-197, for the relief of Phyllis Pamela Allen Ashburner-Collins.-Mr. McCleave.

Immigration Act
Bill SD-198, for the relief of Albert Reginald Bissonnette.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-199, for the relief of Alexander Abraham Hendy.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-200, for the relief of Winifred Martin Collier.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-201, for the relief of Jeannine Aimie Alice Mercier Mahaut.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-202, for the relief of Claude Des-roches.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-203, for the relief of Mildred May Eunice Charron Roblee.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-204, for the relief of Pierre Joseph Gabriel Sorba.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-205, for the relief of Gaston Vad-nais.-Mr. McCleave.



IMMIGRATION ACT


Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-20, to amend the Immigration Act (jurisdiction of courts).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a measure which I feel should have the unanimous approval of every member in the house who is concerned with the right of people to have appropriate recourse when they feel themselves aggrieved. I think this is a principle which has long been approved and supported in our system of government and in our system of justice. I find that section 39 of the Immigration Act denies that full right, that full freedom, for people who feel themselves aggrieved and wish to seek redress. In order to follow the argument logically I should like to invite hon. members to look at section 39. Let me read it:
No court and no judge or officer thereof has jurisdiction to review, quash, reverse, restrain or otherwise interfere with any proceeding, decision or order of the minister, deputy minister, director, immigration appeal board, special inquiry officer or immigration officer had, made or given under the authority and in accordance with the provisions of this act relating to the detention or deportation of any person, upon any ground whatsoever, unless such person is a Canadian citizen or has Canadian domicile.
The wording of the section is certainly all-inclusive and aims, as the wording clearly indicates, to prevent any court, any judge or officer thereof from dealing with any decision made in connection with a deportation, as set forth in this section; not only does this concern a decision of the minister but also a decision of the deputy minister, a director or immigration officer, meaning almost any immigration official, whether he is in the upper echelons of the department or not, who deals with a matter of this kind.

He makes the decision and the person aggrieved has absolutely no recourse. He must accept it as though it were the decision of the highest court in the land. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that a section in an act which is so restrictive as to prevent a person from seeking redress is not a section which should form part of the law of this country.
Hon. members may be surprised to know that I was a member of the committee in 1953 which adopted this section of the act. Of course, one could properly say, "did you speak up at that time in protest against the inclusion of this section"? I want to draw to hon. member's attention the fact that I did, and I now quote from the minutes of the committee meetings when they considered Bill No. 305 respecting immigration in 1952 and 1953. I shall now quote from page 75:
Section 39: Jurisdiction of courts.


Leon David Crestohl: I suggest that section 39 merits a little attention. I think that the minister, like human beings, or departmental officials, or boards of inquiry, is human and is prone to misjudge a situation. I do not think they should assume the responsibility, and it is a difficult responsibility of rendering a final judgment which is almost equivalent to the highest court in the land. I think we should allow the man who feels aggrieved by the decision which the minister or the department or the board of inquiry might make, to be permitted to have his day in court; and I think we should work out some machinery to allow a person ordered deported to address himself to the courts.


Mr. Gauthier:: Judges are human!


Leon David Crestohl: That is true, but they are not interested persons; they are not accusers, prosecutors, and judges at the same time. While the department in the very best of faith unfortunately can be in that position, the courts are not.
Lower down the minister made this observation:
As 1 understand Mr. Crestohl he believes that the evidence taken by an inquiry should form the basis of a court proceeding which would pass through the hands of the minister and go to a judge of some kind in a provincial court. I am free to confess that such a proceeding would probably relieve the department of some work and would relieve the minister of exercising his discretion; but if adopted it would introduce entirely new procedures into the immigration proceedings.
Hon. members will see that in 1952, when the government of which I was a follower and supporter dealt with this legislation, I opposed it then. I merely point this out to prove that I am consistent in my opposition. At that time the minister stated that what this would do would be to alter the proceedings in the department of immigration and introduce new procedures. On the question of modifying existing regulations or changing the act, I say respectfully that if the reasons advanced then are the only ones why justice should not be preserved for an aggrieved person, they are not sufficient. One is entitled to have a grievance heard by a tribunal so that he may obtain justice.

In the debate a few minutes ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) pointed out that so far as tariff matters are concerned a person who feels himself aggrieved because of a tariff decision has a right of appeal first to the minister; if he is still unhappy about the decision he also has a right of appeal to the tariff board; he then has a right of appeal to the Exchequer Court of Canada, and finally he has a right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. This was clearly explained by the Minister of Finance a few minutes ago. One is really shocked and appalled to find that when dealing with matters of dollars and cents, with tariff questions, there are four stages of appeal in order to seek redress and justice but under the Immigration Act, which deals with human liberty and human rights, there is no right of appeal. It is really incongruous.
An immigration official in the very best of faith talks to an immigant and makes a decision. "I, immigration official, decide that you are to be deported." That decision is as formidable as a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. I respectfully submit that such a situation is inconsistent with the reasoning of every member of the house and inconsistent with our basis of justice.
On very many occasions the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has condemned the arbitrary decisions that the immigration department has been able to make and he promised that if he were given the opportunity he would alter the situation. I should like to quote a statement he made as found in the Toronto Star of April 26, 1957. Among other things he said that he would-
-end the "bureaucratic" interpretations of the Immigration Act and ensure that humanitarianism would be considered more often in handling immigration applications.
What could be more humane, what could fall more within the scope of the Prime Minister's statement than to say to a person who has been told by an immigration official that he is to be deported that he has a right of appeal. The official may have made a mistake in the very best of faith but unfortunately once he has made his decision the door is closed and the person is deported. In all justice and to be consistent with the Prime Minister's statement that humanitarianism will be applied in dealing with immigration regulations, I respectfully submit that the proposed amendment to modify section 39 in order to grant the right of appeal under certain conditions should be adopted. We do not want frivolous appeals, we do not want appeals for the purpose of delay, but if a person is serious enough to make a deposit as security for costs, as I have suggested in the amendment, and if he complies
Immigration Act
with the other conditions he certainly should be entitled to have his day in court. I should also like to quote another statement of the Prime Minister found in the Globe and Mail of April 27, 1957, which report reads as follows:
The Conservatives, he continued, will end the arbitrary and unjust interpretation of immigration regulations which . . . have constituted a denial and veto of immigration legislation.
These two statements of the Prime Minister were both very lofty in principle and in their sense of justice, and I know that he was serious when he made them. I am prepared to accept them and certainly the country will accept them. One way of giving some meaning to the statements of the Prime Minister is to remedy what I and many others consider to be an evil in the present regulations. To deny a human being justice if a minor immigration official should make a mistake by not permitting a right of appeal certainly is beyond every concept of justice as we understand it in Canada.
I have therefore introduced the bill now before us. I had hoped that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fair-clough) would have taken up the bill. I am prepared to withdraw my bill if she will make a statement to the house that section 39 will be remedied. I am not particularly concerned whether it becomes law through a measure presented by me or one presented by the minister as long as it becomes law and human beings are permitted to have their day in court when they are aggrieved so that they may be able to receive justice. I do not want to delay the house in discussing this matter. One could certainly enter into a long debate on the principles of justice but I think that would be elementary and unnecessary. I have presented the situation as I see it and I respectfully submit to the house that the bill should be favourably considered.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-20 purports to make drastic changes in the Immigration Act. I have heard the hon. member who has just taken his seat trot out the horrors. He referred to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his pending bill of rights and suggested that we are neglecting the rights of those who intend to become citizens.
Apparently the criticism of the present section of the act is that these persons are not allowed their day in court. However, if one reads the whole act one comes to section 31, and I would direct the attention of all hon. members to that section which sets out in some detail in four subsections the rights of appeal. It is true that if you read section

Immigration Act
39 as it now stands carelessly you might be led to believe that there is no appeal.
But section 31 of the act, and similar provisions, have been used in hundreds of cases before the courts of Canada. I might say that at present there are six rather important cases before the courts. I am, naturally, not able to name them because they are still before the courts. But if you go to the Canadian abridgement you will see dozens and dozens of cases listed in which appeals have been made from decisions of minor officials and of the minister himself.
The suggested amendment in Bill No. C-20, far from enlarging the rights of applicants for citizenship, brings in one or two restrictions. If you go to appeal under this Immigration Act now there is no necessity for putting up a bond, certainly in the first stage of the appeal. If a man got off a ship and an order was made for his deportation, the machinery for appeal is plainly here for all to see. If hon. members are trotting out the horrors, as I said, and trying to pretend that these persons are not getting their rights before the courts of Canada, then I say that is just not true.
There is another amendment which I noticed in this bill which suggests that 30 days of grace be allowed in which to launch this appeal. There is no time limit, Mr. Speaker, under the present administration of this act so I feel if you insert a 30-day period of grace you are not going to assist these people who are allegedly being neglected by our Canadian laws.
I return again to the monetary angle. It would seem to me that if we asked a penniless stowaway to put up $300 before he can have his case heard we would be imposing a serious restriction on his rights.
The amendment also suggests that there would be some difficulty concerning domicile, and I think again this is the result of a careless reading of section 39. A great many of the hundreds of cases reported refer to persons who are neither Canadian citizens nor do they pretend to be. The rights which we extend to these persons are the same rights which we give to Canadian citizens. Although section 39 as it now stands reads awkwardly, if any criticism should be directed toward this section I think it should be directed toward the administration of it. Let us suppose that the minister, having reviewed a case brought to her under section 31, makes what the aggrieved person feels to be an injudicious decision. This person still has recourse to all the historical writs.
I refer again to the reported cases. They are so numerous that I will not bore the house by listing them, but if you look at these cases you will see that they have been

instituted, in the final analysis, by writs. These are writs of certiorari, prohibition and habeas corpus. They all have the same effect, and that is bringing in the back door something which cannot be brought in the front door. Even when a man is under detention awaiting deportation, a writ of habeas corpus might still be issued and he would be brought before the court. I fail to see, Mr. Speaker, how the rights of these persons are in any way withheld under the present act. I can only say that the amendments suggested by Bill No. C-20 would restrict those rights to an even greater degree.
In the last sentence of section 39 of the act we find the phrase, "unless such person is a Canadian citizen or has Canadian domicile". I agree that that is a suggestion that the act does not cover these cases but I say again that the act, as it is administered, gives these applicants the full protection of British law.


Leon David Crestohl: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes.


Leon David Crestohl: Is the hon. member aware that within the past three months applications were made by way of writs of certiorari before the courts in Montreal and judgments were rendered not allowing the writs to be issued because the applicant was denied the right by section 39 of the act? This was mentioned.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am not aware of these decisions, but I refer again to the Canadian abridgement in which the law is plain. I have no doubt that the higher courts in Canada have had other reasons for quashing these writs, but there is no doubt that the machinery is there or that the section of the act as it now reads does not restrain any applicant. If you read the section carefully, as I suggested, you will find it says:
No court and no judge or officer thereof has jurisdiction to review, quash, reverse, restrain or otherwise interfere with any poceeding, decision or order of the minister, deputy minister, director, immigration appeal board, special inquiry officer or immigration officer had, made or given under the authority and in accordance with the provisions of this act-[DOT]
We must presume, therefore, that ministers of the crown act within their jurisdiction justly, fairly, with patience and with discrimination.


Leon David Crestohl: And infallibly?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: No, that is why we have the writs. There is no person infallible. We have these writs of the crown which have been used on numerous occasions. I presume they will continue to be used. If there is any

point in passing Bill No. C-20 and amending the act, I have not seen it. All the rights for which the hon. member is asking in this bill are already in the act. As I pointed out, I think conclusively, quite contrary to helping any applicant, these restrictions imposed by the $300 deposit and the 30-day time limit, would cut down his right of appeal.


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Edmonton West):: As a fellow practitioner in the law of the hon. member who proposed this bill, I was almost ready at first sight to stand beside him and say "three cheers". However, my own experience points out the wisdom of having not only one look at these amendments but possibly a second and third look. At first glance the proposition seems to be very clear. In other words, the proposition is that in all cases where a deportation or detention order is made under the Immigration Act the subject of that order shall have the right to go to the court and have his case put before a superior court of the jurisdiction defined in the proposed section.
However, let us look first of all at just what is the ambit, who are the people that are to be protected. I cannot fully subscribe to being an admirer of the present act. Certainly I do not feel that the question of Canadian domicile as such is consistent with other principles of law when we are considering domicile. But the person who has been a landed immigrant over five years by section 4, in material cases has assumed Canadian domicile. However, this leaves the person who has been a well-behaved citizen for four years and six months or four years and nine months and then runs afoul of the law subject to deportation procedures. He has not yet acquired his Canadian domicile unless he lodges his appeal. There is a period there, but it actually covers those people who have not yet acquired Canadian domicile. Whether a person being a Canadian citizen could be deported is a matter of question; I do not think so. I think you would have to strip him of his citizenship first and therefore he would not be called a Canadian citizen. I do not think you can deport a Canadian citizen.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am very much interested in these words "Canadian domicile". Can the hon. member give an explanation of what that expression really means?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The only thing I can do is refer the hon. member to section 4 of the
Immigration Act
Immigration Act. If we go to the definition clause, which is subsection 2, we find that subsection (c) states:
"Canadian domicile'' means Canadian domicile acquired and held in accordance with section 4;
Then we go to section 4 and we see this:
4(1) Canadian domicile is acquired lor the purposes ol this act by a person having his place of domicile-
Repetition again.
-lor at least five years in Canada after having been landed in Canada.
Then there are restrictions on that, such as if he has been confined to a penitentiary or an asylum and resides in Canada under a permit or has gone out of the country under certain circumstances. But I personally feel that there are certain difficulties in the wording of the act. However, that is not the principle behind the hon. member's proposal here this afternoon.
Let us consider what he is doing. He is singling out a particular group of people, namely potential deportees and he says, "They must have a right of appeal to the court". But what of the person who has applied for citizenship and is not subject to deportation? Under section 14 of the Citizenship Act the minister may deny that applicant's request for citizenship and there is no appeal.


Leon David Crestohl: There should be.


Mr. Lamberl:: I will deal with that matter in a moment. But there is still no appeal. What about all these proposed immigrants who cannot meet medical requirements? They have not the right of appeal.


Leon David Crestohl: They have not yet been ordered deported.


Norman Platt Lambert: It is the question of equality that I think the hon. member is trying to get at: these people are human beings; they are residents of this country and therefore they should be equal before the courts.


Leon David Crestohl: If they have been ordered deported.


Norman Platt Lambert: That may be so. But, as I say, he feels that they have no right of appeal, that they are being denied an appeal beyond that of section 31. After all, there is an appeal procedure under section 31. It is taken up with the minister or a special inquiry board. But the hon. member wants to go beyond that. He wants to have an open court. I say then that there are a number of other instances where a person is aggrieved under the act- and a potential deportee is a person aggrieved under the act-and such people surely must have a right of appeal. Let us consider these

Immigration Act
particular points. If we refer to section 5, the medical section, in subsections (a), (b) and (s), there is no right of appeal on a refusal of admittance under a medical certificate. Nor is there under section 19 subclause (1), paragraph (d), which deals with convictions under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act. There is absolutely no right of appeal. I might cite again section 7, subsection (5), of the present act. You would have to amend the act. As a matter of fact, if we amended section 39 as requested by the hon. member, we would have to go and amend section 7, subsection (5), because you would have a clear inconsistency. May I cite section 7, subsection (5):
(5) The minister may make a deportation order against a person referred to in subsection (4) and such person has no right of appeal from the deportation order and shall be deported as soon as practicable.
If you amend it in one place, I submit you must amend it in another. With all due respect, I would rather think that the point which the hon. member is getting at is this subsection here and not section 39 because I would submit that section 39 allows a certain class of people to have recourse to the courts.
A few moments ago I mentioned section 14 of the Citizenship Act. We have gone a stage further. As to a person who is otherwise qualified as a landed immigrant in this country and applies for citizenship, the court in its examination of the applicant may agree but the minister has the full right to refuse and the applicant has no appeal. Let us say, for the sake or argument, that there should be a right of appeal. I would place these people in the same category as the ones about which the hon. member speaks. We may speak of an absolute right to be heard. But I would ask the hon. gentleman whether there are any such things today as absolute rights. I do not believe there are such things for the individual. In today's international relations and in our relationships one with another there comes a time when perhaps the common good may override the right of the individual. We certainly see it in wartime.
Let us consider but one aspect. I do not say that this is the sole aspect that determines the matter or serves as the basis for this section and section 14 in the Citizenship Act. And, my hon. friend would fully recognize the impossible position in which we would be put. I am speaking here of where there are certain fields where the common good must override any suggestion of an absolute right of the individual. For purposes of security I do not have to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" for the hon. member to indicate precisely what would happen if a potential deportee

had an order against him because of his background and connections, which posed in the eyes of the laws of this country a threat to the security of the country. He can come forward in court and say, "Prove your case against me." It is a most difficult question and I do not think that the hon. member or I can come down with a 100 per cent answer.
As I indicated initially, I too was bothered as a lawyer about this denial of the right of appeal, and I will say that perhaps I can go a long way towards the point of view expressed by the hon. member. But I am just wondering how far we can go. After all, as the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg) indicated, there are a number of cases presently before the courts where the applicant, the deportee, does not allege that he is a Canadian citizen or that he has acquired domicile. But he is being heard in court. I do not think we can go quite as far as the hon. member would like. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I think I have indicated that he is perhaps applying a patch in a very doubtful area. I think he would find himself in almost as difficult a spot under section 7, subsection
5.	At best you would have a blatant inconsistency in the act. At the moment it is not there. Bearing in mind that the hon. minister has indicated that immigration policy would be subject to review, I do not honestly think that now would be the time to apply what I consider a somewhat dubious patch to this act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I wish there had been some members of the Conservative party before the election of 1957 who had taken the same judicial view of the administration of the act and the act itself as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg) have taken this afternoon. Because the kind of things which used to be said on this side of the house when I was administering the Immigration Act are very much out of accord with the very moderate and judicial statements they have made.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I must rise on a question of privilege. If the hon. member looks through my remarks, I doubt if he could find the type of white brush he is trying to ascribe to me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman has just argued his case, so perhaps he will let me now argue mine. I was accused of denying people the right of access to the courts, which I never did at any time. I was accused by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) of all sorts of arbitrary activity, of which the hon. member for Cartier has given a couple of examples. I will not repeat them by

putting them on the record, but I must say that after administering the Immigration Act from July 1, 1954 until June 21, 1957, a period of almost three years, I came to a conclusion which leads me to support the bill moved by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) today.
I would like to tell hon. members why I reached that conclusion. I think the hon. member for Athabasca is largely right in what he said, that any person with an ingenious enough lawyer and a sympathetic judge can get his case before the court, and in some provinces this is much easier than in others. There are other provinces where because there is a stricter interpretation of the act it is not so easy. I will not reflect in any way on the bar in any province, but I know there were gross discrepancies. My experience was that all the most dubious cases and all the cases which I thought deserved the least consideration always got into the courts, and a great many cases where the persons were not so persistent or ingenious, or perhaps not so anxious to beat the laws of Canada, never did get to the courts.
As hon. members who interested themselves in this subject know, I did take the responsibility of recommending to my colleagues the setting up of an appeal board against deportation orders made against landed immigrants. That appeal board went as far as the Immigration Act itself allowed, because the Immigration Act says the appeal in the ultimate resort is to the minister. I gave every applicant a choice between appealing to the minister or appealing to the board, and I said that if they chose to appeal to the board and indicated that in their appeal I would not interfere with the judgment of the board. If on the other hand they preferred to appeal to the minister, I would then seek the advice of the board but would have to take my responsibility under the act and make the final decision. From the day that board was set up until I ceased to be minister, and as far as I know I have never heard of any difficulties since although perhaps the hon. lady may know of some, I do not think there has been any trouble about appeals from landed immigrants. I have never heard of any case where it was alleged there was any injustice.
These difficulties all arise in the case of persons who are visitors to Canada, either voluntary visitors or, in some cases as far as the country is concerned, involuntary visitors. No doubt the hon. lady remembers one celebrated case, as would the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Taylor) if he were here. These people are not citizens or
Immigration Act
landed immigrants and have, strictly speaking, no rights except human rights. I came to the conclusion-and this is the reason I am standing here and saying I have completely changed my mind about this-that it would be preferable, and certainly preferable for the minister involved as well as for the reputation of the country, that instead of having to use a backdoor method which has to be used now in many of these cases we could provide in the law for a regular procedure whereby these cases could be taken directly into the courts under appropriate circumstances.
I think the hon. member for Edmonton West has pointed to a difficulty in respect of section 7. Section 7 is very rarely used and there is some question about whether it really serves very much purpose in the act at all. But I think the hon. member is probably right in saying that if section 7 were left as it is and the bill proposed by the hon. member for Cartier were adopted there would be an inconsistency in the act. That is the kind of inconsistency which could easily be fixed up in committee and I do not think it would constitute an insuperable difficulty, or indeed any real difficulty at all to the enactment of this legislation if parliament were so minded.
There is something, too, in what the hon. member for Edmonton West has said about the fact that the hon. lady has promised us in the near future a revision, I took it not merely of the regulations, but also of the act itself.
My hon. friend from Cartier has indicated that if the hon. lady were to say she was considering favourably this proposal of his for inclusion in her general amendments, he would be glad to drop his bill, since he would feel it had served its purpose. I do think the principle of this bill is, on the whole, a sound one. That does not mean that every appeal is going to be successful. I would, in fact, expect that so long as the general ideas prevail which seemed to have prevailed in this country over the years, and which have been reflected in the Immigration Act over the years, most of these appeals would not be successful.
However, there is no doubt that this procedure would remove from the minds of many people the feeling that the administrative officers or the minister were acting both as judge and as an interested party in these cases. While this was not a proper statement of the facts, if it is widely believed to be a proper statement of the facts and if it creates in people's minds a sense of injustice, I can see a very great advantage in the course suggested, a course which would enable these misgivings to be

Immigration Act
removed by legislation which would enable people to go to the courts and have their cases considered by a tribunal which is independent and which obviously has no axe to grind.
I am not at all impressed by the observations of the hon. member for Edmonton West about the Citizenship Act. It is a separate act of parliament. It stands on its own feet, and whether or not it should be amended is an entirely separate question. There is no reason whatever why we should not fill in a pothole on Wellington street just because there is one on Sparks street, and there is no reason why we should not amend the Immigration Act just because the Citizenship Act may require amendment. The hon. member guessed, if he did not know, why that provision was in the Citizenship Act. It was put in there on security grounds. Having administered that act for some time, I am not sure that it is not a rather blunt instrument. I hope that next session when the hon. lady sets up this committee on the Citizenship Act which she promised, this matter will be looked into.


An hon. Member:: When did she promise that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: During the estimates.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The Immigration Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, the Citizenship Act. If the hon. lady will look back to the time her estimates were being discussed she will see that that is so. As a matter of fact, I think that in many ways the Citizenship Act is in even more urgent need of revision than the Immigration Act, if I may express out of order a personal opinion.
But I do not wish to detain the house any longer. I merely wish to make this confession, that if I had been asked in 1955, or up until quite late in 1956, to support the bill which the hon. member has introduced, I would not have done so. But sometime during the period in which I was minister, I turned increasingly to the view that for the good administration of the act, and for the good name of the country this was a requirement that should be met, and I confess, since I am making a lot of confessions, that I had rather hoped that I might preside over this change. However, the electors decided otherwise, and I hope the hon. lady will do so.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I fear I shall not have time to complete the remarks I had intended to make, but I will begin, and attempt to make my position clear.
At the outset, I should like to say that as a matter of principle I am in favour of

the right to appeal from the decision of an administrative board or tribunal wherever that course is humanly possible. In my opinion a bureaucratic decision or a decision made by a department has elements in it which are unfavourable. I think that in principle we should not tend to move toward making decisions by a government department final, and to that extent I agree with the principle of this bill.
Having said that, however, I should like to look at the measure more closely and point out what I believe to be its shortcomings. I had some other remarks to make, but having regard to the time available I will come immediately to my main point. There are always a number of cases where the security of the country is involved. I feel that to the very point where this is so, the right of appeal should be given. However, the hon. member's bill does seem to have this shortcoming-that no exception is made to cover such circumstances. I believe that had the bill stated that a right of appeal would be granted in any case except where the minister declared that the national interest must override the right of appeal, one of the major objections to his measure would have been removed. But there is no exception made in terms of this bill.
It is very difficult to decide at exactly what point the basic right of an individual to appeal to the courts and have his case heard in public ends, and where the national interest begins. However, it has been the practice for many years in this country that a statement by a minister who has the facts before him that the national interest would not be served by a certain case coming into open court has been accepted. We know many cases where the courts in Canada have gone a long way in this respect. We know of cases where mounted policemen who have been engaged in investigation work-men who have, perhaps, completed many years of investigation into certain cases-have been obliged to come before the courts in order to give their evidence, and immediately, at that point, having been identified, their usefulness as investigators and agents has ceased. That, to my mind, is an indication of the length to which we should go in protecting the rights of the people to appeal to the courts and to have their cases heard.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that it is six o'clock.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Rea in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
['Mr. Speaker, the intention tomorrow is to carry on with Bills Nos. C-31 and C-32 in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and the items as set out by', "the house leader last evening. We will continue those. On Thursday we will take up the estimates of the Department of Labour. Should we finish the Department of Labour we will go on with the Department of National Defence.\nIt being ten minutes after ten o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order."]
Charles Edward Rea: Order. When the committee rose at five o'clock we were dealing with the Customs Tariff, item 427(6). The hon. member tor Humber-St. George's.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at five o'clock I was asking some questions relative to tariff item 427(6). If this item is passed as it now is amended, what effect will this have on appeals that are now before the tariff board or before the courts?


Donald Methuen Fleming: These changes
will come into effect as provided in the budget resolution on April 10 of this year. That is provided in resolution No. 5.


Mr.   Baiien@: Would it have any effect on the appeals that are now before the tariff board?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It would not
affect the terms of importation of particular goods at the time of their import, which were the subject of appeals prior to the budget.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Under this new legislation would it be possible to appeal a ruling respecting an item as to whether or not it is of a class or kind made in Canada, if the item comes under 427?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No; if the item comes under 427(6) it, from this point on, is dealt with and fully governed by item 427(6). You see, item 427(6) does not use the words, "of a class or kind made in Canada", and it then becomes a matter of ordinary interpretation of item 427(6). But the question whether it is of a class or kind made in Canada does not arise on the interpretation of 427(6) in this form.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Are the items under 427 items which are covered by GATT? If so, was any negotiation entered into with other countries in making these changes? What were the concessions and what were the countries?


Donald Methuen Fleming: These are bound by GATT, but no negotiation was required because there is no change in the rates.


William Moore Benidickson: On item 427(6), Mr. Chairman, if the paper machine was not one that previously would have been deemed to have been made in Canada what would the most-favoured-nation tariff import rate be?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It would have been 7J per cent; but I remind the hon.
Customs Tariff
member that all of these items were ruled to be of a class or kind made in Canada before this item was introduced-


Herman Maxwell Batten: The point I am trying to get at-


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and were never regarded in any other way.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I quite agree with the minister, Mr. Chairman, that before this they were ruled as a class or kind made in Canada. If this legislation is passed will they be ruled as a class or kind made in Canada because of this legislation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That question cannot arise. The formula as to class or kind made in Canada does not apply to 427 (6).


Herman Maxwell Batten: It does appear to me that
some of the items of the legislation, if they were considered as a class or kind not made in Canada and were brought in under the British preferential tariff, would be free. If they were brought in under the most-favoured-nation tariff, the tariff rate would be 7i per cent. It now appears to me that the rate will be 10 per cent under the British preferential tariff and 22J per cent for most of those items except those under 427 (2), which is at 15 per cent. All the others will be 22J per cent. I will agree that trying to decide whether an item brought into this country is or is not of a class or kind made in Canada does set up a very difficult administrative problem. It does appear to me that what this legislation is trying to do is to avoid this administrative difficulty. In my view it is an attempt to do exactly that. For example, under 427 (3) they talk about "fork-lift" trucks.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have passed
that.


Mr.   Baiien@: We have here a class of
truck ranging from 4,000 pounds to 16,000 pounds. What would happen in the case of a truck of 4,000 pounds or 5,000 pounds, I am not sure. I am not sure that a truck of that capacity, 4,000 or 5,000 pounds, is made in Canada. If such a truck is not made in Canada and it was imported into Canada I do not see by what reasoning such a truck could be considered as a class or kind made in Canada.


Charles Edward Rea: I will have to ask
the hon. member to come back to 427 (6).


Herman Maxwell Batten: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will
come back to 427 (6). In this item we have this tariff increase on paper machines, even though the type of paper machine that could be bought in Canada may not be the type

Customs Tariff
that is required by any paper-making company, and may not be of the speed that is required by any paper-making company.
Item 427 (6) refers to parts thereof. What would happen in the case of a paper-making company that had imported a paper-making machine four, five or ten years ago, and now has to import parts for that machine which are not made in Canada? I do not understand the reasoning behind saying that these parts should be deemed as a class or kind made in Canada. This seems to me to be an increase in the rate of tariff on equipment used in the paper-making industry at a time when even though the paper-making industry forms a very important segment of the economy of this country, yet I think we are entering into a period when we can see that in the years that lie ahead-I do not think it is going to happen tomorrow-the Canadian paper-making industry is going to face keener competition than it has ever known before.
For example, in 1957 the Canadian production of newsprint was something over 6 million tons, 43 per cent of the total world production. Canada used only 3.3 per cent of the world production. Over 5 million tons were shipped to the United States. On the other hand, the United States produced something over 2 million tons, only 14 per cent of the total world production, and yet they used 48.8 per cent of the total world production. Now, it seems to me it would be economically sound if the United States were to begin to produce to fill some of this great demand for paper which they have. Of course, if they had the raw materials to produce that paper it would be a sound business venture. Not too long ago we can remember that in order to make newsprint the best of black spruce was required, and in every batch of pulp a large percentage was black spruce. Then, only a few years ago we got to the point where a fairly large percentage of balsam fir could be used. We now have the situation that in the southern states newsprint is being made from southern pine. We have the same sort of situation in France, and having in mind the progress that is being made in the chemistry of papermaking I think we can feel sure that within a few years paper will be made not only from southern pine in the southern states but also from hardwoods.
Russia is not included in the ten great newsprint producing countries of the world but I believe that within the next few years we will find that Russia will not only invade the papermaking industry but will also invade the paper markets. Therefore it is my opinion that within the not too distant future Canada is going to face very keen competition in the paper industry, and it is for that reason that

I believe that any tendency to increase the tariff on machines being brought in by the paper industry is most inopportune at this time.


William Moore Benidickson: In connection with the previous resolutions, particularly those affecting vegetables and fruits, the minister indicated that since his intentions with respect to tariff changes were announced on April 9 he had received no complaints. Has he received any complaints with respect to this particular item and the changes proposed?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There have been representations but none has taken objection to this action. Most of the representations called for some kind of interpretation as to the effect of the proposed change but I am informed that none expressed opposition.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 427 (7), 427 (8) and 437b 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;
Metal frames for convertible soft tops;
Permanent mould pistons for brake master cylinders;
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), 411a, 424 and 438a, or for use in the manufacture of parts therefor:
1.	When of a class or kind not made in Canada: British preferential tariff, free; most-favourednation tariff, free; general tariff, 30 per cent.
2.	When of a class or kind made in Canada: British preferential tariff, free; most-favourednation tariff, 17£ per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
['There have been representations but none has taken objection to this action. Most of the representations called for some kind of interpretation as to the effect of the proposed change but I am informed that none expressed opposition.']
Donald Methuen Fleming: On 438b there is an amendment which will result a little farther down, if it is approved, in the insertion of item 438f. I would ask my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, to move the following amendment:
That resolution No. 4 of the budget resolutions relating to the customs tariff be amended by deleting from tariff item 438b the words "bearings, ball or roller".


Mr. Brooks:: I so move.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That will delete the first line in this particular item.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
['That will delete the first line in this particular item.']
Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Chairman, several times I have asked the Minister of Labour if he could tell us what progress the government had made with regard to the representations made several weeks ago by a delegation of the united automobile workers in which they had suggested, among other things, that the government might use its good offices to ascertain, by way of a conference with automobile manufacturers, the latter's intentions as to the making of small cars in Canada. On April 20 last a brief was presented to the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet entitled "Small Car Problem as it Affects Canadian Auto Workers." In the third paragraph on page four of the brief it is represented that what is needed is for the government to find out what the intentions of the automobile manufacturers are regarding small car production in Canada, whether they intend to make small cars first in the United States and then, when market conditions warrant, or some other such excuse, get into Canadian production.
On page five the last paragraph states:
The first step, we believe, is for management to take the government and the union into its confidence on this small car issue. To that end we
Customs Tariff
are asking you ... to call a conference of government, management and the union at the earliest possible moment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman,
there is nothing in this item relating to the manufacture of small cars. This is an item relating to the tariff on automobile parts and the only changes in it, as will be seen on page 26, concern metal frames for convertible soft tops and permanent mould pistons for brake master cylinders. There is nothing here that concerns the manufacture of small cars in Canada. There may be an opportunity at some other time for the hon. gentleman to ask his question but it obviously does not relate to the matter before us now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can well understand that that kind of observation would be made by the Minister of Finance who obviously does not drive an automobile and is not aware that the ignition, for instance, is a very important instrument in an automobile; that magnetic plugs, lenses and articles of that sort are important constituents not only in small but in large cars. It would seem to me that my hon. friend is asking me to restrict myself when it is quite obvious that these items alone warrant reference to the small car problem.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am only asking the hon. gentleman to adhere to the rule of relevancy. There is nothing here about the manufacture of small cars. That is an entirely different issue not related to the importation of these parts. I am not prepared to discuss the issue as to the manufacture of small cars in Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend will tell me how you can have a small car or a large car for that matter that does not include a control kit designed for attachment to motor vehicles to facilitate their operation, etc. I should like to have that explanation. The Minister of Finance is resourceful in finding ways and means of restricting discussion but surely he has resorted to a most unusual argument tonight. The fact is that these are important constituents in a vehicle of this kind and, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate obviously understands, these are important constituents as well. What I rose to point out to the Minister of Finance is that possibly he would give the Minister of Labour an opportunity to indicate to the house what progress he and his colleagues have made.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must call the hon. member for Essex East to order. I am sure that somewhere in the tariff there is something pertaining to cars that are completed ready to bring in but, as the hon.

Customs Tariff
member knows, this item only refers to various parts and accessories of cars. I cannot see how we can go into a full discussion on the importation of cars.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not easily subdued, Mr. Chairman. I am inclined to pursue my position very strongly but if you can indicate to me where I would be in order in discussing this problem I would be glad to give careful consideration to the view Your Honour presents. Surely to discuss the parts that go into an automobile does not preclude one from discussing the problem arising out of the completed article of which these are parts. It has always been within the rules of debate in this house that on an item like this one can discuss this kind of question provided there is some application of the articles under consideration, and these are all articles that have to do with automobiles.


Charles Edward Rea: I realize what the hon. member is getting at. I see that apparently there is no item covering completed cars but if his argument were allowed to prevail hon. members could pick out any item that might go into a completed article and enter into a discussion on that basis. We would not have any control of the discussion at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is my very point. If you can point to one article then you can carry on the kind of argument in which I am now engaged.


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member cannot convince the Chair that he can take an ignition contact point and make an automobile out of it.


William Moore Benidickson: I think the minister is splitting hairs here. After all, this resolution is being considered in its entirety and the minister is protesting with respect to 438b. If the Chairman will look at 438c, and the following paragraphs, he will see we are discussing, in essence, the automobile manufacturing industry in respect to the tariff. Certainly, the point that is brought up by the hon. member for Essex East that some new phase in popularity with respect to public demand which involves the import of this article could be discussed on these items because they relate very definitely- 438c relates very definitely-to all those items that go into a passenger automobile.


Charles Edward Rea: I realize what the hon. member is saying, but what we are discussing is 438b. Shall 438b carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[The Deputy Chairman.]
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;
Composite frame and floor structure of metal in the rough;
Control ventilator gear box;
Cylinder lock barrels, with or without sleeves and keys therefor;
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 filled or not;
438c. Oil filter parts, 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;
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 plain or coated metal, in the rough, trimmed or not, whether or not welded in any manner before final forming or piercing, but not metal finished in any degree, including such stampings incorporating pierce or clinch nuts;
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;﻿MAY 5, 1959
All of the foregoing when for use in the manufacture or repair of the goods enumerated in tariff items 410a (iii), 411a, 424 and 438a, or for use in the manufacture of parts therefor: British preferential tariff, free; most-favoured-nation tariff, 171 p.c.; general tariff, 30 p.c.
(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
favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, 25 p.c.
(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 p.c.
(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; most-favoured-nation tariff, free; general tariff, 25 p.c.
(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), 411a, 424 and 438a, 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 p.c.
(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), 411a, 424 and 438a, 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,
Customs Tariff
the rates of duty under this item shall be: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, 25 p.c.
(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), 411a, 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 p.c.
The governor in council may make such regulations, if any, as are deemed necessary for carrying out the provisions of this item.
['I realize what the hon. member is saying, but what we are discussing is 438b. Shall 438b carry?']
Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity of putting forward the point of view of so many people who are out of work. One of the reasons that they are out of work is that they feel this particular situation contributes greatly to the problem with which I am sure the Minister of Labour is familiar. Now, the government did see this delegation on two occasions. I asked the Minister of Labour what progress he had been able to make in trying to comply with at least some of the requests made in this brief. If the Minister of Finance is not in a position to reply, and I would understand that he is not, perhaps he would allow the Minister of Labour to give the committee some indication of the progress the government has made toward implementing the assurance it gave to the united automobile workers several weeks ago on this very matter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The progress we are interested in making is with respect to the business before the committee which is tariff item 438c. This item does not give rise to any issue or any question of the manufacture of small cars. There will be a place and a time in the course of this session when, I presume, it will be relevant for the hon. gentleman to raise that issue. This is not one of them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Finance must not arrogate to himself the authority which belongs to the Chair. The Chair said this was the item under which I might pursue this topic. The Minister of Finance says, no. I would remind him he is the Minister of Finance and not the chairman of the committee. Until the Chair tells me I am out of order, I intend to pursue this matter.


Charles Edward Rea: The Chair said that the item 438c contained parts that went into the manufacture of an automobile and the subject could be discussed that way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for confirming what I had told the Minister of Finance. The minister says that he is interested in making progress on this item. I can understand that. I should

Customs Tariff
like to tell him what we in this committee are interested in is what progress the government has made toward implementing the assurance it gave the delegation when the government stated it was going to ascertain what the possibilities were of making these small cars in Canada, thereby creating an opportunity for many people to acquire gainful employment.
That is the question I ask the Minister of Finance. If he cannot answer the question, he might give the Minister of Labour an opportunity of making a reply of some sort to indicate some progress, which I believe he is now prepared to do.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 438d, 438e agreed to.
['I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for confirming what I had told the Minister of Finance. The minister says that he is interested in making progress on this item. I can understand that. I should', 'Customs Tariff\nlike to tell him what we in this committee are interested in is what progress the government has made toward implementing the assurance it gave the delegation when the government stated it was going to ascertain what the possibilities were of making these small cars in Canada, thereby creating an opportunity for many people to acquire gainful employment.\nThat is the question I ask the Minister of Finance. If he cannot answer the question, he might give the Minister of Labour an opportunity of making a reply of some sort to indicate some progress, which I believe he is now prepared to do.']
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman,
following item 438e, may I submit now the other amendment which involves the insertion of 438f which provides a further amendment to schedule A by striking out tariff item 438f (1), the enumeration of goods and the rates of duty of customs set opposite the said item and by inserting the following item, enumeration and rates of duty in the said schedule A:
438f (1) Parts, n.o.p., electroplated or not, whether finished or not, for automobiles, motor vehicles, electric trackless trolley buses, fire fighting vehicles, ambulances and hearses, or chassis enumerated in tariff items 424 and 438a, including engines, but not to include ball or roller bearings, wireless receiving sets, die castings of zinc, electric storage batteries, parts of wood, tires and tubes or parts of which the component material of chief value is rubber; British preferential tariff, free; most-favourednation tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
I would ask my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs to move the amendment.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I so move.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Items 440c, 440k, 446e, 462d, 462i, 479, 502, 502c 505a 611a 682 691 696a agreed to.
Resolution agreed to.
['Shall the amendment carry?']
Charles Edward Rea: I believe the next resolution will be No. 3?


Donald Methuen Fleming: We might as well take No. 5.


Charles Edward Rea: Resolution No. 5?
5. Resolved,-That any enactment founded upon the foregoing resolutions shall be deemed to have come into force on the 10th day of April, 1959, and to have applied to all goods mentioned in the said resolutions imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on or after that day, and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall the resolution carry?


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
['Shall the resolution carry?']
Charles Edward Rea: Resolution No. 3, item No. 160.
3. Resolved,-That schedule A to the Customs Tariff be amended by striking out tariff items 160, 162(b), 163(3), 307a and 554b, 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;
160 Alcoholic perfumes:
(a)	When in bottles or flasks containing not more than four ounces each: British preferential tariff, 22) p.c.; most-favoured-nation tariff, 22J>
p.c.; general tariff, 90 p.c.
(b)	When in bottles, flasks or other packages, containing more than four ounces each, per gallon: British preferential tariff, $4.00; most-favourednation tariff, $4.00; general tariff, $5.00; and mostfavoured-nation tariff, 22] p.c.; general tariff, 40 p.c.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I might be permitted to make an observation or two about the whole resolution because it is my understanding that this resolution does, in fact, contain those concessions that were made by the government in some of the commodities that were to be admitted to Canada at the lower rate of duty in exchange for a release under GATT in order to enable the government to increase the protective tariff on wool and woollen fabrics. I am informed that the principal country with which we had to negotiate was not, as I would have thought, Italy, but France. I do not profess to have any great knowledge about that. Perhaps in reply the minister could indicate whether or not that is so.
The minister will no doubt recall that when we were discussing the Customs Tariff on August 13 last year, at the time the tariff on British woollens was to be increased, I was able to make some observations, with some difficulty, about this prospective increase that the minister mentioned last year. I said that, strong though my objections were to the increase in the tariff on British woollens, as a member for a fishing constituency I took even stronger objection to what the government was planning to do this year in trying to discourage imports into Canada from one of the few good customers for the higher quality salt codfish that we have for sale, and incidentally also a country that is one of the good customers for Canadian wheat. It did seem to me an extraordinarily unwise policy to be discouraging imports from a country to which we sold more than we bought, and to thereby take the risk of discouraging the sale of Canadian primary products for which the market was none too good anyway.
There is one thing I should like to know from the minister, and that is whether the

concessions that we gave to Italy were considered by the Italians to be completely satisfactory or whether I am correctly informed and France was the country with which we mainly negotiated and Italy just got the residue of these concessions. I must say that I do not know enough about the technique of these matters to speak with any confidence about them, but I know this. Unless the Italian commercial interests and the Italian government were completely satisfied by the bargain that was made, we are further imperilling our exports by this increase in duties on a growing import from Italy of a kind of commodity which is used to a great extent by the very primary producers in Canada who are apt to be injured in the export market. It seems to me that it is unfair anyway to be increasing the cost of living to these primary producers in this way by this increase in the tariff on the woollens.
Speaking for myself, I am opposed to it on that ground. But I am equally opposed to it on the ground that there is the peril, by discouraging Italian imports, of discouraging an export market. I should be much interested to hear what the minister has to say. Of course, he is obviously determined to increase the tariff in order to increase the protection but I would at least hope that he could give us some reassurance that we were not imperilling the market in Italy for these vital exports.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no reason at all to think that we are imperilling our market in Italy for fish, wheat, or anything under GATT; it was bound to France. But Italy was the chief supplier of the particular goods that are affected here by the mostfavoured-nation rate. Under the provisions of GATT it is necessary in such cases for this country to negotiate with that country which is the principal supplier as well as the country, namely France, in whose favour the item was bound. This change has been the subject of negotiations which have proceeded since the item was amended last summer so far as the British preferential rate was concerned. We have completed the negotiations with France to the satisfaction of France. We have completed the negotiations with Italy. They have been tentatively approved. It is simply a matter now of awaiting confirmation which we expect at any time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can assure the minister
that whatever his friends in his constituency may think of reducing the tariff on vermouth and wines, this reduction will not be much comfort to the fishermen and other primary producers who would rather get their 66968-9-213
Customs Tariff
woollen goods, which are necessities, more cheaply. But I should like to be assured that the Italians were completely satisfied that they would be able to sell us enough more vermouth and other wines and manufactures of marble-I do not suppose the Italians supply us with much in the way of alcoholic perfumes; I assume they come from France-to make up completely for what they are going to lose in the woollen market. I would be rather surprised if this would turn out to be the case. I must say that it is hard not to be very apprehensive about the market for salt fish in Europe in any case.
As the minister is doubtless aware, France has become an increasingly important competitor of Canada in world markets for salt cod, even in the West Indies; and with the establishment of the common market by the six countries in Europe, there is a real danger that we may be imperilling our market from that angle by itself. I am not at all satisfied by the explanation the minister has so far given that any real effort has been made to safeguard our market in Italy. If the minister can give us an estimate of the expectations of increased imports of these commodities on which we are reducing the tariff and his expectations as to the decline in the imports of woollens in dollars, I think it might be reassuring.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no estimate as to what this is going to mean in terms of importations. The committee will recall that the changes made in the tariff items affecting woollens and worsteds were of the most modest nature. The effect of the increase would amount to 15 cents on a suit of clothes and 25 cents on a winter overcoat. I can only repeat that we have negotiated with France and with Italy and the negotiations have been concluded. France has indicated her satisfaction with this package arrangement embodied in resolution No. 3. The negotiations with Italy have been completed on this basis and all that is awaited is confirmation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, the minister talks about the increase being modest. But the extent to which the increases will accomplish the purpose the minister presumably has in mind in disturbing the tariff is the extent to which they will keep goods out. If they do not keep goods out, the amount of revenue is so small that there is no point in them whatsoever. The minister never asserted that they had any other purpose except the protective purpose. He indicated last year that although the first instalment was against British woollens, he was mainly anxious to keep out Italian woollens. That is what he told us last year.

Customs Tariff


Donald Methuen Fleming: No; I did not tell you that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister can look up the record. He will find that is the impression he left.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No; that is not what I said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like the minister to tell us then whether he expects that the main protective effect of this tariff will be against British woollens or against Italian woollens. Does he expect it is going to discourage imports from Britain more or imports from Italy more? How much effect does he think it is going to have in discouraging imports from Italy? Before we are asked to approve this increase, surely we are entitled to that information. Information of that kind must be in the possession of the government. Some kind of estimate must have been made.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think all hon. members, with the exception of my hon. friend, are aware that in this resolution there is nothing that affects the British preferential rate. We made that change last year. But as I stated last year, we propose to move in due course to restore the margin of the British preference. What this present resolution does is to move the most-favoured-nation rate up simply to the extent-and a very slight extent it is-by which the rate under the British preferential tariff was moved up last year. The effect therefore is to restore the margin of preference to what it was prior to the 1958 changes in the tariff.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister seems to think that by iterating and reiterating things we already know he is answering questions about things which we do not know. Every member of the committee knows perfectly well that first they raised the tariff against the British in order to keep British goods out. Now they are increasing the margin of preference in order to keep Italian and other imports out. The minister can surely tell us what effect the increase last year has had in keeping out British goods. Perhaps from there we can form some impression ourselves as to how much damage this is going to do to Italian exporters to Canada who are earning money to buy Canadian wheat and codfish. I think the committee is entitled to that information.


Donald Methuen Fleming: As I said, Mr. Chairman, there is no estimate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister no estimate whatsoever of the effect on imports of the change we made last year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is an extraordinary policy, Mr. Chairman. At least in the days when the government raised tariffs openly and boasted about it, the last time we had a Tory government the prime minister of that day came into the house and told people what he expected to achieve by these things. This government which brings in these tariff changes by stealth, after a year does not have the faintest idea what effect they have had. Maybe the effect is so small that the minister is ashamed to mention it; or maybe it has discouraged so much British trade that, remembering the famous 15 per cent diversion, the minister is ashamed to tell us.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hear some of the hon. gentlemen from western Canada in the background, but they are not making much effort to preserve our markets.


An hon. Member:: You mean Gaspe.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, if he came from Gaspe he is not doing much to preserve the market for fish. It seems to me, sir, that this change in the tariff, which is a threat to one of our important markets for some of our greatest prime exports, is something which deserves more consideration than it seems to be getting from the ministry.
Items 162, 163, 307a, 554b, 554g agreed to.


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

Michael Starr: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to raise the rate of remuneration of insurable employment; to increase the rates of contributions to be paid on behalf of insured persons and employers; to add new grounds for extension of the qualifying periods; to provide a new schedule of rates of benefits consequential on the new table of contributions; to provide that the maximum benefits, under the heading "duration of benefit", will be increased from thirty-six times to fifty-two times the weekly benefit rate; to establish a new schedule of allowable earnings; and to provide for other related matters.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend at this time to go into detail on the contents of the bill which will follow this resolution. I shall do that on second reading and when

the bill is before the house. At this stage, Mr. Chairman, 1 shall confine myself to outlining in a general way the provisions which will be forthcoming in the bill.
In brief, the resolution proposes to increase contributions to the unemployment insurance fund by government, by management and by those who will be benefiting under the act. The reason for this is to maintain the fund in a situation of stability over the next few years. During the past two years of recession which we have experienced there has been a pretty heavy drain on this fund. In my opinion it is not anticipated that such a drain will occur again next year. Nevertheless I feel it is good business to place the fund on a sound actuarial basis. It is also my opinion that the government's responsibility is such that it should see that the fund will be able to meet whatever eventualities may arise. At the same time I would like to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that it is not the government's intention to adopt an inflexible attitude in this regard. I hope the situation will be reviewed from time to time in the light of the requirements of the fund, and should it be possible, as an example, a year from now to look at the situation and find it is possible to reduce the rates, then most certainly that action would be taken.
In these amendments we are establishing two new classes; that is, one class of $33 per week and one of $36. We are also raising the ceiling from $4,800 to $5,460. The purpose of that is to bring back under the act those who were included originally. They were a foreman or his equivalent, but because of the rise in wages over the period of time some 80,000 have been excluded from the act. It is our intention, by raising the ceiling to $5,460, to bring back those 80,000 as contributors to the fund who would enjoy the coverage of the act. Allowable earnings are being increased to the extent of 50 per cent of the benefits. We are also taking care of prison inmates. That is something the hon. member for Vancouver East has propagated, as also have other societies in Canada who are interested in the rehabilitation of prisoners after they have served their term.
In general the purpose of the amendment is to give stability to the fund, to extend coverage to a number of persons who do not now have it, and also to increase the benefit period from 36 weeks to 52 weeks, which brings it back to the status which was in existence prior to the amendments of 1955. This last provision, I might say, has been one which has been requested by a great many organizations, and is one of the promises made by this government during the last two campaigns. There are other amendments to 66968-9-2134
Unemployment Insurance Act correct existing anomalies of minor nature under the act at the present time.
After the second reading it is my wish to refer these amendments to the standing committee on industrial relations so that the members of that committee may go into detail on all of these amendments now proposed to the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we have all listened with interest to what the Minister of Labour has had to say in his brief statement on this important resolution, a resolution which my hon. friend will remember we urged early in the session should be brought forward at the earliest possible moment. We did so because, in the face of the serious unemployment problem, it was wondered whether or not this measure would provide any kind of relief, by way of maintenance, to many out of work. But it is clear from the account given by the minister a few moments ago that, meritorious as these amendments may be, generally they are not calculated to contribute in any way to the problem of unemployment that now prevails.
As I listened to the minister and as I read the resolution, I assume that the main purpose of the bill which will be founded on this resolution is to raise the rate of remuneration of insurable employment, to increase the rates of contributions to be paid on behalf of insured persons and employers, to add new grounds for extensions of the qualifying periods, to provide a new schedule of rates of benefits consequential on the new table of contributions, and to provide the maximum benefits under the heading "Duration of Benefit", which I imagine will be increased. All we can assume is that the stories which have appeared in the newspapers give correct indications of what is to occur. Then it is proposed to establish a new schedule of allowable earnings and to provide for other related matters.
The minister was frank in saying that one of the reasons for the introduction of this measure was to maintain the integrity of the fund, a fund which has been very seriously invaded during the past 18 months; so seriously, in fact, that if we have a level of unemployment next fall and next winter comparable to the level last winter and last fall there might not be enough money in the fund to take care of the needs contracted for by employers and employees, together with the more modest contribution made by the government of Canada.
As I said, the minister mentioned that one of the purposes of this bill was to guarantee the integrity of the fund, and in this connection it is interesting to recall his own

Unemployment Insurance Act words which will be found in Hansard for 1955 at page 4760 when he said, among other things:
If we look at the fund from 1942 to 1955 we find that at no time was it seriously impaired. We see that it has increased gradually at the rate of about $70 million a year, with one exception when in one year it increased only to the extent of $30 million. To my mind, therefore, there is no danger of serious impairment of the fund, even if the maximum period of 51 weeks were placed in the act.
So in 1955 when the hon. gentleman was on this side of the house he was not concerned about the integrity of the fund. Indeed, he had no reason to be. That is not the situation today, as he himself has acknowledged. The minister was confirmed in the confidence he showed in the past, by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who, also in 1955, as reported in Hansard at pages 4626 and 4627 said:
I am not worried about the condition of the fund. Not a bit. It is my opinion that after these new provisions have been in effect for a year the fund will be even healthier than it is today. I base that opinion on the fact that from the actuary's own calculations there is every expectation of a net profit.
Later on in my remarks I propose to deal with the figures which indicate what the situation was then, and what the situation is now. I simply wanted to deal with this aspect of the question in a general way at the outset, because the minister himself said that one of the reasons for bringing forward this resolution was to see that the integrity of the fund was maintained. I think we ought to begin by putting first things first.
This particular amendment, like other amendments brought in by the administration in the course of the last year and a half, is an amendment which is being proposed with respect to an act brought in by a Liberal administration, an act which in this period of heavy unemployment has served the people of Canada, and particularly the unemployed, in a most gratifying manner. When we think of the serious problems and vicissitudes which have affected the unemployed population of Canada, for the last year and a half in particular, we can all be grateful that we had an Unemployment Insurance Act in being and that there was available for its operation a large fund to which contributions had been made by three bodies and, particularly, by two-the workers and management-thereby bringing to the unemployed, as a matter of right, assistance which in this period of unemployment was so essential to them.

But before dealing with the merits of the resolution I think there is one piece of unfinished business to be done, and that concerns a matter which was referred to yesterday in answer to questions put by the hon. member for Assiniboia and by the Leader of the Opposition. One of the posts on the unemployment insurance commission had become vacant. Mr. R. J. Tallon, the former secretary treasurer of the trades and labour congress, has resigned, or his term of office has come to an end. I think I am expressing the views of every member of this house and, certainly, the views of all of those who have had anything to do with this matter, when I say that Mr. Tallon has earned our warmest gratitude for his services as the labour representative on the unemployment insurance commission for a long period. He should know in his period of retirement that he has done a useful job and that the workers, the employers and all of us in this country are grateful to him for his services. He was appointed by the former government, as I am sure the Minister of Labour would agree, in accordance with the requirements of the act, after consultation with the labour organizations of Canada. The issue which is immediately before us is that the replacement which the government has announced is not, it would seem, fully in accordance with the requirements of the act. Certainly it would seem that the new appointment has been made in such a way as not to encourage a measure of cooperation between the government and the representatives of labour.
The points of difference between labour and government are, inevitably, great. Oftentimes the relationship is complicated and no opportunity should be lost to encourage wherever possible the greatest measure of co-operation between the government on the one hand and labour on the other. I am afraid that the government in this instance, whatever may be its defence, has created a situation which in spite of the statement made by the Minister of Labour yesterday will not be regarded as fully satisfactory.


Michael Starr: By whom?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman asks: by whom? He will find out as I go along. I may say that I was not in the house yesterday, but I read his statement and it certainly has not satisfied me. For instance, the Leader of the Opposition addressed to the Minister of Labour this question as reported in Hansard on page 3276:
Perhaps I could ask a supplementary question arising out of the minister's statement. Would the minister comment on the following words which appear in the letter from Mr. Jodoin to the minister:

And then the Leader of the Opposition goes on to quote the words:
Even before you wrote me on February 5, even before you asked the congress to submit its nominees, you had advised me of your intention to recommend the appointment of Mr. A. F. MacArthur.
In that sentence is to be found the validity or the invalidity of the argument made by the president of the congress of labour.
_ What was the reply given to that question put by the Leader of the Opposition? The Minister of Labour did not answer the question at all. He simply spoke of the high qualifications of Mr. MacArthur. No one questions the qualifications of Mr. MacArthur. His politics have nothing to do with the matter. Mr. MacArthur is quoted as saying that he is politically neutral. I am not particularly concerned with that aspect of the problem. The question is: did the government comply with the act. The act is clear as to what the obligations of the government are by statute. One commissioner other than the chief commissioner is to be appointed after consultation with the representatives of organized workers, and the other after consultation with organizations representative of employers. That does not mean that the Minister of Labour has complied with this requirement of a statute passed by this parliament if he has simply told the president of the congress that the government regards a particular individual as being qualified for this particular post and that it intends to appoint him. It does not merely consist in telling the representatives of labour that this is the man the government intends to appoint. This section, if it means anything, means that the government must actually consult the labour organizations, ascertain their opinions but not give the impression that the government has made up its mind and is saying, this is the man we want; we are telling you about it and because we are telling you about it we feel that we are complying with the act. That is all that the minister said in reply to the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. McGee:: Will the hon. member permit a question? I wonder whether he would explain his definition of "really consult".


Paul Joseph James Martin: It certainly is not to do what the Minister of Labour seemingly has done, merely to inform. I say the evidence before us, the statements of the president of the congress, the reply of the Minister of Labour yesterday, do not indicate any more than that all he did was to inform the labour organizations and, by the way, we do not know what labour organizations were informed. We understand that the "syndicats
Unemployment Insurance Act Catholiques" were informed. Were the railroad brotherhoods informed? Were other national labour organizations informed? After all, the act does not specify that it must be only the organization headed by Mr. Jodoin. Were they called in and asked to recommend someone?
I am not suggesting that the minister was wrong yesterday in saying that the decision must be made by the government.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course, the decision must be made by the government. I will be very glad to permit a question when I finish. I agree with my hon. friend that government in this country, or in any other country where government seeks to be effective, must be carried on by government. The cabinet must make the decisions; but that is not the point at issue. The point at issue is whether or not the labour organizations of this country, in accordance with the statute, have been consulted by the Minister of Labour and my argument is that that does not seem to be the case.


Michael Starr: May I at this point-I think it would be in order since the hon. member posed a question whether other organizations had been consulted or not-answer the question asked by the hon. member. I have a telegram here. It is addressed to me and it reads as follows:
The national legislative committee of the railway transportation brotherhoods the recognized central body of railway labour was consulted-
I am answering the question.


Erhart Regier: It is not the Canadian Labour Congress?


Michael Starr: I continue:
-and did submit a nominee to the Minister of Labour for the vacancy on the unemployment insurance commission. While the Canadian Labour Congress states the congress consulted with the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour which endorsed the congress' nominees the congress did not consult with the railway transportation brotherhoods. These brotherhoods have no quarrel with the government in respect of its appointment of A. F. MacArthur as commissioner of the unemployment insurance commission and accordingly our representative on the unemployment insurance advisory committee will not be resigning.
A. H. Balch chairman H. E. Campbell secretary national legislative committee international railway brotherhoods


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the minister for giving that information.


Donald MacInnis: Will the hon. member permit a question now? In the last few minutes the
3364	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act hon. member has been belabouring the differences and implying that this government made this appointment somewhat differently, I take it, from the way appointments were made by the previous administration.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I must remind the hon. member that he asked permission to ask a question. He should ask his question.


Donald MacInnis: I ask the hon. member whether the former administration followed the recommendations of the Canadian labour congress in respect of those appointments?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can say to my hon. friend that I do not know of one instance where the government of which I was a member failed to comply with the requirements of the statute in this context.


Some hon. Members:: Answer the question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know of very few instances where there was not the fullest co-operation between the government and labour. I want to come back-


Some hon. Members:: Answer the question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to come back to the statement made by the Minister of Labour. What the Minister of Labour has said now is valuable information but it does not address itself to this question at all. The point in the act is clear. The government has no right, under this act, to make up its mind whom it wants for the job until it has fully consulted labour. What my hon. friend did, according to the evidence, according to the letter of Mr. Jodoin, was to call him in and say, "We intend to appoint Mr. MacArthur; what do you think of him? Do you think he is a good man?" What my hon. friend should have done was to say, "We have an appointment to make. Have you any recommendations to make?" Then, as those recommendations were given, the government, exercising its executive responsibility and after carefully assessing the situation, would make the decision; but to appoint a particular individual in the circumstances in which this individual was appointed is not to comply with the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I ask my hon. friend to look up the correspondence having to do with the appointment of Mr. Tallon and see what the various labour organizations in Canada said to the government of that day about the way in which they had carried out the obligations of consultation under this act.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Tallon was one of those names recommended by the former labour congress. He was one of the three nominees put forward and that, incidentally,


answers the question put forward to me by the hon. member. The former government accepted the recommendation of labour, but it was the government of the day that made the appointment and not the labour organization.


Donald MacInnis: Will the hon. member answer a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend regards this as a special situation. This is not an ordinary body serving government and made up of a representative of labour and of management. This is a body that is called upon not only to administer, by way of formulation of policy, matters having to do with unemployment insurance, but this commission actually is a trustee of many millions of dollars contributed not only by the employers but by the workers of this country. At one time there was almost a billion dollars in the fund.
Does the Minister of Labour deny that the labour organizations of this country have the right, in view of the contributions made by their constituents, the trade unionists of this country, to make a suggestion, based upon consultation as conceived by this act, as to who shall be their spokesman? The unemployment insurance commission is an important body. What we have now is the initiation of the new term by a worthy individual, namely Mr. MacArthur, I am sure, but under a cloud, a cloud described by the head of the largest labour organization in this country, representing more trade unionists than any other national body.
My hon. friend may find, as I did myself, that some of the officers of that organization may belong to another political party, but what has that to do with the problem? In the statement my hon. friend made yesterday, as reported at page 3277 of Hansard, he said:
Over the week end I received and accepted, as a consequence of this appointment, the resignations of Mr. George Burt, Mr. A. Andras and Mr. Jean Marchand from the unemployment insurance advisory committee. Mr. Burt is head of the united automobile workers; Mr. Andras is chief of the legislation department of the congress; and Mr. Marchand is secretary general of the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour.
Then the minister went on to say, and I am sure he will regret these words:
Like Mr. Jodoin's three nominees for this appointment, all have a record of close affiliation with a political group-not the Progressive Conservative party.
Does that mean that one of the qualifications in the minds of the government of the day for replacement and holding office on the unemployment insurance advisory committee is that the nominee must belong to the Progressive Conservative party?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Read on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What interpretation can one place on the words of my hon. friend? He said:
Like Mr. Jodoin's three nominees for this appointment, all have a record of close affiliation with a political group-not the Progressive Conservative party.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Read on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Somebody says "read on". I will be very glad to do that.
I say that political considerations were not absent in these resignations.
That may be the case but that has nothing to do with the point in issue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. members laugh. This is a serious matter. The Minister of Labour of this country has said-
Mr. Pallet!: Stop smiling then.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and I repeat:
Like Mr. Jodoin's three nominees for this appointment, all have a record of close affiliation with a political group-not the Progressive Conservative party.
I know, as the Minister of Labour knows, that some members of the congress do not support his party. Some of them do not support the party to which I belong but what have their political qualifications got to do-


An hon. Member:: Nothing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -with their right and fitness and qualifications to hold this particular appointment? I say that under the act the Minister of Labour has the responsibility of ascertaining, first whether the person suggested is a suitable person, whether he is capable of carrying out administrative responsibilities as a member of the commission and, second, whether he is one who is acceptable to the widest group of labour people in this country. Having satisfied himself about those particular qualifications, the Minister of Labour should have left out of his considerations the fact that the recommended persons did not belong to the political group which he so staunchly supports. That I think was a regrettable position for the Minister of Labour to take.
Then my hon. friend says: we are cooperating with labour. No one can contest that we have endeavoured at every point to co-operate with labour in this matter; I called Mr. Jodoin in; I told him to put in a certain number of names in addition to the
Unemployment Insurance Act name that finally emerged as my appointment and the appointment of the government; we have always co-operated with labour. Let us see from the minister's own statement if that is really the situation. After all, whether we like the politics of a particular individual who happens to be a high officer, indeed, the president of the largest labour organization in Canada, he does represent an important segment of the population of this country. He wanted to see the Prime Minister. He was not satisfied with the action taken by the Minister of Labour. The Leader of the Opposition put a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour which was in these words:
Mr. Speaker, might I ask a further supplementary question. Did the president of the Canadian Labour Congress ask, by telegrams dated March 24 and April 29, for an interview with the Prime Minister and the ministry to discuss this appointment? Was any reply sent to the telegrams and, if so, what was its nature?
Here is the reply of the Minister of Labour to the president of the congress, not to the head of a small union but to the head of all the unions that belong to this largest labour organization:
I did receive such a telegram from Mr. Jodoin. I am quoting from memory now, but he did ask at the end of the telegram for an appointment with the Prime Minister, which I did not consider to be necessary.
The hon. gentleman is by nature not an arrogant man but by that statement he certainly is guilty of an arrogant act. What right did he have to decide whether in this particular situation the Prime Minister should or should not carry on further consultations with the president of the Canadian Labour Congress? I say to the minister that he acted regrettably.


Mr. Walker:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Someone laughs. My friend, Mr. Walker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -the hon. member for Rosedale, who is recognized as a great champion of labour, laughs, but let me tell him that the labouring people of this country are not laughing tonight. They regret very much-


David James Walker: They are laughing at my hon. friend.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend may be assured that his party, which has talked so fervently in the last two years about its relations with labour, the farmers and so on, has made a false step in this particular situation, has revealed its true colours and has indicated the extent to which

Unemployment Insurance Act in the pinch it really is prepared to cooperate with a properly established democratic organization representing an important segment of the people of our country. Look at Mr. Jodoin's letter. The hon. member for Peel is enjoying the laughter. I would tell him that he comes from a constituency where very many trade unionists will not support the stand of the Minister of Labour who has failed to carry out proper consultations with them prior to the appointment of their representative on the unemployment insurance commission.


Mr. Palleil:: Make your speech on the 12th of June with a different tone.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Labour will likely have something to say by way of comment on what I have said tonight.


Michael Starr: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I take it then that my case has been substantiated.


Michael Starr: In your own mind.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend, I know, does not propose to say anything because there is no reply. I want to say to the minister that all the events of Friday last had a doubtful character. It was generally known on Friday that the Minister of Labour was going to introduce his estimates after those of the Minister of Agriculture had been considered. However, the Minister of Agriculture did not finish in time to enable the Minister of Labour to initiate discussion of his estimates but he was ready, as he well knows. With respect to an important appointment of this kind and having regard to the fact that the house was sitting and the labour estimates were about to be discussed, I should have thought that the Minister of Labour would have announced the appointment in the house instead of issuing a press release.
I do not know whether the reason for that particular procedure was to avoid interrogation that day with regard to this appointment or whether it was to ease the embarrassment in which my hon. friend unwittingly has been plunged. In any event, I should have thought that if he was going to make an announcement concerning the appointment of a representative of labour on the unemployment insurance commission he would have taken the house into his confidence in accordance with our practices and traditions and told the house of the government's intention. But, of course, this government that has such a high regard for the rights of parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[Mr. Martin (Essex East).!


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. members say "hear, hear". This government that has such a high regard for the rights of parliament prefers, while parliament is sitting, to make such an announcement by way of a release outside of parliament. Sometimes they are not even issued by the minister concerned, but by the Prime Minister. I can only say to the minister that it may be doubtful as to whether this appointment can stand the test of legality if there has not been proper consultation.


Frank Charles McGee: What is proper consultation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is my hon. friend, the solon from Scarborough, asking me what is proper consultation. I can tell him that proper consultation under this act is not the kind of consultation pursued by the Minister of Labour in this particular situation. Let me read the section again.


Frank Charles McGee: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The section reads:
One commissioner, other than the chief commissioner, shall be appointed after consultation with organizations representative of workers and the other after consultation with organizations representative of employers.
I say that under this particular clause there was not pursued the kind of consultation required and which labour as one of the important contributing sources to the unemployment insurance fund, has the right to ask of this government.
Now, the minister dealt at the outset with the question of the integrity of the fund.


Mr. McCleave:: Now we know what Martin B.S. really means.


Murdo William Martin: Someone made a very useful observation?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I said now we are aware of what Martin B.S. really means.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend is obviously well trained in parliamentary language. I compliment him upon the succinctness and adaptability of his language to this very important situation.
My hon. friend mentioned the integrity of the fund. The fund has now reached the figure of $496 million. At one time the fund, of course, was just a little under a billion dollars. Is it to be assumed that one of the reasons for the introduction of this resolution is so that the government will be able to take steps to replenish the fund and not be confronted with a situation such as I indicated a few minutes ago might eventuate in the fall of 1959 and the winter of 1960 if we have a comparable level of unemployment over again? If we are faced with such a situation, the fund will be

close to complete depletion, and that is a serious matter. Undoubtedly, it is a matter that concerns the minister.
The government is somewhat responsible for the depletion of this fund to its present level. On several occasions the government brought in amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act to provide for additional supplementary payments. These particular amendments were supported, and widely received throughout this house, but those in the opposition associated their acceptance of these amendments with the suggestion that the government should at once replenish the fund; that the moneys paid out by way of supplementary benefits should not be replenished entirely, as they have been, by the employer and employee groups. This is the responsibility, as we said, of the people of Canada, and consequently the fund should have been replenished on two occasions by over a hundred million dollars out of the consolidated revenue fund, thereby very materially reducing the obligation which my hon. friend is going to impose upon the workers and employers by way of increased contributions for further benefits.
During the time we were in office we did introduce some supplementary benefits. As a matter of fact, the first supplementary benefit was introduced when Mr. Mitchell was minister of labour. Every time the fund was invaded for that purpose or any other, on three different occasions, it was replenished out of the consolidated fund. The full obligation for the abnormal situation, covered by the supplementary payments, was thereby borne by the people of Canada as a whole, as it should be, and not imposed on two particular groups in the national community, the employers and employees.
I say that if the minister is worried about the integrity of the fund the government, by failing to replenish the fund out of the consolidated revenues of the government of Canada, is materially responsible for this situation. Of course, it is responsible in another way. It is responsible because it has not taken the vigorous measures which it said it would take to try to alleviate the problem of unemployment in tihs country. I know hon. gentlemen do not like to be reminded of this, but lest any member think this is an idle boast I have something here in which the hon. member for Cape Breton South may be interested. I have here a hand bill which was used on behalf of the Conservative candidate, the hon. member for Pictou, in the last federal election. The bill reads:
I promise you this: As long as I am Prime Minister, no man or woman will ever be allowed 66968-9-214
Unemployment Insurance Act to suffer, deficit or no deficit, and as long as I am Prime Minister the welfare of the average Canadian will never be forgotten.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope hon. members will applaud what I am now going to read from the bill:
There you have it! Those are the words of John Diefenbaker, speaking at Sydney, February 28. He is in effect telling you that as long as there is a dollar left in the Canadian treasury you will not want...
Russell MacEwan agrees with him 100 per cent.
I now ask hon. members to applaud that statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. gentlemen are now applauding the statement that as long as there is anything left in the treasury, the unemployed shall not want. Now, what are we doing tonight? We are putting more money into the unemployent insurance fund, and we are calling upon the workers of Canada and the employers of Canada to pay another 30 per cent contribution so that they can get the benefits proposed. Hon. gentlemen are now confronted with their promise. They are confronted with a fait accompli. They are confronted with a fund that has been depleted very seriously, and they are now bringing in legislation to add new categories, impose new contributions, so that the fund will not be completely empty.
Let us look at the picture. In 1954-I am using round figures-the fund contained $881 million; in 1955, $840 million; in 1956, $854 million; in 1957, $874 million; in 1958, $744 million; and this year, 1959, $496 million. If the Minister of Labour did not come forward with this legislation he would be confronted with a situation next fall and winter, assuming a serious unemployment condition, in which there might perhaps not be sufficient money to pay to the workers the benefits which, by their own contributions, they have a right to receive from this fund for assistance for themselves and their families. I ask hon. gentlemen to applaud that statement.


An hon. Member:: That is your own statement.


Mr. McGregor:: There is no applause over there.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, hon. gentlemen opposite will be confronted shortly with the details of this bill. We will be told specifically what the income ceilings will be. We will be told what the rates of benefit will be.
3368	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


An hon. Member:: It is very entertaining. Let him carry on.


Mr. Ricard:: Carry on. He has not said anything yet.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: It is the pleasure of the committee that the hon. member be permitted to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the committee is in a generous mood. The committee has been co-operative. The committee tonight has agreed with everything I have said.


An hon. Member:: You have not said anything.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On that account I would be taking unfair advantage if I kept driving home something that I know is of greatest consequence and which disturbs the Minister of Labour and the government.


Michael Starr: It does not disturb me at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister said that I do not disturb him. I know the Minister of Labour too well. I know he does not mean that, because there is nothing that disturbs him more.


Michael Starr: You have not said anything tonight that rang with sincerity.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What did he say?


Michael Starr: I said that you have not said anything tonight that rang with sincerity.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I could, through you, Mr. Chairman, ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that remark but I am not going to ask him to withdraw it because he knows perfectly well that no one is more sincere in this matter than I am. No one has fought harder in this house for these measures than the man who is now speaking. Long before the Minister of Labour was around in this house I was doing my utmost as a private member in this house and later as a member of the government, as the hon. member for York-Sunbury knows, for the improvement of the social and welfare conditions of the people of Canada. I will take second place to none in that regard.
The Minister of Labour should not be offended when I point out to him, as is our duty in the opposition, the seriousness of the state of the fund. The failure of the government to take steps 18 months ago to replenish


it, the regrettable decision of the government to use moneys out of the fund that should have been taken from the consolidated revenue fund. The Minister of Labour should not object if I also point out, as I take my seat, that as a result of the financial policy of the government of Canada the unemployment insurance fund lost further by way of a diminution of its securities over $10 million as a result of the ill-conceived bond conversion plan of the Minister of Finance.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman,-


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman,-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The hon. member for Timmins has the floor.


Frank Charles McGee: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I should like to remind you that the hon. member who has just taken his seat after professing himself to be the greatest hero in a long time in this country, indicated that at the conclusion of his remarks he would be willing to answer certain simple questions put to him by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and myself.


Murdo William Martin: That is all right. I should be glad to do so.


Frank Charles McGee: He has not done so. Will he take advantage of the generous mood of the committee and answer those questions?


Mr. Robichaud:: Is it a recommendation for membership on the coal board?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. Is the hon. member for Timmins willing to permit these questions to be asked of the hon. member who has taken his seat?


Murdo William Martin: I have no objection to being further entertained, Mr. Chairman.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Then I will give the floor to the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Donald MacInnis: I should like to ask the hon. member for Essex East to explain, since he is so verbal in his explanation of the ways these appointments are made, to the committee what procedure was followed when Hal Banks, a non-Canadian citizen, was appointed by his administration while he was a member of the government to attend the conference in Geneva.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Murdo William Martin: I should be glad to answer that question. I understand that Mr. Banks was appointed by the workers as their delegate; and the government of the day respected the wishes of the workers of the country.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Are there any more questions?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What about a recommendation to the coal board?


Frank Charles McGee: I am grateful to the hon. member for permitting this great privilege. During the course of his remarks he used the words "real consultation" on several occasions. Upon four separate occasions I asked him to define that term and then he proceeded to tell me what it was not. I wonder if he would tell me what it is.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure that if my hon. friend had had the responsibilities of the Minister of Labour, he would have consulted labour before he made up his mind.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Are there any more questions?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I must remind hon. members that the procedure being followed at the present time is not in accordance with the rules and must be stopped by the Chair. I therefore give the floor to the hon. member for Timmins.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, if this particular item that is being discussed at the present time was not of such a serious nature I can assure you that both I and my colleagues would be very much amused with the display we have witnessed for the last while. As the hon. member for Essex East promoted himself or proposed himself as the undying champion of labour, I could not help recalling that at the convention of the Canadian Labour Congress held out in Winnipeg last year I do not recall that the party he represents received any more favourable consideration than did the party that he was castigating at this time. In my opinion, the labour movement of this country, as represented by their Winnipeg convention last year, has written off both parties.
Mr. Chairman, the very point that was expounded so well by the hon. member for Essex East has to do with the fact that the government is now faced with the necessity of increasing the contributions to the unemployment insurance fund. I think he skipped lightly over the basic reasons for this action. If we look back to the time when this unemployment insurance fund was first created I think we will find that it was created for a specific purpose, namely to deal with seasonal unemployment that occurs in this country as a result of climatic conditions. In other words, even if you have full employment in the summer time, owing to climatic conditions during certain seasons of the year certain workers are unemployed. As a result of this situation, this unemployment insurance fund was set up.
This condition has gone on for the past two years and we are no longer faced with
66968-9-214J
Unemployment Insurance Act this problem which the fund was set up to meet. Instead of having seasonal unemployment during the winter months owing to severe weather conditions, we are faced with almost chronic unemployment of roughly half a million workers in this country. The fund which was set up just cannot cope with this. By increasing the contributions of people who are still working we will not cure the cancer in our society which we have today. I think this government must realize that if we are going to condone the fact that we must have chronic unemployment in this country, we had better find a new cure for it, because increasing the unemployment fund to meet seasonal unemployment will not cure the problem with which we are faced today. Certainly you will have to increase contributions if you are going to make the unemployment insurance fund do the job it was intended to do some time ago, because either through the actions of this government or through its lack of action the cost of living is going up in a straight climb, and the contributions which would suffice some time ago just will not suffice today. In addition to that, if we are going to be faced with 500,000 unemployed workers in this country, then you will have to find a new cure for the problem.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is another point I would like to deal with. This matter has attracted much attention in the newspapers of this country, and I think I am fairly well qualified to speak on this subject. For eight years I was president of a T.L.C. local and for seven years vice-president of the provincial federation of the T.L.C., so I have lived for many years in the domain of the Trades and Labour Congress. We all know that there has been a new appointment to the unemployment insurance commission. I have met this gentleman many times at conventions in the past and I know him very well. I have a lot of respect for him and know the kind of job he has done. He has served for a long period in his capacity as executive officer of the Trades and Labour Congress in Ontario.
I think hon. members must realize, however, that there has been a steady change in the thinking of the labour movement in this country. I also recall other prominent leaders in the old T.L.C. for whom I have great respect. Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted I would like to name two: Gordon Cushings and Bill Jenoveese. Both these gentlemen were devoted for many years to the trade union movement. Both these gentlemen belonged to the same line of thinking and the same old traditions as Mr. MacArthur. They subscribed to the same line

Unemployment Insurance Act of thought. But here is one difference, Mr. Chairman. Brother Cushing and Brother Jenoveese were trade unionists first and Conservatives second. They fought their battles at conventions and meetings wherever they were held, and in accordance with the democratic traditions of the trade union movement. If they lost their fight then they accepted the majority vote. Brother Mac-Arthur did not follow these traditions, possibly not by his own choice. He was more or less pushed aside by the new thought in the trade union movement.
I recall that at the last convention of the Ontario T.L.C. the subject of political education came up. It was split right down the middle 50-50, and the chairman had to cast the deciding vote. But each year there had been a marked difference in the trend of thought of the members of the trade union movement belonging to the T.L.C. in the province of Ontario. Next year who knows what would have happened. The next year there was a merger and the T.L.C. and the C.L.C. joined together. However, I would still like to pay my respects to Brother MacArthur for the outstanding work he has done in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Murdo William Martin: But the fact still remains, whether he agreed or not, the trade union movement did not see fit to carry him along in the new movement which is going on in future. This is really what we come down to. If the government sees fit to appoint Brother MacArthur to this new job, then that is their right. I personally do not think that the trade union movement in this country will be too badly off with his appointment. But the fact still remains that he was not the choice of or acceptable to labour today for this position.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: You mean he was not
Stanley Knowles' choice.


Murdo William Martin: The government has appointed Mr. MacArthur to the unemployment insurance commission. If they had appointed him as a government representative, that would be fine as they are entitled to do so, but they have appointed him as the labour representative of this province when in fact he no longer represents labour in this province. So the result is, assessing all the aspects of this question, that this government is trying to ram down a political appointment as a labour representative of this province by appointing him to the unemployment insurance commission.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted to say to the hon. member for Timmins, I understand he is still a member of

the federation of Ontario professional firefighters. I want to read to him two telegrams. Here is the context of one:
Your appointment of MacArthur shows exceptionally good judgment.
Walter Childs, President, Provincial Federation
of Ontario Professional Firefighters.
Another telegram reads:
Congratulations on your appointment of Mac-Arthur.
R. A. Gilbert, Secretary Treasurer, Provincial
Federation of Ontario Professional Firefighters.
Mr. Chairman, I just thought he might be
interested in knowing that his union supports this appointment.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to answer the hon. minister if I may. For eight years I belonged to the old T.L.C., the union which would not allow politics to enter the door. The fact is they would not let it in the front door but they had no objections to letting it slither under the back door. I recall the convention in 1955 of the Ontario firefighters in Fort William. I ran for president of the Ontario firefighters and a group headed by the Toronto local caucused against me on this sole question: How can we keep Martin out of the chair, because he is a C.C.F'er? when we have a Conservative government in Queens Park. Now if that is not politics what is? I submit, Mr. Chairman, that politics were every bit as active in the old T.L.C. as they are today in the C.L.C., but instead of bringing them in the front door, they were always slithered under the back door.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Starr thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-43, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


VETERANS REHABILITATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans
Affairs) moved that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. C-31 to amend the Veterans Rehabilitation Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: The resolution introducing
this bill was before the house on March 4. At that time I gave a review of the substance of the bill. It was sent to the committee on veterans affairs where it was given careful study, and it is again before the house at this time.

It is not my intention to make any lengthy remarks on this occasion but I am prepared to answer any questions on individual clauses.
On clause 1-Paragraph (f) of section 2 of the Veterans Rehabilitation Act repealed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do wish to say briefly
that this bill was of interest to veterans generally and particularly to the representatives of the Canadian Legion who appeared before the committee on veterans affairs. In dealing with this measure, some doubts were expressed and in this connection I wish to quote from page 198 of the minutes of the committee. These were the comments of Mr. Burgess, dominion president of the Canadian Legion:
Having carefully considered the terms of Bill C-31, we believe that none of the proposals contained therein tend in any way to reduce or abolish any benefits which are now or are likely to become available to veterans. The bill appears only to delete those sections of the veterans rehabilitation act which are either no longer applicable or which are provided for in other legislation or regulations.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Since the messenger from the other place has arrived, shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


THE ROYAL ASSENT
[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for the relief of Esther Mendelson Levy.
An act for the relief of Joseph Louis Charles Gabriel Gascon.
An act for the relief of Gerald Leblanc.
An act for the relief of Morris Gordon.
An act for the relief of Rita Lucia Palmier! Bellefleur.
An act for the relief of Alex Groot.
An act for the relief of Wauneta Langill Bourque.
An act for the relief of Pierrette Bertrand Suche-reault, otherwise known as Pierrette Bertrand Chussereault.
An act for the relief of Yolande Bosse Murhpy.
An act for the relief of Joseph Rolland Wright.
An act for the relief of Rosalie Jakes Reisinger.
Royal Assent
An act for the relief of Jacqueline Ann Rosenfeld Bernstein.
An act for the relief of Margit Elizabeth Mary Temke Malcolm.
An act for the relief of Celia Claire Kanisberg Dickman.
An act	for	the	relief	of	Constantin Deacur.An act	for	the	relief	of	Bernard Fourcade.
An act for the relief of Sylvia Mary Mefrige Makad.
An act for the relief of Marjorie Seymour Hammond Pearson.
An act for the relief of Helene Dagenais Roy.
An act for the relief of Violet Winnifred Kean Newton Armstrong.
An act	for	the	relief	of	Marlene Marie Korn.An act	for	the	relief	of	Elaine Shirley Dorfman
Moscovitch.
An act for the relief of Eric Alexander McConnell.
An act for the relief of Etta Rose Palevsky Lerman.
An act for the relief of Edward Bruce Bonneville.
An act for the relief of Pamela Margaret Clark Creber.
An act for the relief of June Bernice Rath O'Hanley.
An act for the relief of Michael Zuk.
An act for the relief of George Frederick Davies.
An act for the relief of Jan Robert!.
An act for the relief of Marie Marguerite Louise Leclerc Andrews.
An act for the relief of Lorlotte Juliane Selma Wilhelmine Gude Hirtreiter.
An act for the relief of Mary Alice Hadley Hutchison.
An act for the relief of Flore Crevier Plamondon.
An act for the relief of Karl Efraim Hill.
An act for the relief of Ina Charlotte Charleson Hyde.
An act for the relief of Gisela Antonie Anita Popp Sainitzer.
An act for the relief of Alfred Laliberte.
An act for the relief of Lawrence Crites.
An act for the relief of Marie Jeanne Madeleine Saint-Pierre Pare.
An act for the relief of Marie Louise Marguerite Therese Bernaquez Aubin.
An act for the relief of Jean Scott Bain Kunst.
An act for the relief of Josef Libich.
An act for the relief of Roger Desjardins.
An act for the relief of James Alfred Keelty.
An act for the relief of Agnes Forget Haymond.
An act for the relief of Maurice William Bell.
An act for the relief of Robert William Stamp.
An act for the relief of Tanya Burstein Yerzy.
An act for the relief of Yvonne Catherine Marie Vrancken Bruggemans.
An act for the relief of Mary Friedman Nussen-baum.
An act for the relief of Paul Rewoski.
An act for the relief of Tibor Kadar.
An act for the relief of Daniel Myer Glovinsky.
An act to incorporate The Evangelical Mennonite Conference.
An act to incorporate Foothills Pipe Lines Ltd.
An act respecting The Canadian General Council of The Boy Scouts Association.
An act respecting Co-operative Fire and Casualty Company.
An act to incorporate British Pacific Life Insurance Company.
An act to incorporate the Congregation of the Sisters of the Holy Family of Bordeaux in Canada.
3372	HOUSE OF
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the acting house leader what the business will be for tomorrow and perhaps he could indicate as well what the business will be for Thursday and Friday?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, the intention tomorrow is to carry on with Bills Nos. C-31 and C-32 in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and the items as set out by

the house leader last evening. We will continue those. On Thursday we will take up the estimates of the Department of Labour. Should we finish the Department of Labour we will go on with the Department of National Defence.
It being ten minutes after ten o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.



ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Dupuis: 1.	Have any requests been received by the government from individuals, associations or corporations to purchase or use a parcel of government owned land on the west bank of the Richelieu river at St. Jean, south of the Canadian National Railway bridge between St. Jean and Iberville?
2.	If so, from whom, and for what purpose?
3.	What action is being taken by the government?
Answer by:	Hon. Henri Courlemanche
(Secretary of State):
Department of Transport:
1.	Yes.
2.	Messrs. Robert and Bernard Goineau- for the installation of gasoline pumps and a repair shop for motor boats.
3.	A lease has been offered to the applicants who have not yet indicated acceptance of the offer.
Department of Public Works.
1.	Yes.
2.	Victoria Hosiery Mills Ltd., St. Jean, P.Q., is interested in acquiring this land for plant expansion.
3.	The matter is receiving consideration.


UNEMPLOYMENT REGISTRATIONS, PORT ARTHUR-FORT WILLIAM
Mr. Fisher: 1.	How many people were registered with the unemployment insurance commission in Port Arthur and in Fort William as seeking employment in the first week of the months from August to May, in the years 1957-58 and 1958-59?
Questions
2.	For each of these months what was the estimated total of the labour force at each of these
offices?
3.	For the above-named months and periods, what were the unemployed figures for the dominion bureau of statistics labour force survey in the areas covered by these offices or, alternately in the electoral districts of Port Arthur and Fort William?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):
1. The number of persons registered at national employment service offices in Fort William and Port Arthur on the first Thursday of the month is as follows:
1957- 1958	Fort William Port Arthur
August	
544	665September	
774	897October	
827	1,577November	
1,196	2,787December	
2,075	4,286January	
2,975	5,106February	
3,297	4,974March	
3,639	6,094April	
3,727	7,014May	
2,961	5,,8651958-	1959August	
1,340	2,041September	
1,453	2,156October	
1,577	2,385November	2,157	3,310December	
2,545	4,224January	
3,636	5,502February	
3,836	5,662March	
3,822	6,085April	
3,882	6,128May	
N/A	N/A
2 and 3. Monthly estimates of the labour force, and labour force components, are not available for areas of this size.

Wednesday, May 6, 1959


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on external affairs-Mr. White.