1961-02-03

Mr. Speaker:: Order. As today, February 3, is the anniversary of the tragic destruction of the original House of Commons by fire in 1916, which was accompanied by some loss of life, I have taken the liberty of reminding the house of that event by asking the Sergeant-at-Arms to bring into the house the mace which was used immediately after the fire when the house reassembled several days later.
This is the old, wooden mace made here by the workmen of parliament which was used until the beautiful new gold and silver mace which we now use daily was presented later, in 1916. The new mace and its presentation are described in Beauchesne at page 331. It is familiar to all hon. members. However, I thought perhaps all hon. members did not know that we had two maces, the second being the one which is on the table today and which served the house as the symbol of its authority during the interval between the fire in February and the presentation of the new mace in June of 1916.
If I have erred, the regular mace can be fetched, but I thought hon. members would permit the liberty which I have taken.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that the agricultural stabilization board has been authorized to stabilize the price of hogs to producers for the calendar year 1961 by a deficiency payment program similar to that in effect during 1960. The support price to producers has been established at $22.65 per hundredweight, national basis, which is approximately 83.5 per cent of the base or ten-year average price of $27.11 per hundredweight.
Under the deficiency payment method of support the board will determine at the end of the year the national average price to producers at which grade A hogs were sold, 90205-6-108J
and if this average price is less than the national support price of $22.65 per hundredweight then a deficiency payment equal to the difference will be made to each registered producer on a maximum of 100 grade A or B hogs.
The action taken by the government last year in placing hog support on a deficiency payment basis has had the anticipated effect of eliminating the previous surplus production and greatly improving hog prices. Over the past year prices to producers have averaged approximately $1 per hundredweight more than the national support price. A year ago the price for grade A hogs at Toronto was $23.65. It is now $29, and has been at or above that level for some time.
There is a very real danger that present prices may encourage a level of hog production which could lead to heavy supplies and much lower prices later this year. While some expansion in production can be accommodated, a warning must be sounded to producers against overexpansion at this time. This situation is widely recognized, and provincial departments of agriculture and others are calling attention to it.
Under these circumstances it is important that the government should not take any steps which could be interpreted as an encouragement to greater production. It has, therefore, been decided to retain the national support price for 1961 at the same level as that of the past year.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement by the minister is a repetition of the policy followed by the government last year in employing the principle of deficiency payments with regard to hogs rather than continuing them under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. What was said last year in this connection, of course, bears repetition now; that is, that the use of the deficiency payment principle will mean that the farmers will not know in advance the price which they will receive as they do with regard to products under the Agricultural Stabilization Act.


Mr. Harkness:: The hon. member does not understand it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a fact. I do understand it.

Banking and Commerce Committee BROADCASTING



PERSONNEL OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RADIO AND TELEVISION

Mr. John Palleil (Peel) moved:: That the special committee on broadcasting appointed February 1, 1961 be composed of Miss Aitken, Mrs. Casselman and Messrs. Allmark, Asselin, Baldwin, Bourbonnais, Brassard (Lapointe), Caron, Chown, Creaghan, Danforth, Drouin, Fairfield, Fisher, Forgie, Fortin, Keays, Lambert, Mac-Ewan, Macquarrie, McCleave, McGrath, McIntosh, McQuillan, Pickersgill, Pratt, Pugh, Richard (Ottawa East), Robichaud, Rouleau, Simpson, Smith (Calgary South), Smith (Simcoe North), Tremblay and Webb.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough, for Mr. While) moved:: That the first report of the standing committee on external affairs presented to the house on Wednesday, February 1, 1961, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenporl: That the first report of the standing committee on banking and commerce presented to the house on Wednesday, February 1, 1961, be now concurred in.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Oliawa Wesl):: Mr. Speaker, I have an objection to this motion that I should like to state. I shall try to state it briefly and remain relevant to the point at all times. I am quite concerned with the practice that is growing up of committee chairmen, when they present reports to the House of Commons, asking for leave to move concurrence the same day. The significance of that practice is that the report must then be read by the Clerk to the house. Depending on the length of the report, considerable time is taken up that otherwise would not be taken up if leave to proceed with the motion the same day was not asked.
Ordinarily the report is merely presented at the table and it then appears in Votes and Proceedings where all hon. members can read it. When concurrence is moved at a later stage the members have before them the report and know what is being dealt with. I venture the opinion that the vast majority of members have not the opportunity of hearing a report when concurrence is moved on the same day the report is presented.
Apparently the practice of asking for unanimous consent to move concurrence on the same day has now become standard. This is

a small point. I mention it because it is a procedure that takes considerable time of the house, and that time is lost from what would be more urgent business. I think it should be mentioned, and I should like particularly to draw it to the attention of the house leader for his consideration. There may be, of course, and undoubtedly there are, cases where it is necessary to ask for unanimous consent. There can be no objection if there is some reason for it; there is objection when there is no reason for asking for such unanimous consent.
My second point is that the motion now before the house asks for concurrence in a report of the standing committee on banking and commerce. The committee report contains three paragraphs; first, that the quorum be reduced from 20 to 15 members; second, that the committee be empowered to print its evidence and proceedings. As far as I am concerned there can be no objection to these two paragraphs.
The third paragraph asks that the committee be given leave to sit while the house is sitting. Now, in certain years this is the committee to which the decennial revision of the Bank Act is referred, and special circumstances may arise in those years; in other years there may be special items of business before the House of Commons which would be referred to this committee and which would require special consideration.
We had a particularly bad experience in this committee some three sessions ago when the estate tax legislation was referred to it. On that occasion the committee sat while the trade and commerce estimates were first being considered in the house, and it will be remembered that trade was quite an important matter at that time. Last year we also had considerable argument in the committee, which I do not wish to go into now, when the combines legislation was being considered. Many hon. members felt that they were being improperly denied their right to attend to their duties in the chamber because very important combines legislation was before the committee and the committee was needlessly sitting at the very hour the particular matters in which they were interested were being considered in the House of Commons. Again that is a matter about which there will be differences of opinion.
The committee can only be a body having delegated authority from the House of Commons, and when the committee has no occasion to seek this special power from the house I can see no reason why it should do so as a matter of course. It is rather interesting that the mover of the motion did not even find it necessary to state to hon. members what particular legislation he expected

to come before the committee which would require members to absent themselves from the House of Commons in order to attend committee sittings.
I would hope that we could revert to the practice of only asking for this power in cases where a committee is able to foresee the necessity of using such power. That situation undoubtedly arises in the committee on agriculture, in that it is necessary to bring officials of the wheat board and the board of grain commissioners before the committee. When that situation arises I think it meets with the wishes of all hon. members that these gentlemen, because of the nature and importance of their duties, should be heard in continuing sessions of the committee, and of necessity that involves the committee sitting while the house is also sitting.
A similar situation arises in the case of the special committee on railways which deals with the annual reports of Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines. Obviously there is a special need for that committee to ask for this extraordinary delegation of power from the house, but I see no reason for it in the case of the banking and commerce committee at this session of parliament.
I desired to place my objections on record so that hon. members might be fully aware of what is taking place.
As I understand the procedure, it is not possible for the house to amend a committee report. We cannot do that. I have no desire whatever to hold up the commencement of the work of the committee or to object to the other two parts of the committee report, but I propose to submit for the consideration of the house an amendment to the motion which I think is in order. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin):
That the motion be amended by inserting the words "paragraphs 1 and 2 of" after the word "that" and before the word "the".
The motion would then read:
That paragraphs 1 and 2 of the first report of the standing committee on banking and commerce be now concurred in.
I think that meets the practice of the house in that it is not open to the house to amend the committee report as such. Hon. members will see that if the amendment is carried the report will be concurred in with respect to the reduction of the quorum and the right of the committee to print its proceedings. The only thing that would be changed in any way is that the committee would not have leave to sit while the house is sitting but would have the right to bring that matter forward again at any time.


Mr. Speaker:: My impression is that the amendment proposed is in order, but in case
Banking and Commerce Committee any member may think otherwise I should like to refer to Beauchesne, fourth edition, citation 323, paragraph 2, before placing the amendment before the house. That citation reads as follows:
A report from a committee cannot be amended by the house, but it must be referred back to the committee.
That is the general principle, namely that it is not competent for the house to change a report or amend it. If it wishes to have a report altered, it must send it back to the committee with the request. Also in citation 320 the practice is reported in these words:
A report may be adopted only in part or an amendment imposing a condition to the motion for concurrence may be moved.
This amendment purports to adopt the report in part without altering the report, leaving the third paragraph in suspense.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, whether or not the motion is in order is a matter that I leave to Your Honour to decide. The point at issue is whether a certain committee of the house shall have the privilege of sitting while the house is in session. This is not a new matter. It has been raised in the house on several occasions in the past. We debated it at some length last year following suggestions by the hon. member for Ottawa West, who gave the example then that he gave this morning with regard to some difficulty in 1959 over attendance in the house affecting the attendance in committees.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the page number, please?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Page 1434 of Hansard of February 25, 1960. Several times during last session the question of committees sitting while the house was in session was raised, as it had been raised in 1959 and in 1958, and we considered the matter rather carefully. On that occasion I pointed out that the practice is not new. It has been in existence in the House of Commons for many years. 1 gave exact references to the session of 1956 when hon. members opposite were on the treasury benches, and compared that record with ours in 1959. I pointed out that in 1956 152 days were devoted to the business of the session, and that on 52 of those days committees were meeting while the house was in session. I pointed out that in 1959, when we formed the government, there were 127 sitting days of the session and that on 55 of those days committees of the house met while the house was in session. I gave those examples covering two regimes in order to indicate that there was nothing new in the

Banking and Commerce Committee practice of asking the permission of the house for committees to sit while the house was in session.
All of us who have served on committees -and everybody here has had that experience now-deplore the necessity of attending committee meetings when the house is in session, when they would perhaps prefer to be in the house in order to listen to or participate in the debates that are taking place. The pressure of business over the years has indicated that it is essential to give this power to the committees, which can be exercised with discretion. It is up to the committees themselves to determine on what occasions they will hold their meetings while the house is in session.
The hon. member for Ottawa West quite fairly pointed out that there were instances- and he gave instances such as the wheat board, the board of grain commissioners, railway officials of the C.N.R. and officials of T.C.A.-when officials were called to appear before committees, and in order not to keep busy people in the city for several days it has been found appropriate to hold committee meetings morning, afternoon and evening, if necessary, in order to complete the examination of witnesses. That happens with other committees as well. The house in its wisdom over the years has decided that the practice of holding committee meetings while the house is in session is one that cannot be easily avoided.
The hon. member for Ottawa West implies that if a committee wishes this additional privilege, it should come back to the house later in the session and ask for it. However, that procedure would involve more delay- and unnecessary delay-because I am sure that if any committee not having the power to sit while the house is in session came back to the house and asked for that power, we should be obliged in reason to accede to that request. We might just as well do it at the start of the session when the committees are being set up. It is open to any member of the opposition who is a member of a committee to raise his objection in that committee if a meeting of the committee is called at what in his opinion seems to be an inappro-propriate time. That has been the practice over the years. I see no reason for changing it.
The arguments advanced this morning by the hon. member for Ottawa West are not dissimilar to those advanced in the past. Yet in view of the figures I have given I think it is obvious that in ordinary sessions such as those in 1956 and 1959-and by "ordinary" I mean in the sense of commencing early in the year and carrying on to midsummer- the actual number of days when committees

meet while the house is in session is about one third of the total. I am not sure of the figures for last year.
However, with the discussion that we had a year ago, I think the committee chairmen and the committee members are fully aware of the situation, and there is no question about the experience of the house now with regard to committee work. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we would not be able to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member.


Mr. M. W. Marlin (Timmins):: As the minister has pointed out, Mr. Speaker, this is not the first occasion on which this disagreement has arisen in this house. I do not know whether we are gaining ground or losing ground. I notice that, as the minister stated, the matter was raised on February 25 last year. Here we are again, off to a blanket start, and it is now being raised on February 3. I therefore do not really know whether we have gained a month or lost a month. However, apparently we find ourselves in the same situation as that in which we found ourselves not only last session but in previous sessions as well.
The minister pointed out that the matter is not a new one, and he went back to previous administrations to prove his point. I should like to point out to the minister that, while it may be nothing new, certainly in the opinion of this party, if something is bad that was carried on by a previous administration, there is no reason why it should be carried on under the present one.
I think the dispute is a simple one. It is a question of whether permission should be granted to these committees to sit while the house is sitting, when it becomes necessary to do so, or whether blanket approval should be given at the start of the session. We are certainly consistent in our view on this matter. We opposed this procedure previously. We do not think it is right or proper that it should be done at this time. We do not think it is fair to the members. We are certainly pleased to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Ottawa West. I might say that we are glad to note that, contrary to the situation two sessions ago, the Liberals are now in full agreement with this group.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: There is just one point I should like to add, and it is this. The amendment deals with one committee and one committee alone. The remarks of the house leader dealt with the over-all position and the practice that had grown up in the past in all committees. The point that we on this side of the house are making and have made is that for this particular committee there is certainly no necessity at

this time of the session to sit while the house is sitting. That consideration was pointed out to the chairman and the members of that committee when this organization meeting took place, for some of the reasons that were given by the hon. member for Ottawa West. However, those reasons did not commend themselves to the committee.
The only point at issue at the moment is the question of necessity. I think there is no necessity at this time of the session for this committee to take these extraordinary powers. There are exceptions in certain of the committees that have been mentioned by the hon. member for Ottawa West and the house leader, such as for example the committee on railways, air lines and shipping, because there the officials come and must give their evidence over a period of days. But certainly that consideration does not apply to this committee at all. If it did; if there were an extraordinary case which I have not seen during most of the years I have been here, surely the committee could seek the power of the house at the time. For that reason it seems to me that the amendment is one which should commend itself to the house.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: There is one point in connection with this matter that I think perhaps requires some airing and it relates, if we are dealing with past attendance in committees and attendance in the house, to the most active members in both places. For instance, in 1959 the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who we all know is extraordinarily active in the house, also had by far the highest record with regard to attendance and activities in committees in 1959 as compared with all the rest of the Liberals put together. But I think other hon. members are affected, such as the hon. member for Carleton, who is most active. His record in committees and in the house shows that he is one of the most active members. The hon. member for Calgary South is another whose attendance in committees and in the house shows that he was one of the most active. I refrain from mentioning statistical information relating to those of us in the C.C.F., perhaps for reasons of modesty.
In any event, I think this indicates that having committees sit while the house is sitting denies to the most active members of the house the right to participate fully in our affairs. I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the hon. member for Calgary South are cases in point. Perhaps this procedure merely does nothing but cater to a degree to the laziness of some of us who want to get out of the full performance of
Banking and Commerce Committee our duties in the house. I could perhaps understand the desire of this particular committee to sit while the house is sitting if it was doing something or if it was engaged in some important activity in this particular session, or if there was any indication given as to what its activities might be. In this regard I might say that perhaps one of such matters might be the drug industry and the pharmaceutical houses.


Mr. Speaker:: That matter is not at issue.


Frank Howard: This is an important matter. This consideration would perhaps be some justification for this committee functioning as desired by their report. Apart from that, however, I think we have no other course but to be consistent and protect members like the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the hon. member for Carleton, just to mention two, and also the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, who is another who is most active in committees and in the house. It is to protect their activities and in order to give them every opportunity to participate fully this session, as they did in other sessions, and not really to cater to the laziness on the part of some members and their inclination to shirk their responsibilities.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to make any comment on this motion, but in view of some of the things that have been said I thought it might be well to point out that when the meeting of the committee took place there was plenty of opportunity for discussion of this matter, and the house might be interested to know there were only two members of the Liberal-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member not to deal with proceedings in the committee, because that would be irregular in debating the report.


Mr. Morton:: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I did not want to offend the rule, but only to say that neither of the hon. members who were so vocal just now was present to voice his objections, worthy as they may be.
I know many of us in this committee are, as the hon. member for Ottawa West mentioned, somewhat freshmen. I am not the chairman of the committee; I am only presenting this on behalf of the chairman. But I think we have been here long enough to know that there are occasions when the business of the committees needs to be expedited; and we have been here long enough to know how the former regime carried on its proceedings. I do not think there has been any great injustice in the carrying out of the proceedings of these committees.

Banking and Commerce Committee
Last year we were very careful to try to avoid unnecessarily sitting while the house was in session. Perhaps many of the difficulties that arose last year were not so much because this particular committee was sitting during the time the house was sitting, but because of the number of committees. Perhaps there should have been greater co-ordination between the various committees when sitting.
I suggest that there are occasions when we bring witnesses from out of town, and we might find in the morning that we are not able to complete their testimony. It is then too late to ask permission to sit during the rest of that day and we find ourselves having to hold those witnesses over. It seems to me only good business to accept this provision, in view of that difficulty which is foreseen. This would prevent us being put in an embarrassing position.
I would urge that the house accept the motion as presented. Although I am not the chairman of the committee I can undertake, as a member of the committee, to see that we do not abuse the privilege that is given to us.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am sure the hon. gentleman would not wish to leave the impression that those who were at the committee meeting did not protest. As the hon. member knows, I asked for the vote and I took exactly the same view as the hon. member for Ottawa West.


Murray Douglas Morton: Mr. Speaker, had I been able to continue I would have been able to clear the hon. member for Laurier, because he did raise the question. But I did temper my remarks by saying that those who were most vocal this morning were not present.


Mr.   Mc@: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the mover of the motion. Can he advise the house what business he expects will be referred to this committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question would not be proper, because it is not proper to discuss the business which will be referred to the committee on this particular motion, which it is proposed should now be amended as follows:
Moved by Mr. Mcllraith, seconded by Mr. Martin:
That the motion be amended by inserting the words "paragraphs one and two of" after the word "that" and before the word "the".
The motion would then read:
That paragraphs one and two of the first report of the standing committee on banking and commerce be now concurred in.


Is the house ready for the question? The question is the following:
Mr. Morton, seconded by Mr. Cathers, moves that the first report of the standing committee on banking and commerce presented to the house on Wednesday, February 1, 1961, be now concurred in.
In amendment thereto, Mr. Mcllraith, seconded by Mr. Martin, moves that the motion be amended by inserting the words "paragraphs one and two of" after the word "that" and before the word "the".
The motion would then read:
That paragraphs one and two of the first report of the standing committee on banking and commerce be now concurred in.
The question is on the amendment. Those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Mr. Pickersgill:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost on division. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried, on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, may I make a request of the house. It is that the house give unanimous consent to reverting to motions at, say, 5.45 o'clock this afternoon in order that I may make a statement on a matter that I think can more properly be made after the close of business for the day.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr..
Speaker, I would like to point out to the minister that 5.45 is during the private members' hour. Does the minister still wish to-do it at that time?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I think we are all aware of that fact. This, matter will only take about ten minutes and, as I have indicated, the statement is of a nature that I think will be much more appropriately made after the close of business.


Mr. Speaker:: So that the minister may have some certainty as to the course he is to-

follow, is the house prepared to give him unanimous consent to revert to motions at 5.45 o'clock today?
Some hon. Members; Agreed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinily):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister in a position to make any statement following the recent meeting of the Canadian-United States permanent joint defence board, which was held aboard H.M.C.S. Bonaventure'!


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this board was set up during the last world war, and meets three or four times a year. It has not been the practice to make statements concerning the business discussed at these meetings.



DISARMAMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Is he in a position to say what is Canada's attitude regarding the reported suggestion that when Prime Minister Macmillan visits the United States early in April he will take with him a detailed commonwealth disarmament plan? Is the Prime Minister in a position to state whether this is a fact and, if it is, what is the view of the Canadian government in connection with this matter?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: The hon. gentleman has sent me the clippings to which he referred. I think that article reveals a lack of appreciation of the nature of a commonwealth prime ministers' conference. The conference meets for the purpose of the exchange of ideas, not for the determination of policy. Indeed, each of the nations of the commonwealth determines its policies for itself. I would fear greatly if at any time the prime ministers' conference were to arrive at the conclusion that an announcement of a united policy should be made. The danger of so doing would be to create internationally a concept of the commonwealth as an operative bloc.
Having said that, may I add that so far as disarmament is concerned all the nations of the commonwealth are united in their desire to achieve disarmament to the end that the load of expenditures which today rests on all nations may be relieved and international tension may be diminished.
Inquiries of the Ministry
In so far as the conference is concerned, there have been exchanges of views on disarmament, and the Canadian government would like to see included in these exchanges and consultations consideration of the role of the middle and smaller powers in disarmament. Canada, as all hon. gentlemen know, under the vital leadership of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, has taken the lead in the United Nations and in the ten nation committee on disarmament.
The house will recall that the Canadian disarmament resolution, which the Canadian delegation will pursue when the United Nations general assembly resumes in March, had two main objectives; to make provision for an active role for the middle and smaller countries in disarmament within the United Nations, and to bring about a resumption of disarmament negotiations.
In so far as the objective of attaining disarmament is concerned, all the nations of the commonwealth are in agreement, but I would make very clear that each nation speaks for itself. None of the nations can speak for the others on any matter connected with the individual responsibility and independence of the nations composing the commonwealth.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister inform the house when we might expect the report of the restrictive trade practices commission in connection with the pricing policies of certain pharmaceutical houses?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the director that he expects to be in a position to place his statement of evidence before the commission before the end of this month. It will be necessary for the commission to contact all interested parties for the purpose of obtaining their submissions with respect to the material submitted by the director. At this stage, therefore, the time factor is almost impossible to assess, since a great deal depends on the nature and extent of the public response.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the right hon. Prime Minister. May I ask the right hon. gentleman, in view of the statement today by Premier Manning of Alberta that he would be prepared to give full provincial support to any federal investigation in the field of pricing policies of
1708	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry pharmaceutical houses, whether the Prime Minister would take under consideration whether this is a subject matter which might well be studied by the banking and commerce committee?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am in a position to give an answer to that question at the moment. The determination of what the banking and commerce committee will look into is naturally within the jurisdiction of that committee and the house.



PULP AND PAPER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: May I ask
the Minister of Justice if his officials in the combines investigation branch have under surveillance the much-rumoured mergers in the pulp and paper industry which have been dominating the financial pages of the press for the last ten or 12 days?


Edmund Davie Fulton: am certain these reports would have been drawn to the attention of the director, and that he would have the matter under observation.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE FEDERAL PROPOSALS RESPECTING TAX SHARING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to place definite proposals before the federal-provincial conference on tax sharing when that conference resumes its sittings.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, at the last meeting, as the hon. gentleman knows, I placed suggestions before the conference for the consideration of the provincial premiers, to the end that none of them would contend that they had not had definite proposals placed before them. At the meeting which is to be convened later this year the government of Canada will place before the premiers the proposals of the federal government based on discussions and considerations that have taken place at previous meetings.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Is it the intention of the government to follow the precedent established by Mr. St. Laurent in 1956, that is, of making that proposal public as soon as it has been 

submitted to the premiers, in advance of the conference, so there will be ample opportunity for study?


John George Diefenbaker: I made it very clear in the answer I just gave that the proposals will be submitted to the conference. Whatever course may have been adopted by my predecessor as prime minister, while always entitled to respect, of course does not in any way bind the present government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the
Prime Minister say whether the suggested date is acceptable to all the provinces? I have seen some intimation that it is not convenient for the premier of Nova Scotia.


John George Diefenbaker: Speaking from memory, I think four of the provinces have agreed that the conference should take place in February. No one has said it should not. The premier of British Columbia would find it more convenient if it were held in March, but has expressed himself as agreeable if the majority decide on the February date. Up to the present time I have not heard from the premier of Quebec.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask the hon. gentleman whether he saw a delegation this morning from professional Sky-Caps Incorporated concerning the termination of their services at Dorval airport. What decision did the minister take with reference to their representations concerning the order in council which was passed recently and which terminates their services at midnight tonight?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Yes, I saw the delegation, and they presented a brief. Unfortunately I have not had time to study the brief properly yet, but my department is considering the matter very closely.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask whether the minister or his officials have given consideration to the fact that the order in council promulgating the new regulations may well be an infringement upon property and civil rights, as well as contrary to the declarations in the bill of rights?


Léon Balcer: The whole matter is under very close scrutiny. My officials are going into the question.



REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: I wonder if I may direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Last Wednesday, announcing the government's national oil policy, I believe he stated the government would take further steps to ensure the success of this policy in the event the targets mentioned were not reached. These included the proclamation of section 87 of the National Energy Board Act. May I ask the minister, in the event that these targets are not reached, whether he could advise the house at what point the government would be prepared to introduce the mandatory quotas under the energy board act, section 87?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I think I can best answer the hon. member's question by repeating the eighth paragraph of the statement on oil policy I read in the house last Wednesday, which is as follows:
The government has instructed the national energy board to evaluate the contribution of individual companies to the general efforts of the industry, as well as to report periodically on the progress of the program. If this progress suggests that voluntary efforts are not producing the results anticipated, then the government will take whatever further steps the circumstances may require to ensure the success of its policy, including the proclamation of section 87 of the National Energy Board Act, which provides for the regulation of imports and exports of oil.
I can assure the hon. member and other hon. members that if it becomes evident that satisfactory progress is not being made in achieving the desired levels of production, then the government will take such steps as may be necessary to implement the policy which I outlined in the house on Wednesday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to raise a point of order in respect to the question which has just been asked and answered. Is it to be taken as a precedent that from now on hypothetical questions will be answered by the government?


Mr. Speaker:: It did occur to me that the question was hypothetical, but I came to the conclusion that the hon. member was asking for a statement on present policy even though the question relates to a future situation, and I did not object. The hon. member certainly has a point, but each case stands on its own feet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could raise another point of order with respect to the statement Your Honour has just made. Is it
Inquiries of the Ministry now to be taken as a precedent that requests for statements of government policy will now be allowed and may be directed to ministers?


Mr. Speaker:: This was a question asking for clarification of announced policy, but the hon. member may use the precedent as well as he can.



INQUIRY AS TO SHIPMENTS THROUGH PRINCE RUPERT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, as the temporary substitute for the agricultural expert of the C.C.F. may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, and ask whether he has received a telegram from the mayor of Prince Rupert regarding shipments of grain to China through the government elevators at Prince Rupert. Can the minister indicate what volume will be shipped through that port and over what period of time?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I received a wire from the mayor of Prince Rupert. The hon. member for Skeena was kind enough to send me a copy of his question. I cannot give actual volumes, but I would refer the hon. gentleman to my statement in the house yesterday as reported at page 1649 of Hansard, where I said:
I am informed that when all commitments are considered the Pacific coast ports will be utilized to full grain capacity until next August-



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Does the minister entertain any continuing hope of being able to sell some CL-44 aircraft to the United States government in exchange for some F-101 fighters?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I am always of an optimistic temperament.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say when this matter might be finalized one way or the other, in view of its great importance to the Canadian aircraft industry and the nation generally?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker.
1710	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
HEALTH AND WELFARE	IMMIGRATION



BRITISH COLUMBIA


Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, on January 24 the hon. member for Vancouver East asked me to comment on a report that the province of British Columbia will no longer supply medical aid to certain persons drawing welfare benefits, claiming that the decision was necessary because the federal government does not share the cost of this part of its welfare operations.
While I regret that the provincial authorities have seen fit to take this action, I cannot see how it can be claimed that any decision at this level of government has made the step necessary. Various provinces have programs providing medical services of one sort or another for particular groups of welfare recipients. These programs were developed by the provincial governments who alone decided the scope of the medical services to be available. My department has never shared the costs involved, though substantial federal payments in related fields help to ease provincial expenditures.
I might point out that the government's concern over the proper approach to the whole question of medical care is shown by the proposed establishment of a royal commission on this subject, as announced last month by the Prime Minister.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY REPORTED U.S. ORDER RESPECTING AID SHIPMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Waller Pitman (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of External Affairs arising from a news item in this morning's Globe and Mail to the effect that a storm of protest was sweeping the great lakes yesterday because of a United States government order which could divert hundreds of thousands of tons of cargo from the St. Lawence seaway and perhaps damage the prospects of paying for the seaway out of revenue. The ruling was made by the International Co-operative Administration, a United States government agency that channels foreign aid, which ruled that effective February 1, freight will be paid only on aid cargoes moving in United States ships. Would the minister comment on this?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice.



RADIO AND TELEVISION TECHNICIANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is in a position to answer the question I asked yesterday.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I have not yet received the report.



WAYS AND MEANS

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

[Stage Direction]
Resolved that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Customs Tariff and to provide:
1.	That the said act be amended by adding thereto immediately after section 2 thereof the following section:
"2A. (1) For the purposes of this act, goods shall be deemed to be of a "class or kind" made or produced in Canada if
(a)	in the case of goods other than goods custom-made to specifications, goods of approximately the same class or kind are made or produced in Canada; and
(b)	in the case of goods custom-made to specifications adequate facilities exist in Canada for the economic production of such goods within a reasonable period of time.
(2)	Notwithstanding subsection (1), goods other than goods custom-made to specifications shall be deemed not to be of a class or kind made or produced in Canada unless at least ten per cent of the normal Canadian consumption of goods of the same or approximately the same class or kind are made or produced in Canada.
(3)	The decision of the minister shall be final with respect to the following matters:
(a)	the normal Canadian consumption of the goods described in subsection (2), and
(b)	whether goods are custom-made to specifications, and whether adequate facilities exist in Canada for the economic production of such goods within a reasonable period of time."
2.	That subsections (9) and (10) of section 6 of the said act be repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(9) For the purposes of this act, notwithstanding section 2A, goods may be deemed to be of a class or kind not made or produced in Canada where similar goods made or produced in Canada are not offered for sale to the ordinary agencies of wholesale or retail distribution or are not offered to all purchasers on equal terms under like conditions, having regard to the custom and usage of trade."
3.	That subsection (4) of section 6A of the said act be repealed.
4.	That any enactment founded upon this resolution shall be deemed to have come into force on the 21st day of December, 1960, and to have applied to all goods mentioned therein 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.
Walter George Pitman: Mr. Chairman, a well-known volume on Canadian commercial relations has stated that although most tariffs are highly complex the Canadian tariff has been described by the chairman of the tariff board as "easily one of the most complicated in the world." Indeed, a really comprehensive knowledge of all the facets of the Canadain tariff is the work of a lifetime.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. Would hon. members please lower their voices when leaving the chamber. It is very difficult to hear the hon. member who has the floor.


Walter George Pitman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Because of the complexity of this matter my remarks will be very brief. We have been told that this amendment will mean no higher tariffs but is simply a matter of reclassification where-to use the words of the minister -erosion has taken place in the classification of goods of a class or kind made in Canada. We have been told it will affect some 70 items involving free entry or reduced rates of duty or drawback in respect of specified types of goods when of a class or kind not made or produced in Canada.
I believe that some of the confusion which has resulted has arisen from words that have been placed on Hansard during the debate. We have been told that this is not a high tariff policy, but the hon. member for Stormont in his speech as reported at page 1685 of Hansard commended the minister for introducing-
-this present constructive measure now being brought in to assist and protect the hard beset manufacturers in this country-
If this is not a high tariff measure, and if there is no intention on the part of the government to undertake high tariff policies or a trend toward such policies, how can this measure-and I quote the hon. member's words once again-
-assist and protect the hard beset manufacturers in this country-
The hon. member in the course of his remarks went on to say that there will be no changes in GATT arrangements or in trade agreements with other countries. I suggest that the proposed amendment, though not one which may immediately bring about higher tariff policies, is none the less an open door toward future higher tariffs. As we have seen, there are two methods of determining tariff classification relating to whether goods are of a class or kind made in Canada. The first is to determine whether dumping duties are applicable; the other is to determine the tariff classification for goods which are of a class or kind made in Canada. Surely this proposed legislation will change the entire emphasis and open the door to future higher tariff
Customs Tariff
policies. Will it not mean that the same rules and much wider rules, will apply for purposes of the tariff classification as well as the dumping provision?
I think this is a most interesting innovation. If the government has no intention of raising tariffs, then this should be stated very definitely and some negation of the remarks made by several hon. members in this committee should be made. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate with regard to custom-made specifications, no Canadian production is necessary. The only question is whether "adequate facilities exist" for the economic production of goods "within a reasonable length of time." However, the question arises, what are "adequate facilities"; and what is "a reasonable length of time". Indeed, what is "economic production"? Does it contemplate a level of costs above that which would be competitive with the cost of imported goods? Certainly it must. But how high?
In his speech, especially in his remarks in reply to the hon. member for Laurier, the Minister of Finance indicated a belief that Canadian labour was in the vanguard for higher tariffs; that it was beating the drum or sounding the trumpet for higher tariffs. This is an entirely erroneous concept, and I should like to place on Hansard a statement from the very brief which was placed in the hands of the government yesterday morning with respect to tariffs. I shall read a very short quotation which will indicate the position of organized labour and indeed unorganized labour on this matter of tariffs;
Where the industry is dying, or seriously ill, because of import competition, the situation is different. The obvious, simple, easy (deceptively easy) solution to the problem is to slap on a quota or a tariff stiff enough to stop the imports or reduce them to negligible proportions. There are times when this may be the only thing to do, at least temporarily.
Here is the long term policy:
But as a general, permanent policy for dealing with unemployment arising from import competition, this simple, easy policy has several serious defects.
The next two or three pages of the brief are concerned with the defects of the higher tariff policy. This statement has particular relation to the remarks made by the hon. member for Laurier-I do not know why I should be defending the hon. member-in regard to the textile workers, who are looked upon as probably the foremost exponents of tariff increases. Statements made in this house in that regard are completely erroneous. I am quoting from the latest official publication of

Customs Tariff
the textile workers. It is an open letter to the Globe and Mail in answer to an editorial, and it reads in part:
For these and other fundamental reasons we have rejected the traditional laissez-faire demand for wage reductions and tariff Increases in favour of increased international trade on a planned basis.
In my remarks I do want to indicate that the Minister of Finance has no fear from labour in this country if the policy of this government is one of lowering tariffs. Labour does not want a "beggar thy neighbour" policy. Labour does not want to export unemployment to some other country or to some other part of this country. We realize that secondary industry produces more of our gross national product than any other sector of the economy; that it provides more employment. But I think secondary industry is coming to realize that higher tariffs, which this amendment appears to be advocating, if the remarks of the hon. member for Stormont are to be given any credence, are a very fallacious argument for increasing prosperity in this nation.
Possibly there were times in the past when a higher tariff policy had some force, and possibly that was true of the national policy of the nineteenth century when Canada found herself beside the large, expanding and very aggressive industrial economy of the United States, so in a sense low tariffs were a serious disadvantage to an infant industry economy. But an infant industry economy argument no longer holds very much water in this country. The position of this group is that the trend or the emphasis which in the long run will direct our Canadian economy toward the establishment of a world market -eventually, not immediately-is the only thing which can be regarded as legitimate in this twentieth century.
The Minister of Finance has indicated that he is concerned with the dumping which is being carried on by other nations. Indeed, this is a serious problem; but I think we should never forget that what we call dumping may be regarded as a legitimate trade practice of the nation which happens to be on the other side of the fence. There is no reason why our use of an emotionally charged word like "dumping" should be an excuse for putting up tariffs which will create inefficient industry by raising the price of machinery or by permitting higher prices, because I think the Canadian public realizes that the consuming public pays for tariffs in a straightforward way just as it pays income taxes every April. There is virtually no difference, except that you can tell a little easier in the former case just where the money is going and where it is coming from.

In looking at this amendment I think we could very well recognize other methods by which we can create more stability and more prosperity in our secondary industry. One way would be by capital assistance on an enlightened taxation system to take the place of this emphasis on higher tariffs. Possibly the setting up of export and import boards would be a great help, and under some kind of a plan we could determine what particular industries do have a place in our Canadian economy, where the raw products and skilled workers are available, and so on. This, I think, would receive the support of the Canadian people.
As I have stated and must repeat in conclusion, the trend must be toward a world economy, a lowering of tariffs and other barriers and an increase in the prosperity of other parts of the world. The emphasis and trend which appear in this particular amendment must be reversed if Canada is to play its part both politically and economically in the world of the twentieth century.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the hon. member for Peterborough, especially in the last few minutes, it seems to me there was no necessity for him appearing as a New party candidate. He has been talking Liberalism and nothing but Liberalism, and I commend him for doing so.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: The hon. gentleman adopts his words completely, then?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman makes his own speeches except when he finds it useful to refer to the previous utterances of the Minister of Finance, which sometimes express his thoughts better than his own, and this is going to be one of those occasions. Last night the Minister of Finance attempted to sum up what was said at some greater length by his colleague the Minister of National Revenue about this question of appeals. His words will be found at page 1697 of Hansard, in the first full paragraph, and I read as follows:
On this matter of the right of appeal; this subject, with great respect, has been quite misapprehended. The suggestion is that there has been some narrowing of the effective right of appeal. I submit there is no effective narrowing of the right of appeal contemplated by this legislation.
There is no misapprehension about this matter, and the mere fact that the Minister of Finance says there is does not make it so. As I pointed out last night, it is perfectly clear, to deal only with shelf goods first, that up to now there has been the right of appeal on all questions of fact. Now parliament is being asked to deny the right of appeal on what is quite obviously the most important

of the questions of fact. In other words the taxpayer, or any other party who considered himself aggrieved, formerly could go to the tariff board and have an adjudication, if he appealed on any of those points. He is now to be denied the right of appeal with respect to the normal Canadian consumption.
We were given a very specious argument by the Minister of National Revenue last night that this was a purely statistical matter. If that were true, sir, it seems to me that, if it is a mere matter of fact it should not be excluded from determination by any appeal. The tariff board should not be prevented from looking at this fact and from looking at the source of what is an alleged fact. The tariff board is an independent tribunal, or i s supposed to be, and I think it always has been. Its judgments on points of law are appealable to the courts and public argument can be made before the tariff board, so that the public is let in.
What we are being asked to do in this resolution is to approve the introduction of a bill which will take away from the tariff board altogether that right of appeal on the most important single matter of fact. By doing so this will make a complete farce of any appeal, because the Minister of National Revenue is now going to be able to say finally, without having to produce any facts in support thereof-it is just his word that will determine this-what the normal Canadian consumption is; he can put that at any figure he likes, and that is it. That is what parliament is being asked to say, that the minister may state that in his opinion the normal consumption is such and such and that is it, and all you can then ask the tariff board to decide is whether 10 per cent of that quantity is produced in Canada.
The 10 per cent part is a mathematical operation but the first part, the vital part on which all the rest depends, is to be taken away from appeal. Why? I can follow both ministers when they say they do not like the way in which the courts have, as they say, narrowed the scope of the made in Canada provision. If so, let them come in here honestly and redefine that, but do not take away the right of appeal. I do not even approve of their redefining of it, but that is a separate matter. I am dealing now with this denial of the right of appeal in the most important single element of the whole thing.
Why are they doing this? I ask myself, why are they saying that the tariff board cannot look at this, the most important single element of all, in its adjudication? Why not? One can only suppose that the government has some reason for this, and some reason other than the snide observations made by the Minister of Finance about the tariff board
Customs Tariff
and the courts in which he described their judgments as an erosion. "Erosion" is not a word that lawyers generally apply to judgments of the courts.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Are you speaking as a lawyer now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The courts are supposed to interpret the law, and as a matter of fact on balance I would rather have the courts interpret the law for me than the Minister of Finance or even the Minister of National Revenue, for whose objectivity I have somewhat more regard than I have for that of the Minister of Finance. But I think this is a position in which no parliament should ever put any minister unless there is absolutely no other course. The Minister of National Revenue has said there is nothing new about this. He has said that he has power now under the Customs Act. He referred to the power to determine valuation for duty purposes under the dumping laws where there is no prescribed method applicable to the case. That is true, and it is quite obvious why it is true. Parliament has laid down a lot of tests, and if none of these tests apply and somebody still wants to import the goods, the minister may decide what the value is. That occurs when there is no criterion at all, but this is a very residual matter and not an unreasonable provision in the circumstances.
But here we are applying this provision to the whole range of commodities that may become subject to the made in Canada provision. In the case of certain goods that are free under the tariff it would not apply of course, and that is also true of certain cases where the duties are absolutely fixed. But having regard to the vast range of our trade, why does the government think the minister should be given the power to decide this thing finally? I grant, of course, that the minister and his officials have to determine all these things in the first instance. That is the only way you can carry on administration, and anybody who has any experience with government knows that.
What we are objecting to more than anything else in this resolution, though we object to almost everything in it, is this eagerness to place arbitrary power in the hands of a single minister. Six years ago the Minister of Finance and other members who now occupy the treasury benches were very eloquent in their objections to certain arbitrary powers which they suggested the government of that day was asking to have conferred for an indefinite period upon the then minister of defence production. Under that legislation those powers could only be exercised at a time of the gravest national peril,

Customs Tariff
and notwithstanding the argument that was put up at that time any lawyer worth his salt knows that if those powers had been exercised at a time other than one of grave national - peril it would have been possible to take a case into the courts and challenge the government in that regard.
But here we are being asked to give a single minister the power to determine at his discretion, without appeal, something which is supposed to be a matter of fact in the normal course of the operation of our trade. There must be some reason for it. It is not just because it would be more convenient. The hon. member for Greenwood has often and eloquently spoken in the house about the question of discretion. He knows, as I know-I am not sure that many other members on the treasury benches remember these things, but he does-that the classic argument for discretion is speed and convenience. I think one can argue that there will be no additional speed or convenience here at all, but that is not the issue. The issue is that this is a power of final determination which it was not thought necessary before to give to the minister. Why are we being asked to do so now?
If I were of a suspicious mind instead of being the naive and innocent person I am, I would suspect that the reason the government is doing this is that an election is approaching and they feel that if there were an unscrupulous minister he could make these determinations in such a way as to give protection in a lot of cases where 10 per cent of the normal consumption is not being produced in Canada at all. All the minister needs to do under this law is to fix the amount of the normal consumption low enough so that whatever little production there may be in Canada is 10 per cent, and then the higher duty applies. It just makes a mockery of any determination, and I would think that any minister who has any regard for our constitutional system, any regard for the courts, any regard for parliament, would not be seeking, without any excuse except that it would be easier or that it is merely statistical, to have this power of life and death over a large part of the business of the country all the time. Surely the practice that wherever it is possible to do so there should be in the subject the power of appealing to a tribunal not under the thumb of the executive is a basic principle of our whole constitution.
Speaking for myself, sir, and I think I can also speak for everybody else over here, I will not be impressed in the slightest degree by any alleged precedents for this action even if they were Liberal precedents. Since they came into office in 1957 hon. gentlemen

opposite, no matter what they do, say "Well, you used to do it". I would remind them and the people of the country that these hon. gentlemen, in making their appeal to the electors said they would change all that and restore the rights of parliament-that is what they said-which they said had been eroded by the Liberals. Now they have produced the very precedents they condemned previously in order to support far more thoroughgoing invasions than anything that was ever proposed in peacetime by the Liberal government.
It is quite true that the powers that were asked for by the government in 1955 under the Defence Production Act were extraordinary powers to which any reasonable person would take objection in normal times, but they were only asked for not in normal times but to meet a critical emergency at a time when the state of the world was, as it still is, very much disturbed.
Whether that case was justified or whether it was not justified, here we are dealing with our normal trade; and the government, through this resolution and the bill to be founded upon it, is seeking to take away a right of appeal which has up to now existed, or to take away an element in that right of appeal which would make the rest of the appeal a complete mockery. The moment the minister decides what the normal consumption is in Canada, everything else flows from it as a mathematical formula.
It would appear to me a great deal simpler and a great deal easier to determine what the production was in Canada. If you were going to give something to the discretion of the minister on the ground that it was statistical, that would be a great deal simpler to determine. After all, most of these commodities are produced in factories the location of which is known, and it would be much simpler. But none of the elements should be excluded from the review if there is to be a review. How can you adjudicate if you are told that you must accept as the truth any statement the minister chooses to make? I hope we are not going to hear anyone on the treasury benches rise in his place and say, "We are such honest and straightforward fellows that we would never do anything wrong."


Mr. Nowlan:: We would not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is exactly the point. I call to witness the Minister of Finance who, as reported at page 4524 of Hansard of June 7, 1955, stated as follows:
Sir, hon. members, as I conceive it, were elected to this house to legislate, not to abdicate the legislative function to the government. They are

elected to preserve freedom, not to open the doors or admit the Trojan horse of executive power into the citadel of Canadian freedom.
We of Her Majesty's loyal opposition have fought this kind of legislation, and I think we can point to some success.
These fighters of other years are now wishing to strangle the Canadian economy in a way that no one ever dared to suggest previously.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think I have ever before heard such a distortion of the truth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I say, Mr. Chairman, that the words I used are the words of the Minister of Finance, and if he regards them as a distortion of the truth, that is his privilege.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. I regard what the hon. member has said about them as a distortion of the truth. I refer to what the hon. member said about the minister; I regard that as a distortion of the truth.


George James McIlraith: Don't interrupt.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Finance can and will make several more speeches, although he concluded last night by saying that he was giving us his final word on this matter. However, I suppose that was only the final word for yesterday.


Mr. Lambert:: The hon. member for
Bonavista-Twillingate said precisely the same thing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To continue with the quotation of the words of the minister:
And, sir, we mean to go on fighting against this vicious practice.
That was five years ago. I would direct attention to the way in which he is fighting it now. He continued:
Let there be no doubt in the mind of anyone on that score.
I could go on and read from the preceding column other eloquent language of the Minister of Finance; it is much more eloquent than mine. I am simple about these matters. I have not that tongue of bombastic eloquence possessed by the minister. That is why I must use his words when I want to make these arguments really strong. That is why I must use his words when I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that what we are doing here is denying something to a taxpayer or other person affected by this legislation who considers himself aggrieved. We are denying to him a proper appeal because we are saying that the tariff board can only use one eye, and that it must close that eye to half the facts-the important half of the facts, the basic facts-the facts on which everything else depends.
Customs Tariff
Why are we doing this? I am not going to impute motives, but one can only assume that the government has some purpose in doing this. Nobody is going to believe for two minutes, the argument advanced particularly after what the Minister of National Revenue said last night, namely that there were few appeals. There would be few appeals because in most cases I think these determinations would be quite reasonable. But if there are going to be few appeals, the argument that appeals take a great deal of time and that the procedure would be more expeditious largely falls to the ground. What I say is this. In a case in which someone wishes to appeal, he should have that right to appeal. That is what we are saying. We are saying that it should not be interfered with in this way, particularly when no valid argument, and indeed virtually no argument at all, is given as to why this change is being made.
There is another argument that can be made, namely that this abridgement of the right of appeal in the case of shelf goods is being made so the minister will be able to decide quite arbitrarily which are shelf goods and which are custom-made goods. That is one of the three things he can decide. I do not think anybody on earth will be convinced by the argument made by both ministers that the decision as to whether something is shelf goods or custom-made goods is a statistical question.
Obviously it is not a statistical question.
We can take a simple example. If some of us in this house go to buy a suit of clothes, we can buy them off the rack and we do not look too much worse than we would otherwise look. But there are one or two hon. members -and I will not mention their names, though I am sure the hon. member for Nipissing would not mind if I mentioned his-who are not in this position. I doubt that many shelf goods are made for the hon. member for Nipissing. This is a qualitative matter; it is not a quantitative matter at all.
Let me illustrate how this thing could operate. Maybe the ministers have thought about this matter already, or maybe some of their friends have done so. Suppose someone wants to get 22 per cent protection in order to start the manufacture of something new. Suppose he has a friend who is a potential consumer of these goods, and he gets that friend to order that article, or several articles, to specifications in another country, so they become custom-made. Then the gentleman who wants to make the article goes to the Minister of National Revenue and says, "I hear this article is being ordered. I have capacity to produce it. This is a custom-made article." The minister then rules that it is a custom-made article. It has never been made

Customs Tariff
in Canada before, but it is a custom-made article. In this way person A gets right around our international obligations; he gets right around the law made by parliament and is able to start with a protection of 22 per cent to make something never before made in Canada, that in fact would normally be regarded as shelf goods. But if it were done in this way it would in fact be custom-made in the first instance.
That could happen. The opportunities for jiggery-pokery, the opportunities for corruption, the opportunities for capriciousness, the opportunities for favouring one person and denying favours to another, are put in the hands of a minister when there is no appeal on matters of fact in this regard. One does not need much imagination, in fact one needs very little imagination, to conceive what the difficulties are.
If this kind of loose language were put into our income tax legislation and the minister was the final judge in these matters, we would have a peculiar income tax structure in this country.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: These are the great reformers who were going to change all that, who were going to restore the rights of parliament. They were going to do better than we had done, but in the three years this government has been in office there has been more arbitrary legislation and more arbitrary conduct on the part of the government of Canada than there ever was in the whole 22 years of Liberal government.


Norman Platt Lambert: That is absolute and utter nonsense, and you know it.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is making statements which are absolutely without foundation or any semblance of fact. If this were not the parliament of Canada I would say they are absolutely untrue and would ask him to withdraw them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister had better compose himself.


George Clyde Nowlan: I will not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can find statements made by the Minister of Finance which are far more extreme than those I have just made. I refer to statements which have been made by the Minister of Finance about the late C. D. Howe, with much less reason and much less cause than I have for making these statements.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. Perhaps hon. members might come back to the resolution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I submit, with the greatest possible respect, that I am discussing this right of appeal and I am drawing an analogy between what happened under a previous regime and what this government is seeking to do. I say that hon. members opposite will not find this kind of legislation under the previous regime. They will not find this kind of deliberate abridgment of an existing right of appeal in the legislation of the previous government. They will not find it at all.
It is true, as I said before and I repeat, that there are some administrative matters on which a final determination must be made. I am very familiar with that. I had a department in which quite a few of those matters had to be determined. I certainly sought, during all the time I was there, to reduce the number to a minimum and to increase to a maximum the number of things to which definite rules apply.
As I say, it is impossible to understand why, with respect to shelf goods, the government are seeking to abridge this right of appeal, unless they have some sinister reason for doing so.


Norman Platt Lambert: That is poppycock.


An hon. Member:: That comes out of your associations in the past.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member says that comes out of my associations in the past. If that remark means anything, which I do not think it does, it means that the hon. gentleman is suggesting there were in the previous government people who did things for improper motives. If the hon. gentleman thinks that is a proper thing for him to say, I think perhaps it would be equally proper for me to say it about the present government. But I am not saying that about them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All I am saying is that this kind of legislation would make it possible for an unscrupulous minister to do that.


Mr. Henderson:: We have not any of that kind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. gentleman for that excellent argument and that excellent intervention. That is the classic argument of all those who defend tyranny. They always say "But we are good tyrants. You do not need to fear us".


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is what you used to say, in effect.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I have never said that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You have in effect.

Customs Tariff


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that the minister the 10 per cent that was normally-well, I find the occasions where I have said that in am not complaining particularly about this or out of the house. But I am saying it now. case because I do not know enough about it.


Murray Douglas Morton: You are trying to convince yourself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am now saying that this legislation is tyrannical legislation. This is legislation conferring upon the executive the final power to determine things in one way for one person and in another way for another. I think it is an improper use of legislative power. If we have any self-respect in this house we will not give that power to the government.
I would also like to say something about the denial of the right of appeal in the case of custom-made goods. Why is the government so anxious to keep all this secret? Why is the government so frightened of having the decisions of the minister reviewed, if someone wishes them reviewed? I think the hon. member for Ottawa West dealt very persuasively with this problem last night, but I have another example right here in an answer given by the government to a question of the hon. member for Levis. It is question No. 18, which was received in the Votes and Proceedings office on February 2. The first question was:
Did the Department of Public Works issue a directive to the contractor to use steel sheet piling of Canadian manufacture in the construction of the Nanaimo assembly wharf, Nanaimo, British Columbia?
2. If so, what is the cost comparison between this product of Canadian manufacture and the imported product?
The answer to the first question was yes, and the answer to the second question was:
Using Canadian steel sheet piling driven in place, the price was $86,361.54. The tender using West Germany steel sheet piling driven in place was $74,901.60.
That is a difference of approximately $12,000. With that amount a complete wharf could have been built in many places in the province I represent. But the point I was seeking to make-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I am sorry to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I could just complete this one point.


Charles Edward Rea: Does the committee give consent to the hon. member continuing?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not going to take advantage of the committee to do more than complete this one point. The point I was seeking to make here was that of course this difference is not very much more than


An hon. Member:: Then why did you raise it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The reason I raised it is that this power could be used, not intentionally- I do not think any government would be so stupid as to use it intentionally, but we have all had some experience of what bureaucrats can do, no matter who is in office-


Donald Methuen Fleming: We had 22 years of it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And we have had some experience of what some ministers can do in the way of delay. I am saying that if we are going to put a 22 per cent tariff on manufacturers' goods on the assumption that they could be made in Canada, and if we do that arbitrarily, we may very easily, if the price differentials are going to be anything like this example, stultify industrial development in this country. We could very easily do exactly what Mr. Bennett did with trade, shrink it and shrink it and shrink it until only the essential minimum was left. That is what we are afraid of in this legislation relating to "custom-made". We are afraid that it is going to reduce our productive capacity and our capacity to compete, or alternatively it is going to put an undue burden on the consumer. But even in this case, if the government are going to do this -and I assume they are, regardless of our views on this matter-why will they not allow the facts to be considered by the tariff board? Why not? What is the reason for taking away this right of appeal.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, in view of the forensic display to which the committee has been subjected for the last 30 or 40 minutes, perhaps I should say one word. We are to have the commemoration of the centenary of confederation in 1967, and I presume the pages of Hansard will be explored for momentous and outstanding statements which have been made. I am sure when that is done the pages recording the proceedings of the committee this morning, particularly the speech which the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate made will be accepted as the greatest example of arrant nonsense to which the committee has ever been exposed in the century of its history.
One might deal with this seriously, I suppose, but it is so silly that I do not know how anyone could take the time. Lewis Carroll, if he had rewritten "Through the Looking Glass", could not have written anything comparable to what the hon. member was

Customs Tariff
saying this morning; and I noticed that when he was speaking so severely he had a good deal of difficulty in refraining from smiling. It is a terrible commentary, if we were to take it seriously, on the associations which the hon. gentleman has had in the past if he thinks ministers can do those things he suggested a while ago.
As I said last evening, and as I say again now, in so far as the absence of provision for appeal is concerned the Minister of National Revenue has no more power under this clause than has been given to ministers of national revenue by the Customs Act and by the Customs Tariff time and time again, powers conferred by the government of which the hon. gentleman was a member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Conferred by parliament.


George Clyde Nowlan: Some of my statements last night were perhaps a little too generalized. I said last night that all this information- and it is statistical information, almost entirely-was available to the public, that it was a matter of record in the files of the bureau of statistics, and so on. That was too general a statement. As the hon. member knows, a substantial amount of the information which passes through the office of the Minister of National Revenue having to do with imports, consumption and so on is confidential. We get information from importers and other Canadian businessmen which has to be treated on a highly confidential basis. That information is not made available anywhere else, and it would be contrary to the law as it at present exists to make such information available. The availability of such information to the minister on a confidential basis, in addition to all the other information which is produced and published by the bureau of statistics, is one reason the Minister of National Revenue is able to decide these matters, decide them quickly, and decide them in such a way as to avoid unnecessary delays and appeals.
There has been talk about ministers making arbitrary decisions, that they might take a figure of 2 per cent and make it 10 per cent. I suggest to the hon. member that neither under the present Minister of National Revenue nor under any of his predecessors- certainly not under his immediate predecessor-has any such situation arisen, and as far as I recall there has never been one appeal on the question of the proportion, the quantity. These are decisions made by a minister responsible to parliament, and to suggest that a minister could twist the figures around without the circumstances being known is something I cannot for a moment credit.
This parliament itself is the high court. This is the court of appeal in which we are

standing at the moment. This is the court of parliament to which the minister is responsible; and if any minister committed 1 per cent of the improprieties to which the hon. gentleman referred this morning the matter would certainly be brought to public attention; there would be discussion and debate in the House of Commons, a matter of public record, and no minister who had any sense of responsibility not only to his own office but to his colleagues and to his government would consider doing such things as was suggested. As I say, this is the final court of appeal, and it is one to which every minister is responsible.
Other questions were raised on which I could comment, but perhaps I may call it one o'clock. I believe the few moments remaining are not enough to permit me to clarify what I hope are honest misapprehensions felt by hon. members opposite. There is so much misapprehension on the other side of the house that I should like to be sure what the facts are.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at one o'clock I had the floor. I intend now to occupy the time of the committee for only a moment or two. Frankly, I do not think there is too much merit in carrying on the substance of this debate for a longer period.
We have had various imaginary pictures presented to us by the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate this morning. Apparently there is a plan on the part of the official opposition whereby the hon. member for Essex East speaking in terms of the typical gloom that characterizes the utterances of that hon. gentleman worries this committee about the dangers of unemployment and the people who are suffering therefrom.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have not spoken a word on that subject.


Mr. Benidickson:: The hon. member for Essex East has not spoken.


George Clyde Nowlan: I know that the hon. member for Essex East has not taken too lengthy a part in this debate. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, on the other hand, with a slightly different tone of voice worries about the Canadian consumer. Between the two hon. members they are attempting to create a picture which would suggest that there is something in the nature of a conspiracy on the part of the government which

[DOT]will result in prejudice to the people of Canada. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Minister of Finance and I in our contributions in this debate have, I think, established to the satisfaction of every reasonable hon. member who is not suffering from a jaundiced prejudice of some kind that this is simply an amendment to a statute which will provide for the development of Canadian industry without any prejudice whatever to the Canadian consumer.
There has been talk about appeals, the powers of the minister and all the rest of it. These are all figments of the imagination. I sometimes think hon. members opposite must have read the memoirs of that supreme propagandist of all time who I believe died in a funeral pyre on the outskirts of Berlin at the end of the last war. In his book he said that if you are going to create a picture you want to create one so absolutely black that no one could believe that you did not believe it when you started to create it. That is the kind of picture my hon. friends opposite are attempting to create here.
This is simply a routine amendment to the Customs Tariff without any of the dire and sombre connotations which hon. members opposite attempt to relate to it. If you were to analyse the speeches of hon. members who spoke with respect to this amendment-with the possible exception of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate-you would realize how very little they know about the administration of the Customs Tariff. One hon. member started out by saying that tariffs do not apply to any goods which are not made in Canada.


William Moore Benidickson: Dumping duties do not apply. That is what was said.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is the statement which Hansard will show was made. The statement was as I described it. That is in keeping with the knowledge of this matter on the part of most hon. members opposite.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Who made that statement?


George Clyde Nowlan: The record will show who made the statement.


William Moore Benidickson: As I heard it, reference was made to dumping duties.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is usual in making these imputations to apply them to someone.


George Clyde Nowlan: I heard the statement made as I described it and the record will show it. I have heard many other non-factual statements made with respect to the application of the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff. On the basis of this one wonders exactly how
Customs Tariff
much hon. members opposite know about the subject. I exclude from that charge the hon. members for Bonavista-Twillingate and Kenora-Rainy River who do know something about the application and administration of this legislation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister suggest for one moment that the hon. member for Ottawa West does not know something about the administration?


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member for Ottawa West was not the one who made the statement. There have been enough silly statements made in connection with this matter. I do not think it is necessary, as far as we are concerned, to prolong this discussion further.
As I said, this amendment seeks to achieve certain alterations in the Customs Tariff all of which are necessary and all of which contribute to the furtherance of the development of the Canadian economy, and all of which at the same time offer every safeguard to the Canadian consumer.
The flights of imagination to which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate ascended this morning were such that if our friends in the Soviet union or the United States air force could achieve similar flights they would not only have had a man in space long ago but they would have landed him on the moon and on terrestial spheres much beyond that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister is exceedingly poetic today.


George Clyde Nowlan: I think it is time this debate came back to the elements of the situation which, as I said, are these. This is a simple amendment to the Customs Tariff with no evil connotations whatever. The powers attributed to the Minister of National Revenue by my hon. friends opposite in their dire forebodings are nothing like the powers which the minister has exercised, continues to exercise at the moment and probably will continue to exercise in future, because if the legislation is to be administered the minister will have to have certain powers by virtue of his position, by virtue of the information which is available to him and by virtue of the advice he receives from his officers.
We have heard suggestions about vested interests which could exercise some influence on the minister, the government or parliament. That would be a dire day and one which no one would like to see arrive. On the other hand, I do not want to see it as a vested interest of importers, or some of them, who by exercising capricious appeals could also have the same influence or a greater one than that to which the hon. member referred earlier this morning. We are avoiding both.

Customs Tariff
On questions of fact which are within the knowledge of the department, and to some extent exclusively within the knowledge of the department, in order to avoid capricious appeals and a waste of time the appeal is precluded. On all other matters the basis of appeal is as wide as it ever was. This amendment can be recommended with the utmost confidence by every member of the House of Commons to the Canadian people, knowing that it is in the interest of the Canadian people, both the producer and the consumer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I consider that I have been misrepresented by the Minister of National Revenue, but I did not want to interrupt his flight of fancy to take exception to it. The minister said that I had imagined things. I did not imagine anything. I read the resolution which the minister does not appear to have done, because the resolution quite specifically does take away the right of appeal in respect of "the normal Canadian consumption." That right of appeal exists now, and the resolution is asking us to take the right of appeal away from appellants. That is not a fancy. If the minister would take the trouble to read the resolution that his colleague is sponsoring and asking him to enforce, it seems to me it would be desirable. The ministers should inform themselves of the legislation that they are bringing before this house and what its alleged purport is.
The minister who is a member of this government that produces documents like the one that has just come from the Tory office called The Record Speaks presumes to talk about propaganda from any other source. I would strongly suggest that that be left out of this debate and that we stick to the matter before the committee. The matter before the committee is a highly practical one, and I would ask the minister to show me that this statement is incorrect. At the present time an appeal is allowed to the tariff board on all the facts, not on a selected group of facts with certain of them abstracted. The government is truncating those appeals by saying that there will be no appeal with respect to normal Canadian consumption. This is what the resolution says. What we ask is, why is the government taking away a right that now exists?
We saw the Prime Minister going back and forth across this country, and heard him talking about a bill of rights giving the people access to the courts. Here is this Prime Minister allowing the Minister of Finance to come in here and take away a right of appeal to the courts that now exists. I think it is time the Prime Minister came to this committee and told us why he, the great prophet of the rights of the people, is sponsoring this

kind of restrictive legislation, giving powers to the executive which it now has not got. That is the whole point; that is exactly the point that the Minister of Finance purported to be speaking about in 1955 in the speech that I quoted from this morning. I am almost forced to the conclusion that that speech must have been written for the minister by someone else and that he did not understand what was in it, because he is certainly doing-


Donald Methuen Fleming: You do not believe that for a minute.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would not be surprised if it was one of the efforts of Mr. Finlayson who understands a great deal more about the law than the minister does.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You do not believe what you say at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Don't interrupt.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the minister says he wrote it all himself I will accept his word for it. If the minister says he understood it, then why on earth does he not apply it in this case? Why, in this instance, is the minister trying to take away a right of appeal which now exists?
To say that there are some arbitrary powers now, as the Minister of National Revenue has just said, is one thing; but here they are asking for more arbitrary powers, and to what end? I should like to ask the Minister of Finance, who is going to introduce legislation based on this resolution, if the bill that is to come up as a result of this resolution has been examined by the Minister of Justice and certified under the order in council passed pursuant to the Canadian bill of rights act, and if the minister thinks that this denial of an existing right of appeal that we are being asked to make here in this parliament is consistent with the bill of rights? I maintain that it may be consistent with the letter of it but it certainly is not consistent with the spirit of it, because what is being sought to be done here is to take away the right of appeal to an independent tribunal which now exists and to vest it in the minister, who told us-and this was the most incredible thing that has yet been said in this debate-that he will have to make his decisions based on secret information that could not be disclosed.


George Clyde Nowlan: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister can look at Hansard and at what he said just before luncheon. If he will do that he will find that that is exactly what he did say. In other words, what we are being asked to do is to turn the Minister of National Revenue into a star chamber who will make his decision

Customs Tariff
on the basis of secret information to which this parliament. These gentlemen who talked others do not have access, determining their so much about the rights of parliament, affairs on this basis. That is what the minister about access to the courts and about the said himself.	rule of law-


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: The hon. gentleman's imagination is infinite.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman can read Hansard and see for himself. Why does the minister want this power; why does the Minister of Finance want him to have it? The only excuse the Minister of National Revenue has given us yet is that he can decide these things faster than the tariff board can. As a matter of fact, he has made some pretty fast decisions today. And if the kind of slapdash decisions are going to be made in these cases as are made with respect to the arguments made in this house by the Minister of National Revenue it will be a sorry day for the people who have decisions made on their affairs.
Five years ago these hon. gentlemen opposite made the rafters ring all over this country about powers that the previous government asked to have, to exercise in case this country was in imminent peril of its very existence, and now they come in here, these great champions of the rights of parliament and the right of access to the courts, and ask us to vest discretion in the minister so that he can exercise it on the basis of secret information that will not be disclosed to the parties, and to take away from persons affected an existing right of appeal to the courts. That is what the resolution says. I ask again, why is it necessary to take away this right of appeal?
The minister talked about capricious appeals. As a matter of fact when a member of an executive starts to talk about capricious appeals you have a pretty tyrannical attitude manifested by the executive. If we have any freedom it is the freedom to exercise an appeal, to go to the courts if we want to, not if the Minister of National Revenue thinks it is all right for us to do so.
The moment you start talking about capricious appeals whose caprice is being exercised? The minister is deciding what is capricious and what is not. He is not only arrogating to himself the power to make a final decision in this matter, but he is doing it because he does not trust the people. The people cannot be allowed-of course, this is a real Tory attitude-to make up their minds whether they want to appeal. Because the minister says they might do so capriciously they have got to have their cases decided on the basis of secret information with no appeal of any kind whatsoever. I say that this is the biggest issue that has yet been raised in


William Moore Benidickson: They used to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -five years ago-


Mr. Denis:: And the bill of rights.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -are now seeking to abrogate the rule of law completely-


Thomas Miller Bell: Nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: to decide these questions on the basis of secret information and to decide them finally on that basis. I was looking again at that speech of the Minister of Finance and I found another gem.


Thomas Miller Bell: It would certainly be a lot better than this.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for
Carleton will see. These words are found at 4525 of Hansard for June 7, 1955:
In those days parliament was a grand inquest with the right to inquire into everything and anything, but it is not today, when we see secrecy imposed by the government-
That is what the minister has just told us.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, different altogether.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He has told us that these things are to be decided on the basis of secret information. The parties will not be allowed to discuss the matter at all because the citizens whose affairs are affected might be capricious.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What was the reference?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Page 4525, June 7, 1955. It
is that same excellent speech that the minister made in 1955. He had a great year. It was a vintage year for the minister. That was the year there was a grave emergency over unemployment, the minister will remember, and then there was an emergency over this matter.


John Cameron Pallett: This is a sour grape year for you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, I think the grapes are sour on the other side of the house. The minister went on to say on that occasion:
This is what I hope will be my final quotation.
That was three or four pages before he ended his speech.
Our objects are open and avowed. We seek no concealment, for we have nothing to conceal.
Yet the affairs of their fellow citizens are to be decided in secret by a minister whose decision is final instead of being open to appeal before a tribunal as such cases now are.

Customs Tariff


Murdo William Martin: It is contrary to section 6 of the bill of rights.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Essex East, who is an eminent member of the bar, says that it is contrary to section 6 of the bill of rights. I have not consulted the act but I accept his legal opinion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That was not a legal opinion. That was the Martin bureau of statistics. He does not give legal opinions when he is not paid for them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will leave it to the Minister of Finance to discuss this matter with his colleague at the bar. It is not my intention to discuss it. I ask the question, and I expect the minister to answer it, whether or not he has complied with the provisions in the bill of rights and the order in council recently made under the power in the bill of rights with regard to having his bill examined by the Minister of Justice and certified that it is not contrary to the bill of rights.


William Moore Benidickson: The Prime Minister should come in and tell us about that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We really ought to have that great apostle of the rights of the citizens, the Prime Minister, come in here and tell us why his government is sponsoring legislation to take away the existing right of appeal to the tariff board and the courts.


Richard Albert Bell: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does he contend that the right of appeal in all cases must be absolute? If so, does he suggest that we should repeal the provisions of the Supreme Court Act which limit appeals on a monetary basis and for which his government was responsible?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Carleton has asked a question which I am going to answer very directly. Any appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is from a court of law, not from a minister. That is the first thing. There has already been an adjudication before an independent tribunal and it is quite reasonable when there has been a trial in a court that only certain kinds of cases should be appealed. I would have thought any lawyer would know that well enough that he would not have to ask an unlearned person that question. I do not say that there has to be an appeal in every case but I do say-


Richard Albert Bell: Where do you limit it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member for Carleton, having asked his question, would allow me to complete my answer, and I might

point out that I am answering his question and not trying to evade it as members on the treasury benches do with our questions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Particularly the Minister of Finance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I say that every administrative decision affecting the rights of a citizen should be subject to an appeal.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why did you not do
something about it in 22 years?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We did a great deal about it.


Richard Albert Bell: Not a thing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You closed the door. That is what you did. You do not know what you are talking about.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that the Minister of Finance, who once more does not like my line of argument and is trying to divert me-


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is absolutely absurd.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -take a look at the Regulations Act. As the hon. member for Essex East has reminded me, this is a determination which involves taxation and, indeed, imposes taxation or is capable of imposing new or higher taxation. To use the minister's own words, that taxation is to be at the caprice of the Minister of National Revenue, not even the Minister of Finance who has the constitutional function of recommending the scale of taxation. It is to be at the sheer caprice of the Minister of National Revenue who, if he wants to, can rig the figures in such a way as to have one thing rather than another.
If they are honest, open and aboveboard about this, why do they want to place themselves in a position where they will be open to this kind of suspicion?


William Moore Benidickson: They want back-room power.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has just said, unless they want to carry on some back-room activities it is hard to see why they wish to do this. In any event, parliament should not agree to it. In this year of grace 1961, year 1 of the Diefenbaker bill of rights, parliament should not be taking away from the people of Canada a right of appeal to the courts that they now have, and that is what the minister is asking us to do.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, there may be occasions in this house when the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate talks rationally-


An hon. Member:: Very seldom.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -but today was not one of such occasions. We have listened this morning and again this afternoon to about as hysterical and irrational a perversion of facts as this house is likely to be subjected to at any time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am going to rise on a question of privilege. It is a well known rule of the house that one does not impute motives. I did not impute any motives in what I said-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and I suggest that the minister, instead of imputing motives to me, deal with my arguments.


William Moore Benidickson: And not get hysterical.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I did not touch on the subject of motives at all. I was dealing with the approach of the hon. member in what he calls his argument and which I would call a perversion of the facts and with the way he has gone about that presentation which I say was a most irrational one. There are some subjects on which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate just has a blind spot. He sees red any time anything is mentioned of that nature, I have observed before and have noticed in the course of every budget debate that whenever we are discussing a subject related to the Customs Tariff or the Customs Act we run into one of those areas where the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate casts aside all pretence of rationality, simply sees red and then engages in one of these utterly irrational diatribes.


George James McIlraith: Tell us about the time you had to be ejected from the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is not new on
the part of the hon. member. I will point out, without these interruptions from the sepulchral tones of the hon. member for Ottawa West, that the observations of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate-


George James McIlraith: You are sensitive about the flag.


Donald Methuen Fleming: More reverberations from the same sepulchral source. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has this subject of appeal on the brain now. He has discarded entirely the calm, constructive and indeed instructive observations on this subject by my colleague the Minister of National Revenue. He has cast them entirely aside and he talks about something that has only a faint resemblance to the terms of the bill or the course of this debate and he drags 90205-6-109
Customs Tariff
in, as though it had some pretence of relevancy, observations that were appropriately made in a debate in 1955.
Let me make it clear that I take back not one syllable of what I uttered in 1955 about the matter there and then under discussion. Every word I uttered at that time was uttered with abundant justification, and I think history has vindicated what was said on that occasion.
At that time I had a good deal to say about depriving parliament of its rights. The measure then under discussion was entirely different from the measure that is before the committee at the present time. I will briefly, Mr. Chairman, read certain sections from the Defence Production Act which was then the subject of debate and I will ask hon. members if what the government at that time was seeking to do has the slightest resemblance to the measure now being debated in this chamber.
The hon. member seeks to take my words uttered in 1955 with respect to the proposed extension of the Defence Production Act and relate them to the measure now before the committee. The situations do not fit together at all. Here are sections that were in that act then under debate in 1955 which the government of that day was asking parliament to extend in the circumstances of 1955. There was no national emergency then as applied to the safety of the realm. There was no war or insurrection, real or imminent, at that time. However, that government of which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was then a member-I think he was then the junior member of that cabinet- asked parliament to extend this power in peacetime under the circumstances then existing.
Here are just a few of the powers they were asking parliament to confer on the minister of defence production at that time. In case you think I am reading the most sweeping of the powers first, let me say that they grow worse in this case as we proceed. I shall read just three sections. There are others, but I shall not extend the debate:
11. The minister shall examine into, organize, mobilize and conserve the resources of Canada contributory to, and the sources of supply of, defence supplies and the agencies and facilities available for the supply of the same and for the construction of defence projects and shall explore, estimate and provide for the fulfilment of the needs, present and prospective, of the government and the community in respect thereto and generally shall take steps to mobilize, conserve and co-ordinate all economic and industrial facilities in respect of defence supplies and defence projects and the supply or construction thereof.
That is one section.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is wrong with that?

Customs Tariff


Donald Methuen Fleming: The time was 1955 when the Liberal government wanted to have this carte blanche extension of these sweeping powers. Next I read section 14 of that measure:
14.	The minister may, on behalf of Her Majesty and subject to the provisions of this act, acquire, store, maintain and transport and sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of such materials or substances as may be designated by the governor in council as materials or substances essential to the needs of the community of which it is advisable to maintain stocks to safeguard against possible shortages thereof.
They said they had to have those powers in 1955 and we fought them for three weeks in this House of Commons. It was an honourable struggle that in the end was crowned with a measure of success. Here is section 15, Mr. Chairman:
15.	The minister may, on behalf of Her Majesty and subject to the provisions of this act,
(a)	buy or otherwise acquire, utilize, store, transport, sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of defence supplies;
(b)	manufacture or otherwise produce, finish, assemble, process, develop, repair, maintain or service defence supplies or manage and operate facilities therefor;
(c)	construct or acquire defence projects and sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of them;
(d)	arrange for the performance of professional or commercial services;
(e)	purchase or otherwise acquire, sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of real or personal property or any interest therein which, in the opinion of the minister, is or is likely to be necessary or desirable for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c);
(f)	make loans or advances to or guarantee repayment of loans or advances made to a person for the purpose of providing assistance for the construction, acquisition, extension or improvement of capital equipment or works by, or to provide working capital for, that person for the manufacture, production, finishing, assembling, processing, development, storage, transportation, repairing, maintenance or servicing of defence supplies or for the construction or operation of defence projects or by way of advance payment on account of or to enable that person to carry out any contract entered into with the minister under this act or any defence contract; and
(g)	do all such things as appear to the minister to be incidental to or necessary or expedient to the matters mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this section or as may be authorized by the governor in council with respect to the procurement, construction or disposal of defence supplies or defence projects.
Those are some of the powers which that measure conferred upon one man, namely the then minister of defence production. In 1955, a year of peace, parliament was asked to extend those sweeping powers, that vesting in one man of powers that were broad enough to put the whole economy of Canada within his power. That is the kind of legislation that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate thought parliament should pass not in time of war but in a year of peace, namely 1955.
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
We have to compare that with what is being asked here today, with the right of appeal observed.
It is quite obvious that this has been just about as complete a demonstration as is possible of an hon. member of this House of Commons talking out of both sides of his mouth. There was plenty of reason why parliament should have resisted that attempt in 1955 to take sweeping powers unto one man from parliament. That legislation does not bear any resemblance whatsoever, except in a lurid imagination, to what is now under debate in this committee.
The suggestion was made that parliament should do the legislating. That is the essence of the measure now before the House of Commons. I have pointed out that in legislation passed by parliament in 1936, and introduced by a Liberal government, the power was taken under the governor in council to fix the percentage that should be taken as the normal Canadian consumption for the purpose of determining whether goods should be deemed of a class or kind made in Canada. They gave that power to the governor in council. That was not having parliament legislate. That was a case of having parliament confer a power upon the government, and they proceeded to use that power. They passed the order in council in July, 1936 and it has remained in effect ever since.
The measure now before the committee seeks to give that power back to parliament and to have parliament do the legislating in terms of the fixing of the percentage. Is there no limit to the amount of distortion that has been imposed upon this House of Commons? The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate I think has reached the acme today, the nadir.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Those words mean the opposite of one another.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. I have put the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate at both ends, depending on which way you look at the matter.


William Moore Benidickson: On second thought.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In terms of crescendo and shrieks he certainly rose to the top. In terms of trying to put off on parliament an argument that is completely transparent and devoid of fact to support it I think he hit the bottom or the nadir.


An hon. Member:: A doubleheader at the same time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member talks about appeals with great gusto. He talks about them with more gusto than knowledge.

If he had pursued his studies in the law a little further he would not have talked in this unlimited way.
There are not very many cases in any realm within the law where a right of appeal is unlimited. Appellate tribunals do not review findings of fact as long as there is any evidence whatever to support the findings of the tribunal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: From another court.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They do not inquire into the sufficiency as long as there is evidence to support the finding of fact. On appeal they will not open the determination of facts and they will go on to determine the appeal in the light of other questions. That is the ordinary rule. There are many, many cases where there are specific limitations imposed on a right of appeal. Sometimes it is on the jurisdictional aspect; sometimes it is in terms of the amount involved. There are many cases under statutes both of Canada and the provinces where the scope of appeal is limited.
I have pointed out that we do not take away the right of appeal here at all. If the hon. member had approached this rationally he might have said, "There is some limitation on the scope of appeal in relation to particular findings related to areas of fact". But he is not content to do that. He talks in these irrational terms as though the right of appeal had been taken away.
The right of appeal is not taken away and as to the alleged narrowing of the right of appeal, as I pointed out last night, it is not a matter of substance at all. The effective right has not been taken away. When the tariff board hears appeals it takes the position that the onus is on the appellant to show that the department is wrong. I also pointed out, as did my colleague the Minister of National Revenue last night, that in these circumstances we are dealing with matters involving a statistical determination and evidence that is available on a confidential basis, because it comes from industries, to the Department of National Revenue. It is not available to the public.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate then quotes statements that have been made on the matter of secrecy and distorts those out of all recognition. He bandied these words around today, "If the ministers were honest in doing", this and that. I am going to appeal for a little intellectual honesty in the approach to this question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think you might well.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member might observe very carefully what
90205-6-109J
Customs Tariff
I am suggesting in this regard, because we have had enough, surely, of his attempts-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would permit me to ask a question, since he is talking about intellectual honesty. The minister was talking about appeals and about the limitation of appeals to questions of law in many cases. When he was talking about those matters, was he not talking about an appeal from one court of law to another, and not an appeal from an administrative decision of a minister to the court of first resort? They are entirely different things. I have never before heard any suggestion that this kind of appeal from an administrative decision would be limited to some of the facts and would not include all of them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is just getting himself in deeper all the time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Answer that question. Never mind whether I am getting myself in deeper.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is this a schoolteacher who is holding forth now, Mr. Chairman, a professor?


An hon. Member:: A Sunday school teacher.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I am just a learner trying to learn from the great instructor who does not seem to be able to instruct.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then may I tell the hon. member that he will never learn if he keeps on talking.


William Moore Benidickson: That provides no answer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The only chance for him to learn, Mr. Chairman, is for him to listen. We are certainly getting an interesting response from hon. members opposite; they are coming to life. The hon. member was talking about appeals from administrative decisions. With great interest and great fervour he has undertaken to deliver himself of a legal judgment in this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; I asked a question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let me tell him, in relation to administrative decisions made at government level, that there are relatively few appeals provided for them because these, under our system of government, are the responsibility of government and of ministers. That is a responsibility for which they are answerable on the floor of the House of Commons. That is our system. There are not very many of them at all that are open to appeal to courts, boards or tribunals of that nature. Ministers on these benches are bound to be making administrative decisions every day.

Customs Tariff
There are very few of them that are open to appeal to any court other than the high court of parliament.


William Moore Benidickson: Does not the bill of rights cure all this?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The bill of rights cures many things but it does not claim to cure the woeful and abysmal misunderstanding on the part of hon. members opposite. When they talk about having parliament do the legislating, let me point out that an appeal is not a legislative act at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The provision for appeal is.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The provision for appeal is if you have it written into the statute. That would be legislation. But the hon. member was talking about something being taken away from parliament. He is so befuddled that he really does not remember very clearly what he did say.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said. What I said was that this right was being taken away from the citizens, not from parliament at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member says that that is a deliberate misrepresentation. That is an offence against the rules of the house. The hon. member has done that before.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will withdraw the word "deliberate" and substitute the word "ignorant".


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member thinks he is adding to his stock of self-satisfaction in that way, he is welcome to it. There are not very many others who would, I think, find their measure of selfsatisfaction added to so cheaply. I repeat that the hon. member talked about something being taken away from parliament. That is what he was talking about in relation to this question of appeal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I was talking about a right of appeal being taken away from the citizens.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The record will bear out precisely what I have said. This is not a matter of taking away anything from parliament; this is a case of asking parliament to legislate. The right of appeal is not taken away. The hon. member is apparently still suffering from the hallucinations that were evidenced in the irrationality of his remarks this morning and this afternoon. Nothing has been taken away from parliament, and we say that a good deal is being restored to parliament-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not what I said at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -by reason of the fact that the power conferred by section 6, subsection 10, of the Customs Tariff on the governor in council is now to be repealed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I never even discussed that question, so do not think you are replying to me.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member cannot restrain himself; he has completely lost control of himself now. Of course he did not mention this section. He tried to make an argument without reference to this section because he knew his argument was completely contradicted by section 6, subsection 10.
Therefore I say that the hon. member has put on a strange act here today, but for him not altogether unusual. He has not hesitated to impute all kinds of purposes to the government. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that the purpose of the government in introducing this legislation is to provide a much more workable form of legislation and to restore to Canadian producers and Canadian workmen the benefit of such provision as parliament certainly intended they should have under these statutory words and that they did have until this past decade.
What are the other reasons for placing these decisions based upon statistical analysis under the jurisdiction of the minister? I have given those again and again. We have pointed out the nature of these matters, what is involved in gathering the information, and we have also drawn attention to the benefits that this legislation will bring to the business community.
That apparently means nothing to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. We have had these long delays before. But it will be approved by the business community that the proposal now before the house will provide an opportunity for establishing with great speed, celerity and certainty their position under the law in relation to situations in which they involve themselves in liability in respect of customs duty.
Those are the purposes, and those are all the purposes involved here. The argument as to arbitrary powers simply has no basis in fact. My colleague the Minister of National Revenue has drawn attention to any number of situations in the legislation introduced by the Liberal government where powers are conferred on him far greater than the powers which it is proposed to assign to him under this legislation. I conclude this part of my observations by saying that what we heard this afternoon and this morning was simply

a bogus argument, a fictitious representation with relation to this amendment which is as far removed from it as day is from night.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit one simple question? Why is the minister asking that from now on normal Canadian consumption shall be determined by the Minister of National Revenue and not, as heretofore, by the tariff board in cases where a citizen wishes to appeal? The reason I ask this question is that the minister talked about rights being taken away from parliament. I said rights were being taken from the citizen, and one right the citizen now has is to appeal in these cases from all the findings of fact. Why is the government taking away the right to appeal on the question of fact as to normal Canadian consumption?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have made that clear twice already. I have pointed out that in the first place this is a matter involving the gathering of statistics. The normal source of those statistics is the Canadian bureau of statistics, but where these statistics are not available and it becomes necessary to gather them, they are obtained by contact with Canadian producers and sources which are knowledgeable in these matters, and such information is made available on a confidential basis. Information of this kind is not given for publication, and my colleague the Minister of National Revenue pointed out last night that when there are appeals to the tariff board in such instances the tariff board turns to the Department of National Revenue for this information.
The hon. member talks as though the tariff board were sitting in this situation as a court of first instance reviewing all the facts involved in the appeal. I am afraid he is not too well informed on this subject. Moreover, he will not listen to what my colleague the Minister of National Revenue has said in this chamber for his information. The tariff board, in seeking information, unless it is a matter of public record, turns to the Department of National Revenue because it knows the department has this information from producers on a confidential basis. The tariff board takes that information from the department. The hon. member is completely mistaken in assuming that there has been hitherto on the part of the tariff board some gathering of information of its own in this regard. There is no secrecy about the method-


John Whitney Pickersgill: You have just said there was.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Minister of National Revenue has made this perfectly clear and he has shown that all this talk
Customs Tariff
about truncating the scope of appeal does not fit the facts at all. These are not matters which are essentially matters of appeal. These are not matters which are fought over on appeal. These are matters in regard to which it is evident from the statement made by my colleague that the tariff board turns to the department for information.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the minister
wishes to give us all the information, and wants to try to convince us. I did not say that the minister would not determine this in the first instance. But this is an appeal from the minister's decision. Surely the appellant should be allowed to dispute the minister's findings before the tariff board as to the normal consumption. The minister says that in future an appellant will be able to dispute Canadian production and two or three other things, but he says he can no longer dispute the minister's decision as to normal Canadian consumption. Why exclude this one element from the appeal? The minister has not yet given us a good reason.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Because, having regard to the essential elements of the present situation there is no real scope today for litigating this question on appeal, since the sources of information, where they are not a matter of public record, are available only from the Department of National Revenue, and a good deal of that evidence is supplied on a confidential basis.


John Whitney Pickersgill: About consumption?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Further, it is in the
interest of the business community, the people involved in these matters that it should be made clear that this is a question for decision by the minister, in order to give the business community the advantage of an expedited decision. The hon. member has not been in business-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Neither has the minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -nor has he been in contact with business people, but I can tell him that this matter of having certain and speedy decisions is of the greatest importance to people in the business community. It is important to importers. It is important to persons seeking to export to the Canadian market.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister another question? This is a purely factual question. The minister has just said some of this information was secret. I can understand that some of the information about production may be secret. But would the minister tell me why any information about consumption should be secret? What is secret about consumption? This is about the most fantastic

Customs Tariff
thing I have ever heard. The minister is saying that it is a secret how much of these goods are consumed. Maybe it is a secret how much of certain commodities is consumed by the Department of National Defence, but for the rest surely the amount of our consumption is not a secret matter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Consumption is the aggregate of Canadian production and imports less exports. As to information in this realm, it is often necessary for the Department of National Revenue to turn to sources outside Canada. Those sources are prepared to supply these figures, as are sources in Canada in similar circumstances, but on a confidential basis. They are not prepared to have the information given out publicly. The tariff board itself does not want to drag people in there and make them disclose information which, though it may be highly important in helping to arrive at conclusions is not the kind of information which those who possess it wish to make public.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What kind of persons?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This legislation
takes account of today's needs and is based upon experience and based upon concern for the business community. It is realistic legislation in the interest of all concerned, and I think the business community can be depended upon to see the advantages of this legislation in spite of the benefits of the academic instruction which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, with his lack of experience would like to impart. The other point I wish to deal with-


Charles Edward Rea: I must advise the hon. minister that his time has expired.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thought I was making three speeches, having been interrupted so often by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. minister spent a great deal of time dealing with the questions which were put to him. He did not have to allow the question.


Mr. Herridge:: We in this group listened with a great deal of interest to this vehement duet between the minister and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I rise to deal with one question of serious concern to some of my constituents. Last evening while I was in my office seeing various delegations from the Canadian Labour Congress the hon. member for Vancouver East, assisted by Hansard, brought to the attention of the committee in a very good way certain fears of the British Columbia coastal lumber operators with respect to clause 2(a) of these resolutions and also the fears expressed by the Vancouver

board of trade on behalf of primary and secondary manufacturers.
I will not repeat his arguments in expressing my support of what he said. The arguments were well put by the hon. member. I will not take the time of the committee to indulge in repetitions which I have done on occasion. I want to say, however, that exactly the same fears are felt by the interior lumber manufacturers' association and various separate milling industries in the constituency I have the honour to represent.
I have received a number of telegrams and letters from people in the lumber industry in the interior. I will not take time to go into them to any extent but I will read one which clearly illustrates their attitude:
We feel that amendments proposed in the new section 2(a) of the Customs Tariff Act will increase costs of operation to our industry a primary exporting industry which will result in the lumber industry being placed in less competitive position and add to an already extremely serious economic situation. We agree that encouragement of secondary industry is desirable but it is extremely essential not to place primary industry in a noncompetitive position in our markets.
E. L. Vance, president, Kootenay Forest Products.
I know this gentleman very well. He has long experience in the lumber industry. I can support his claim that the industry is in a serious economic situation at present in the interior of British Columbia owing to the extent of markets and the prices being paid for lumber shipped to those markets. It is presently a marginal operation for the operators in that area. That is why they are concerned about the amendment to the Customs Tariff proposed by this legislation.
If the minister rises to speak again perhaps he would give us the reason why he is amending the Customs Tariff in this respect using what is considered even by laymen who are not familiar with legal matters to be somewhat ambiguous language likely to be open to many interpretations. I have been asked why this has been done and why ambiguous words are used. The words that are particularly objectionable are "approximately the same class or kind made or produced in Canada". The word "approximately" whether viewed in its dictionary meaning or looked at from its application in daily life is a word the meaning of which varies according to personal imagination and one's understanding of the English language.
I should like the minister to tell us why he has made this alteration. I trust he will give consideration to the reasonable fears expressed by the lumber industry in toto in British Columbia and, as far as I am concerned, particularly in the interior where operating conditions are ever more difficult than in the coastal area.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member was not in the committee last night when a similar question was raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East. I believe I dealt with it quite fully in reply. The hon. member will find my observations on this subject at pages 1683 to 1685 of Hansard. The hon. member for Vancouver East raised the question as to the word "approximately" and asked for my comment on the alternative suggestion put forward by the Vancouver board of trade in this respect. I dealt with that and the hon. member will find my observations on that subject beginning at the bottom of the second column of page 1684 where, I think, the reasons are given quite fully.
I should like to make what I hope will be a relatively brief observation upon some of the remarks made this morning by the hon. member for Peterborough. Let me say that in general I liked the hon. member's speech very much. It was to my liking not because I approve what he was contending for but because I thought it was a very useful exposure of the fact that if the hon. member typically represents the new party it will not be the spokesman or even the pretended spokesman of labour in this country very long because the speech that the hon. gentleman made was just about as inimical to the interests of labour in Canada as I suppose any speech that any of us has heard in this chamber for a very long time.
Peterborough is a riding that has unhappily had considerable unemployment. Perhaps the hon. member owes his election to that unhappy circumstance. But I may tell the hon. member that in the course of this past decade the kind of attrition to which I have made reference before has greatly weakened and subtracted from the benefits that these provisions in the Customs Tariff were intended to provide for industries and their employees in places like Peterborough. These benefits have been whittled away. That is one of the reasons why there has been unemployment in places like Peterborough.
When we bring forward here a measure to restore to these words the value that they had up until the decade of erosion this hon. member rises in his place and opposes this legislation and in the course of doing so makes statements which show that if he has any knowledge of labour and labour's problems and any knowledge in relation to the problem of unemployment, his knowledge is not more than academic, in my opinion.
The hon. member talked as though this legislation were the expression of a high tariff policy. It is nothing of the kind. I gave an abundance of evidence last night to indicate that this government has loyally observed
Customs Tariff
all the provisions of GATT and that in the three budgets that have been introduced since we came into office in which there have been tariff changes there have been more tariff items reduced than there have been increased. I pointed out some of the things that a government could have done under the existing legislation if it had been minded to use it in pursuance of a high tariff policy. We had only to change by order in council the present percentage defined in pursuance of the powers conferred by section 6, subsection 10 of the Customs Tariff, but we have not done that and we are proposing to give that power back to parliament.
I say that this committee, the people of Peterborough and people outside the riding of Peterborough will be interested to know whether the hon. gentleman who is a member of the new party can be regarded as a champion of the rights of labour and they have evidence to the contrary on the basis of the speech the hon. member made today. The hon. gentleman had the opportunity to show himself as the champion of the rights of labour, a man interested in the employment possibilities of legislation of the kind now under debate, but he has chosen instead to denounce the legislation and in that way to deprive industries in Peterborough and their employees of the benefit that this legislation was intended to give them and which they did enjoy prior to the erosion of the past ten years.
I can tell the hon. member that the delegations which have appeared before my colleague the Minister of National Revenue and before me in regard to matters related to the terms of competition of Canadian producers and Canadian workmen with imports from abroad do not tell us the things that he has told the committee today. There is a deep gulf fixed between the point of view which he exposed in this house today and the point of view that is put before my colleague and myself by the authentic voice of organized labour in appearing before us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister does not think the electors have an authentic voice.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think they do, but it has to be remembered that at times the electors send people here on a minority vote and that members arrive here without having the endorsement of the majority of their electors and that sometimes-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not suffer that way.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -they are misled as to the position, the platform, the attitudes and the sympathies of those they elect, and sometimes it takes time for them to find out. They are finding out that-

Customs Tariff


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is right, they are finding out.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They are certainly finding out and they are going to find out a great deal more on this subject, and what was said here this morning I think will be of considerable assistance not only to the electors of Peterborough but to the electors of other constituencies who may be intending to support candidates of the new party on the theory, the now discarded theory, that they are authentic spokesmen for labour and for the rights of labour.


William Moore Benidickson: May I ask the minister a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not now; I wish to finish what 1 am saying.


William Moore Benidickson: The minister has heard the voices; would he be specific on those voices?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I took several questions from the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate and he made a speech every time. I wish to develop a point. I will take the hon. member's question later.
The hon. member for Peterborough tried this morning to put the Canadian Congress of Labour on the side of low tariffs. While it is true that in the brief put forward yesterday attention was drawn by the congress to the fact that tariff increases, as it is put here, "would not provide any real solution to this problem", that is, the essential problem of the plight of secondary industries in the face of import competition, yet, Mr. Chairman, that is not all that the congress has said, and that is not all that the congress has represented.
Two years ago the congress appeared before the cabinet, and they also made their representations. It happened to come just after a hearing before the tariff board in regard to the imports of rubber footwear coming into the country in heavy volume at that time, both from Hong Kong and Japan. Following that decision of the tariff board, this is what the Canadian Congress of Labour had to say in its memorandum to the government of Canada dated January 22, 1959. I quote:
We are naturally disappointed at the recent tariff board decision not to afford protection to the rubber footwear industry. This may prove to be the death knell of this long established Canadian industry and seriously affect the future of the small towns in which most of the industry is located. The condition of the textile industry continues to be precarious notwithstanding the fact that some increases in tariff have taken place.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, let no hon. member attempt to pretend in this house that the authentic voices of organized labour have not been heard, and heard frequently, by the

government or by individual ministers of the government in receiving their representations on the subject of the terms of the competition faced by Canadian workmen in relation to imports from abroad.
Then, the hon. member made an extraordinary statement in which he said that dumping may be legitimate trade practice. This is a most extraordinary statement. Here we have an hon. member saying that dumping may be a legitimate trade practice. Let me say to him that there is nothing legitimate about dumping.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not what the hon. member said.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The provisions of the GATT-I have not given the floor to the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He did not say that at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The provisions of the GATT make it quite clear that the GATT regards dumping as an inadmissible practice.


Mr. Deschatelets:: He never said that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman,
dumping is the sort of thing that, as a trade practice, has been put under the ban and condemnation of this house over the years, and put there in stronger legislative form in 1958. I hope the hon. member for Peterborough will soon learn that dumping is a practice which is capable of robbing Canadian workmen of their jobs.
Then, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member went on to say that we should have import boards, and let the import boards determine what industries have a place in our society. This means that he is proposing that the government should set up boards and take this right away from parliament, and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate rose in his place at the end of the speech and said that it was a good Liberal speech. This proposal was to take something out of parliament and put the power in the hands of an import board to say what industries in this country have a place in our economy. Do you realize what that means, Mr. Chairman?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is willing to put it in the hands of the Minister of National Revenue.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is suggested that we confer upon a board, which could be entirely bureaucratic, the right to decide what industries in this country should be marked out for survival and what industries should be marked out for the sentence of economic doom.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister prefers to give that power to the Minister of National Revenue.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is socialism. It is the kind of socialism that can strangle enterprise; it is the kind of socialism which expresses itself in that kind of bureaucracy. As long as this government is in office it is not going to set up any boards to pronounce the doom of any Canadian industries or pronounce the death knell on the jobs of Canadian workmen. No, Mr. Chairman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just a single minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let me make it very clear, then, Mr. Chairman, that when we hear what is the first voice in this house of the new party we hear a doctrine that is absolutely inimical to the interests of Canadian workmen, that contemplates the destruction by bureaucratic means of some Canadian industries. If the Canadian people want that, then I do not know the Canadian people. The Canadian people know that with this present administration every reasonable effort is going to be made to give a decent opportunity to Canadian industries and Canadian workmen to compete with the imports that are coming into this country, and to do so at all times with due regard to our obligations under the GATT and to our position as a great exporting nation. We have shown ourselves at all times deeply conscious of the necessity of maintaining those relationships and that position of Canada in the markets of the world.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I leave this subject. This is a doctrine that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, in his laudatory remarks, said at the conclusion of the speech this morning by the hon. member for Peterborough-apparently he regarded it as good Liberal doctrine-was a Liberal speech. He hailed it as a Liberal speech, the kind of speech that I say can find a way of pronouncing the doom of Canadian industry and the jobs of Canadian workmen.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister knows very well that I did not endorse the whole speech. I endorsed the concluding observation with a degree of praise. I want merely to correct the untrue statement just made by the Minister of Finance. I did not endorse the whole speech of the hon. member at all. I said that his concluding words, which were words of-


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -commendation for the liberation of trade were spoken like a Liberal, or words to that effect.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am afraid the record will not bear you out on that.
90205-6-110
Customs Tariff


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will review the record, and so can the hon. member.


William Moore Benidickson: I know the hon. member for Timmins wants to make some remarks. I rise only to ask a question following the minister's remarks. The minister indicated that at the proper time he would be prepared to answer my question. In his recent remarks he referred to the voices of labour which he and the government had received.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I understood the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River just wanted to ask a question.


William Moore Benidickson: That is right. As you will remember, Mr. Chairman, I rose when the minister was speaking-


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member for Timmins wishes to make some remarks. If the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River wishes to ask a question he may do so.


William Moore Benidickson: The minister indicated that at the conclusion of his remarks he would be prepared to receive from me the question I had risen to ask him and which he preferred to have at this point. In his remarks with respect to the attitude of the hon. member for Peterborough the minister referred to having received as a minister of the government representations from labour with respect to the tariff question. Would he indicate from what voices of labour in Peterborough he has received approbation of the legislation presented to us?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not confine myself to Peterborough; I was not speaking simply about Peterborough. I was speaking about the voice of labour generally. We have had representations from labour organizations and very often the delegations are accompanied by representatives of the labour organizations.


William Moore Benidickson: I take it then that the minister suggests that he has heard from labour representatives of the rubber footwear industry but from what other labour representatives whose voice he would respect has he received representations in support of this kind of legislation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There have been a number of them. I would not attempt to give a complete list now. My colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, has also received many of them. We certainly have had representations from labour in the rubber footwear field. We have had representations from labour in the silver flatware field. I have had a number and the Minister of National Revenue has had even more.

Customs Tariff


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to correct the misinterpretation that the minister had placed on the comments of the hon. member for Peterborough. The minister has indicated that organized labour wants tariff protection. Organized labour has contended annually for many years now in its presentations to the government of the day that it is not asking for high tariff policies because in the eyes of organized labour high tariff policies rather than providing employment are a major cause of unemployment such as we have in Canada at this time.
This does not mean to say that organized labour is in favour of free trade. Organized labour has continually asked for protection of various enterprises when it is in the national interest to do so. The resolution says that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Customs Tariff so as to provide certain things. I regret that it does not read that it is expedient to introduce a measure to abolish the Customs Tariff and to replace the whole tariff structure with adequate legislation enacted by parliament which would be based on recommendations of export and import boards as to what enterprises in Canada should receive all-out protection, which ones should receive partial protection and which ones should receive no protection whatsoever. To indicate that the hon. member for Peterborough was not adequately defending the interests of labour in Peterborough was a gross misrepresentation indeed because even the people of Peterborough know that high tariffs are not the answer.
The minister has made a great point of advocating that this measure is necessary to provide protection to Canadian industry and supply employment to Canadian labour. It is our contention that the enactment of the legislation which will follow the resolution is going to add to unemployment in Canada in that we will very definitely be handicapped in our efforts to hold down Canadian costs of production. I cannot for the life of me see why machinery entering into either primary or secondary production in Canada could not be exempted from the proposal that the government is now placing before us.
The minister made the statement that this legislation is going to be applauded by the business community of Canada. I have yet to hear any applause anywhere in Canada with respect to the proposed legislation except for the odd real dyed in the wool Tory newspaper editors writing editorial comment on the action proposed by the government. The minister admits that the purpose of the legislation is to raise tariffs and yet when we say that the Tories are raising tariffs there are heated and angry denials as though the loudness, of voice of the minister is going

to make it so. Regardless of the loudness of his voice, a reading of Hansard alone will convince any Canadian that the aim of the government is to use this resolution and the legislation to follow for the sole purpose of raising tariffs on imports into Canada.
The minister claimed that the other member nations of GATT are not complaining. We believe that we have reason to think that other nations have complained in the past about the actions of the Conservative government when at every possible turn they are taking advantage of the loopholes that exist under GATT and, while paying lip service to the principles of GATT, are eroding those principles by the many minor actions that are being undertaken from time to time. That is why I indicated in the budget debate that actions of this kind by member governments are undermining the possible future existence and extension of the very basic principles of GATT.
The minister knows very well that it is not part of our plan to have import boards arrive at decisions as to what enterprises are to receive adequate protection. Import and export boards are meant to act in an advisory capacity to whatever government happens to be in office at the time and as advisers to legislators generally. We say that there is an alternative to a policy either of high tariffs or of low tariffs and that the whole concept of tariffs in this day and age is outmoded as a useful instrument in the hands of government and has to be replaced. Otherwise we will have either low tariff policies which will ruin legitimate Canadian industries and cause unemployment or we will have high tariffs which in turn will cause unemployment as they have always done in the past.
The minister is very worried about the effect throughout Canada of the election in Peterborough. We are very well aware of that, but I felt that for the minister to attempt to misrepresent the position of labour on the question of tariffs was not in keeping with the debate now taking place. If the minister wants to know the position of labour on the whole subject of tariffs he only has to read the briefs that the organized labour movement as a whole has presented to the government over many long years now. While labour contends that a policy of high tariffs is not the answer to unemployment, labour also realizes that there are industries in Canada which in many cases may need not merely partial protection but all-out protection through the actions of the government of the day.


Mr. Woolliams:: I should like to ask a question of the hon. member who has just

spoken. If I understood him correctly, he suggested that industry should be controlled by boards so that they could set tariffs to protect the industry that needed protection and the industry that did not need protection. I was wondering whether he thought the same boards or boards of a different type should control organized labour at the same time.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I was not even recommending that the import or export board should control anyone. The import or export board should only look at the statistics and the facts and, bearing all factors in mind, make known to legislators their findings. I see no reason why we should not have a policy whereby we import into the lower mainland of British Columbia a fixed amount of potatoes at certain definite seasons of the year without the handicap of a tariff and at other times, when it may be deemed in the national interest, block them from ruining our own Canadian producers.


William Moore Benidickson: This is the first opportunity I have had to speak, Mr. Chairman, except to ask a question, since the Minister of National Revenue spoke before the luncheon adjournment and for a few minutes after the luncheon adjournment. We may have had some fairly strong language used in the consideration of this resolution. I think perhaps it is justified because some great changes are being made in connection with historic patterns with reference to goods of a class and kind made in Canada or not made in Canada; and this is so despite what the Minister of Finance has tried to suggest to this committee.
The Minister of Finance makes a statement and he perhaps thinks we are naive enough to accept it as being important. He says this legislation presented to us now involves no change in rates. What could be more fatuous or more out of line in real meaning than a statement of that kind? The minister himself is the author of the statement in this debate that some 70 items of great consequence in our tariff schedules involve rates of tariff duty which ultimately go down into our economy as an expense to our consumers, and they involve rates that could be for the most part either 7J per cent or 22J per cent. That is an increase of 15 per cent.
In the strict interpretation of his words the Minister of Finance may be truthful when he says that what is before us is not making any change in tariff rates in so far as what is before us is not changing the numerals in the tariff schedule with respect to any of these important items. However, I hope no member of the committee will be misled in the slightest degree into thinking that if we 90205-6-1104
Customs Tariff
are changing the rules upon which there is judgment as to what article is made in Canada as against what article is not made in Canada we are not here in this committee in effect making a great change perhaps in the rate of tax that will apply to the articles involved.
In particular, it has been made evident that in respect of articles that are described here as goods custom-made to specifications we are dealing with extremely expensive items; and perhaps, even more important, we are dealing with items that are of the kind that would be purchased by our broad base of producers and manufacturers across this country. I refer to machinery and heavy articles of custom-made goods.
Everyone whom I have heard who is entitled to respect these days in connection with some of our economic difficulties always includes in his speech a reference to the importance of not only doing something in the nature of increased production for our domestic market, he also emphasizes the importance of getting into the export market. I suggest that nothing could be more fatal to that wide group of producers or manufacturers than not to make sure that they are not subject to costs in connection with their original capital costs, particularly related to the machinery of their production, that would first of all perhaps deter them from entering into new fields of endeavour or, in replacement of existing plant, would prove so expensive as to cost of this machinery in relation to what they could get in the cheapest market that it would prove that they could not compete effectively in the export markets of the world.
The hon. member for Vancouver East referred to briefs that he had received from a number of important industries in this country represented in his province of British Columbia. They were notably, I admit, in the extractive and resources industries. On the other hand, however, this consideration goes right through the piece. As far back as 1890, I believe, when a Conservative government was in power, that government despite the pressure that a Conservative government generally gets from manufacturers in this country and quite irrespective of the interests of consumers, through the then minister of finance, namely Mr. Foster, perhaps for the first time decided that this item "of a class or kind made in Canada" was important. He recognized then that one must not look solely to the plant and its labour which would create these machines which involve capital expenditures but that one, in looking to the broad interests of all Canadians, must look to the necessity of making sure that the entire level of manufacturers in this country were given a break to the extent that the costs of

Customs Tariff
capital equipment were not originally priced at such a point beyond international figures that they could not ultimately compete with their international competitors. That idea is of the essence here because we have had an admission that these items described as goods custom-made to specifications are of the essence of the debate that we have been pursuing.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is the first time it has really been raised.


William Moore Benidickson: In this area we also find our chief concern because, despite the comment a moment ago of the Minister of National Revenue, it is in this sphere where we suggest improperly, undesirably and with perhaps havoc to the country, we are giving ministerial final discretion and we are taking away the opportunity of people affected to have the right of appeal to an outside tribunal beyond politics and beyond the minister, a tribunal that has its decisions even subject to appeal through our normal courts, namely the exchequer court and the Supreme Court of Canada.
It is here where I feel there is no justification whatsoever for this legislation. We will not support the loose phrases that are in this definition. To my mind the word "approximately" practically makes a nonentity of anything serious in connection with this legislation.


Richard Albert Bell: What would the hon. gentleman suggest.


William Moore Benidickson: I think perhaps I could suggest something more definitive and accurate. That, of course, is not my responsibility. The hon. member for Carleton may hear an amendment that may be more accurate in that respect. I do not know whether or not he is inviting that.
But certainly by dictionary definition, or by reason of the particular power given to the minister to interpret the word "approximately", this language is unduly loose, wide, indefinite and uncertain. I think this is the centre of the ministerial final and ultimate decision that is involved in these matters.
I insist again that this is not going to assist industry in this country to embark on new enterprises. I am convinced that uncertainties will prevail when these matters are not subject to judicial, open and known decisions, when these decisions come from a back room and are final in the office of the Minister of National Revenue, case by case, and because of the looseness of the language that prevails here industry will be discouraged from taking the initiative and deciding

to take a chance on introducing some new endeavour into the industrial activity of this country.
I thought this point was most effectively made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate today. I still think that, while we heard about "Alice in the Looking Glass" and some other off-base comments, no minister has given this committee an adequate answer to that important question which was raised. The question was this: If you are proposing that there should be a redefinition to describe a class or kind of goods that are produced in Canada, why do you not give it to the parliament of Canada to study, and why do you not allow our courts -not a political office-to determine in the future whether a particular item of goods does or does not meet the specifications that the parliament of Canada has in its judgment determined are proper, even if it is by revised and more up-to-date language, having regard to the decisions of certain judicial courts which were referred to in the debate yesterday?
I think this is of the essence. The minister says that over the history of this country there have not been many appeals. Of course that simply emphasizes the necessity for maintaining this right on the part of every Canadian, with respect to a tax, to have a right of appeal beyond the political level, rather than to reduce and deny that right as in substance is being done in this legislation.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. minister a question. Has the minister attempted to figure out what change there might be in budget revenues as a result of these amendments?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, it is impossible to try to delineate or prophesy the amount of revenue which would be effected by any of these rulings. Obviously such rulings as might be made according to the dire prophecies of my hon. friends opposite will result in a substantial addition to the national revenue.


William Moore Benidickson: If there is further protection there will be additional revenue.


George Clyde Nowlan: There will be additional
revenue; there is no question of that. How I can answer it otherwise, I do not know. That is the one intelligent comment that my hon. friend has made during the day's debate, and I welcome his return to sanity. However, I do not think there is anything one can say of a specific nature. As a "class or kind" ruling of that nature is made it does, as my hon. friend pointed out, attract a higher rate of duty.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Which is not paid.


George Clyde Nowlan: Of course it is paid.


William Moore Benidickson: I realize I was going against my own argument-


George Clyde Nowlan: That is nothing new.


William Moore Benidickson: -because my point was that the article might prove to be 15 per cent more expensive by reason of customs duty only, and we all know that every businessman also takes a fee for financing the original cost of his merchandise. So there would be a subsequent mark-up over the 15 per cent before the machinery, perhapss reached the ultimate consumer. There would be discouragement to even starting out by purchasing capital goods of that nature. But in the end perhaps, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said, it would mean even less revenue than now; and of course we would have less employment than now, or less employment than possible, because of the fictitious costs provided at the original base of starting up a factory which would provide jobs.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, there are a few factual questions that I would like to ask. My first question is this. I assume- and I base it on an assumption, and my assumption may be wrong-that the reason the government now proposes to bring custom-made goods within the ambit of the "made in Canada" provision is that they have had representations made to them that there are cases where, if the duty were high enough, these goods could be made in Canada. I assume that representations have been made to the government and that the government is aware of industries where this could take place. X think before we are asked to make this quite revolutionary change in the law we should be told precisely what those industries are.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, goods of this kind are not being brought in for the first time. There have been rulings on custom-made goods. I have made rulings myself within the last 18 months on goods of the custom-made kind. You get a cartel-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I have not made my question clear and I am sure the minister does not want to answer a question the answer to which does not interest me. What is revolutionary about this is that the minister may decide there is a capacity to make them in Canada, instead of the 10 per cent that is made in Canada. I am interested in finding out just what are the categories of industry, manufacture and all other forms of production about which the government has had representations that has led them to think
Customs Tariff
that if this change is made in the Customs Tariff there will be greater production in Canada.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes. I think the question can be answered "yes".


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to know what they are. Normally when a change is made in the Customs Tariff it is not made in vacuo simply because somebody has had an airy fairy notion that it might have some effect. These changes are based on concrete information, either information which the government has assembled itself or more usually because it has been lobbied, because certain people have approached them and said: We could make a certain kind of bulldozer which has never before been made in Canada, but we cannot make it to compete on the basis of the duty on that article at the present time; if the duty were 15 per cent higher, we could do it.


George Clyde Nowlan: Certainly, it would not apply to bulldozers. There, you might get that iniquitous word to which so much objection has been raised, the word "approximately". There might be a question of whether it could lift five tons or five and a half tons, or whether the shovel capacity was three yards or three and a half yards. I am not an industrialist, and I am not speaking with the tone of authority which the hon. gentleman has adopted all day in dealing with these questions. I am not speaking pontifically about all these things. The hon. gentleman has spoken about what goes on in pressure groups and lobbies-subjects with which we are not accustomed, though perhaps we shall be more accustomed to them after 23 years.
What could come in, for example, would be atomic reactors; a thermogenerator could be one of those articles; material and equipment of that kind, which is very heavy equipment of the type which is being increasingly used today because of the change in technology.
The great change in technology which has accompanied the introduction of atomic energy has only developed in the past few years in this country. We first developed our hydroelectric energy. We have harnessed, to a large extent, the streams and rivers at our disposal where this can be done economically. The St. Lawrence waterway is perhaps one of the last we have here in this area of Canada. The Columbia river is another river to which this government is paying attention, and great progress is being made there.
But having exhausted the economic development of hydro you then get thermogenerators. These are, of course, made to specification; they'are custom-made. It takes, I am told, a long while to make them. These

Customs Tariff
are some of the fields in which this legislation may be used in the future to provide employment for Canadians and the development of Canadian industry.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say that is pretty vague stuff as, I think, the minister will admit. The hon. gentleman is going to have to decide three questions here. It seems to me that under subsection 3 (b) he will have to make a final decision whether the goods are custom-made to specifications. I admit that is probably not an impossible decision to make.


George Clyde Nowlan: An easy one, I think.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would not always be easy. But the minister has to decide on a much more important question. He must then decide whether adequate facilities exist in Canada. My imagination does not go far enough to enable me to imagine that any government would bring in proposed legislation of this sort unless it had in mind certain specific industries, specific facilities now available in Canada for the manufacture of particular goods which are not now being made in Canada but which the government believes could be made in Canada under the higher duty. It seems to me the government should come clean and tell us what they are. What are we legislating about? Let us have this information in specific terms.


George Clyde Nowlan: I think I have already
answered that question. I think perhaps the hon. member is being a little more impervious than he usually is, because he apparently wants to stall this debate until five o'clock. I have already said that one example of a machine, or group of machines coupled together, which could be custom-made would be an atomic reactor or a thermogenerator. We have John Inglis who have been working on one; General Electric have been working on one. It is easy enough-I will not say easy; it needs the advice of engineers and inspection by competent officials-but it is a relatively simple matter to determine whether General Electric, for example, can produce a light bulb or whether they can produce a generator or not. These are matters which require an investigation by officials and experts who would then advise in that connection. I am sure the hon. gentleman is not suggesting for one moment that it cannot be determined whether adequate facilities for the production of whatever particular custom-made instrument or engine or productive machinery to which an order may apply exist in Canada or not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was not attempting to suggest that. The minister is misunderstanding what I am trying to find out. I am trying to find out where those facilities are at the present time which created in the mind of the government the impulse to bring in this legislation. I do not believe the government dreamed this up. They must have some specific imports in mind which they think could be made in Canada if this legislative change were made. If this is not the case, I think it is irresponsible to ask parliament to deal with the situation.
The government is asking us for a change in our present tariff structure, a change which, because it is clearly protective, is undoubtedly going to arouse hostility among certain of those who at present export goods to Canada. I am not saying this is necessarily a reason why the legislation should not be enacted. I am seeking information. I want to know what facilities exist here which in the view of the government could be used to manufacture goods in place of those now being imported.
I am sure that when Sir John Macdonald introduced the national policy in 1878 he did not just say: if we raise the tariffs a lot of goods will be made here. He raised specific tariffs on specific things for the purpose of promoting manufacture. It is true that at that time the tariff was a much cruder instrument than it is today and that it was imposed mainly for revenue purposes, but the tariffs were raised higher on certain categories of goods because it was considered that with a higher tariff goods would be made in Canada.


An hon. Member:: It was a good thing, though.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member is entitled to his own opinion about that. I do not think it would be relevant to debate the question, interesting though it might be. What we are discussing now is whether we ought tc give the Minister of National Revenue the power to raise tariffs on certain imports which now come into Canada because he believes that adequate facilities exist in Canada for the manufacture of those goods. I wish the minister would tell us right now what the things are that the government knows about that it believes there are adequate facilities for so that we will be equipped with knowledge of the facts and will not be simply speculating on the subject.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I hope that the capacity of Canadian industry is not so limited that in a moment or two I could foresee and prophecy all the developments that will occur in Canadian industry in the years to come. If

one looks today at our achievements compared with those of 20 years ago-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before C. D. Howe, you mean.


George Clyde Nowlan: Do not bring C. D. Howe into this. We give him full credit for all that he did. There has been much reference made this afternoon to one debate which is a subject of great embarrassment to my hon. friends opposite so I fail to see why they are bringing in that gentleman's name at the moment.
I should not have liked to make a prophecy 20 years ago concerning developments which have already taken place in Canadian industry. No one can tell what scientific and industry. No one can tell what scientific and technological developments may occur within the next few years. I have already mentioned atomic reactors and thermal generators. These are two things-particularly thermal generators-concerning which it is assumed that within the next few years interesting things will occur because of the development of our economic hydro resources. There may very well be more thermal generators in Canada in the future. If a Canadian firm succeeds in getting a tender on the construction of a thermal generator it can involve thousands upon thousands of man hours of employment. It can succeed in developing an industry here from which at the moment due to competition from outside this country our producers have been excluded from entirely. There has been one made in Canada during the last year. A ruling was made. I made the ruling that it was of a class or kind made in Canada. I am very happy that I did it, too. There was no appeal. There were none of the dire consequences about which we have heard lamentations, griefs, prophecies and fears. All that ensued from it was the provision of employment for Canadians, thousands of Canadian man hours.
That is what this government is going to do. My hon. friends opposite talk about exports and putting on increased costs in relation to the export industry, thereby depriving us of employment. This government is watching that factor. We are not trying to increase the cost of exports. After all, as was said last night, during the relatively short time I have been in office, a period of between three and a half to four years, there have been scores of rulings of class or kind made in Canada. What happened? Under the aegis of my friend the former minister of trade and commerce and now under the new Minister of Trade and Commerce Canada's exports last year were greater than ever before. They were greater than they were under hon. gentlemen opposite who have been weeping saline tears about the future of Canadian
Customs Tariff
exports. My hon. friends do not need to worry about that. We are looking after that matter just as we will look after the question of Canadian employment.


Lionel Chevrier: The government is not doing very well with respect to employment.


George Clyde Nowlan: We are doing very well. We have had the two schools of thought among hon. gentlemen opposite, one represented by the hon. member for Essex East, pompous Paul, tramping up and down and ringing the rafters with his howling about unemployment, and the other represented by the member for Bonavista-Twillingate shrieking cries to high heaven about what we are going to do to the Canadian consumers. Hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to make the best of two worlds simultaneously, but they have made an awful mess of both of them.
I certainly do not pretend for one moment that the problem of unemployment is going to be solved by this government unassisted. It requires the co-operation of everybody. We are convinced, however-and we are advised to this effect by labour unions, management and employees-that by means of measures such as this the government is taking steps which will result in increasing the efficiency of Canadian production and in creating additional Canadian employment. Whether that is right or wrong is another matter. Every government has to make decisions on the basis of the best information it can get and on the basis of the technological situation confronting it at the moment. We are convinced that the measure before the committee at the moment is in the best interest of Canadian producers, Canadian employees and Canadians generally, and that instead of interfering with our exports, or prejudicing them, it will add generally to employment and the productive capacity of Canada.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, while I admire some of the poetic eloquence employed by the minister in portions of his arguments there is one pattern or thread running through his argument that concerns me very greatly, and that is his insistence on the fact that because we-the minister uses the term "we" meaning the government-are convinced that this legislation is good legislation, therefore he does not have to answer any questions of the opposition or explain precisely and in detail the reasons for the resolution for which the government is seeking the approval of the committee. That is where my difference with the minister and his colleague lies. That pattern has run through the whole of the debate on this resolution.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There has been no such thing.

Customs Tariff


George Clyde Nowlan: Perhaps my hon. friend would be good enough to explain what he thinks my colleague the Minister of Finance and I have been doing here in the committee for tne past few days if we have not been answering questions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Making speeches.


George James McIlraith: The minister has made little attempt to explain the resolution and the Minister of Finance has devoted his time to vicious attacks on the personalities of those persons who have dared to express a point of view different from that which the minister espouses and he has rarely addressed himself to the resolution before the committee.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have attempted to deal with any questions that have been raised.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is this not a vicious attack on my personality?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Revenue asked me a question and I am attempting to answer it. I will make no comment about the manners of the Minister of Finance. I am content to leave it to those who read Hansard to form their own assessments as to his manners and conduct as a minister of the crown in seeking the approval of the committee for a resolution brought before it by him. If the hon. gentleman chooses to make personal references to me or about me, that is a matter of complete indifference to me. The minister may make all such references he wishes to, and I hope that will relieve his mind.
Earlier this afternoon when he was asked some very relevant questions the Minister of National Revenue devoted his reply to expounding the argument that no hon. member of the opposition knows anything about this difficult subject whatever and that he and the Minister of Finance do. The hon. gentleman is at perfect liberty to advance that sort of argument if he likes. I for one have always found this legislation quite difficult. I have found the subject complex and difficult. I have never asserted special knowledge of it. I suspect that on occasion the minister has his own problems with it.


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member is right.


George James McIlraith: Anyone else who ever deals with it recognizes at once that they have problems with it. However, the minister asked me a question and I felt he was entitled to an answer. The point I want to get at is that there has been a constant repetition by both ministers of the argument that because we, the government, think this is good legislation it should go through, which is not an answer to the questions which have been asked.

A moment ago the Minister of National Revenue said that no one can tell what future developments will be. He was addressing himself to the problem of the terminology custom-made to specifications, I do not think anyone will disagree with that statement too much because technological changes are very rapid, but the point I want to make is that that is not the basis on which to introduce legislation under which the minister is taking away from citizens the right of appeal to a tribunal and arrogating that power to himself as he is effectively doing in these provisions. That is particularly true when you bear in mind the fact that the right involved is that of an appeal by a taxpayer, the consequences of a decision on which may be to impose taxation. It is a very serious thing when such arbitrary power is taken by the minister.
In answer to my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, the minister said it was an easy decision to make whether or not goods are custom-made to specifications.


George Clyde Nowlan: To order, I said; I said, custom-made to order. It is easy to determine whether or not there is an order.


George James McIlraith: The whole point and argument back of so many of the kinds of machines coming into plants in the manufacturing business have to do with whether the machinery is something that is custom-made to specifications. You can engage in endless arguments on that subject. I do not want to elaborate the problem here but it is possible to engage in endless arguments as to whether a machine is custom-made to specifications.
With due deference to the minister, it is not an easy decision to make. It is one of the sources of continual representation to departmental officials and to others concerned with the administration of the act. To generalize and to brush it aside and say it is an easy decision to make is not good enough. The decision may be easy enough for the minister to make when he is. dealing with certain of the newer plants such as the atomic energy plant, but let him apply his mind to that other problem, namely the ordinary manufacturing plants which are making consumer goods, and see how difficult it is.
There was some confusion arising out of my remarks last night. I am afraid I did not clearly understand the implications of an interjection by the minister. As a matter of fact, I did not hear it clearly. The interjection was made when I was seeking to point out a distinction between those types of machinery which are not custom-made to specifications, but are used in the manufacturing and production field and are not consumer goods in the ordinary sense at all. My reference was

to such machine tools and machinery. When one reads Hansard today one sees that there was confusion on that point. There was an interjection from the hon. member for Carle-ton which I at least thought had to do with off the shelf goods mainly, but that was another point altogether. The minister says he cannot tell what the development will be in the future; therefore, he is not sure. I deduce from that statement of his that that is why he would need this power. Why is he then taking away from the tariff board the right to make this adjudication? The tariff board is being enlarged and, as I said, I am happy to hear that.
In the concluding part of his argument this afternoon the minister referred to a decision he made that something was of a class or kind made in Canada and everybody was happy and that the results of that decision were very successful. I am not making this as a personal reference to the minister who made that decision, but he had the knowledge, and the staff had the knowledge that that decision was subject to appeal to the tariff board. Let me remind him of that fact. Let me remind him of the fact that the importer also had that certain knowledge in his mind.
I am quite happy that the minister made that successful decision, but let us not be under any confusion about what the effect of this legislation is and what its possible implications may be.
I regret this attempt to accuse anyone who is opposing this method of legislating on this difficult subject of being unfriendly to the economic development of this country or trying to create unemployment in the country. It just is not that way at all. This is difficult legislation on a definition that has caused trouble to succeeding governments over a considerable number of years. Surely what is required is legislation that would provide better certainty and better clarity in the economic field and that would meet the situation and not worsen it.
If he likes the minister can accuse me of having a suspicious mind, I must reiterate that I find this proposed legislation on the points we have been arguing about wholly offensive. I think it is the wrong way to deal with the problem. I think it is a way that is only going to add to the trouble. I think it is a way that is going to, depending on the whim of particular administrations at particular times, lead to an increase in the tariffs on a good many items. That may or may not be desirable. The minister will argue and some will argue that it is in certain cases; but there is this other side of the coin that I want to point out. It may be that improper decisions on this definition will increase the cost of production of our goods.	*
Customs Tariff
Last night I tried to point out to the minister the dangers of having firms, as a result of improper rulings, take machinery that was not quite the best and most efficient they could get and install it in their plants instead of having in those manufacturing plants the most efficient machinery we can possibly get. That is the nub of the problem that secondary industry is having today.
A few minutes ago the minister said something about exports. I invite the minister to examine some of the problems relating to exports. I refer to categories of goods comprising our exports. It is rather difficult to generalize about them, but let the minister examine them in relation to secondary industry in this country. If he does I do not think he will make, shall I say, the same glib statements he has just made on the subject of exports. But more particularly I ask him to consider the implications of wrong use being made of this provision on the cost factor of consumer goods being used in Canada. I point out to him that if those goods are not produced economically and cheaply in Canada, then the pressure is to import those manufactured consumer goods and that is where he gets to the nub of the employment situation in the manufacturing industry. He had better have a bit of a look here and examine rather carefully into the matter.
I wish to raise one other matter. Just before lunch I sought to ask the minister a question when he was dealing with this point. I sought to ask the Minister of Finance a question on the same subject when he was speaking. I refer to the matter of secret information that the Minister of National Revenue has that is not available to the tariff board. The minister pointed out the fact, which is very true as I well know, that the tariff board very frequently gets information from the Minister of National Revenue about quantity of imports, and so on, on which to found their judgment.
I would also like to have this matter clarified. The clear inference from the remarks of both of the ministers was that the tariff board did not also have procedures for getting such confidential information on those matters from his department and, in many cases, confidential information which the Minister of National Revenue does not have in his department. That is the impression which both ministers left, and I do respectfully want to differ from them on this matter of tariff board procedure. I ask them to address themselves to this point and explain to us just what type of confidential information is it that the tariff board has not been able to get that enables the minister to come here now and say he should have the right to make a decision and there should be no

Customs Tariff
appeal to the tariff board. Perhaps I might conclude my remarks for now until I get an answer on that specific point because I should like to have it cleared up.


George Clyde Nowlan: As I have said and as the hon. member says, it is customary for the tariff board to get confidential information from the Department of National Revenue. It may be that the tariff board has some machinery for the obtaining of confidential information on their own behalf. I have been told, though I do not know this, that the tariff board, although it makes inquiries from our department with respect to information for background purposes, is very reluctant to get information of a confidential nature on its own initiative because it cannot use it publicly. It does not want to be in the position of basing a judgment on confidential information. I have been accused today that I would be doing this, that and the other thing without the right of appeal, but obviously the tariff board does not want to base judgments on confidential information and ascribe its reasons for judgment to confidential information. My understanding of the practice is that the board substantially gets its information from witnesses, and from the Department of National Revenue and they do have-I am not positive about this but I will accept the hon. gentleman's word for it- some machinery whereby the board itself can acquire certain information on a confidential basis.


George James McIlraith: The point I was getting at was that any confidential information the minister had would presumably have to do with the quantity of imports.


George Clyde Nowlan: And also, of course, as to Canadian consumption. Take the question of the 10 per cent. What do you have to do? You have to find out how much is imported and we have the figures. Then you have to get confidentially from various firms, or perhaps not confidentially, the amount that they have manufactured this year and the amount they have sold. We add the two together and that gives you Canadian consumption, and then you ascertain your 10 per cent or more.


George James McIlraith: That is precisely my point. In determining Canadian consumption one factor is the import data which the Minister of National Revenue has.


George Clyde Nowlan: Definitely.


George James McIlraith: It is very definitely a factor and it is information which the minister can easily make available to the tariff board. I have always been under the impression that it was being made available to the tariff board and I have always thought that the

board has very excellent machinery for handling questions of a confidential nature so that there would be no prejudice to the individual firms concerned. I have always thought that the board was an example of a very competent board in that respect and I have a high opinion of their work. However, there is a lot of other information that comes from other sources which has to be gathered together, and from the minister's argument I could not see that he was in any better position to assemble that information than was the tariff board.


George Clyde Nowlan: Except that I suggest this without interrupting the hon. member, although I suppose I am interrupting him, that the tariff board can get specific information with respect to a specific matter which is before it at a particular time. If they have these powers I am sure they are limited to obtaining information on the specific question. We, on the other hand, and I refer to the officials of the department, because of the fact that we are dealing with all imports at all times and Canadian production generally have this information and are in a position to get information of a confidential nature on a general basis which would not apply to a specific question relating to a specific firm before the tariff board at this particular minute.


George James McIlraith: I do not want to digress too far into the argument about the tariff board. The board has quite good research facilities and its membership is being enlarged. With deference to the minister, I think I can leave the matter this way, that I find there is some difference in our views as to the possibility of the tariff board doing this job. I think that is perhaps a fair way to leave that point.
There is one other thing. I cannot for the life of me understand this. The Minister of National Revenue spoke several times about the relatively few appeals from departmental rulings. If there are relatively few appeals and the tariff board is being enlarged so it can sit in several panels, what is the logic in taking this appeal work away from the board? Would he explain that? To me it is a simple proposition and I just cannot follow the minister's argument.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It has been
repeated time and again.


George James McIlraith: I beg to differ. The Minister of Finance would not address himself specifically to that simple proposition. He went into large areas around it with considerable force and vigour but he did not stick to that point and explain it to us in a way that was relevant. I wish he would do so.


George Clyde Nowlan: Of course, the converse or the other side of the coin is certainly true. If there have been very few appeals exercised, if there has been very little done under the appeal section, then there was no basis for all the blatant outcries we have heard today about the public of Canada being deprived and robbed of something of substance. If my statement is correct and the hon. member accepts it-I am speaking in general terms and not of a specific fraction of one per cent-if there have been very few appeals entered then there has not been this great damage done. We are entering a new field here where undoubtedly there are areas of dispute but we do not want to provide an opportunity for fictitious or fractious appeals in order to delay matters. As my last word before five o'clock and I hope in this debate, although I am perhaps sanguine, I say that these matters on which we are accused of depriving the public of a right of appeal are purely routine statistical matters.


George James McIlraith: They are not.


George Clyde Nowlan: You deny that. I am saying that is so. We can spend from now until Christmas arguing about what is statistical and what is not. I am saying that (a) no appeals of any substance have been submitted and (b) if there were appeals they were on statistical matters on which the information is not a matter of argument but a matter of fact, and the Minister of National Revenue is in a better position to produce that evidence than anyone else in the public service.


George James McIlraith: On the question of appeal, the right of appeal undoubtedly has, as it always has had, a salutary effect on the administrative arm of government. There is no doubt about that. Surely the minister has been a minister of the crown long enough to have noticed that and to have appreciated it. I think the taking away of this right of appeal is going to lead to a dangerous situation and result in damage to our economy. I have further remarks to make, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Edward Rea: It being five o'clock, in order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of public and private bills pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, it is my duty to rise and report progress on a certain resolution and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be.
Progress reported.


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


INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Erhart Regier: the second reading of Bill No. C-12, to provide for pay for statutory holidays for employees and for pay for work performed on statutory holidays.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I again have the honour of introducing the bill before the house. I wish that the government in its wisdom had introduced a bill of its own and that I therefore would not be under the obligation myself of discharging this responsibility. As has been indicated many times previously in this house, the purpose of this bill is to provide that all employees in Canada who come under federal labour jurisdiction shall receive their regular pay for at least eight statutory holidays each year, without having to work on those holidays. It also provides that when any such employee is required to work on any statutory holiday, as defined in the bill, he shall receive pay for such work at double time in addition to his regular pay for such holiday.
Nothing in this bill affects any provision for statutory holidays with pay enjoyed by any employees where such provisions are more favourable than those enjoyed herein. However, this bill supersedes any provisions which are less favourable than those that are contained in the bill.
After the adoption of this bill on second reading I hope to move that the bill be referred for detailed examination to the industrial relations committee of this house. I know that the bill is a lengthy one and is rather complicated. I feel that a useful service would thus be performed and that the bill ought not to become law until the industrial relations committee has examined it in all the details and implications and has amended it as the committee may desire to amend it. It will then be returned to the house and I hope eventually become law. If, however, the government indicates that it would like to introduce a bill of its own having the same aim, I should be only too happy at any moment's notice to ask leave of the house to have the bill taken off the order paper in order to make it possible for the government to bring in its own bill and we would then be able to deal with the government's proposal.

Private Bills
It is estimated that some 10 per cent ol all employees in Canada do not come under the jurisdiction of any of the provinces but rather come under the jurisdiction of the federal government as far as labour legislation is concerned. Our proposal is one that will guarantee to each and every one of this large group of Canadian workers exceeding several hundred thousand in number the right to a minimum of eight statutory holidays a year; and if for some reason or other they were obliged to work on such holidays they would be entitled to what already prevails in the case of many agreements between employers and employees; that is to say, they would have the right to claim pay for that day as well as double pay for having worked on that particular day. That is in addition to the normal pay for the day would be received by all those who were working.
I know the argument that has been used year after year in opposition to legislation of this kind, namely that matters of this kind are best left to the process of negotiation. However once the people of Canada as a whole accept a certain attitude and once most of the workers involved already have these concessions by the process of negotiation, I submit that it then becomes time for parliament to legislate in order to force, if necessary, those employers who do not comply with accepted standard practice also to grant to their own employees the concessions, rights and privileges that most other workers now have.
Most of our provincial legislatures have now enacted statutory holidays legislation. In the interests of the many workers involved we feel that the national government ought to do the same for workers coming under its particular jurisdiction.
A number of years ago we used to argue for a bill calling for annual vacations with pay for all those workers coming under national labour jurisdiction. At that time the government argued that this matter was best left to the process of negotiation. At this time I want to give the government full marks for having enacted in its first parliament after the 1957 election-I believe it was its first parliament-in fact a vacations with pay bill. I hope the day is not far distant when the government will also see its way clear to round out, if you wish to call it that, its existing labour legislation by providing under law the right of every worker coming within its field of authority to a minimum of eight statutory holidays a year.
I have looked at the debates, especially the one that took place in this house on December 13, 1957 when Mr. Stanley Knowles, the former member for Winnipeg North Centre, introduced a bill almost identical to this

one, as he had so often done in the past. After Mr. Knowles had spoken I am pleased to note that the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Small), who is still a member of the house, rose in his place and endorsed the principle of the bill. His main complaint seemed to be that the bill did not go far enough. In his opinion there ought to be legislation to provide for at least one statutory holiday in each and every calendar month. He expressed a little bit of concern about the employer of only one, two or three men or in other words the small enterpriser in Canada. If one looks at the class of workers who come under federal labour jurisdiction he immediately realizes that there are in effect no employers of only a very limited number of men whose employees come under the jurisdiction of the national government.
The bill itself lists most of the major employers of labour who would be affected by labour legislation passed by this parliament. In the main the industries concerned are Canadian railways; Canadian steamship lines; those operating aerodromes, aircraft and lines of air transportation; radio broadcasting stations; banks and banking and enterprises of this kind. It is therefore really not right to argue that this bill would penalize the small enterpriser in Canada inasmuch as the small enterpriser is not involved to' any degree worth mentioning at all. His employees are almost exclusively under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments.
I was also pleased to note that in that debate the spokesman for the Liberal party- I assume he was the spokesman for the Liberal party; I refer to the then hon. member for Kootenay East, Mr. Byrne-also endorsed the principle of the bill and indicated that he had supported the principle of legislation of this kind over a period of many years.
When you have such unanimity in the-house from the spokesmen of all three political parties concerned I feel the government ought not to delay any longer and ought to permit this bill to go through as such, or ought to indicate that it is prepared at a very early date to bring forward legislation of its own having the same ultimate aim in view.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay a vote on this matter, and I also know there are other members who would like to participate in this debate. Therefore I will now close my remarks.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) in introducing this bill. I was struck by one phrase that he used in recommending this bill to the house. He said that most industries have statutory

holidays with pay. He said the idea of this bill-and now I think I am quoting him- is to force those employers who do not conform to accepted standard practices to do so.
I checked with the Department of Labour regarding statutory holidays with pay in connection with non-operating unions and the running trades to try and obtain some facts as to what is now being done and as to what is the custom now. I am told that non-operating unions do have, through collective bargaining, statutory holidays with pay. These unions work on a shift basis. They have regular work weeks and it can be arranged so that men can be off on holidays; and if they are not off, they are entitled to extra pay for those days worked.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question. Is the hon. member aware of the fact that the extra gangs employed in such large numbers by the railway companies have no statutory holidays with pay?


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, I have worked on extra gangs, but this was quite a few years ago. I can say that at that time we had no statutory holidays with pay. Frankly, in my gang we would have thrown the foreman in the river if he had tried to stop us working and had tried to make us just sit around in the bush for a full day. I do not think the point the hon. member has raised is really germane to this bill. Extra gangs are certainly entitled to holidays. Extra gangs are entitled to vacation with pay on the basis of the number of months worked, on a calculated basis, where if they do not get the vacation they receive pay in lieu.
It might well be that something along that line might be worked out at the termination of the job, because the people on extra gangs are not permanent employees of the railroad; that is, they are simply there for one contract, usually that one job only. They are construction workers, and it might well be that something along that line might well be written into this bill. It is not in there now. This bill really deals with permanent employees, employees who have what we might call a year-round job.
When the hon. member talked about forcing employers who do not conform to accepted standard practices, I think he was making a rather drastic statement, because when you look at the list of industries and vocations which do not have statutory holidays with pay you find that they practically all come under the general heading of essential public service.
Private Bills
I suppose that when a man enters the profession of medicine he knows he is going to be called out seven days a week. Shall he charge for a house call on a Sunday three times the charge that he would make for a house call on a Wednesday? The same reasoning can be applied here.
The running trades are paid, not on an hourly basis, not on a daily basis but, as the hon. member knows, on a mileage basis. It is not unusual in a run for a man to accumulate three days' pay in one day. He may be on a mileage basis of 100 miles, and if he travels 300 miles he receives three days' pay. There are lay-offs in the running trades. If people want a holiday, they lay-off; if people are sick, they lay-off. These jobs are based, not on hours but on a mileage standard.
If a train leaves Toronto on Friday and there is a statutory holiday on the Saturday, should it stop or should it carry on? If your telephone goes out of commission, if the power fails in your house and it happens to be a statutory holiday should maintenance crews be available to make the necessary repairs? The hon. member will agree that this must be so. Yet he says that this bill is to force those employers who do not conform to accepted standard practices.
He is trying to apply working conditions, working rights and working methods which you will find in a factory to an essential industry which is based on a 24-hour operation every day, seven days a week.
I suggest that these industries to which I am referring, and which are mentioned in clause 3 of the bill, would like to arrange things so that they did not have to work on holidays, because there must be continuous pressure on them to pay extra for work done on those days, and there must be even more pressure on them from employees who do not want to work on Christmas day no matter how much they are paid. Therefore they must have difficulty in staffing these essential services on family holidays such as Christmas day. So it is not a question of forcing these employers; it is a question that the very facts of life demand that men and women in these essential services have to work on these days.
Therefore we come to the real question. That is, whether employees who have to work on these days shall receive extra compensation for so doing. Let us get to that essential point, not the point that we shall force employers who do not conform to accepted standard practices, but should we legislate that men and women who have to work on holidays shall receive extra pay for working on those holidays?
This is not a question of holidays; this is a question of remuneration, of pay. Questions of pay are properly settled around the

Private Bills
bargaining table through collective bargaining. I think the hon. member has missed that point when he refers to speeches made by other members in this house who have said this is a matter of negotiating between employer and employee. He has thought about it in terms of legislation to give time off on national holidays, rather than legislation which will give extra pay. No matter what we do with this legislation, whether we pass it or not, the same people will be working the day after this legislation is passed as were working the day before. I think that is the criterion. This will not reduce employment on those days, because this employment is in regard to essential services.
So I want to say that viewed in that light I think men and women who work on Christmas day and have to forgo the holiday are entitled to extra compensation, because the following Monday is not as good. Everybody else is back at work. They cannot go on family picnics and family gatherings or to holiday resorts for special events put on that day. They are deprived of the facilities which are made available as special holiday facilities. It must always be borne in mind, of course, that when they entered their avocations they did so in accordance with the conditions of employment existing in those occupations, but since then wages have increased as a result of collective bargaining and fringe benefits have changed, also as a result of collective bargaining, and it may be that collective bargaining could win extra compensation for holiday workers. I think that is the key to the bill and that it should be debated, discussed and decided with that view in mind.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: In rising to speak on this bill I am reminded of the long and often serious struggle working people have engaged in to improve their position in Canada. This is a story which has a peculiar appeal to all of us who know something of the conditions which used to prevail. I have most vivid recollections of those days as told by my father who worked in a stove factory at Guelph when he first came to Canada near the turn of the century. This Conservative party, the party which now forms the government, has a worth-while record with regard to improving conditions and the return for labour in Canada.
The granting of holidays with pay is, for the average Canadian workman, an important part of his daily life. Many of our provinces have recognized that fact in legislation. The legislation varies from one province to another and it is because of this that I think the present bill should receive careful and considerate attention by this parliament. There is a definite need for more universal
recognition of most of what has been included in the bill. However, there is one aspect of this measure which, as it is drawn, raises a question of efficiency of administration, and that is contained in clauses 10 and 11 which to my way of thinking, would make for very wasteful and unnecessary accounting by employers. So that there may be no doubt as to my meaning I think it might be well to read the clauses in full and I make no apology for doing so because I think this measure should be read by everyone who reads Hansard. Clause 10 reads as follows:
(1)	Every employer employing any employee to whom this act applies shall at all times keep a record to be called a "holiday book" showing in the case of each of his employees:
(a)	the name and address of the employees:
(b)	the regular rate of wages of the employee;
(c)	the date of the commencement and termination of the employment of the employee;
(d)	the date of the statutory holiday of the employee in accordance with the act;
(e)	the sum of money paid to the employee in respect of each statutory holiday excluding the sum referred to in clause (f);
(f)	the sum of money paid to the employee in respect of time the employee was required or permitted to work or to be at the disposal of the employer on each statutory holiday;
(g)	the exact hours the employee was required to work or to be at the disposal of the employer on each statutory holiday;
(h)	such other particulars as are prescribed.
(2)	The holiday book may be incorporated in any holiday book or wages book which the employer is required to keep under any other act of parliament.
Clause 11 reads as follows:
The minister or his duly authorized representative may at any reasonable time:
(a)	inspect the holiday book in use by any employer for the time being or any such book used by that employer during the preceding three years;
(b)	require any employer to verify the entries in his holiday book by statutory declaration or in such manner as the Minister or his duly authorized representative may require;
(c)	require any person to furnish, in a form acceptable to the Minister or his duly authorized representative, such information as the Minister or his duly authorized representative deems necessary to ascertain whether the provisions of this act and the regulations are being or have been complied with.
I cannot help but feel that clauses 10 and 11 requiring a separate holiday book are just so much socialist nonsense. I would be happy to see parliament recognize statutory holidays with pay but those two clauses would serve only to set this object apart as something not ordinarily required of a good employer. There is more than enough paperwork undertaken unnecessarily at the present time in the ordinary course of business without adding to that waste by this duplication of an employer's records.
There is another aspect of this situation which may also be worthy of consideration.

These clauses might appear to be just another irritation to a large number of employers in this country who today are overburdened with reports and records many of which are destined never to be consulted. Going through some offices I have been astonished at the weight of dead filing material carried. All this adds to the cost of production, and in this respect the government should be the first to set a good example.
Some time ago I was reading the debates of a few years ago and I noted there has been general agreement on the principle of this bill. Certain days have been set aside for due observance over a long period of time and they have come to mean much to many people of this country. There should be some action taken at federal level to ensure that all our citizens are made aware of these days and their significance in our national life. Legislation such as is contemplated in this field could go a long way toward reaching that objective.
While this bill is necessarily of primary concern to people in the trades and professions I would suggest that one of the statutory holidays which could be considered and observed would be a national farmers' day. The people of Canada have much to be thankful for as far as the contribution of the Canadian farmers to the national welfare is concerned. In many parts of the country there would not be many jobs if it were not for the demand for Canadian goods and services which originates on Canadian farms and in the primary industries. The fact that Canadian farmers have not been as well organized as certain other groups in Canada has contributed to the situation in which the agriculture industry finds itself today, lagging behind the economy of this country. That is one reason for the present difficulties we find in certain industrial areas of our country at the present time.
It is therefore very important, in my opinion, that this parliament take any action that can be taken to bring to the attention of all our people the dependence which all of them have on our primary industries such as agriculture. I should therefore like to move an amendment to this bill. I know this is not the time at which one can move such an amendment but if the proper time were to come the amendment that I should like to move would be that included in the statutory holidays would be a national farmers day. I sincerely elicit the support of all hon. members of this committee for this amendment when it is presented and I hope they will also support the principle of the measure before us.
I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that the rules do not allow my moving that amendment at
Private Bills
this time. In order that proper consideration may be given this matter I want to say, however, that I am not alone in believing that a holiday known as national farmers' day should be included among our statutory holidays. I have had many hon. members from all parts of Canada and particularly the agricultural areas indicate that they would like to second that amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member proceeds further I think I should remind him that if the subject matter of the amendment is not one that can properly be moved as an amendment it would also be irregular to debate the matter.


Edward Nasserden: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion I should like to say that I approve the principle of this bill with the reservations I have set forth today. I also hope that hon. members of the committee will remember the traditions of this party which has placed on the statute books of this country more beneficial labour legislation than was placed on the statute books by any other party in Canada.


Mr. Laurier Regnier (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I am also in favour of the principle of this bill but because we have so many unemployed in Canada, instead of paying people triple the wages they earn on a holiday I would rather we give them two extra holidays some other time to help create employment. I do not think we need to offer more inducement to get people to work because they would like to earn three days' wages in one day. I think we should probably have more holidays as a solution for the unemployment problem. I believe that labour and management should co-operate to bring this about.
If each Canadian worker had an extra holiday each month we would create employment for an additional 5 per cent of the working force employing them all year round. This would be a good thing if it could be brought about without increasing the cost of living and without pricing our goods out of the markets of the world. I believe it would go a long way toward solving the unemployment problem in Canada.
Dr. R. Warren James in a brief submitted to the special committee of the other place on manpower and employment on January 25, 1961 pointed out that on September 22, 1960 there were 339,300 unemployed registrants. Of those, 22,500 were workers for whom part time or temporary work was most suitable. Another group numbered 26,800, excluding married women for whom it was not a necessity to work to support themselves or their families. The number of married women for

Private Bills
whom it was not a necessity to work to support themselves or their families totalled 44,500. Those who had worked the full previous week numbered 22,500. A group described as "other registrants" numbered 223,000.
I submit that by having 12 more holidays each year we could employ almost 300,000 more people. Management and labour could share the cost of this 5 per cent increase in the working force. I believe that an increase of 5 per cent in the working force would mean employment for 283,000 additional people.
The solution of the problems of unemployment does not in my opinion rest solely on the government. The labour unions and the working people have a responsibility in this respect. I think if they were really given a chance to agree to such a scheme through their labour unions they would unanimously accept this as a solution.
If we had 5 per cent more people employed in Canada general economic conditions would improve even though it would perhaps mean that those who are working would have to accept a 3 per cent reduction in their wages and that perhaps management would have to absorb 2 per cent of the cost. I think that would assist in bringing about a condition of parity in Canada and the curse of unemployment could become a blessing in that this solution would result in people having more leisure and more time to pursue hobbies and studies, and everyone would have employment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have been expecting the hon. member to relate the problem of unemployment to this bill. He has failed to do so and I cannot find any connection myself. If I am correct in my understanding this bill does not establish holidays but is for the purpose of seeing that employees under federal labour law receive pay for certain holidays so that the hon. member should really address his remarks to the question of whether or not payment should be made for the holidays already established rather than to the principle of establishing more holidays in an effort to solve the unemployment problem.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was attempting to relate my address to the question as to how to better compensate the people who would work on holidays. Instead of paying them with dollars they would be paid with more leisure time. By giving triple pay we are only creating for those with jobs an incentive to work on holidays at a time when we have so many people out of work.
Double pay is provided for all provincial holidays. This bill really provides for triple

pay. I think this is an exaggerated request. This will help price our goods out of the markets of the world. Today we should attempt to bring down our living costs. We should spread the benefits of labour among all Canadians and not, as it were, create a special monopoly for those who already have jobs. I think it is the duty of those who have jobs to try to spread the benefit to those who are out of work. That is the point I want to make.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is one that has been introduced on many occasions. I well recall my first session in this house. At that time a bill similar to this was introduced by Mr. Knowles, the then member for Winnipeg North Centre, who is now the vice president of the Canadian Labour Congress. I am just wondering how pressing the problem is at this time. I feel that all federal government employees are being justly treated in this matter.
Before I go into that phase of my remarks may I say I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasser-den) who intimated that at one time his father worked for a stove company in Guelph in my riding. I am happy to tell him that the firm is still operating. They have the very best labour relations and they are producing some of the finest stoves in the country.
This problem of federal employees getting paid on statutory holidays is important, but what we must not overlook is that many of these employees of the federal government are doing essential work. The people who are working on statutory holidays are working on very busy days. Their services are needed very badly. I think of the railways and the air lines, the steamship services and such services. They need this help very much on those days, and it is more convenient for them to be given a day off later on which they are given now, as I understand it.
The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Regnier) had a good point. He mentioned the fact that it is a case of supplying four days work rather than just more pay at the present time for one individual.
If this bill were to pass it would mean that a person would secure three days pay for one day's work. I think we would have to give serious consideration to this. I agree with the principle of the bill but I feel that certain parts of it should be studied very carefully. No doubt if this bill receives second reading it will go before the industrial relations committee.
Another fact that could come into the picture is this. If one is to be paid three days pay for one day's work, the mercenary angle may become more important than the holiday

angle, and the value of the statutory holidays may become secondary and the mercenary angle foremost.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member allow me to interrupt him because of the order of the house made earlier this day giving leave to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) to revert to motions at this time.


FINANCE
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to thank the house for having given unanimous consent this morning to revert to motions now in order that I might make a statement.
I wish to inform the house that after careful consideration I have approved the making of an amalgamation agreement between the Canadian Bank of Commerce and the Imperial Bank of Canada for submission to their shareholders as provided by sections 100, 101 and 102 of the Bank Act. The proposed name of the amalgamated bank is the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. In giving approval to the making of this agreement, I have satisfied myself that the public interest will be served in this amalgamation and the interests of the staffs of both banks fully protected.
The banking community is one of the most highly competitive segments of Canadian business. Not only is there internal competition among banks, but they face competition from other lending institutions. Both the Canadian Bank of Commerce and the Imperial Bank of Canada are in a strong financial condition. However, the proposed amalgamated bank, with branches in all Canadian provinces and in several other countries, will be in an even stronger position to provide better and more competitive service to its customers. The amalgamation will enable a broader use of larger domestic resources and provide a more comprehensive international service through association with the extensive branch system of Barclays group of banks.
I am, therefore, of the opinion that the amalgamation would be in the interests of the Canadian public. I am informed that there will be no reduction in staffs or services because of the amalgamation, and indeed it is planned that the new bank will expand its operations on a national basis quite substantially over the coming years.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, there is not very much I would care to say on the statement which the minister has made. It is one of importance. I believe
Private Bills
it is some time since we have had an amalgamation of banks such as this in our country.
I am pleased to hear the minister say that this will be in the public interest and that he has satisfied himself that such is the case.
I did note, however, he stated also that it is subject to one of the sections of the Bank Act. As he made his statement I was wondering whether or not legislation will be required to approve the amalgamation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker, no legislation is required. The legislation already exists in the three sections of the Bank Act to which I have referred, and this amalgamation is carried out in pursuance of those provisions, and my approval has been given in pursuance of the provisions of these three sections of the Bank Act. They are the same sections that were followed at the time of the amalgamation of the Toronto Bank and the Dominion Bank and the later amalgamation of the Imperial Bank of Canada and Barclays Bank.


Lionel Chevrier: Under the provisions of the Bank Act I take it that all that is required is the approval of the minister. Speaking for those of us who sit on this side of the house and without having considered the matter,
I trust, as the minister has said, that this amalgamation will be in the interest of all Canadians.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, we were in a state of excitement behind the curtain for some 15 minutes prior to the minister entering the house, thinking there was going to be some earth-shattering announcement about interest rates, a bond issue or Bank of Canada policy; but we were rather let down in that respect because the minister merely led us in that direction.
However, I must say on behalf of this group that this is a normal development in our present financial and industrial society. We hope that every effort is being made to make certain that the public interest is protected and will be well served; that the clients are protected and will continue to be as well served and that the staffs of this organization will not suffer in any way in respect of salaries, pensions, seniority or things of that sort. That is all I have to say at this time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have been given the assurances sought by the hon. members.


INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Regier for the second reading of Bill No. C-12, to provide for pay for
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills
statutory holidays for employees and for pay for work performed on statutory holidays.
Alfred Dryden Hales: I had about concluded my remarks, Mr. Speaker. I was saying I felt that the bill before us was not a very pressing matter at the moment. I felt that the suggestion that pay for work at double time in addition to regular pay for work done on such holidays was rather a large order and would create a hardship on our railways at the present time. We all know well the financial struggle that the railways are having and if this bill were enacted at this time and they had to pay three days' pay for one day's work it would be quite a financial hardship on the railways. As I say, the railways need men to work for them on statutory holidays. Those are the days on which the greatest amount of travel takes place and the provisions of the bill would mean quite a hardship for the railways. I think the matter is being dealt with very well at the present time. Those who work on statutory holidays are rewarded with a day off at a later time. I do not think that too many complaints have been brought to the attention of the federal authorities.
As I have said, I am in sympathy with the principle of the bill but there are some parts of it I cannot agree with at the present time. I would hope there would be further discussion of the bill so that we would have a better understanding of its contents.


Mr. R. D. Thrasher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Winch:: Can you hold out for six
minutes?


Richard Devere Thrasher: -other members who have preceded me in this debate have supported the bill in principle. The explanatory note reads as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to provide that all employees in Canada who come under federal labour jurisdiction shall receive their regular pay for at least eight statutory holidays each year, without having to work on those holidays. It also provides that when any such employee is required to work on any statutory holiday, as defined in the bill, he shall receive pay for such work at double time in addition to his regular pay for such holiday.
Nothing in this bill affects any provision for statutory holidays with pay enjoyed by any employees where such provisions are more favourable than those enjoyed herein, but this bill does supersede any provisions which are less favourable than those set out in this bill.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I think the principle of the bill is a laudable one. However, I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) who said that payment for statutory holidays was a matter of negotiation and should

be left to bargaining between labour and management. It seems to me that if you attempt to force industry to make payment for holidays you are not really serving the purpose for which the bill was actually designed. The bill sets out that extra remuneration shall be paid to those who work on holidays but I think that implicit in that is the intention to discourage work on such holidays. The hon. member referred to clause 3 of the bill which has to do with the application of the measure. That clause rdads as follows:
This act applies to and in respect of employment upon or in connection with any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, including, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing,
(a)	works, undertakings, or businesses operated or carried on for or in connection with navigation and shipping, whether inland or maritime, including the operation of ships and transportation by ship anywhere in Canada;
(b)	railways, canals, telegraphs and other works and undertakings connecting a province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of a province;
(c)	lines of steam and other ships connecting a province with any other or others of the provinces or extending beyond the limits of a province;
(d)	ferries between any province and any other province-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I just want to remind the parliamentary secretary that the proper time to deal with the details of a bill is when it reaches the committee stage. There is no objection to reference to sections in so far as it is necessary to understanding the principle of the bill. However, I think the details having to do with any labour matter subject to federal legislation might well be left to a later stage.


Richard Devere Thrasher: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to go into all the details of the bill. My purpose in reading the application section was to inquire into the reason for the inclusion of particular industries and the omission of others. It seems to me that it is very difficult to cover all of the industries that should be covered in such a provision and that some might be omitted that perhaps should be included. I think it would be preferable that a provision of this kind should be of general application rather than having the industries set out in detail.
To go back to the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, in introducing the bill the hon. member indicated that the government had enacted legislation in the session of 1957 providing for paid annual holidays. I think that the provision for annual vacations is somewhat different from a provision

with respect to statutory holidays. The purpose of an. annual vacation is to provide an opportunity to the industrial employee to rest. I should like to call it six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might enquire what the business of the house is on Monday?
Business of the Rouse Mr. Churchill: There will be no change from what was announced last night. Monday will be a private members' day. On Tuesday we will commence with the resolution dealing with amendments to the Pension Act, followed by the budget resolutions and the legislation pertaining thereto.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February $, 1961