1961-02-02

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon) presented the first report of the standing committee on mines, forests and waters, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South) presented the first report of the standing committee on estimates and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the efforts of the government to sell grain to new markets have resulted in one of the largest single sales ever consummated in the commercial field. Agreement with the China Resources Company of Hong Kong has been reached for the sale and shipment to China during the next few months of 40 million bushels of grain. The break-down is as follows: 750,000 long tons of wheat, equivalent to 28 million bushels; 260,000 long tons of barley, representing 12,133,000 bushels.
The grade of wheat will be mostly No. 2 Manitoba northern, which is the predominant grade available in Canada. There will be a limited quantity of No. 3 Manitoba northern. The barley will be No. 1 feed.
The total value of this sale is approximately $60 million. The wheat and barley will be shipped from the Pacific coast ports of Vancouver, New Westminster, Victoria and Prince Rupert.
The Canadian wheat board negotiated the agreement for the Canadian government. The Canadian grain trade, acting as agents of the Canadian wheat board, will be completing delivery and shipment of the individual cargoes, and will undertake the necessary arrangements in connection therewith.
I know that all Canadians will be pleased at the size of the sale. I would like at this time to pay tribute to my predecessor who was in charge of the wheat board before he became Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill). He made the decision for representatives of the Canadian wheat board to go to China in 1958 and again in the fall of 1960. I have carried on with his plans for the expansion of wheat and flour sales to all parts of the world, but I feel that credit should go where credit is due.
The Canadian wheat board, and all others who helped, deserve our appreciation. The government's policy of accelerated wheat sales is illustrated by the fact that Canada's share of the commercial wheat markets of the world has increased from 30 per cent to 35 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the minister will permit me to interrupt and remind him that the privilege of the floor to make announcements is limited to factual statements. I do so because I have difficulty from time to time with the comment which follows such statements, which I propose to keep within the same narrow bounds. I just feel that in embarking on an explanation of government policy he ought to have that in mind.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for your advice. I just wanted to keep the record straight.
I am informed that when all commitments are considered the Pacific coast ports will be utilized to full grain capacity until next August, and the heavy movement of western grain during the next few months should have a beneficial result on the Canadian economy generally and more particularly to the workers handling grain, and to the farmers.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Of course all members of the house join with the minister in the satisfaction which undoubtedly must come in the realization of this arrangement with the Chinese mainland, an arrangement which will be of great value to the income position of many farmers in Canada. I am sure the minister will realize that the drop in farm income last year-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In any event, this announcement will be very well received by the people of Canada.

Sale of Grain to China


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: The announcement made by the Minister of Agriculture is welcome and important. I trust it is merely a prelude to a continuing expansion of sales of Canadian grain in markets where we have been selling relatively small quantities in recent years. If the minister can do so later on the orders of the day, I should like him to give the house some information as to the price and terms involved, because I think such information is necessary if we are to judge the precise value of this very important transaction.
I express the hope that the minister and the government may raise their sights and attempt to better the target for wheat sales set by the minister at 300 million bushels for the present year. I think it is necessary to get sales above that figure, and if the government is able to conclude further transactions such as the one now concluded I think an improvement in the target should be possible.
This is an announcement of importance. I express the hope that the government will explore the possibility of large sales of wheat to India, where, I suggest, a very large market for Canadian grain is available if the government takes the necessary initiative. In conclusion I would say this is an indication that in an economic sense the government recognizes the existence of the government of China. We suggest that in logic they should now extend this recognition-


Some hon. Members:: Order.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture on behalf of the prairie grain growers. First I want to thank the minister for his announcement of additional grain sales worth $60 million. That is very good news for all Canada. I should like to ask the minister whether the shipments from the Pacific coast ports will also include Saskatchewan and Manitoba wheat as well as wheat within the Pacific shipping area, thus helping wheat delivery quotas in all parts of the three prairie provinces.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not think there is going to be any change in the wheat board's policy of taking wheat from the areas closest to the ports. I would think most of this particular wheat will some from Alberta, reaching further, I trust, into Saskatchewan.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: As the leader of the house has announced that in committee of ways and means today or tomorrow we shall be coming to the resolution respecting amendments to the Income Tax Act, may I now give notice of certain amendments which will be moved to the resolution and ask for these to be incorporated in Votes and Proceedings in case we do not come to all of them today.
I have sent mimeographed copies to hon. members opposite and we shall have, I think, an ample supply for use in the house today, but it may be a convenience for hon. members to have on record in Votes and Proceedings such of the amendments as may not be reached in the house today.



COLUMBIA RIVER


Donald Methuen Fleming: In view of the interest indicated by hon. members in this subject may I read a letter which I wrote two days ago to Premier Bennett of British Columbia concerning financial arrangements respecting the development of the Columbia river system:
Dear Premier Bennett:
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated January 13 concerning the subject of financial arrangements for development of the Columbia river.
I was very much surprised that you doubt that the Canadian share of downstream power can be delivered to the Vancouver area at a cost of less than 4 mills. The negotiations between the federal and British Columbia governments have been proceeding for nearly two years, and I am informed that this is the first time that you or the representatives of your government have attacked this estimate.
The treaty with the United States, as you are aware, has now been signed by the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States of America. The negotiations and the signing of the treaty were both carried through with the full knowledge and approval of your government at every stage. The only occasion on which doubt ever arose as to the readiness of British Columbia to carry out the Columbia river treaty as negotiated was on the occasion of the reference made by you last December to the British Columbia energy board of certain questions involving a comparison of engineering and economic aspects of the Columbia and Peace river projects. At the meeting of the policy liaison committee early in January our representatives expressed their concern that this might involve doubt and delay on the part of British Columbia in proceeding with the Columbia river development. Your representatives on the committee assured us that this was not the case, and that on the contrary the reference was designed to hasten the taking of effective action by British Columbia under the proposed treaty. On the basis of these assurances, the treaty negotiations

were concluded and the treaty was signed, as above stated, with the full knowledge and approval of your government.
In the light of these circumstances, for you to write as you now have, expressing doubts as to the feasibility of the Columbia river development "from engineering and financial standpoints", is a most extraordinary development, and must necessarily raise again our doubts as to British Columbia's intentions which we had thought were set at rest by the assurances of the British Columbia members of the policy liaison committee. I do hope that we will not now be met by delaying action on the part of British Columbia.
I am ready and prepared to discuss the financial aspects of the project with you, as we had previously arranged.
I am puzzled, when confronted with the new position which you are taking, which would appear to make our negotiations rather hypothetical, since you now seem to question the economic feasibility of the entire enterprise. I understood that we were aiming to deal with the question of the financing of the project as between the federal and provincial governments on the understanding that both governments accepted the fact that the project is entirely economic. The federal government has no doubt whatever that the project is entirely economic and should be proceeded with and without delay.
We have already submitted to you a generous proposal for federal financial participation in the cost of the undertaking. I shall be pleased to come to Victoria at an early date to discuss these matters on the basis that your government seriously Intends to support the project, and on this basis we can, I am sure, have fruitful talks in regard to the means of achieving the common purpose of the two governments.
I would also suggest that the Canada-British Columbia policy liaison committee might plan to hold its next meeting beginning on the same date as our meeting in order to assist in the early conclusion of all the necessary arrangements for the implementation of the treaty.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the house thank the minister for having placed on Hansard the letter which he has addressed to the premier of British Columbia. We hope he will also find it possible to put on Hansard the letter which he has referred to. The tenor and language of the letter indicate that there is not too much harmony in so far as the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia are concerned. As the house knows, a project of this great importance is one where there must of necessity be understanding among the four governments involved. We hope that harmony will be forthcoming in due course.
With respect to more detailed comments on the letter, they will be given to the house at the proper time.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of this group we appreciate the minister informing the house of this latest letter to Premier Bennett. I must say that this letter and recent
Columbia River Development developments illustrate, in view of past experience, how completely naive the government of Canada has been in its negotiations with the premier of British Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take it that the letter was produced for the information of the house and not to introduce a debate on the subject matter of the letter. I hope the hon. member will reserve his comments of an argumentative or debating kind until the matter comes before the house at the appropriate time for that purpose. In the meantime comment is a matter of the recognition of the statement and a reservation of differences, if there are any, rather than an exposition of them.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I accept your admonition, Mr. Speaker, but continue to think what I intended to say.

On the orders of the day:


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance and ask him whether he will table the letter of the premier of British Columbia to which he referred in the letter which he put on Hansard? I wonder whether that letter could not be put on Hansard in the same manner as his own.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the tabling of the letter dated January 13, which I received from Premier Bennett. I should say that I have not asked his permission to table the letter, but I think I am justified in doing so in view of the fact that he gave a statement to the press, I think shortly after writing this letter, as to its contents. I think on that basis I am quite justified in supplying a copy of Premier Bennett's letter to me of January 13 for the information of the house, and in view of the fact that the letter I read today is in reply to this letter from Premier Bennett.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the minister, but I wonder whether we could have it in Hansard alongside the letter he has tabled.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly in agreement with that, if that will meet the convenience of hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that the first letter presented today by the Minister of Finance was to go in Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: It was read.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give its consent that the further letter be printed following the letter which has been put on the record?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Columbia River Development [Editor's note: the letter referred to is as follows:]
OFFICE OF THE PREMIER Province of British Columbia
Victoria, January 13, 1961
The Honourable Donald M. Fleming,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa, Canada.
My dear Mr. Fleming:
Further to our earlier correspondence concerning financial arrangements for development of the Columbia river, and specifically with regard to your letter of December 30, 1960, I regret that it has not been possible as yet for us to meet. I believe, and am sure you agree, that since negotiations leading to a treaty between the governments of Canada and the United States appear now to have progressed to the signing stage, it would be in the best interests of the finance departments of both Canada and British Columbia to discuss the necessary arrangements as quickly as possible.
When it is convenient for you to visit Victoria, I should like to suggest that you would find it advantageous to bring with you technical financial officials who will be able to undertake immediate detailed discussions with British Columbia technical officials on the policy matters referred to them by us.
Like the federal government, British Columbia is anxious that the Columbia development proceed at the earliest possible moment-assuming, of course, that it is proved feasible from engineering and financial standpoints. In that connection, I must tell you that British Columbia entertains serious doubts that power returned from the United States as the Canadian share of downstream benefits can in fact, be delivered to the Vancouver area at the cost of 3.77 mills which has been quoted so often by your colleagues. For that reason, the British Columbia energy board has been asked to investigate this question in association with independent engineering counsel of international repute, and an interim report will be received by March 1.
If the cost of 3.77 mills quoted so frequently by the Honourable E. D. Fulton is, in fact, accurate, then, of course, no difficulty in financing the project should present itself. Until the cost figure is verified through study by the British Columbia energy board, however, the government of British Columbia would of course require the guarantee of the Canadian government that the cost is firm and accurate before it would add its own guarantee to any financial arrangements for the development.
I look forward to meeting you for full and cordial discussion of these arrangements at the earliest possible opportunity.
Yours faithfully,



W. A. C. BENNETT,

[Stage Direction]
Premier and Minister of Finance.


Mr. John Palleil (Peel) moved:: That the 24 members of the House of Commons to act on behalf of the house as members of the joint committee on Indian affairs be as follows namely: Miss LaMarsh and Messrs. Badanai, Baldwin, Barrington, Cadieu, Charlton, Fairfield, Grenier, Gundlock, Hardie, Henderson, Howard, Korchinski, Leduc, MacRae, Martel, Muir (Cape Breton North

and Victoria), McQuillan, Pickersgill, Robinson, Small, Stefanson, Thomas and Wratten, and that a message be sent to the Senate to inform Their Honours that the foregoing members have been appointed to act on behalf of the commons on the said joint committee of both houses.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister tell the house whether the United States ministers whom he met in Washington have concurred in the national policy on oil which he announced yesterday; and, if not, what precisely was the position they took?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Finance and I went to Washington a week ago. We advised the members of the United States government of the oil policy which the Canadian government intended to proclaim. We did not ask their concurrence in it; we advised them of it and we discussed the implications of it, how it would work and matters of that kind.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask what their reaction was?


George Harris Hees: I think the reaction was very favourable, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, now that calm has returned to the house I would like to clear up any possible misunderstanding in the answer I gave to the hon. member for Laurier a short time ago regarding my assessment of the reaction of the United States government representatives, when we saw them a week ago, regarding our oil policy. As I pointed out, we did not ask for or receive their concurrence or rejection of our oil policy. They did not agree with it or disagree with it, and neither did we ask them to do so. My answer to the hon. member was in reference to the very friendly atmosphere in which we were received by the United States ministers in Washington.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: 
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: As the hon. gentleman knows, a question on government policy is not answered in the house at a time like this. Any consideration being given thereto, whether favourable or unfavourable, will be brought to the attention of the house in due course.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister care to go so far as to say whether it is the intention of the government to introduce legislation in this field during this session?


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman had followed my earlier answer he would have had an answer to this question.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Since the minister, in his lecture this morning to the representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress, saw fit to shift the responsibility for unemployment from the government to labour and management, will he try to reconcile this strange new hypothesis with his party's-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: May I intervene in the hon. member's question to say that in my view it is not a question seeking information. In the first instance he makes a statement and then proceeds to make an assumption, which is contrary to the proper practice at this stage of the proceedings.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With great confidence, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this question is perfectly proper.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This morning the Minister of Labour-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member, but I should like to know just what factual information he is requesting, and I think
Inquiries of the Ministry he should give that now because the absence of it was the basis for my intervention.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask this question. This morning the Minister of Labour, in talking to the leaders of labour, announced a change of policy, and I am now asking the Minister of Labour what I believe to be a proper question. My question is, why did the government make this announcement of policy contrary to the announcements and the assurances they gave to the people of Canada regarding full employment when they sought the support of the people in the last federal election?


Mr. Speaker:: As I understand the question the hon. member is seeking to put, he is making the assumption or the statement that a change of policy was announced and is asking why it was announced at that time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps that might be asserted as a question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is the question which I was not permitted to ask.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has made the assertion that I gave a lecture to labour today, and that I put forward a new philosophy or a new policy. It is utterances of this type by the hon. member for Essex East that have been detrimental to the labour movement in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Labour, I think, is on sound ground in rising and making his assertion as a point of order because, in my opinion, it was improper for the hon. member for Essex East to impart the information or to make the assertion he did about the minister this morning as a question, since it is purely an interpretation on his part of what took place.


Michael Starr: And a complete falsification of that statement.


Mr. Speaker:: That is the part of the question that I found to be out of order. The hon. member for Essex East asserts that he is entitled to ask the question which he proposed and which, as I understood it, was why the government announced a change of policy this morning. The question makes an assumption, but I think perhaps it deserves an answer unless some member wishes to assert that it is not proper. If that is the case, I think this is important enough to hear him. Otherwise I would permit that part of the question to go forward.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. E. D. Fullon (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I submit there is a well understood formula by which this kind of question can be raised and which avoids an assertion, which is the improper thing. My hon. friend is seeking to make an assertion-an inaccurate assertion.-for the purpose of getting it on the record on Hansard and heard in the galleries. There is a proper method to follow which, of course, he prefers not to follow, and that is the method by which one seeks to get information instead of making assertions. The hon. member, who has been in the house longer than I have, appears to have forgotten more than I have.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No lecture from the hon gentleman.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When we were on that side we tried to observe the rules of the house, and I would suggest-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the minister is going afield. Let me put it this way. As I understand the question, the hon. member for Essex East is in effect asking whether the statement the Minister of Labour made this morning was a change of policy, and on that basis I do not think I can exclude it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask my
question now?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Michael Starr: I do not know whether the hon. member wants an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood that the hon. member's question was before the house.


Lionel Chevrier: He was not allowed to finish it. The Minister of National Revenue shouted him down.


Mr. Speaker:: I will certainly give the hon. member for Essex East the opportunity to put that part of his question which I have accepted, but not to deal with the rest of it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I must thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to put a question which I know is important and which, regrettably, hon. members sitting opposite have shown a desire to prevent me from asking-


An hon. Member:: Put your question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This attitude of the people.


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask for the co-operation of the house. I have permitted the hon. member to restate his question, but I would ask him to restate it without embellishment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister is apparently not satisfied, so I will give him the floor.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, you have made a ruling twice, but the hon. member for Essex East appears to think that because he clothes his question with pomposity and ponderosity he therefore becomes-


Some hon. Members:: Order order.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Prime Minister is rising on a point of order or on a question of privilege I shall be glad to hear him, but I have permitted the hon. member to rephrase his question.


John George Diefenbaker: I am just rising to ask that your ruling be upheld. That is what I rose for, because the hon. gentleman is flagrantly disregarding your rulings.


Lionel Chevrier: I am pleased to hear the Prime Minister say that he rose to have your ruling upheld, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to bring to your attention the fact that we on this side of the house cannot ask questions because of the interruptions which are being made from both in front of us and the rear of us. It is impossible to do so.


Mr. Ricard:: The hon. member is always against the ruling. He knows that.


Lionel Chevrier: I ask for permission-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We should not permit a debate on the Speaker's ruling and I do not think hon. members propose to follow that course. I indicated what part of the question of the hon. member for Essex East I considered might properly be asked and expressed it in my own phraseology. If the hon. member wishes to put it in his own words, and if he will limit himself to the question, I think we could proceed and that the house would give him a hearing. Unfortunately the hon. member for Essex East has introduced extraneous matter each time he has risen, and that is what has caused the difficulty.


Mr. Speakman:: I rise on a question of privilege that affects all members of this house. The hon. member for Laurier has made a statement implying that the backbenchers on the government side will not permit questions. I think that is a most unfair and unkind implication, and that he should be asked to withdraw it.


Lionel Chevrier: I am glad that the hon. member has raised the question of privilege. Not only do I not withdraw the insinuation; I repeat it. I say that every time we raise a

question or ask to be heard on a question of privilege, attempts are made to shout us down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot accept the question of privilege. It is not proper now to comment on the conduct of the house unless the hon. member rises to complain of it at the time it occurs.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I desire to rise in order to complain about the situation now.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the situation is under control, if the hon. member would permit the hon. member for Essex East to phrase his question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I just want to say this, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Prime Minister who was allowed to make a statement.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Prime Minister and the hon. member for Essex East engaged in some discussion which was quite aside from the purpose for which the hon. member is now taking the floor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I certainly do not intend to allow the Prime Minister to lecture me. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour how he reconciles his statement this morning, when he shifted the responsibility for unemployment on to labour and management from the government, with the speeches which he and the government members and particularly the Prime Minister made to the people of Canada during the last election.


Michael Starr: In reply to the memorandum which was presented by the Canadian Labour Congress this morning I set out the measures that have been taken by this government and passed by this parliament in order to deal with the economic situation in the form of legislation; I set out as well the measures that were included in the baby budget. I pointed to these measures as actions by the government to deal with the situation. I also pointed out that it was not possible for the federal government alone to alleviate or bring about a solution to the problem of unemployment, but that it was necessary to have the co-operation of industry and labour doing their part and their share in the production of materials in the manufacturing industry in this country so that it may be competitive in the domestic field and in the export field as well.
Those were my remarks or my pleas to management and labour. I have said these things to management as well on many occasions. I hope they can get together in order to carry on the manufacturing of products
Inquiries of the Ministry in this country so that the whole economy and all Canadians can benefit as a result and more jobs may be provided for people in this country. Any remarks by the hon. member for Essex East in the same form as those he has put forward today are not only a disservice to Canada but a disservice to-


Lionel Chevrier: That is not what you said in the election.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Minister of Labour, if I may take the liberty of reminding him of this fact, went beyond the appropriate answer in making the reference he did to the hon. member for Essex East. I feel that he might consider modifying his statement that the hon. member for Essex East, as I understood it, in asking his question was doing a disservice to Canada.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I correct an answer-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just a minute. You made a ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the Minister of Labour would not want to go beyond the proper conduct in debate. It seemed to me that in concluding his remarks by the statement that the conduct of the hon. member for Essex East was a disservice to Canada, he went beyond that point.


Michael Starr: I quite agree with you, Mr. Speaker. I had no intention of making any such remark. However, in view of the remarks and the assertions made by the hon. member, I had no alternative.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, you asked the Minister of Labour to withdraw the words.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. gentlemen opposite would not let us finish, and we are entitled to point out that fact. As the hon. member for Laurier said, whenever we put a question they shout us down or try to do so. Well, they are not going to shout me down.


Mr. Speaker:: I think hon. members will appreciate that this contretemps, which seems to be developing out of all proportion to its importance, will best be disposed of if they will relax and listen to the question of privilege to which the hon. member for Essex East is speaking; and I would ask him to confine his remarks to that matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You asked the Minister of Labour to amend his remarks in which he said in effect that I had rendered a disservice to my country because I raised this question today.

Inquiries of the Ministry Since the Minister of Labour does not wish to accede to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I am simply going to say that it is not a disservice to my country to point out the serious unemployment condition existing in this country. It is not a disservice to my country to point out that the Minister of Labour-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to withdraw my remark provided the hon. member for Essex East would withdraw his assertion about a change of policy in the phraseology he used in putting forward the question. As soon as he does that I will withdraw my remarks with regard to him.


Mr. Speaker:: I trust that both hon. members will be satisfied with that solution.


Lionel Chevrier: Speaking on the point of order, if I may-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before I recognize another member, may I say that I trust that the matter may be concluded on that apparently amicable suggestion. Is the hon. member for Essex East satisfied to allow the matter to rest there?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not satisfied with the condition, but if the minister does not wish to observe your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied to let him be judged by the people of Canada.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have made it very clear that I am prepared to withdraw my remark provided the hon. member for Essex East withdraws his question on the basis on which he put it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In order to dispose of this matter the Minister of Labour has been kind enough to go as far as to say he would withdraw the words which in my view were not appropriate to the occasion.
1 have indicated that the question which was asked originally was not in accordance with our practice and should not have been asked. I also indicate, for the benefit of the Minister of Labour, that when the hon. member for Essex East rephrased his question he took advantage of the opportunity to put it back in the form of asking for a reconciliation of policies, which really was an argumentative question.
On that basis, if the Minister of Labour will go as far as I am asking him to go, I suggest that the matter might well be closed. I see that the minister agrees to that.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask a supplementary question of the minister?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; I cannot see the hon. member on a question supplementary to a question which has taken so much time of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Labour whether in inviting the co-operation of management and labour before the Canadian Labour Congress he was implying that such co-operation does not now exist?


Michael Starr: I was speaking about the cooperation of management and labour in order to bring about the type of production efficiency and quality of goods which will be competitive in domestic and export markets; probably a more accentuated co-operation than there has been in the past.



REPORTED APPOINTMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON RAILWAY WAGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister care to comment on a story in today's Toronto Telegram that the government intends to appoint a one man royal commission to establish railway wages in the hope of avoiding a national railway strike?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for verification of a newspaper report, which also involves a declaration of policy, I think he will agree with me that that is not an appropriate question for the orders of the day.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, this is surely a ruling that is not in conformity with our practices. Here is a newspaper which makes a statement on government policy. I am asking the Prime Minister whether that is a correct statement of government policy. If the Prime Minister wishes to say that he does not propose to give an answer, or that government policy will be announced in due course, then very well; but surely I am entitled to ask whether this reported statement is in conformity with government policy.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, I can understand, Mr. Speaker, that after the proceedings in this house so far today you would be recluctant to give permission to the hon. member for Essex East to do something that-


Paul Joseph James Martin: You have just sat here saying and doing nothing while we have been fighting for labour.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not true. Mr. Speaker, that is the very best example I could give of the reason Your Honour may be a little reluctant to let the hon. member for Essex East ask a question even if it is in order. On the point of order-


An hon. Member:: There is no point of order.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think the hon. member for Essex East is correct in his assertion that when a newspaper makes a disclosure such as this it is in order to ask the Prime Minister to comment on it. The right hon. gentleman could comment by denying it, confirming it or refusing to say anything about it.


Mr. Speaker:: After hearing argument I am still of the same opinion.


Lionel Chevrier: Then I should like to ask the Prime Minister if it is a fact that the government intends to appoint a royal commission for the purpose indicated by my hon. friend from Essex East.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad that after all this time an hon. gentleman has finally been able to ask a question that is proper to be asked. May I say this. When and if any such decision is made it will be announced in the house in the proper course.
What has taken place is that I have written to Mr. Hall, representing the various unions, and also to the railway companies asking them to reconvene and give consideration to those things which separate them to the end-and I expressed this hope-that they might be able by a continuation of discussion to arrive at a settlement of the differences between them.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that the Toronto Telegram should be regarded as an official organ of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wishes to verify that, he will have to do it otherwise than by making it a matter of government responsibility.



SPRINGHILL, N.S.-IMPLEMENTATION OF WINTER WORKS PROJECTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received a communication from Mrs. Lillian Henderson, president of the association of miners' wives of Springhill, Nova Scotia, complaining that Springhill has been sidetracked as regards winter works and other projects to the point where some 600 men are unemployed? Could the minister
Inquiries of the Ministry report to the house what success the government has had in its endeavour to bring much needed works projects to the disaster town of Springhill?


Michael Starr: No such telegram has yet been brought to my attention today. I have been rather busy, of course. I will certainly look to see whether there is such a telegram on my desk. In any event, as far as winter works are concerned that is a matter to be undertaken by the municipalities through the provinces, and when these projects are approved the federal government pays 50 per cent of the total payroll costs.


Hazen Robert Argue: If the minister does not have this information, I will understand. Is the minister in a position to give us any information as to what success the government has had in any projects which will bring employment to this disaster town?


Michael Starr: I will have to check with my colleagues in the various departments to see what projects have been undertaken. If the hon. member wants detailed information, I suggest that he put his question on the order paper and he will get it.


Hazen Robert Argue: On that point, Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of information but of action by the government.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for specific information. Perhaps the order paper would be better if he has not given notice of his question.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I think the time has arrived for a question from the constructive section of the opposition.
In view of the fact that in agreement with Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company in 1954 the mine, mill and smelter workers union initiated proposals to prevent lay-offs that would require an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act, and in view of the fact that those proposals have in effect recently been endorsed by Mr. Walter P. Reuther in his proposals to the automobile manufacturers association, I would like to ask the minister the following question.
In view of the proposed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, would the government give consideration to amending the act to provide for the payment of unemployment insurance benefits for the fifth week,

Inquiries of the Ministry where agreements are reached between labour and management to share the work on the basis of four weeks on and the fifth week off, in order to prevent lay-offs in Canada?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his interest in this matter, but it is now being carried out under the present act.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. H. Phillips (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of Prime Minister Macmillan's proposed visit to Washington for talks with President Kennedy, would the Prime Minister consider extending Mr. Macmillan an invitation to visit Ottawa?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the course that has been followed generally is that whenever the right hon. prime minister of the United Kingdom has visited the president of the United States with a view to having consultations and discussions with him, he has almost invariably visited Canada either before or after the meeting with the president.
I know all Canadians would welcome his doing so on this occasion. I believe it would be helpful if he would visit Canada. In his discussions with the President of the United States he then would be in a position, in discussing international matters, to have the information and knowledge which he will have secured at the prime ministers' conference as to the attitude of the various commonwealth members, without in any way representing them or their viewpoint.
On the other hand, I think it would be beneficial to the prime ministers' conference if it were possible for me to consult with the President of the United States before the conference of commonwealth prime ministers, such consultations to be in an informal manner, to the end that the views of the United States might be available to the members of the commonwealth as we meet together to discuss not only commonwealth but international affairs.
In answer to the hon. gentleman I would say that Mr. Macmillan would be most welcome if he could arrange to call at Ottawa and discuss the matters that he will have considered with the President of the United States generally, and in regard to the international situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Is it clear
[Mr. Herridge.l
from what the Prime Minister has said that he hopes to see the President of the United States, but that is not yet a certainty, before the commonwealth prime ministers' conference?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, what I tried to place before the house was that I thought it would be beneficial; but whether it is feasible, having regard to all the circumstances connected with the transition from the former administration to the present, I do not know.
(Translation):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourget (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Could he inform the house whether the C.N.R. intends to buy the Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transpori):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I cannot answer that question just now, but I shall pass it on to the management of the Canadian National Railways.
(Text):



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Waller Pitman (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister received any official protest from the Ontario energy resources minister, Robert Macaulay, regarding the federal taxes levied on Ontario hydro?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker. In any event, I do not know that there could be any protest on this subject, because the federal government does not collect any taxes from the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, since Mr. Macaulay has protested the tax on hydro power exported to the United States, whether one can consider that a tax upon hydro.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am not acquainted with any protest which Mr. Macaulay might have made. I was asked if there was any record of having received any official protest from Mr. Macaulay, and my answer is in the negative.



REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO TRANS- PORTATION COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance and ask him whether the city of Ottawa has approached the government for a subsidy or any other form of financial assistance for the Ottawa transportation commission as an alternative to raising fares?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such approach. Certainly none has been made to me.



ALLEGED SCREENING BY JOINT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The question is based on an allegation in a report in the Montreal Star by a Montreal exporter that all Cuban trade including that with Canada is screened by a joint Russian-Cuban purchasing committee in Havana before being approved. Is the minister able to advise the house whether such a committee exists?


George Harris Hees: This is the first I have heard about it, Mr. Speaker.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: May I direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of what happened yesterday, that is, mail box collection by bandits, will the Postmaster General inform the house whether mail boxes are still being repaired by prisoners in Kingston penitentiary and elsewhere?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: I presume the hon. member is referring to a sensational story which appeared on the front page of an Ottawa newspaper yesterday, which was completely inaccurate and a fine piece of fictional writing in so far as the first part of the story was concerned; the second part was a rehash of facts which appeared in the same newspaper last week. Having said this, I would remind the hon. member that I will make a statement, as I indicated to the house yesterday, as soon as I have the necessary information.
90205-6-105
Inquiries of the Ministry


Azellus Denis: Does the Postmaster General deny that four persons having master keys have been arrested?


William McLean Hamilton: That
was the story which appeared a week ago, and I referred to that when answering the question put to me. My reference to yesterday's story and the fictional part thereof concerned the statement that this situation was continuing and growing more serious. That is completely untrue and false. As far as I can see, the newspaper was just searching for a headline.



THE CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In making appointments in connection with the taking of the census, will the government give priority to unemployed persons, providing they have the necessary qualifications, rather than to party hopefuls?


George Harris Hees: In appointing those who will take the census the government bears in mind a great many factors all designed to make sure that the very best and most capable people should carry out this work.


John Richard Garland: I wonder whether the minister would mind answering my question.


George Harris Hees: I have answered it.


Mr. Speaker:: The latter part of the question was not one appropriate to be answered, if I may say so.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has seen a report which appeared in the press yesterday to the effect that Canadian firms were advertising in the United Kingdom for radio and television technicians, and whether it is the practice of her department to encourage the immigration to Canada at the present time of this category of workers.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minisier of Citizenship and Immigration):: I do not know what the situation is concerning this particular matter. I did see the article, and I have asked for a report.

Inquiries of the Ministry COAL



STATEMENT AS TO PROMOTION OF USE BY ONTARIO HYDRO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Comiois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Port Arthur asked me whether the dominion coal board or my department had played any part in assisting to develop a market for Cape Breton coal in the plants of Ontario hydro.
The dominion coal board have been, and remain, fully aware of all the circumstances connected with this proposed supply. The Ontario hydro officials have been most cooperative and have given the board full information on any points raised.
The Ontario hydro have a very large stockpile of coal and are consuming comparatively little coal at present. It is not known yet whether they will purchase coal this year, but if so the quantity will probably not be large. If they do invite tenders to supply, I am sure the Canadian mines will be given the opportunity to bid. At that time the problem of the cost differential will be given most sympathetic attention by the board in the light of the orders in council providing assistance.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance to inquire when starred question No. 57, standing in my name and made an order for return on January 18 last, will be tabled.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, Mr. Speaker, it was not and could not have been a question directed to the Department of Finance, because I have not asked that any starred question be made an order for return this session. Therefore I think the hon. member should direct his question to the minister on whose proposal the question was made an order for return or, failing that, to the Secretary of State.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Finance through what department of government payments are made to the provincial treasuries?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, payments to provincial treasuries are made through the Department of Finance. If this question is intended to have any reference

to the question asked by the hon. member for Welland, I have to direct the hon. member to the answer I gave that hon. gentleman.
The hon. member for Welland asked me a question by number. I pointed out to him that no question in the present session has been made an order for return at my request. I can only infer that the hon. member for Welland was prompted to ask the question of me because some part of the information that he desires is information that would normally be supplied by the Department of Finance. I can only conclude that as the question was made an order for return, it must have involved other departments as well.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to raise a point of order, sir, with respect to this matter. The minister has indicated that payments are made through his department to provincial treasuries. This question merely asks for payments from the federal treasury to the provincial treasury of Saskatchewan. In accordance with the minister's own answer it appears not to involve any other department but his.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I now have the text of the question before me; it was not given by the hon. member for Welland. I see that in Hansard of January 18 the question was put by the hon. member for Welland. My colleague the Secretary of State said:
I would ask that this question be made an order for return.
Following that, Mr. Speaker said:
Order for return.
Any follow-up question should therefore be directed to my colleague the Secretary of State who, of course, is the minister responsible for the tabling of returns that are directed in response to orders for returns in the house.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. It is reported in yesterday's Montreal Star that a Vancouver police officer said the night before last that prisoners in the federal penitentiary at New Westminster printed counterfeit identification cards for a country-wide forged cheque ring. Is the minister in a position to comment on that report?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I did not see that particular report but as I informed the house yesterday in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Ottawa West, in which 1 am certain the hon. member himself took a great deal of interest, we discovered in April or May last year that there were certain irregularities in connection with the printing in the penitentiary print shops in Kingston and New Westminster. Steps were taken at that time to deal with those irregularities. I am sure that part of the answer escaped the hon. gentleman's attention.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister received a letter from Mr. William Mahoney, national director of the united steel workers, in which he has protested that the publication by the dominion bureau of statistics of rate of production statistics for the steel industry has been discontinued as of the beginning of this year? Could the minister say whether he has given consideration to having publication continued?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the letter in question, but the hon. member was good enough yesterday to give me notice of his interest in this matter. Therefore I have had it checked and have here an answer for him.
The dominion bureau of statistics has not discontinued publication of figures on steel furnace capacity in Canada. It has been bureau practice to establish a capacity figure as of January 1 each year, using data supplied by the steel furnace operators. This total figure has been published regularly in both monthly and annual reports. This practice is being continued.
The bureau has merely altered its weekly release on ingot production. This release formerly stated the tonnage produced along with a percentage of rated capacity, the latter being based on a fixed weekly capacity obtained by dividing the annual figure by 52. There were two reasons for this change. First, the weekly percentage figure may in fact be misleading since it is not calculated on the basis of capacity actually in use during the week. That is, it does not take account of forced shutdowns of furnaces for repairs or shutdowns for holidays, etc.
90205-6-105J
Customs Tariff
Second, important technological changes taking place in the industry make capacity figures less meaningful than formerly. The use of oxygen in steel furnaces has increased substantially the tonnage that can be obtained from a furnace. The use of an index based on average weekly output over a representative two-year period appears to provide a much firmer basis of comparison from week to week.



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 he 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.
Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, this is one of those rare occasions when I find it possible to take the opportunity to congratulate a cabinet minister. These occasions

Customs Tariff
present themselves so rarely that I never hesitate to seize upon them when they occur.
One of the favourite pastimes in this country today, whether we are dealing with unemployment, exports, imports or any other problem, is to place the complete blame on labour. This is why I congratulate the Minister of Labour for not going along with this very popular trend at the moment. I should like to refer to an article which appeared in Highlights, a publication of the national union of public employees. It is contained in the November 1960 issue. At page 4 we find this:
Union economists who argue that labour costs should not be made the culprit for pricing Canadian goods out of world markets received support from an unexpected ally-federal labour minister Michael Starr.
Mr. Starr suggested in an address to the Toronto board of trade that latest studies in his department indicated industry's profit margin was increasing while labour costs remained about the same percentage of gross value of output.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but is he directing his remarks to the Customs Tariff resolution?


Murdo William Martin: That is so, Mr. Chairman.


The Deputy Chairman:: I wish the hon. member would point out to the Chair how he relates this to the Customs Tariff. I have been reading the resolution, and up to this moment I cannot reconcile the hon. member's remarks with it.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, before I commenced my remarks perhaps I should have explained that this is merely a preliminary leading up to the item before the committee which deals with changes in the Customs Tariff. I presume the resolution has been brought in by the minister in an effort to meet some of the problems of the day.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On that point, of course this is one of the methods put forward by the government to meet problems of the day; but, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with a specific legislative proposal now. It is not in the realm of general debate. I think the point raised by the hon. member for Laurier is well taken, Mr. Chairman. We are discussing a proposed amendment of the Customs Tariff respecting the definition of class or kind.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, before make a ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Laurier, I suggest that this matter of tariffs and trade is of vital importance to the country at the present time in trying to deal with the problems before us. I suggest that on the first resolution we should deal with this subject as

thoroughly as we possibly can. Certainly at a later stage I expect the debate will be confined much closer to the individual matters before the committee, but I would suggest that this is the only occasion when we shall be able to deal with this matter as a whole.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. We are not
dealing with the whole Customs Tariff. In this resolution we are just dealing with certain specific things. Perhaps the hon. member has reference to the first item of the estimates of a department during the discussion of which great latitude is given, but this is a specific matter. There is no ruling to make because there is a definite rule, namely standing order 59 (2), which says that the discussion must be relevant to what is before the committee. We just concluded the budget debate.


Murdo William Martin: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I shall have to get right down to the point without painting the picture as I think it should be painted at the present time.
This appears to be just another step in the devious road that the minister is taking at the present time, and the apparent perennial answer of the Conservative party, which is to have higher and higher tariffs. I have seen this coming, Mr. Chairman, ever since September, 1958, at which time the minister brought in regulations and so forth which transferred from parliament to the cabinet the right to set tariffs in this country.
There is one difference at the present time as compared with the old form of Conservative high tariffs. We find that back in the old days R. B. Bennett marched boldly down the road to high tariffs. He came completely out in the open, with no holds barred. Of course the fact still remains-maybe this is the reason for the different method at the present time -that he had his eyes fixed so firmly on that goal, that the result was that he fell into a pit which was 22 years deep. The people of this country were willing to put up with the Liberals for 22 years, following the former Conservative high tariff policy. What we see now is that the current Minister of Finance apparently lacks the honesty of R. B. Bennett. He appears to have the same goal, but he uses devious routes to get there.
I must confess it is a very clever scheme that he has adopted here, Mr. Chairman. This change appears to be designed at the present time to extend the powers of the minister in this field, powers which can be used in a political sense to reward friends and to punish enemies, Mr. Chairman. This is one fact which will bring about fear and confusion across the country, because it will give the minister an opportunity to play off one group against the other. In Mr. Bennett's

days it was at least open and above board, and it was a policy that was equitable to all. It was not a policy that could be played against one particular group at any one particular time.
We need a policy that is fair to all. Whether you agree or disagree with a high tariff policy, at least it applies to all and it can be met with organized resistance by all. What we have at the present time is a policy which puts us in this position. Each group waits, wondering who is going to be next, wondering whose turn it is going to be when the axe next falls.
I do not know what the purpose of the change is, or whether it is going to make very much difference. Apparently aggrieved parties were previously able to appeal to the minister from the board's decision. Now they are going to be able to appeal to the board from the minister's decision. I do not know what the purpose of it is, and I certainly cannot see any difference.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: The hon. gentleman understands nothing about it.


Murdo William Martin: In spite of the fine words, Mr. Chairman, I would say the result will be something which we have seen coming about in the last three or four years, namely an ever increasing trend toward high tariffs. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is an even worse answer to our present problems than the popular one I mentioned before, namely to blame labour for all our ills. In the February 1 issue of the Toronto Telegram we find a little article appearing on page 6 which reads in part as follows:
Take the tariff that protects a large part of Canadian secondary industry: In a study prepared for the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, Dr. John H. Young estimated that in 1956 the tariff cost Canadians about $1 billion. It would be more now. This is an indirect subsidy to industry, paid by the consumers of Canada. Ontario, having the largest concentration of industry, is obviously the chief beneficiary.
This, Mr. Chairman, is one of the inevitable results of this trend toward higher tariffs. We have again the warning of Mr. John L. Bonus, general manager of the Canadian association of British manufacturers and agencies. His warning is contained in the Globe and Mail of July 6, 1960 on page 20, and the article reads:
Mr. Bonus warned that it would be a mistake for Canada to retreat behind a production barrier of high tariff quotas. To do so would lead inevitably to further isolation on world trade and increase inability of Canadian firms to compete outside the domestic market.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this inevitable trend toward higher tariffs indicates the government is going back to the old days of Mr. Bennett. High tariffs and economic
Customs Tariff
isolation are going to be for this government an even greater pit than the one into which Mr. Bennett fell in 1935.


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I rose a while ago when the hon. member rose.


Charles Edward Rea: I will recognize the hon. member for Laurier.


Lionel Chevrier: After the statement made by the Minister of Finance yesterday there are a number of questions that come to mind. Before commenting on this resolution I should like to put them to the minister. Some of these questions were asked by my colleague the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and other hon. members on this side of the house. They were pertinent questions with which the minister, I take it, will deal in due course.
The first question that comes to my mind is not as innocent as it appears to be on the surface. It is this. What is the purpose of this section? I have before me the statement which the minister made in the house yesterday. I was in the house when he made the first part of it, but unfortunately I had to leave before the last part was delivered. I note that on page 1636 of yesterday's Hansard the minister is reported as having summarized the three or four points that he suggests are the gravamen of this matter. These points are, to a large extent, legalistic and I think the house should have from the minister a simple statement of the purpose of the section.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When the hon. member says "section", does he mean the entire-


Lionel Chevrier: I mean the resolution. Then I believe the committee would like to know what goods or commodities will be covered by this resolution. What goods or commodities will be protected? What will be the increase in the rates of duty? It has been said that the rates will be increased from 7 per cent to 22 per cent on items covered by this resolution. I believe that should be confirmed or explained in some manner.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can do that at once if the hon. member wishes. There is no change in any tariff rate involved here. The tariff rates are in the Customs Tariff today. They have been legislated by parliament. This proposed measure does not change a single rate in the whole Customs Tariff.. With respect to those 70 items to which I referred in my opening statement yesterday, there are rates that apply in the case of goods: of a class or kind made in Canada. There are

Customs Tariff
different rates established in the Customs Tariff with respect to goods not of a class or kind made in Canada. This proposed legislation simply concerns itself with the definition of class or kind.


Lionel Chevrier: I am glad to have that explanation in answer to the question which has been put. However, there are still a number of matters which I feel deserve attention. Why is it necessary to do the things that are being done in the resolution? What industries will be affected by this change? How is this resolution related to the dumping regulations which were enacted by the house in 1958? What effect did the dumping regulations have on the commodities toward which they were directed? Why does the Minister of National Revenue require the powers that are contained in this legislation, and why should he be given these powers which, on the face of them, certainly appear to be arbitrary?
Then why is the right of appeal to the courts taken away, a right which has heretofore existed? What is the value of the commodities to which this resolution is likely to apply? I am sure the officers of the finance department gave consideration to this matter before the preparation of the resolution and are in a position to tell the minister. What is the amount in dollars and cents of goods to which this resolution will apply?
Now, as I understand this and the minister will correct me when he replies if he wishes, this resolution seeks to amend sections 2 and 6 of the Customs Tariff dealing with goods of a class or kind made in Canada. The minister said yesterday the first part of the resolution will be enacted as section 2A of the Customs Tariff, and the latter part as an amendment to subsections 9 and 10 of section
6.	It seems to me that the simplest way in which to put this matter is as follows. When are goods coming into Canada subject to duty? My understanding is that they are subject to duty in two cases. First, they are subject to duty when of a class or kind made in Canada. There is no point in putting a tariff on goods coming into Canada which are not made here. This, I take it, would be in restraint of trade.
Then there is the case in which it is expected that by putting a duty on goods it will encourage a new industry in Canada. However, goods of a class or kind have not always been easy to determine. They have not been easy to define. There is a long history of discussions on this subject in this house. Yesterday in his remarks the minister indicated that these discussions had started in 1904. I have a chronological history which goes away beyond that to 1894, but I am not

going to burden the committee by putting that on Hansard. It is a fact that there have been long discussions in the house over many, many years as to the meaning and interpretation of words of this character, "goods of a class or kind made in Canada," "the cost of production factor" and the "made in Canada" species.
Mr. King, the former prime minister, stated in the house that there were two ways of making a tariff. He put it in this way. First, parliament could fix the rate, in which case it became known to the whole country and would apply at once. Second, the government could take discretionary powers artificially to alter the tariff by order in council, by altering the value for duty, in which event no one would know what tariff would be charged or how long a particular rate of duty would remain in effect. There is a third way, namely the manner in which it is being done in this resolution; because now the minister is to be given arbitrary powers and his decision shall be final. It is of no use for the Minister of Finance to take exception to that statement which was made yesterday in the house, because I intend to repeat it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take exception to it.


Lionel Chevrier: Having regard to the language used in the resolution, there is no doubt that is what is meant.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Not at all.


Lionel Chevrier: The tariff is a tax. The taxing power belongs peculiarly to the commons, and that power should not be parted with or delegated to any administration whatever.
What is being done in this resolution? The minister defines two kinds of goods, namely goods custom-made to specifications and shelf goods, as they were described by him yesterday. There is no doubt that by this definition he is increasing the range of commodities regarded as made in Canada. Goods that are not classified as made in Canada are not subject to dumping duties. What then is the relationship between this resolution and the anti-dumping duties enecated in 1958? The only relationship between the two is that the dumping law is applicable only to goods of a class or kind made in Canada. This change in the resolution is to broaden the definition and, in broadening the definition, therefore to bring more goods within its purview. It will therefore increase the range of goods that will be classified as made in Canada.
I said earlier that I could put on the record a long list of statements made in the house on this subject. I will not do that but I will refer, as did the minister, to the policy that

was enacted by order in council in 1936. It was that goods would not be subject to duty unless there was Canadian production of those goods up to 10 per cent of the domestic market. The law here is being changed with reference to custom-made goods. In so far as the other kind is concerned, as I understand it, there is no change save and except in the abolishing of the appeal.
In 1958 parliament amended the Customs Act for the purpose of changing the method of valuation. The method of valuing goods for duty purposes was changed so as to include a cost production factor. The relationship between the two is that here they are bringing more goods under the umbrella of this protective resolution. I have heard it stated-and I repeat it because I have heard it stated from authoritative sources-that some $200 million of goods will be affected by this resolution.
I cannot come to any other conclusion but that this is bad and vicious legislation. The minister is moving toward protection furtively unlike Mr. Bennett did. The minister is moving toward a protective tariff in more than one way. He has been moving in that trend for quite a long time now. When he was offered the British free trade proposals at Mont Tremblant, he turned his back upon them and they were not considered. Then we had the tariff increase concerning British woollens. Then we had the quotas on Japanese goods, wherein the Japanese agreed to accept certain quotas affecting exports from that country to Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Lionel Chevrier: No, not at this stage. I would ask the minister to reserve it until later, if he will. Then we had the dumping regulations in 1958. What was the effect of the dumping regulations? I think we are entitled here in the House of Commons now in considering this matter which is not unlike the other one, to a complete statement by the minister as to the effect of these regulations. Why were they not sufficient? Why were they not successful in meeting the ends for which they were put into force and which we fought as strongly as we could in the house?
As a fifth trend toward higher protection we have a redefinition of goods of a class or kind made in Canada. Then there is the question contained in the latter part of section 2A of the resolution which the minister states is not taking arbitrary powers. I should like to put subsection 3 of section 2A of the resolution on the record in order to make my remarks clear. It reads as follows:
Customs Tariff
(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.
The minister has been asked first, what is the economic production of such goods and what is the meaning of the words "within a reasonable period of time". When the minister states that these are not arbitrary powers, surely he cannot be serious. The words are quite clear. Here in those two matters, affecting two important items in this resolution, the decision of the Minister of National Revenue is final. Is that not taking away the rights of parliament? Is that not taking from parliament the taxing power to which this House of Commons is entitled?


Richard Albert Bell: Not at all.


Lionel Chevrier: It is giving that power to a minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


Lionel Chevrier: It is in restraint of trade. It is restricting trade. It is also in effect, both directly and indirectly, making the capital cost of production higher. How can you raise the productivity of the nation if you are going to raise the capital cost of production? As I say, that is a matter which belongs to this House of Commons and not to the Minister of of National Revenue in any form or shape.
Then again, this section which I have read, in my opinion, gives to the minister new and arbitrary powers, and authority to impose a tax which is the prerogative of parliament. This is protection with a vengeance. This is also protection against something which does not exist at the present time. It is also an invisible tariff. This is obtaining this power not by the front door method, not by the method which Mr. Bennett would have used, but by another method which is being used now by the Minister of Finance, namely the back door method. It is a return in another way to the days of Mr. Bennett, whose policies were so destructive to our economy. It seems to me it has been the policy and the tendency of the Conservative party to resort to these measures in times of unemployment. They may be sincere-I have no doubt they are- in their hope that this will help the economy, but I can assure the minister that in my opinion this is very bad legislation.
There is no appeal from the decision of the minister. There was an appeal, prior to this, to the tariff board, from the tariff board to the exchequer court and from the exchequer court to the Supreme Court of Canada. Now there is to be no appeal from the decision of

Customs Tariff
the minister; the minister's decision is final; he has the full authority to decide these matters, and his decision ends the matter.
I ask the Minister of Finance whether he believes that this is the kind of legislation which will commend itself to the Canadian people. I remember what he thought of powers that were taken away from parliament in days gone by, of powers that were taken away from this house and given not to a minister but to the governor in council.
I remember what he thought in those days, and I would like to put on Hansard a statement dealing with a matter not unlike the one which is under discussion today. To my mind this one under discussion today is far worse, because it is giving the power to an individual rather than to the governor in council. At page 4524 of Hansard of June 7, 1955, the Minister of Finance, who was then the member for Eglinton, had this to say on the subject of certain powers taken away in a matter that was before the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member should say what particular powers and what measures were being considered at that time.


Lionel Chevrier: It was on the discussion of the Defence Production Act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is a very different matter.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister says that is a very different matter, but let us hear what the minister had then to say. I quote his words, as reported in Hansard:
The supreme duty of parliament, in discharging its responsibility to the people, is to be true and faithful to its traditional role of the champion of the rights and freedom of the people.
Then he said:
How this government loves to dress up what is in fact a denial of the rule of law, the subjugation of parliament to the executive branch of government, by having parliament go through the process of conferring upon them the power to legislate. And that vicious practice is dressed up. An attempt is made to clothe it with an air of respectability by calling it ''delegated legislation". Sir, no euphonious title will succeed in applying a sufficient disguise to this vicious and threatening practice.
Hon. members can well see, in the light of the description of the Prime Minister of the powers under this act, that these are such powers as make it possible for the government to make itself dictator of the Canadian economy tomorrow. Under this legislation the government, and particularly the Minister of Defence Production, hold the Canadian economy in the palms of their hands. The government can override any other legal obligation howsoever created.
Sir, these powers are so sweeping that I am quite sure most Canadians just could not believe this is the way in which parliament is called upon by this government to legislate.

Those are the words of the Minister of Finance of yesteryear.


Thomas Miller Bell: And very true they were, in the circumstances.


Lionel Chevrier: Those words are applicable to this legislation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They are much more so.


Lionel Chevrier: They are much more true in this case, as my hon. friend the member for Bonavista-Twillingate says, when the powers will be conferred not upon the executive but upon the Minister of National Revenue, as contained in the second part of this resolution.


An hon. Member:: And without appeal.


Lionel Chevrier: And without appeal. This is really dressing it up. Where could you dress it up any more than you have in the resolution and as you probably will in the bill?
I said earlier that this, in my opinion, was vicious legislation. The Minister of Finance and some of his colleagues have gone to Paris, to Washington and elsewhere in an attempt to come to some understanding with the common market countries. The common market countries up until now, as I understand it, have reduced their tariffs by some 30 per cent and are prepared to raise their tariffs against countries on the outside. Canada, the United States and Britain may well be affected by this unless Britain joins the common market, and unless Canada and the United States give greater consideration to a modus vivendi between the two blocs, because there is no doubt in the world that the economy of the common market is in high gear at the present time.
This is the kind of legislation which in my opinion is giving effect to the threat which the Minister of Trade and Commerce expressed in a speech delivered in Paris, and which the Leader of the Opposition has already put on Hansard. In view of that it would seem to me that attempts should be made to find a common denominator between the economy of those countries and that of Canada, Britain and the United States, rather than resorting to this kind of legislation, which undoubtedly will have a detrimental effect on our country.
I repeat what 1 said earlier. I do not think this legislation will meet the position which the minister has in mind, and I can only repeat what he said:
Sir, these powers are so sweeping that I am quite sure most Canadians just could not believe this is the way in which parliament is called upon by this government to legislate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Laurier began by indicating that he had not heard half of the statement

that I made yesterday by way of explanation of the resolution. I can well understand that, after having listened to his remarks this afternoon, because they have not been directed to the resolution at all. He may have thought he was speaking about the resolution, but he was talking about something quite different from what is before the house.
He began also by saying he was going to ask a series of questions, and I gathered the impression that he was going to wait for the answers before he launched into any statement of his position on the bill. But he has not waited to obtain the information in reply to some eight or ten questions. He went on, not waiting for the information, not waiting for the answers; indeed, not caring to wait until he received information that evidently he was aware of needing. He then proceeded to attack the bill and to denounce it with adjectives which can only be construed as indicating that he is not aware of the terms of the legislation proposed.
I am going to begin by offering him the kind of information that I thought he was seeking, and suggest that had he had this information he would have come to a rather different conclusion. I also have some observations to make on some other long bows that he has drawn on the record of this government in relation to matters pertaining to tariff protection.
His first question was, "What is the purpose of this resolution?" I stated that in the budget speech of December 20, and I stated it again yesterday. It is very clear. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to restore the original concepts relating to this phrase "class or kind" after what I described yesterday as a decade of erosion. In doing so we will provide for the first time some effective means of dealing with goods that have been described in this proposed amendment.
The second of his questions was, "What goods or commodities are covered by the resolution?" I have already answered that. They are all set out in the Customs Tariff in the 70 items in which this expression appears. They cover a very broad range of goods. In most cases there is no question about whether goods are made or not made in Canada, but difficulties have arisen over marginal cases. These have always been subject to the rulings of the department. The hon. member knows perfectly well that this legislation, which has been on the statute books for many years, has required rulings to be made times without number by the department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Which were appealable.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, they were subject to appeal. I am dealing now with the situation as regards the interpretation of 90205-6-106
Customs Tariff
legislation the meaning of which was well understood, especially by the governments which introduced it, principally Liberal governments, and I say that the course of the decisions in the past decade has been to set at nought in many of these cases the purpose of parliament and the purpose of the governments which introduce this legislation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was denied the privilege of asking the hon. member for Laurier a question, but I do not wish to follow his example.


Lionel Chevrier: You interrupted me and made a speech.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not do anything of the kind. I asked if I could ask a question, and the hon. gentleman said no.


Lionel Chevrier: Just a moment. I will not allow the Minister of Finance to misinterpret what happened. The hon. gentleman interrupted me in the early part of my speech and proceeded to make a statement. I did not deny him that opportunity. Then he asked if he could ask a question and I denied him the right to ask that question because I did not want my speech to be interrupted by a number of statements from the minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I come back to what I said. The hon. member is referring to the question he asked me, his second question. I indicated I was prepared to answer that at that time. He yielded the floor, and I then answered his second question. Later, when the hon. gentleman reached the point of talking about export quotas applied by Japan on certain exports to Canada, I rose and asked, in accordance with the rules of the house, if I could ask a question then, and the hon. gentleman said, no. The record will bear me out.


Lionel Chevrier: You interrupted me then.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, there was no interruption at all; none whatever.
I will deal with the question asked by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister mean by what he is pleased to call "erosion" the decisions of the courts and, if so, is he not asking this parliament to overrule and override the courts because he does not like their decisions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is a fact that that there have been decisions of the courts in this period, decisions which have been at variance with the rulings and interpretations which had been well established up to that time.

Customs Tariff


John Whitney Pickersgill: The rulings of the executive.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of Liberal governments, principally-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Still the executive.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -of which the hon. gentleman's colleagues were previously members.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That does not alter the principle.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This parliament changes the law very often in the light of the interpretation of the law by the courts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Legislation by parliament-


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister-


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I finish my statement?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I beg the minister's pardon.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Many of the proposals put before parliament in the course of budgets arise out of interpretations which the courts have placed on certain measures. There is hardly a budget placed before parliament which does not take note in some respect or other of an interpretation put on something by the courts and the necessity for changing the law as thus interpreted by the courts. Let there be no mistake about that. In recent years, as a result of one or two of the decisions which the tariff board has been following, interpretations have been given by the courts which, again, have carried an emphasis which is at variance with what was the well-established import of those words prior to this last decade. That is an uncontestable fact.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister if he will now answer my question. I accept what he has said that parliament has a perfect right to change laws after the courts have made decisions. If the courts place a certain interpretation on the law and we think it should be something else, then we have the right to change it, but what the minister is asking here is that we should suppress the courts. He is denying the right to an appeal in the future, and that is what we are objecting to.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You see, Mr. Chairman, this speech has been introduced under the guise of asking a question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, answer it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Answer the speech? I shall be prepared to answer anything that is raised in the committee and I shall be

prepared to answer this point, but I will first draw to your attention, Mr. Chairman, the manner in which the hon. member, having taken to himself the right to ask a question, then comes forward in typical style to supply his own answer, which is a most erroneous and misleading answer, and then sits down with a look of utter satisfaction although the answer he has supplied to his own question is wrong.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You give the answer, then.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I make my own statement?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Give the answer; never mind all the verbiage.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We were referring a moment ago to interruptions. You will note, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member is still not satisfied. He has asked a question and supplied his own answer and now when I am dealing with the subject he insists that he should supply my answer as well. The process of totalitarianism with which the hon. member is all too well acquainted has not gone that far here. The hon. gentleman is not going to supply the answer for me.
I had reached the point, before the hon. member's interruption, where I was dealing with the second question put by the hon. member for Laurier. Quite at variance with his idea of the effect of this amendment I say that there are no rates changed by this legislation. This legislation does not change a single customs tariff rate under the Customs Tariff.
We are asked, in the third place, what industries are affected. They are the industries which are engaged in the production of the articles described in these 70 items in the Customs Tariff. They cover a wide range but, as I indicated, if you are looking in particular at one branch of the goods, namely those described here as custom-made according to specification, they are obviously heavy machinery in large measure.
I was asked next by the hon. member for Laurier how this is related to the dumping regulations. The form of the question is very interesting. What does the hon. gentleman mean by "dumping regulations"? The dumping regulations which I presume he has in mind must be some regulations promulgated in pursuance of legislation passed by parliament. He is quite right in saying that the powers which are created under the Customs 1 ariff in relation to dumping apply only to goods of a class or kind made in Canada. That is quite correct and I dealt with that subject in my remarks yesterday. I pointed that out plainly. Then when he went on to talk about this subject later it appeared that

when he talked about dumping regulations he had some reference to the legislation which was introduced in 1958 in this house by way of amendment to the Customs Act. That is not this statute at all; it is the Customs Act. That was a measure introduced by a colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, dealing with the basis of valuation of goods imported into Canada and requiring that certain elements of cost of production be included in that value for entry purposes.
At a later stage in his speech, without having waited for an answer to this question, we heard the hon. member say that the present legislation apparently had some sinister connection with the legislation of 1958. The legislation of 1958 was very good legislation and as was pointed out at that time it was badly needed for the purpose of making known to some foreign producers who were in the habit of exporting into Canada that they would not be permitted to do so on a basis of dumping in Canada.
So salutary has been the effect of the mere enactment of that legislation that it has not been necessary once in the two and a half intervening years to apply that legislation in any particular case. The Minister of National Revenue made that fact known in the house previously. I say there is an exemple of very great benefit having been achieved by the mere enactment of that legislation.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: All this talk about arbitrary powers has no application whatever. It never had any basis and it has none now.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, Mr. Chairman, contrary to the position taken by the hon. member when he was speaking, I shall be glad to answer his question.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the hon. minister, Mr. Chairman, but I should like to ask him this question. How salutary could the regulations to which he referred have been when in the constituency of Stormont and in the city of Cornwall no less than two industries closed down?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I draw attention to the evidence of a continued and sad misconception on the part of the hon. member for Laurier. I have been talking about legislation, amendments to the Customs Act enacted in this house in the 1958 session. The hon. member comes back and talks about the dumping regulations. 1 am left to wonder what the hon. member is talking 90205-6-106i
Customs Tariff
about or whether he clearly understands what the matter is that is now before the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: The two thousand people who are out of work are wondering too.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member apparently is saying that more drastic use should have been made of the powers conferred by parliament upon the Minister of National Revenue.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister is saying that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Otherwise the hon. member's statement has no sense in it whatever.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister is saying that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Here we are getting interruptions, you see, from the hon. member who was complaining about interruptions when he did not get any. Perhaps the hon. gentleman can listen now when someone else has the floor.
The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that this was salutary legislation. It has had a good effect. The hon. member for Laurier having opposed that legislation in 1958 is now saying ii* effect, "You should exercise powers now that I objected to your taking in 1958." This is just about as consistent as one might expect in that particular quarter.


Lionel Chevrier: Two thousand people out of work.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There he goes again, Mr. Chairman, and yet the hon. member was complaining about interruptions.
I now proceed to the hon. member's next question which was this: Why does the minister require the powers? I dealt with this subject yesterday and I will come back again to this subject of the powers of the minister and of the tariff board in relation to the matters that are going to arise under the proposed amendment. I again draw the attention of the committee to the fact that the hon. member is apparently not aware that the legislation as it has existed in its present form for years has required many decisions on the part of the minister. But I will come back to this matter of the powers of the minister and of the tariff board in relation to the amendments because there has been, not only a sad misinterpretation but indeed a drastic misrepresentation of the effect of the amendments in that regard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Lack of clarity.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In question No. 6 the hon. member asks why the right of appeal is taken away. I say that the right of appeal as to matters that are properly the subject

Customs Tariff
of appeal is not taken away by this legislation. Again I shall have something to say by way of enlargement on this matter at a later stage in my remarks.
In his next question the hon. member asks what is the value of the commodities to which the resolution is likely to apply. The fact is that no one can say precisely what is the value of the commodities to which the amendment is likely to apply. This case is not at all the simple case in which there is a change in the rate of duty on an existing tariff item. In such cases statistics are usually available including the volume of imports which would be affected. In the present situation, however, what is involved is some alteration in the position of the margin between what is considered to be made in Canada and what is not.
There are two reasons why statistics cannot be given here in reply to this question. In the first place, in the case of many pairs of tariff items-and when I speak about pairs I am speaking about items including those that are made in Canada on the one hand and those that are not made in Canada on the other; that is what is meant by a pair-statistics exist only for total imports. In the second place it is not possible to forecast what quantitative effects will flow from rulings based on the new section as opposed to rulings based on the former section.
The hon. member's next question, I think, was really the same question re-phrased. He asked what was the amount in dollars and cents of such commodities. I have dealt with that.
The hon. member next asked when are goods coming into Canada subject to duty. The answer is that they are subject to duty when the Customs Tariff makes them subject to duty. That is legislation with which we are not interfering in the least. I say again that this legislation does not change any rate whatever. Broadly speaking the rates are lower in the case of goods not produced in Canada under these 70 items of the tariff than are the rates on goods that are produced in Canada.
I wish now to proceed to deal more broadly with some of the remarks of the hon. member for Laurier and hon. members who preceded him. The hon. gentleman spoke about the history of this legislation. He is aware of history going back to 1894. Actually, if you wish to go to the fine point, this kind of legislation goes back to 1873 for it was in that year that provision was made for a 10 per cent duty on "machinery for mills and factories of kinds which are then 
manufactured in the dominion." There was further legislation in 1880 and again in 1890, and so on.
My reference to this legislation yesterday as coming from 1907 related largely to the form of the present tariff. It is in that tariff that we find this present concept appearing and carried to a greater extent than had ever been done before in any legislation of this parliament.
We have had statements made to the effect that this proposed legislation gives the government or the minister power which, as the hon. member for Laurier said, belongs to the house. The hon. gentleman said that Mr. King had once stated that there were several ways of applying tariffs and one way was to take unto the governor in council the power to establish the tariff by order in council.


Lionel Chevrier: No, I did not say that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member said that Mr. King had said that this was one of several ways in which a tariff could be established. I have his words here. The hon. gentleman said in effect that the better way was to legislate directly and not to give the governor in council power to establish rates by order in council. It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Laurier was not better prepared with his case before he began to talk along this line today. We are asking the house in these present amendments to reduce the powers that the Customs Tariff now confers on the governor in council.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Subject to appeal.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, the powers to which I am referring are not subject to appeal at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do not become angry.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I sometimes find it difficult to be completely patient and docile in the face of statements emanating from hon. members opposite that are not only erroneous but misleading.


Mr. Howard:: Docility is not one of your qualities.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not hear the remark, but I take it that it comes from a source that probably one should not take the time to deal with, anyway.


Charles Benjamin Howard: That is because it is injurious to you.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The source in question I should think is injurious to everything, including itself.

The hon. member waxed quite loud on this subject. He evidently does not like powers being given to the governor in council. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me draw his attention to powers that parliament has given to the governor in council, which we are in effect now giving back to parliament if parliament will approve the present resolution. Under section 6, subsection 10, of the present Customs Tariff we have this provision:
For the purpose of this act goods shall not be deemed to be of a class or kind made or produced in Canada unless so made or produced in substantial quantities, and-
And note these words, Mr. Chairman:
-the governor in council may provide that such quantities, to be substantial, shall be sufficient to supply a certain percentage of the normal Canadian consumption and may fix such percentages.
This is the section, Mr. Chairman, and it is under the authority of this clause that the Liberal government in 1936 proceeded to pass order in council P.C. 1618 on July 2, 1936, and to name as 10 per cent the percentage of the normal Canadian consumption which an article must supply before it is to be deemed to be a class or kind made in Canada.


George James McIlraith: Will the minister permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I just go on. I will be glad to take the question at the proper time, but I am in the middle of developing a point here.
This is the order in council passed by the Liberal administration. It is significant that it was passed in 1936, in the first or the second session that the hon. member for Laurier was a member of this parliament. I have no doubt that since this legislation was introduced by the government of that day it had his full support.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The legislation was not introduced then; it was the order in council.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The order in council was introduced at that time, and I have no doubt that since it was introduced by the government of that day it must have had the full support of the hon. member for Laurier. I do not recall that he has ever raised his voice in protest against the exercise of this power.
Now, Mr. Chairman, as long as this power remains on the statute books it lies within the power of the governor in council to change that percentage requirement. It will be perfectly lawful for the governor in council to pass a new order in council and say that the order in council of 1936 is repealed and that hereafter articles shall not be deemed to be a class or kind made or produced in Canada unless a quantity sufficient to supply 1 per cent-
Customs Tariff


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -of the normal Canadian consumption of such article was made or produced. That is the power, and that would be a perfectly valid exercise of this power that parliament has conferred on the governor in council, and that is the sort of exercise of such a power that I would expect to be carried out by a government that had a high tariff or a high protection purpose. It would be the easiest thing in the world, and the hon. member has the temerity to accuse the present government of having a high protection purpose in what it is doing.


Lionel Chevrier: There is no doubt about it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The facts are all against the hon. member for Laurier.


Lionel Chevrier: Not at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They are. In the teeth of the argument that he put before the committee this afternoon is the answer that we are not using the power that we could use to reduce to some vanishing point, some merely nominal percentage, the requirement in order that the higher tariff rate should become applicable, because the goods would then be classed as a class or kind made in Canada. We are, on the contrary, taking this power away from the governor in council and we are asking parliament to legislate. We are doing the very thing that the hon. member for Laurier-if he understood the full significance of the words he used this afternoon, or probably he was ascribing them to Mr. Mackenzie King-says that he would have been doing. He should be supporting our amendment instead of purporting to say, as he did, that we were violating, as I understood him, those principles on which he was taking a stand. He says that this is bad, vicious legislation.


Lionel Chevrier: It is.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I hope he will go down to Cornwall and say to the people there that he is against anything in the way of protection; that he has stood up in this House of Commons and denounced what he said was a protective measure, even though the facts seem to be somewhat different.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister should go down to Cornwall and explain his stand.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Here is a member who has asked me repeatedly in the house about what measures we are taking to prevent goods coming into Canada to displace those made by the textile mills in Cornwall. I hope that the workmen in the textile mills in Cornwall will be well informed of this; I hope

Customs Tariff
that they will know that their former member for Cornwall has risen in his place today and has attacked legislation that he said had a protective purpose because it had such a purpose, in his assertion.


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a point of order and a question of privilege. The Minister of Finance has no right to make statements such as those he has made, and he has no right to insinuate. He has asked questions in connection with a question which I put to him, and from what was said has drawn a conclusion. I did not deal in my remarks with anything concerning the textile industry or with anything concerning the mills in Cornwall. In his reply to me my hon. friend knows-


Richard Albert Bell: What is the point of order?


Lionel Chevrier: The point of order is that I have been misrepresented by the Minister of Finance. I have been misrepresented not only in the words which he used but also in the interpretation which he put on my remarks. At no time in the remarks which I made did I refer to the textile mills in Cornwall. When a question was put to me I did ask, what was being done by the anti-dumping regulations in so far as the 2,000 people put out of work in the mills at Cornwall are concerned. I will meet my hon. friend on that point here in the house at any time he wishes.


Richard Albert Bell: What is the point of order?


Lionel Chevrier: The point of order is that the anti-dumping regulations were enacted in this house with the stated view of coming to the assistance of those who were in difficulties and those who suffered in those mills. So far as I can see not a thing has been done to assist them in any way whatsoever. When the minister makes a statement he should not attempt to put words in an hon. member's mouth which were not there at all.


Richard Albert Bell: That is the phoniest point of order ever raised in this house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I quite agree with my hon. friend from Carleton that what we have just heard is just about the phoniest point of order that has been raised in this house. The hon. member obviously wished to make his speech. He is not content to wait and do so in the proper way, so he raises a bogus point of order. Let us not worry about that, Mr. Chairman. We have this interesting situation. The hon. member for Laurier was one of those who believed that the workers in the textile mills in Cornwall should have some protection against dumping in the Canadian market of the kind of goods that they were seeking to make in the Cornwall mills.

The hon. member apparently has not realized yet that the power to deal with dumping is confined to goods of a class or kind made in Canada, and the erosion that has gone on over the past 10 years has gradually narrowed the power reposed in the government by parliament to deal with the dumping of goods of another nature that are of a class or kind made in Canada, and that applies to the textile goods made in those Cornwall mills.


Lionel Chevrier: You put 2,000 out of work.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Everything said by the hon. member for Laurier, everything that has been argued for this afternoon, confounds him when he pretends to be a champion of the workers in the textile mills. He has argued here this afternoon for a position that would gradually reduce the power of government to apply dumping measures to restrain the kind of dumping that would otherwise deprive Canadians of their jobs in those textile mills in Cornwall.
Now, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate, in seeking to come to the rescue of the hon. member for Laurier, was a little too quick on the trigger a moment or two ago, as he so often is. I should like to caution my old friend, the hon. member for Laurier, against accepting gratuitous aid from that uncertain quarter. I think that his own mistakes in his speech this afternoon were such that he would be better advised to stick with those than to accept the Trojan horse offered by his seatmate, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
The order in council to which I have referred, Mr. Chairman, P.C. 1618 of July 2, 1936, was passed under the authority of subsection 10 section 6 of the Customs Tariff, as I have indicated. I did not go on to state, as I should have at that time, that that subsection, which gives to the governor in council the power to determine the percentage which shall be the test whether goods are of a class or kind made in Canada, was itself enacted in this house in 1936. It was part of the budget proposals introduced by the Liberal minister of finance in 1936, and was supported by the hon. member for Laurier. It was after that subsection was enacted by parliament that the power thereby conferred on the governor in council was exercised in the manner I have indicated.
Now, I proceed to another interesting observation made by the hon. member for Laurier.


The Chairman:: Order; I am sorry to interrupt the minister but his time has expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can give the minister a chance to continue by saying about five words because I think we would like him to continue. I wonder if the minister would not go

on and answer the question I asked, and on which he beat around the bush and carefully evaded an answer. My question is this: Why is the government, instead of changing the law and undoing this so-called erosion but still leaving the right of appeal to the courts, abolishing the appeal to the courts by this legislation? Subsection 3 of section 2A of the proposed resolution reads:
The decision of the minister shall be final with respect to the final matters:
(a) the normal Canadian consumption of the goods described in subsection 2,-
If the minister's decision about that is final, the minister can set that at any figure he chooses. No matter what other aspects of the matter may be appealed to the courts, if the minister says normal consumption is only 100 of something, then 10 per cent would only be 10. If you give this control and completely arbitrary power to the minister then there is nothing whatever left for determination on the appeal. I ask the minister why, when he attaches great virtue to this government for putting the 10 per cent into the law instead of leaving it in the regulations, he changes the definition of class or kind to make it uncertain when formerly it was precise and certain. I believe that the change with respect to the 10 per cent, of itself and isolated from everything, is commendable. However, this resolution gives to a single minister the arbitrary power, without appeal, to determine the quantity that is normally consumed in Canada.
The moment you abstract one element from the adjudication, no adjudication can be made at all. Unless the tariff board has the power to decide the quantity normally consumed in Canada it cannot make any proper decision as to what 10 per cent of that is. This decision will be governed by the amount the minister may arbitrarily determine. If the minister has some friends who want some protection he can set the total quantity very low in order to make sure their production is 10 per cent, thus giving them a hand-out. If, on the other hand, there are people he does not like he can say the normal consumption is very high and a small duty will be applied on the goods. In other words, any possibility of adjudication on shelf goods, taking all the objections into account, will be prevented by subsection 3 of section 2A as it is now.
I say, why is this government trying to override the courts, trying to prevent people getting into the courts, to have the facts decided? The facts should not be decided in a back room down on Mackenzie avenue, they should be decided openly when they are in dispute and before a proper tribunal set up for the purpose. Anything less than that is arbitrary power. You are taking the power to tax away from parliament and doing the
Customs Tariff
very thing the minister objected to so eloquently in 1955. The year 1955 seems to have been a poor year for the minister in setting precedents. In the year 1955, as the hon. member for Laurier has just said, the present Minister of Finance objected to a minister or the governor in council being given certain powers in the event of an emergency threatening our very existence. However, this government suggests now that the Minister of National Revenue should be given arbitrary powers to govern the whole ambit of Canadian import trade, without appeal to anybody.
If one looks at subsection (b) of section 2A he finds that the minister can decide whether or not goods are custom-made. If he says so, that is fine. There is no appeal to anybody. No more arbitrary power over the economy of a country has ever been requested in any document that I have ever seen placed before parliament than the minister is proposing to put in this legislation. The Minister of National Revenue will be able to decide, without appeal, without regard to the facts if he wishes to be capricious, whether goods are shelf goods or custom made. There will be no appeal. He will be able to decide, in the case of shelf goods, what the normal consumption in Canada is. Once he has decided that, any adjudication on the other points will be an utter and complete farce. It is this legislating of the courts out of existence, denying the people the right of appeal to the courts which is, of the many objectionable features in this legislation, the most objectionable.
I ask the minister why he does not ask us to change the law in a fashion that he thinks is right, but leave it to the courts to interpret the law? This is the proper way, under our constitution, instead of substituting the Minister of National Revenue for the courts and providing no right of appeal. There is no right for anyone else to examine the facts in an independent fashion. This is the most arbitrary interference with our trade which, after all, represents the source of the income of 20 per cent of the people of this country. This provision clearly gives to the Minister of National Revenue the power of life and death over the income of a very large proportion of the Canadian people. Compared with anything that was done by the previous administration, the arbitrary character of this legislation is beyond belief.


Lionel Chevrier: Before the minister answers, since he was proceeding to reply to what I said, I wonder whether he would not give consideration to one matter which will take just a moment to bring to his attention. I refer

Customs Tariff
to a statement made by the Prime Minister at Cornwall in 1958, and which is reported as follows:
A textile manufacturing city, has been seriously hit by United States "dumping" of textiles, and Mr. Diefenbaker made it plain this situation would not be permitted to continue. The textile industry has not always been treated fairly in the past, he affirmed in a searching denunciation of the former Liberal government. Its requests for better treatment have much too long been neglected.
Notwithstanding the passage of three years, not only has nothing been done but three of these industries have been closed putting out of work some 2,000 people.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has his right to speak in the committee. It was interesting to hear him make this speech under the guise of attempting to be of assistance to me and give me an opportunity to continue. I think it would have been much more to the point if he had said he was exercising his right to speak and to raise the questions which he did. I said I intended to deal with these questions. If he will be patient, I intend to deal with them, and deal with them adequately, just as I intend to deal with the points raised last night by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.
We heard this afternoon the hon. member for Timmins speaking in the same sense as did the hon. member for Laurier this afternoon and somewhat in the same sense as the hon. member for Assiniboia last night in his typically wild speech. The assertion is made that this legislation is an example of a protectionist policy and that in this respect it exhibits a trend. Those assertions 'have no basis in fact whatever. They have no basis in anything except the fancy, the fiction and the political approach of those who resort to such statements.
What is the record of this government with regard to tariff changes? The record, is this. Three regular budgets have been introduced, namely in 1958, 1959 and 1960, in which tariff changes were made. Where those tariff changes involved items with regard to which there were bindings under GATT we have followed scrupulously and to the letter the provisions of GATT. In every case negotiations have been held and what was presented to the house was presented in accordance with the agreements reached with the countries concerned. There has been loyal adherence at all times to GATT, both with regard to its letter and its spirit.
I think it is not unfair also to recall that the tariff changes that have been made, as to the principal items concerned, have been made invariably on recommendations made by the tariff board. Some amendments have been
made, of course, on items that were not before the tariff board but they were not large matters or important and far-reaching amendments. Some of these references to the tariff board had been made by our predecessors before we came into office. Some of these references have been directed to the tariff board since we came into office.
What about the changes themselves? Here is the record. I do not say this is the only way by which to test the effect of budget policies in this regard but I think it is not unfair to tally up the results of tariff changes made in the aggregate in these three budgets, and here they are. There have been 392 changes. Of those changes, 203 were simply formal changes of a mixed character. There have been 65 increases and 124 reductions. Hence, when the hon. member for Timmins talks about a trend under the present government toward high tariffs I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that he just does not know what he is talking about. He has not taken the trouble to inform himself as to the facts. When his leader last night talked about protectionism, again he was speaking not in accordance with the facts but in violation of the facts.


Mr. Regier:: It is a question of the volumes involved, not the items.


Donald Methuen Fleming: As to the volumes involved, may I say this. The matters involving larger volumes were those that were negotiated under GATT. They were those that were passed upon by the tariff board. Does the hon. member not believe that attention should be paid to the recommendations of tariff board? Does he not think that the countries concerned in the negotiations are perfectly competent to judge whether they are satisfied with the changes made? I therefore say that the facts are all against hon. members opposite in this regard.
Then the hon. member for Laurier surprised me very much indeed this afternoon when he talked about the export restrictions applied by the Japanese government on exports of certain commodities to Canada, including a number of textile products. It was at that point that I sought his leave to ask him a question. That leave he denied me. I wished to ask him whether he was opposed to the imposition by the Japanese government of these restraints on their exports of textiles to Canada. He did not give me the opportunity to ask that question, so he has his choice now. Either he disapproves the effort that has been made in discussions with the representatives of the Japanese government to seek such reasonable restraints against the flooding of the Canadian

market by exports into our market in concentrated form or he can, on the other hand, say that he approves those efforts, in which case I think he must withdraw what he had to say this afternoon or admit that he has changed his mind.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the hon. member permit me to reply?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shall be delighted to do so.


Lionel Chevrier: In so far as Japanese quotas are concerned I say to the minister that in my opinion that was not the way in which to protect the textile industry in this country or in Cornwall. The statement made by the Prime Minister in all the textile areas was quite clear, namely that the situation of dumping would be put an end to and would be stopped. That promise has not been carried out. My answer to the question of the Minister of Finance is this. The method which he adopted is not the one which should have been followed. If there was dumping, the one which should have been followed is the one which the Prime Minister himself said he was going to put into effect and which was never put into effect.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Do I correctly understand the hon. member to say that the proper method by which to protect the textile operations in Cornwall, then, was to apply anti-dumping valuations?


Lionel Chevrier: I did not say that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member tell us what method he says should have been applied?


Lionel Chevrier: I am telling the minister that the Prime Minister made a statement in Cornwall. That statement was quite clear, namely that he would put an end to this dumping in the city of Cornwall and in other textile areas. I do not know what method he intended to use but he indicated that he would stop it in the same way as he stopped the dumping of agricultural products. That was not done.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I ask the hon. member whether he wishes to say what method he, the hon. member for Laurier, would apply-


Lionel Chevrier: You are the government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -in order to protect-and that was the word he used, namely "protect"-the operations of those textile mills in Cornwall. I am asking him what he says would have been the proper method to apply.


Lionel Chevrier: I have repeatedly attacked the government because of a lack of policy
Customs Tariff
which they have demonstrated with reference to dumping in the textile industry. I reply to the minister now by saying that he is in office or his government is in office, and that it is his responsibility to do away with that situation, not that of the opposition.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I have asked the hon. member a plain straightforward question and he has turned his back on it three times at least and has run right away from it.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister has the answer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I took my seat. I gave the hon. member an opportunity to tell me what he would say was the method by which protection should be extended to the textile mills in Cornwall and he still has not answered the question. He has run away from it as fast as his feet will carry him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You have run away from the Prime Minister's promise.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member talked vaguely about dumping.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was the Prime Minister who talked vaguely about dumping.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, the Prime Minister did not talk vaguely about dumping. The hon. member for Laurier has now had his opportunity to say what he thought should have been done. He said something should have been done to protect the operations of the textile mills in Cornwall, but he cannot or will not tell us what that method is and he is running away from it.


Lionel Chevrier: The Prime Minister is running away from it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will tell my hon. friend what has been done, and I will tell him what he and his associates have done to try to prevent the government from doing something salutary in this respect.


Lionel Chevrier: Let us hear that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member was one of those who sought to prevent the government obtaining at the hands of parliament in 1958 those measures that were asked for to strengthen the enforcement of the law against dumping.


Lionel Chevrier: And which you have never put into effect.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He and his colleagues fought that legislation up hill and down dale.


Lionel Chevrier: We certainly did.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member is talking out of both sides of his mouth this afternoon. He is talking as though there

Customs Tariff
were need of more rigorous anti-dumping measures, and yet he is one of those who sought to prevent the government from being given by parliament in 1958 powers that were needed to prevent the kind of dumping that had gone on under the Liberal administration.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let me finish my statement. He is going on this afternoon on the same tack, pretending on the one hand that he wishes to see textile production in Cornwall protected-he used that expression -but he will not come out and tell us what he would do.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not say any such thing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He has had the
chance. He shows he is against anything in the way of tariff protection-


John Whitney Pickersgill: He did not say that either.


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; I made no such statement, because the textile industry in Cornwall exists no longer. It has been put out of business. The question I rose to ask the hon. minister is this : What effect have these tremendous and terrible anti-dumping regulations had upon the textile industry which existed at the time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: And which has disappeared now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman,
there are several answers to that. The first one is that the neglect by the former Liberal government to take measures that should have been taken by them had gone so far at that time that it was not possible to save those industries in the time that was available to us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then why did the Prime Minister promise to do it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This government has done everything that it could reasonably do under the circumstances.


Lionel Chevrier: It has done nothing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And what we did do was done in the face of unrelenting opposition, interference and delay on the part of the Liberal opposition. They tried to deny us the. powers for which we asked in 1958 to deal with dumping, just as today they are trying to narrow down the powers of the government to deal with dumping.
In relation to the textile industry, we referred this matter1 to the tariff board at once in 1957, and in respect to the recommendations of the tariff board in its report we asked 
parliament to carry out those recommendations. When the very first one of them came before this house, hon. members opposite did everything in their power to prevent a very modest increase in the customs tariff on woollen fabrics being legislated in this house. They did their best to prevent that.
I did not expect the hon. member for Laurier to take this line this afternoon. I can understand the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate taking this line, because he is an unrepentant free trader, but I cannot understand a line like this being taken by the hon. member for Laurier, whose position has been, I have always understood, that of a protectionist when it comes to the textile industry. He laughs now. Apparently I have misunderstood him and he is another of the free traders of the Liberal party and does not mind seeing protection withdrawn from Canadian industries that cannot be competitive unless they are given the modest protection that is given to them. Then we have the position taken by the hon. member for Essex East when it comes to protection for the automobile industry.
So we have all categories over there in the opposition. We have members over there who can talk free trade; we have members over there who can talk high protection. It just depends which record you turn on at any particular moment.
I think I have reviewed the record in this respect that was put before the house last night and today by hon. members opposite in very distorted form- Now, if I may, I wish to conclude this part of my remarks with an observation about the position of this government in relation to trade in general.
I have referred to the way in which we have loyally observed the provisions of GATT under all circumstances. I think it is a matter of satisfaction that, far from there being retaliatory measures-as was suggested by the hon. member for Assiniboia last night in an utterly wild statement

the fact is that Canada's export trade has prospered under the present government. Our total external trade in 1960 was the greatest external trade ever carried on in the history of this country. Our exports were at an alltime high. There, in the facts, is the answer to these baseless assertions by hon. members opposite.
I think those persons in this country who are dependent upon industry for employment, and who in many cases are represented by ladies and gentlemen who are in Ottawa today taking part in the presentation of the case of organized labour for certain measures, will be interested in some of the things that were said last night by the hon. member

lor Assiniboia, things that were said in the house this afternoon by the hon. member for Timmins and things that were said here by the hon. member for Laurier.
They will know perfectly well that it accords with the philosophy of those three gentlemen, and undoubtedly the parties that they represent, to deny this protection to Canadian workmen engaged in these industries. These hon. gentlemen would narrow down the interpretation of the words "of a class or kind made in Canada" and would thereby deprive those industries of a measure of protection that was intended to be extended to them by governments right down to 1950 before the process of erosion set in. Because on that matter depend jobs for Canadians. Hon. members opposite seem to be quite ready to overlook the fact that jobs are involved.
I said there were matters raised by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River with which I would deal. The hon. member asked last night about the interpretation to be given to three expressions that are to be found in the amendment.
The first of these was the expression "adequate facilities exist in Canada". In regard to that phrase, it is considered that there must be in Canada one or more manufacturers, or a combination thereof, who have the required installed manufacturing or producing equipment, coupled with the technical knowledge, required to make the goods in question.
The next question related to the expression "economic production". On this point I say that as costing data will not always be available when considering the status of custom-made goods in the light of this expression, each case

as I indicated yesterday-will have to be examined on its own merits. Factors such as mark-up realized by the manufacturer, and the laid down cost to the purchaser taking into account the incidence of duty based on the goods being regarded as "made" and proper valuation in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act, must be taken into consideration.
The third phrase the hon. member asked about was "reasonable period of time". In so far as that phrase is concerned, a definite period may not be set without regard to the actual goods under review and the standard established by good business practice in the field involved. Proposed delivery dates in the instances where they are known may serve as a guide in this respect.
Customs Tariff


Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question? I was just wondering from what document he was reading. Is it a draft of the regulations that we can follow?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am referring to my notes, Mr. Chairman. The word "reasonable" is not a new one to the hon. member. This is a standard of conduct that is being interpreted by tribunals every day with respect to all manner of questions. It is not a new concept by any means at all.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal with this subject that has been very tangled and confused by hon. members opposite, in relation to the function of the minister and the function of the tariff board under the proposed amendment.
I draw attention again to the two classes of goods that are contemplated by the amendment; first of all the custom-built according to specifications goods, and second the shelf goods. It is in clause 2, subclause 3, that we have reference to the decision of the minister. The clause reads:
The decision of the minister will be final with respect to the following matters:
(a)	The normal Canadian consumption of the goods described in subsection (2).
Now the goods described in that subsection are shelf goods. So the minister is called on to make a simple determination as to what is the normal Canadian consumption of shelf goods, a matter which is not difficult at all. The clause continues:
(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.
That is the only other point which the minister is clothed with power to decide under the terms of the proposed amendment.


Lionel Chevrier: That is the more important of the two.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The power which is given to the minister is the power to decide into which of the two classifications the goods in question fall-are they custom-made according to specifications, on the one hand, or are they shelf goods. These are not difficult matters to determine at all. It is not a difficult question involving processes of law or legal determination for a minister to say, on the one hand, these are goods custom-made according to specification or, on the other hand, they are not of that class and are, accordingly, shelf goods.


William Moore Benidickson: Would the minister permit a question on that point?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am right in the middle of an explanation-

Customs Tariff


William Moore Benidickson: The minister has referred to subclause 3 where his decision is final with respect to the normal Canadian consumption of goods described in subclause 2. Would the hon. gentleman reconcile that with his statement yesterday, reported at page 1367 of Hansard, when he outlined three items which would still be eligible for appeal. Item (b) was the determination of the amount of Canadian production. Are we not talking of the same thing in this resolution?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member has misapprehended what is involved here. On the one hand we are dealing with Canadian production. The other concept is that of Canadian consumption, and these are two different things.
I was in the middle of my explanation with respect to clause 3(b). I was pointing out that the other matter which arises for decision by the minister is whether adequate facilities exist in Canada for the economic production of such goods within a reasonable period of time. These are all matters which are capable of decision in the light of statistical analysis. This is the sort of thing which is involved in decisions by government departments day after day. These are not matters of a nature which calls for judicial determination as related to questions of interpretation of words, or questions of law related to the interpretation of words in statutes. Therefore, these are eminently suitable matters for decision by the minister.
Jurisdiction in this form has very great advantages for the business community since it is possible for the minister to make quick decisions, whereas if those decisions were to be left to delay, those whose business it is or those whose interest might lie in delay could delay decisions on these simple questions for very long periods of time. As a matter of fact, through no fault on the part of the government department concerned, delays amounting to years have occurred in such situations. Therefore we are seeking this method of greatly improving the administration in this respect by putting simple decisions in relation to matters which are capable of relatively simple statistical determination into the hands of the minister for prompt decision.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The usual argument for arbitrary power.


Mr. Creslohl:: Would the minister permit a question? What is the definition which the hon. gentleman conceives under the clause which speaks of goods being custom-made to specifications? The minister did suggest that it referred to heavy machinery. If it is to be restricted to heavy machinery only, why

does not the bill say that it is to be so restricted? Otherwise, the minister or the officials of his department will have to wrestle with a whole range of problems when they have to adjudicate on what is custom-made to specifications and I certainly would not wish to be an official of the department charged with the duty of wrestling with this definition. Perhaps the minister could clarify the position.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can assure the hon. member for Cartier that he will not be faced with the prospect which he fears and that he will not be called upon to make such decisions as an official of the department.
May I say that yesterday afternoon I gave illustrations of the type of goods to which this definition will normally apply. I do not anticipate the slightest difficulty in connection with these words, as to finding what are custom-made goods according to specifications. The hon. member knows what specifications are. He knows when goods are made up on a customer's order according to specifications. It is obvious that this relates to heavy machinery-quite heavy machinery -and the sort of thing, which is based on specifications; engineering specifications, for example.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You say the same words over and over again.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I hope the hon. member understands them, because they are relatively simple. If he does understand them, then he has grasped the point.


Leon David Crestohl: Textiles could be made to specifications.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, that is not the type of goods here-


Leon David Crestohl: Then why not say so?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The textile goods that I know of would, I think, in all cases be shelf goods. Of course, the words "shelf goods" do not appear here. The hon. member will realize that what I have called shelf goods are the residue-all kinds of goods except those which are custom-made to specifications. Surely the phrase presents no difficulty. We would look for the order- something made up according to specifications. Engineering specifications would be a good example. Heavy machinery used in the manufacture of textile goods might be an example.


Leon David Crestohl: May I give an illustration to the minister which might help him clarify the situation a little. It is possible to order textile goods made in another country, requiring that this textile contain so many-

squares to the inch, be of such and such a colour, or quality and so on. Those are specifications for custom-made textiles, according to our normal understanding of the English language. If the minister intends that only hard goods, machinery and equipment, should be covered, then I think the legislation should clearly say so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You can have shelf goods made up according to specification, but that does not make them custom-made goods according to specification.


An hon. Member:: What is the difference?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can anticipate no problem in relation to determination here. I think the line of definition is drawn quite simply by this legislation.


Leon David Crestohl: What are custom-made goods, leaving aside the word "specifications"?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Goods that are made up specially in response to a particular order.


Leon David Crestohl: That is correct. That could be the case with textiles, though.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But this is a combination of the two things you have here. You have custom-made goods and, I stress this, the phrase "according to specifications".


Mr. Hellyer:: May I ask the minister a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I finish dealing with one question at a time?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You have not dealt with it yet, but carry on.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not see how
I can with the hon. member contributing his interruptions.
The hon. member for Cartier talks about custom-built goods on the one hand and specifications on the other. Here there are the two requirements. It is the union of the two.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will the minister permit me to direct this question to him. If I went to the United States and ordered some shirts to be made of a particular cloth to particular measurements to suit me, would those be custom-made goods?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Those would not be custom-made goods according to specifications, Mr. Chairman.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: With deference, Mr. Chairman, they are custom-made goods, made to specifications; so when are custom-made goods made to specifications not custom-made goods made to specifications?
Customs Tariff


William Moore Benidickson: No one can challenge the minister's interpretation.


Jacques Flynn: Order. For the sake of orderly debate I would ask hon. members to put questions but not make a speech.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I asked a question which the minister made no attempt to answer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: For the enlightenment of hon. members opposite, here is a declaration made by the tariff board in a
case:
The significance of much of the evidence and argument can be seen most clearly when related to certain facts which are not disputed concerning the building and installation of newsprint machines in Canada. Newsprint machines are not produced for stock. Each machine is made to order in accordance with detailed specifications agreed upon by manufacturer and user; it is seldom a precise duplicate of any other newsprint machine but normally it resembles several of them very closely. The building of a machine normally requires many months. In Canada production and consumption of newsprint machines have been very irregular; in some periods many machines have been installed, in others none.
It will be seen that this is the distinction that has been adopted in the legislation that is now before the committee. We are dealing here with goods-obviously machinery in large part-of a kind that is not sitting in stock. It is not produced for stock. It is made to order in accordance with detailed specifications agreed upon by manufacturer and user.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As would be the case with my shirts.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, Mr. Chairman-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They are not from stock.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member perhaps wears unique shirts.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The arms are a lot longer than yours.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


Mr. MacEwan:: With initials embroidered on the pocket?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are other parts of the anatomy than the arms which are of considerable importance in this context.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Some parts of yours are pretty thick.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I suppose we are what God made each of us, but we are responsible for what we do with what He gave us, and the hon. member and I will have to leave it at that I suppose.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Passing the buck again.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member talks about his shirts-

Customs Tariff


Mr. Matthews:: He has lost his shirt.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would have
thought that shirts would be an article carried in stock as a rule. Shirts can be produced for stock-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: So can a machine.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think the hon. member is going to say that the shirts he wears are so unique as not to be capable of resemblance to other products of the same kind or that they are never carried in stock or that production is irregular. I would have thought that shirts were a staple commodity notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member, as he said, takes a very long arm.
I have been trying for some time to deal with this subject of tariff board jurisdiction and ministerial jurisdiction. I have dealt with the provisions of subclause 3 in relation to the power of the minister to make decisions and have pointed out the very limited nature of that power.
Let me conclude by reiterating what I said yesterday, that the regular existing appeal procedure to the tariff board remains open to importers with respect to these much more difficult and involved questions: (a) whether or not imported goods are of approximately the same class or kind as goods made in Canada; (b) the determination of the amount of Canadian production; and (c) whether or not the number of articles manufactured in Canada does in fact constitute a minimum of 10 per cent of normal Canadian production.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Normal Canadian consumption.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The suggestion that sweeping, arbitrary powers are supposed to be conferred upon the Minister of National Revenue is totally erroneous. That assertion completely falls to the ground.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just because the minister says so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Power is conferred upon the minister to make certain decisions with respect to matters that call for decision in the light of statistical data on matters that essentially call for swift decision, the kind that cannot be made in any other quarter than by the minister. Therefore we are presenting to the committee what is a very workable and sound proposal, one that in my respectful submission removes from the governor in council powers that the Liberal government conferred on the governor in council in 1936 and used all the remaining years that it was in office and we instead invite parliament to do the legislating.
The effect of. this legislation so far as the function of the minister and the tariff board 
and the courts are concerned will be to preserve all that is desirable and necessary and helpful in relation to the right of appeal so that there may be no such thing as persons being denied their due rights by arbitrary decision, for the power of the minister to make decisions is confined to a narrow and proper field. This is a very workable scheme and will undoubtedly contribute very greatly to improved administration for the benefit of the business community.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, for the hon. member for Laurier to compare this legislation with the kind of legislation under debate in 1955 when I made certain observations about the arbitrary powers sought by the government of that day at the hands of parliament in relation to the Department of Defence Production is to try to compare day with night. That legislation sought arbitrary power-


Lionel Chevrier: We will show the minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -that was so sweeping in its terms that the minister of defence production of that day, had he chosen to exercise those powers, could, as I said in that speech, have held the Canadian economy in his hands. He could have changed it. He could have introduced socialism overnight if he had chosen to do so, so sweeping were the powers. To compare those sweeping powers with the limited powers conferred here upon the minister-necessary powers to make decisions essential to the benefit of the business community, prompt decisions-is to compare day with night. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we present this to the committee as sound, workable legislation without the arbitrary features in it that hon. members opposite think that they see in it but which do not exist in fact.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I must admit I have found the debate this afternoon most confusing. Depending upon who is speaking, the Minister of Finance is either a saint or a sinner. I hope in the course of my questioning to find out if the hon. gentleman is a saint, a sinner or a combination of both.
Of all the important matters that come before this house I have always found and still find the question of tariffs one of the most complex and confusing. Because of that I have no hesitation in saying I do not consider myself an expert with respect to tariff policies. That being the case I shall not be dogmatic in anything I put forward. The reason I rise in my place is that I feel it is necessary for some of this confusion compounded to be cleared away. As one of the representatives of British Columbia in this House of Commons I feel it is my duty to draw the attention of the minister to those

fears which are being expressed in our province relative to the proposals he has placed before us.
I made reference a few moments ago to the possibility of the Minister of Finance being a saint or a sinner. From what I have heard thus far from industry in British Columbia it would be my conclusion that he is a sinner, and therefore it is of the utmost importance in our province, if the primary and the manufacturing industries have misinterpreted what will be the effect of the proposals of the Minister of Finance, to have the matter clarified. In the interests of British Columbia we must know whether there is a mistake in interpretation. If there is a mistake in interpretation, now is the time for the fears of the primary industry and the manufacturers of British Columbia to be cleared away.
This morning I received a lengthy communication from R. H. Ellison, executive vice president of Canadian Collieries Resources Limited. In the past few days I received, as I know the Minister of Finance has also, communications from C. B. Dunham, chairman of the British Columbia loggers association, W. R. Malpass, president of the truck loggers association, and R. T. Rose, general manager of the Vancouver board of trade. These men represent major industries and associations in British Columbia. In all of these letters to me, and in all of the copies of letters or telegrams sent to the Minister of Finance, there is general agreement that they are distinctly worried and fearful of the proposal regarding tariffs being placed before us at this time. I have arrived at a sort of conclusion now. If these big associations and organized industries have reached certain conclusions, then I think we should know from the Minister of Finance whether these conclusions are correct. If not, how did the economy in British Columbia go wrong?
According to the information from the executive vice president of Canadian Collieries Resources Limited, there is a strong feeling that any item which falls into the category of class or kind made in Canada, under the policy being enunciated by the minister, will be in this position. There will be an increase in the price to the consumer or user of between 15 per cent and 20 per cent. That is the reaction they have.
I was also supplied information relating to a statement made by Dr. Purdy, president of the British Columbia Electric Company Limited, to the effect that the turbine which they are to buy from the United Kingdom will increase in cost from $34 million to $39 million under one other proposal.
I get the impression that the fear of these people is that the major impact of this
Customs Tariff
change will result in an increase in the cost of the tools of production. From the letters that I have received from the Vancouver board of trade, the manufacturers association, the loggers association, the Canadian Collieries Resources Limited and the truck loggers association, I have come to the conclusion that they have interpreted the proposal of the minister-I presume they have their economists, statisticians, experts and so on-to mean an increase in the basic cost of the tools of production. This, of course, is a matter of the utmost importance to British Columbia.
As a member of this house I am vitally concerned with the general good of all Canada. However, it is understandable that I am vitally and particularly concerned with the economy of British Columbia. When I hear from my people in British Columbia that this is going to mean a basic increase in the tools of production of the primary and resources industries of British Columbia it becomes a most serious problem. We all know-it has been pointed out by the Minister of Finance and others-that we are already facing difficulties of a competitive nature. I can say this definitely for British Columbia because of the problems we are facing. Anything which increases our cost of production places us in a most invidious and difficult position, in an attempt to produce for a competitive export market.
Not only do I want to express the problem with respect to establishing primary industry in this country, but to say this. If their interpretation and understanding of the problem is correct, then it most certainly is going to discourage to a great extent the possibility of the establishment of new industries in our province and the expansion of those already existing.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, at the dinner recess I was pointing out the fears which have been, and are still being expressed by the primary and manufacturing industries in British Columbia relative to their interpretation of the impact in that province of the proposals that have been set forth by the Minister of Finance. It has been pointed out to me during the dinner hour that this fear is being expressed only in British Columbia. If that is the case, then it is of the utmost importance that every measure be taken by

Customs Tariff
the Minister of Finance in this House of Commons to so explain his proposals that that fear may be alleviated.
However, I have also heard others in this house who do not come from British Columbia express similar fears. In addition, if I gather aright from what was said by the minister this afternoon, particularly in the latter part of his remarks, these proposals are in tune with GATT and in tune with our good neighbour policy with the United States. I do not find that to be the case. I should like to make a brief mention of a publication which is entitled, "Washington through Canadian Eyes". This publication is published privately and is circulated privately to Canadians. I should like to quote from the issue of January 17 of this year, and this is what it says:
While the Canadian removal of tax incentives for American investment in Canada captured all the headlines in United States, it is the customs action on "class or kind" that really has shaken official Washington. Over at the commerce department, officials can become almost livid with anger in discussing this action which they feel endangers much of the U.S., machinery exports to Canada. The state department takes a less anxious view, but remains concerned, nevertheless. At commerce, you even hear talk about retaliation. And one other thing this Ottawa action has done is to provide more ammunition to the protectionists in the U.S. congress.
If the information which was published on January 17 by this publication "Washington through Canadian Eyes" is authoritative at all there is some concern in the United States about the proposed customs action, especially as it relates to the interpretation of class or kind. I quite understand why there might be concern in the United States if this action could interfere with exports. The anxiety which I have been trying to express, as it exists in British Columbia, relates to the possibility of an increase in the cost of the basic production machinery in British Columbia. The vast majority of production machinery is not produced in our province but has to be freighted in and the increase in cost of production machinery, whatever that may be, can be passed on only to the consumer.
As I mentioned previously, we already have enough difficulties in meeting the competition which faces British Columbia as an exporting province at existing prices without having any increase in our cost of production. I do not know whether they are livid in the commerce department in Washington, but I do say that according to the information sent to me, whether or not it is justified, the logging industry in British Columbia is pale with anxiety. If my memory serves me correctly, 54 cents out of every dollar of revenue the people of British Columbia receive comes from

our forest resources. What affects the forest industry is, therefore, of the utmost significance to us. Both the B.C. loggers association and the truck loggers association are deeply concerned. Whether or not they have grounds for this concern, I am raising this matter now so we can hear from the Minister of Finance.
On January 13 of this year the B.C. loggers association informed me through a letter that the introduction by the Minister of Finance in his baby budget of matters having to do with goods of a class or kind not made in Canada is causing grave concern to the manufacturing end of the forest industry in the Pacific province. I can understand that because anything that could result in an additional tariff burden on the forest industry, dependent as we are in British Columbia on foreign markets and faced with competition as we are, is most vital. It was for that reason that on January 13 a telegram was sent to the Minister of Finance over the signature of the chairman of the B.C. loggers association and the president of the truck loggers association. Since a copy of this telegram was sent to me, I hope you will not mind if I read it. It reads as follows:
The logging industry on this coast have noted with much concern that portion of Customs Tariff resolution Hansard page ten seventeen December twentieth. To us it would seem that benefits expected to accrue to one form of industry in Canada could be more than offset by harm to manufacturers of primary products dependent upon foreign markets for their existence. Crippling of the position of mills buying logs from the independent logger can only result in critical harm to his position. On behalf of the loggers represented by our associations we respectfully ask that the suggestion of the manufacturing branch of our industry be enacted as a part of the proposed legislation and that end-use items be provided for all phases of production and manufacture of wood products not now included in the four eleven series.
As this is a concise setting forth of the problem as viewed by those two associations in a telegram directed to the Minister of Finance I sincerely hope, that without my having to go into the matter in more detail on this particular phase, he will give us officially the answer to the anxieties therein expressed and will perhaps go further and make specific comment on the communication which I understand he received under date of January 27 from the Vancouver board of trade.
The Vancouver board of trade is made up of hundreds of the primary and secondary industries of the province of which I happen to have the honour of being one representative. They also express fears similar to those which I outlined to the committee as expressed by the executive vice president of Canadian Collieries Resources Limited and

the logging industry. In this the most recent letter they definitely express a vivid concern about the possible effect on our British Columbia industries primarily involved in export trade. The board of trade, which have research men and statisticians at their command, and the representatives of the major industries of our province in this letter have no hesitation in coming back to the problem, namely that an increase in the price of the production tools in our export industries would make it harder, if not impossible, for them to compete in world markets.
I was most interested in one of their recommendations to the Minister of Finance. I hope the minister will inform us whether he or his departmental officials have made a study of the recommendation of the board of trade for a change in part of the wording of the resolution he is presenting to the committee. As has already been expressed by hon. members who have previously spoken, the board of trade considers that the word "approximately" used in the phrase "goods approximately the same class or kind made in Canada" is capable of too broad an interpretation to be administered equitably. I know that the minister had something to say on this word "approximately" this afternoon but I hope he will enlarge upon what he said previously.
It has been suggested to the minister that in the wording he is recommending to the House of Commons he include some of the words he used in his budget speech. Those words are "goods which are similar in nature and purpose". It is felt by the Vancouver board of trade that these words could, with great advantage, be included.
I may say that I have gone over this matter three or four times and I believe that it reads like a good suggestion. I certainly would be most interested in hearing from the minister whether he can meet the request for the change as set forth by the board of trade. If this request were met, the proposed legislation would then read as follows:
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 the same class or kind, similar in nature and purpose, are made or produced in Canada.
This proposed change seems to meet some of the objections that have been raised in British Columbia.


William Moore Benidickson: In essence, the hon.
member would leave out the word "approximately". Is that the idea?
Customs Tariff


Harold Edward Winch: Yes; and put in, after the words "same class or kind", the words "similar in nature and purpose". I think the minister would get away from a great deal of difficulty if this suggestion were accepted and I most sincerely commend it to him.
I do not think I need to continue at any greater length, Mr. Chairman. As I stated when I first rose to speak on this subject, to me the question of tariffs has always been a complicated and complex one; indeed it is so complicated, complex and confusing that I honestly admit that I find it difficult on many occasions to understand it. I therefore do not pretend to be an expert. However, as one of the representatives from British Columbia, having received all these communications and telegrams from responsible organizations of industry, both manufacturing and primary, and from such associations as the board of trade, I felt that it was my responsibility to bring the matter forward at this time and to say this to the Prime Minister and to those who maintain that there is no need for such fears or anxieties and that British Columbia apparently is the only province that feels this way. I hope the minister will be able to clarify the situation, and if what he says is correct, then put it in such a manner that there is understanding in British Columbia. If you do not do that, I am afraid that the complex will continue, something that is dangerous for our economy in the battle we now face and shall face in the months ahead, not only to maintain our industry in present production but to extend it in the way which is so necessary for the maintenance of our standard of living and in order to extend prosperity across the nation as well as to maintain it in British Columbia.


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: Mr. Chairman-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps with the permission of the hon. member for Stormont I might deal with this matter that has been raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Grant Campbell: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is a fact that we have had representations from, I believe, seven associations in British Columbia connected with the forest products industry. We have not had representations from similar organizations in other provinces. I think there have been just two other formal representations from the rest of Canada and they were both from importers.
The hon. member, of course, is perfectly justified in raising this question and I am glad to have an opportunity of dealing with


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the minister to comment on the proposed change of the Vancouver board of trade to the definition of "class or kind".


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am glad the hon. member has reminded me of that. Various wordings were considered when the decision was taken to put the legislation forward in this form. On careful consideration it was considered that the word "approximately" was the best word to use under all the circumstances here, rather than such words as were suggested by the board of trade, namely "similar in nature or purpose".
I point out that words like "similar in nature or purpose" would open up an entirely new realm. It should not be thought, I think, by those who put this suggestion

forward that they are putting forward something that would be more restrictive than the word "approximately". As a matter of fact, having regard to the fact that the word "or" is used in this expression "similar in nature or purpose," there is very good reason for thinking that the word "approximately" is more restrictive than would be the words suggested by the board of trade.
After all, goods could be similar in purpose without being similar in nature and this kind of expression would take us, I think, pretty far afield. So I think that while the hon. member considered that the words that were being suggested by the board of trade were more restrictive in their effect than the language proposed in the amendment, I would have to take a contrary view.


Grant Campbell: Mr. Chairman, my remarks this evening will be brief. I must say that I was extremely touched by the solicitude of the hon. member for Laurier, who spoke before dinner, regarding Canadian Cottons and the constituency of Stormont, more particularly Cornwall. I am especially touched by this solicitude because this industry of Canadian Cottons is one which he and his colleagues had neglected for 22 years, and the constituency of Stormont is one which he himself abandoned. I regret that the hon. member is not in his seat at the moment. I had the pleasure of sharing a very delightful occasion with him a few minutes ago. We were both at a reception by the Montreal Trust, but I regret that he has not yet returned.
I believe that the hon. member for Laurier, my predecessor, is having a death bed repentance in the same way the Liberal party at their recent convention had a deathbed repentance. That is the only explanation of the fact that they promised everything that they neglected to do for the previous 22 years. I think it is also significant that my hon. predecessor ran away from the question of the Minister of Finance. Time and again the Minister of Finance reiterated the question: what would you do? In each case the hon. gentleman evaded giving a direct answer. I think it is very significant that he abandoned committing himself in the same way that he abandoned Cornwall after he had abandoned the Cornwall canal to the Americans.
I would like to confirm what the Minister of Finance has said, namely that Canadian Cottons, which I know very well and where I had so many friends working, because of 22 years of neglect by the hon. member for Laurier and his colleagues, has disappeared, before even the very salutary action taken by this government to reverse the situation could take effect as it has done with regard
Customs Tariff
to so many other textile firms in this country. The former employers, the former workers and the former union men in my constituency will never forget the attitude of my predecessor and, more especially, of his colleague the late Mr. C. D. Howe who was of the opinion that this textile industry was obsolete and expendable. He made that opinion very clear indeed. These people will never forget that, nor will they forget the obstructionism and delaying tactics on the part of the present official opposition-I would hate to call it the effective opposition-to this present constructive measure now being brought in to assist and protect the hard beset manufacturers in this country and, in turn, provide so many more jobs for our people while at the same time not interfering with our obligations under GATT or the export trade of the rest of the country.
In closing, there are a few other things I wish to say. I referred a few minutes ago to abandonment. I understand that many people in Quebec are referring to my predecessor as a refugee from Cornwall. Furthermore, many of his former friends, who know him far better than I know him, have been going so far as to regard him as a renegade. Again, in closing, let me pay a tribute to the people of Stormont who have snatched victory out of defeat. They have made the best of a bad situation. They have taken these cotton mill buildings and formed a limited dividend company, a development company. In these buildings they have almost a million square feet of floor space to rent at advantageous rates in order to attract new industries to this area. There is no greater bargain in this whole country for any new industry than our people have provided in Stormont, and I predict that very shortly this enterprise will bear fruit. Let me say that the imagination and enterprise of these people in Stormont and of my constituents in Cornwall is unprecedented and that it has set an example to all the people of this country. Ever since 1812, as I have reiterated in this house, when our people of Cornwall commenced the construction of the Cornwall canal-


The Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. member that we are discussing a resolution concerning the Customs Tariff. I notice that in his speech the hon. member has made many references which are not relevant.


Grant Campbell: I was just referring to the commendable way in which my constituents have reacted to the difficulties created by my predecessor and his colleagues because of their customs policy. But, let me say, because of this fallacious, this iniquitous, this unwarranted, doctrinaire, free trade

Customs Tariff
policy which has been such a disaster to this country and which has placed us in our present difficulties; because of this and also because of the loss of the Cornwall canal to which I referred earlier, Cornwall, my home town and my predecessor's town, was stranded high and dry like a gasping whale on a rocky shore left dry by the receding tide of Liberalism, but because of the provision of $400,000 for a new harbour and the great tide of legislation which this government has brought in, once again Cornwall is afloat and once again it will find itself in the position it deserves and enjoying the prosperity to which it has been accustomed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should just like a moment in which to reply to the insinuations made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat in the course of the high-minded speech he delivered about the hon. member for Laurier. I think the committee ought to know that the hon. member for Laurier is at a meeting this evening of the University of Ottawa, his alma mater, having to do with the expansion of that institution. That is the only reason my hon. friend is not here tonight.


Grant Campbell: The hon. member for Laurier had no hesitation about referring to my constituency when I was in conference with members of the Canadian Catholic Federation of Labour this afternoon.


Mr. Nowlan:: I, myself, unfortunately had to be out of the house this afternoon for the same reasons as the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Stormont. I, too, had appointments which prevented my being here, so I did not have the opportunity of hearing all the debate. It may be, therefore, that for a minute or two I shall be dealing with straw which has already been threshed. But having had reports sent me of what has been said during the debate so far, I know there has been some criticism raised of the fact that apparently the Minister of National Revenue, who happens for the moment to be the person standing in front of you, has power to decide this and to decide that. Apparently some hon. members believe that is a most iniquitous position in which any minister could be placed, that it is a regression to the days of R. B. Bennett, and all the other cliches with which hon. members opposite try to appeal to the house sometimes when they are entirely devoid of arguments.
There is nothing new about the fact that the Minister of National Revenue has power to decide this, that and the other. I have not had time to check carefully the Customs Act, but I have gone over it in the last few minutes-


George James McIlraith: It is the Customs Tariff with which we are dealing; that is the act which is before us.


George Clyde Nowlan: The Customs Act is also one which I administer. The Customs Tariff is the one which falls in the province of the Minister of Finance. Take, for example, that section of the Customs Act which deals with valuations for duty. It is clearly set out that where the valuation for duty cannot be determined under certain preceding sections-and there are five of them-the value for duty of goods shall be of such value as the minister may determine. Mr. Chairman, believe it or not, this statute was not brought in in 1958 in the amendment to which the hon. gentleman from time to time refers; this amendment was brought in under the benign Liberal leadership of that great patron leader of Canada, Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, and therefore that power must be sacrosanct, the fact that the minister when he brought in legislation could be endowed with such power-


Leon David Crestohl: It was not frozen as final.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is final. This is final. There is no appeal provided in the sections from which I am reading. I am not reading sections relating to class or kind. I direct the attention of hon. members to subsection 11, under which the minister may reduce the value for duty and so on. I invite hon. members to turn to subsection 12 under which it may be found that the minister may fix the value. I direct the attention of the committee to section 38, subsections 1, 2 and 3 under which there is reference to the same power. If one had time I am sure one could go on and give other examples.
All I am saying is that there has been recognized for years and years in the administration of the Customs Act and in the administration of the Customs Tariff for which I am responsible, that there must be decisions made with fairness, with equity and with some degree of celerity and speed. You cannot hold goods in a warehouse for anywhere from six to nine months when an importer is awaiting delivery of those goods until someone makes up his mind and reference of the matter is made to various officers and so on. In simple, elementary but practical things, the Minister of National Revenue has been endowed with power under previous governments.
I referred to the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King. Frankly that provision may well have been in existence before he became prime minister. It has been on the statute books for a long while. I am simply stating it as a recognized principle. There is nothing

to which one could take exception in the fact that the Minister of National Revenue has the power to do this or that.
To hear some of the discussion this afternoon and yesterday one would think that class or kind legislation was something new, a departure from past practices, an iniquitous conception, something which this Tory government seeks to bring into the house hankering back to the days of R. B. Bennett. Class or kind legislation was in effect when I became minister and has been in effect, indeed, for many years. The history of this legislation has been referred to in this debate. It is well known that it extends back over decades.
Scarcely a week goes by but that the Minister of National Revenue makes rulings with respect to class or kind. I made three last week and indeed I make them all the time. When I say that, I do not mean I make one every hour. Perhaps days or a week will go by without my making one and then perhaps in the period of one day I will make three or four.


William Moore Benidickson: Would the minister permit a question? Would he indicate to the committee what change is proposed in this resolution vis-a-vis the previously existing conception, particularly when it involves the Liberal administration, that in so far as class or kind made in Canada is concerned the question of substantial production in Canada has a bearing?


George Clyde Nowlan: Under the order in council to which reference was made by my colleague when he opened this debate it has always involved 10 per cent production of those goods of a class or kind made in Canada. That has been the provision for many years.


Donald Methuen Fleming: For 25 years.


George James McIlraith: Since 1936.


George Clyde Nowlan: My friend the hon. member for Ottawa West says since 1936. It was at that time the order in council was passed.


William Moore Benidickson: It did not prevail under the Bennett regime.


George Clyde Nowlan: No. My hon. friends opposite love to refer to R. B. Bennett and the terrible things that will happen if this legislation is enacted. Personally I have no fear of returning from time to time to the regime of R. B. Bennett. At least, one could find there some integrity and determination and various qualities which perhaps have not been entirely predominant in the regimes which immediately followed the Bennett regime.
My hon. friends opposite see shadows and ghosts. I believe that you, Mr. Chairman,
Customs Tariff
were in the Chair two years ago when we brought in amendments to the Customs Tariff and were told that we would raise the tariffs as high as Haman's gallows. On that occasion the shadow of R. B. Bennett was walking the floor, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was almost in hysterics thinking about what would happen in respect to it-


Richard Albert Bell: That is a daily occurrence.


George Clyde Nowlan: -but, as we see, the world has gone on very nicely ever since. I refer my hon. friends opposite to a quotation which I vaguely remembered from having attended Sunday school. I checked the scriptures tonight and I think this quotation might be offered as a timely word of advice to hon. gentlemen opposite who never have anything realistic to deal with and therefore always have to deal with imagination and ghosts and things which they fear may happen. Before they go to bed tonight I urge hon. gentlemen opposite to read the thirteenth verse of chapter 18 of Proverbs, according to which they will find that:
He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
I suggest that my hon. friends stop answering these things before they hear them because it is a shame and a folly and it is above all a shameful waste of time to have a debate on such imaginary and dreadful things as they conjure up before us without any foundation in reality whatever.
With respect to class or kind and the rulings made by the minister from time to time, it is true that there is some technical differentiation-or will be if this amendment is approved by the house-in relation to the matter of appeals. Substantially, however, the appeal procedure is exactly the same. I observe that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate shakes his head. I will tell the hon. gentleman how realistically this matter is approached. How many appeals have we had? What is there of which we may be deprived?


William Moore Benidickson: What about the right?


George Clyde Nowlan: Hon. members opposite are not being deprived of anything because the only matter with respect to which the minister can make a determination under the proposed legislation are substantially statistical information which is available to the dominion bureau of statistics in any event and is a matter of commonsense computation and nothing else. In any event, whatever the appeals may have been, I find that going back over the last 10 or 15 years there have been seven appeals made on seven different rulings.

Customs Tariff


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is all the erosion amounts to, then?


George Clyde Nowlan: There also have been several appeals made of one ruling and several of another. The hon. member talks about erosion-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was the Minister of Finance who talked about erosion.


George Clyde Nowlan: My hon. friend says that the Minister of Finance spoke about erosion. Another hon. member asks: Why do you bring this in? I did not hear the debate this afternoon or last night.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister is not following his own advice now. He is answering without having heard it.


George Clyde Nowlan: I did not hear the remark made by the hon. member for Trinity. I believe he was worried this afternoon about having his shirts made to order. Well, my arm is longer than his, so I am faced with exactly the same problem he is and I buy my shirts in Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Clyde Nowlan: -so the hon. gentleman need not worry about the class or kind ruling.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I buy my shirts in Canada, too.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am sure the hon. member does. He would never be elected in Toronto if he did not.
My hon. friends talk about erosion and class or kind rulings. Here is one example the minister gave in respect to a famous case relating to the manufacture of car wheels. One had a spindle which was perpendicular. The wheel went around the perpendicular spindle and the centre was cut out into which the axle went. It was held by the department to be of a class or kind made in Canada. Another was imported and it was a horizontal spindle and the wheel went around in the fashion I now describe with my hands. The tariff board said it was of a class or kind not made in Canada. That is an example of class or kind and of erosion.
Let us take the case of the shovel. We were making power shovels in this country of two cubic yard capacity. The plant was there and they were producing them all the time. They had the machinery, equipment, experience, men and the orders for shovels of a capacity of two cubic yards. Then shovels of a two and a half yard capacity came in from a foreign source. There was an appeal. The tariff board said despite the fact that there were men who were out of a job, despite the fact that there was the plant, equipment and experience, that two and a half yard

shovels were not of a class or kind made in Canada. That is a class or kind ruling. That is an example of erosion. That is the shovel case. If my hon. friend wants the reference I can give it to him.


George James McIlraith: I have the judgment upstairs.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is appeal No. 306. The
decision was given on May 20, 1954. Then, there is the ballbearing case and the .22 rifle case. In one case, if it was fed manually, it was of a class or kind. If there was a little attachment to it, it was not of a class or kind. It was because of decisions such as these that we have introduced the legislation. I could go on, but I am not going to bore the committee by giving the cases. There have been others since 1949, but without questioning the judgment, the whim or whatever the philosophy of the persons who were writing these decisions, the fact remains that from 1949 and 1950 there has been a complete erosion of the principle of class or kind. Surely, Mr. Chairman, when you get a shovel which has a capacity of two yards and another one with a capacity of two and a half yards, both powered in the same way, both manufactured in the same way, both performing in the same way, you cannot say that one is a different class because it happens to have a half yard more capacity. It is not identical and that is why we used the word "approximately" to cover such cases as those I have mentioned.
I could go on, Mr. Chairman. But I think there has been a great deal of misapprehension, which my colleague has cleared up, in talking about this matter, as though this were something revolutionary, something new. It is new in so far as goods made to order are concerned, and for the moment I am not dealing with that. This is a matter which we can discuss later on, as the committee desires. But I am dealing just now with goods of a class or kind which are made in Canada. It is because of this erosion, because of the things which have happened, which I am certain was never the intention of parliament when parliament enacted the statutes, that we have introduced this legislation.
It was never the intention of the various Liberal ministers of finance-and when I say "Liberal" I mean Liberal with a capital "L"- under the Liberal regime and the various ministers of national revenue that this statute would be applied in that way. All we are trying to do is to restore what in our opinion was the intention of parliament when it passed this legislation. We are not going back to the days of R. B. Bennett; we are simply going back to the practices which were pursued, and I think properly so, by the

government of Mr. Mackenzie King, and those associated with him, up until at least 1950.
There are other things I could say about this, but I think we have at least cleared away the background in so far as I am concerned because I have had pretty close experience with this now for almost four years. I could have checked it; I did not have time to do that, but I have given score of rulings. As industry changes, as we move ahead, for instance, in the plastics field today and in the field of drugs-and there are a score of fields -we make class or kind rulings very frequently. I make many a year, and very often several a week.
My friend from Vancouver East was talking about the lumber business and quite properly what this might do to that industry. I think my colleague replied to that effectively and fully. This also might be said. In that industry you are dealing not with machinery made to order, generally speaking, I would think, but with saws and planes and with production machines. Generally speaking, you order this material from a factory.


George James McIlraith: Oh.


George Clyde Nowlan: My hon. friend says "oh". I think that is right. I have had some experience in the lumbering business. Generally speaking, it is a different thing entirely from manufacturing, shall we say, a generator or a turbine generator, which takes two years to build and is built to a new specification. You buy your equipment. It is true there are variations in size and so forth, but generally they are of a class or kind which can be manufactured and supplied within 48 hours, or a week after the order. If there is a class or kind situation there the rulings must have been given before. Many of those machines which are used in that industry undoubtedly have had a class or kind ruling. Therefore, there is going to be no change under this legislation unless, of course, some new machine is developed which has not been envisaged so far, and on which there could be substantial manufacture developed in Canada.
All I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that we should look at this realistically. This is nothing new. This is no attempt to raise tariffs, or anything of that kind; it is simply, in so far as this phase is concerned, class or kind of goods made in Canada. It is simply an attempt to restore the law to the situation in which it was, and the reason for that is the attrition which has taken place and which has had the effect to quite an extent, shall I say, of weakening the position of Canadian industries.
As I said, when you cannot tell whether when you have a shovel which is two yards and another one which is two and a half yards, that one is of a class or kind and the
Customs Tariff
other is not, you are really working on an even more theoretical position than the fears of my hon. friends opposite in dealing with this situation tonight.
When you come to those goods made to order, I could say something on that because of the experience we have had-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the minister goes on with that-


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not intend to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -I have one question I should like to ask. Why does the government now consider it is necessary to take away from the tariff board the capacity to decide on an appeal what the normal Canadian consumption of the goods is? That is the question I ask the minister. The minister says no change is being made, but this is a very substantial change. Our argument is that no effective adjudication can be made at all if one of the questions of fact is decided finally by the minister and cannot be considered in the appeal. That is a change in the law, abolishing the right of appeal.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is very largely statistical information which you can get from the bureau of statistics in five minutes by calling them up. There can be no question of the argument-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then, there is no reason why the tariff board should not decide that.


George Clyde Nowlan: Because we do not want a period of six months or a year to elapse on an appeal on something which has no merit whatsoever.


John Whitney Pickersgill: An appeal can be taken anyway.


George Clyde Nowlan: An appeal can be taken on substantial grounds. Undoubtedly, my colleague has enumerated the grounds on which an appeal can be taken, and I am not going into that.
Where does the tariff board get the information? They usually get it from the Department of National Revenue. The departmental officials are in contact with the manufacturers, shall we say, on how many automobiles or buck saws, or whatever it may be, are manufactured. We phone them and they say, how many saws were produced by the firm last year. We can get that information in an hour or so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about consumption?


George Clyde Nowlan: There is nothing of merit whatsoever in this. It is simply a figment of the imagination where somebody is trying to draw a red herring across the path because they do not understand how this thing works.

Customs Tariff


John Whitney Pickersgill: An all wise government.


George Clyde Nowlan: They are trying to justify something for which there is no justification whatsoever.


George James McIlraith: Hon. members in the chamber must be grateful to the Minister of National Revenue for his quotation from Proverbs. It was much the most apt description I have heard or could think of, to describe the arguments of the Minister of Finance in putting forward this resolution for the consideration of the house. Certainly, there is nothing that I can think of that is more apt to describe the presentation of the Minister of Finance today.
In any event, the minister went on to say there is no attempt in this legislation to raise tariffs. Then, if he is to be logical, he ought to withdraw the legislation and not take up the time of the chamber.


Richard Albert Bell: That is sophistry.


George James McIlraith: The sole purpose of the
legislation, according to the minister, is to redefine the meaning of certain phrases in usage in the Customs Tariff so that what the minister and the government apparently thought was the former rate of tariff which has been eroded, if I may use the word of the Minister of Finance, is put back to where it was more than 10 years ago. In other words, what he is asking the committee to do is to raise the tariff by adopting this legislation. I do not know why the opposition should be attacked for suggesting that that is the case because if it is not the case then the minister has no right to have this legislation before the committee at all.


Richard Albert Bell: Will the hon. member permit a question?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Richard Albert Bell: Would the hon. gentleman say whether if goods are of a class or kind made in Canada they ought to deserve a margin of protection in excess of that given to goods of a class or kind not made in Canada?


George James McIlraith: The statement is very general, but as a general proposition and allowing for generalities, the answer is yes. But that is not the point. What I want to get at here is the use of the word "erosion" by the Minister of Finance. He bases his whole argument on the fact that the interpretation was eroded. When he was questioned a bit on it, it turns out he really means that the departmental officials' rulings were not upheld by the tariff board or the exchequer court, as the case may be. What he is saying, in effect although he will not say it directly, is that

he feels the courts and the tariff board, the judicial tribunals dealing with this matter, have not applied the law laid down in the legislation and the orders in council. He does not say that. He does not freely disclose to the committee that it is a matter of the appeals having gone a different way from that which the departmental officials thought they should go.
That is certainly a valid position for him to take. Again, I do not understand why he was trying to present the matter in such a way as to lead one to the reasonable interpretation that the courts or other interpretative authorities have changed their rulings. They did not, in fact, change them. It was a matter of the appeal authorities having given rulings that were different from those which the departmental officials thought they should give. It seems to me that is the nub of his argument.
I think that to criticize tribunals who are doing their work and, so far as I am concerned, interpreting the law in a proper, legal way; to describe their judgments as an erosion of the law is not fair to these tribunals. I think that if the minister will reflect on it a bit he will agree that he ought not to leave the impression he was criticizing the judgments of the tariff board and the exchequer court in that way. I do not believe that is what he really intended. I hope he will clarify that because I would be very sorry to see him making that kind of criticism. I do not believe either body warrants it.
I,	for one, am a bit mystified about the other legislation that is on the order paper having to do with increasing the number of members comprising the tariff board. I thought we had arrived at the period of development in this country when the tariff board should be increased in size because of the large volume of work it has to do. I am on record to that effect over a period of time, and I understand the government is doing that. The point I wish to make is that now that is being done what is it that makes the government so distrust having factual matters determined by the tariff board? What is it that makes them want to take away from the taxpayers of the country the right to appeal to this judicial tribunal? Why do they want this power vested in the minister? Arguments could have been advanced concerning the delays in the tariff board. But the purpose of increasing its numbers is to do away with delays.
The minister quoted a rather strange reference when he cited the Customs Act which is not before the committee as an example of arbitrary power given to the minister. Every section he quoted is carefully circumscribed.

In order to illustrate my point, I shall only refer to section 35, subsection 6, which says:
When the value for duty cannot be determined-
The whole premise upon which that section is based is that the value cannot be determined and it is, therefore, obvious that somebody has to exercise an arbitrary power. This arbitrary power was given to the minister. The Minister of National Revenue used that as an example of arbitrary powers such as might be used in this case without mentioning the fact that the use of the arbitrary power in this resolution may well be the means of taxing a citizen who would not otherwise be taxed, which is quite a different thing altogether. There is no such limiting premise in the resolution before us. If the minister will look at the provision he will see that it says the decision of the minister shall be final with respect to the following matters, and then there is a reference to these two matters which are of such a nature that they are the key to the whole decision in the case.
For instance, if the minister determines the normal Canadian consumption of the goods described, then the determination of the 10 per cent is a matter of arithmetic. Surely for the minister to suggest that an appeal to the tariff board is still valid on the 10 per cent factor is just a specious argument. Surely it is the minister's decision that is the essential point there. I would think that would be common ground, and I cannot see otherwise. Then the provision goes on to mention goods which are custom-made to specifications. I do not want to develop that because the minister did not develop it, and perhaps we can deal with it separately. I am quite frank to say I feel this is an improper use of the minister's power when he is put in a position to make this kind of decision.
I should like to make one other point. I made an interjection when the minister was dealing with the decision about saw mills, and the significance of the decision as to whether or not they were of a class or kind made in Canada. I want to point out to him that what he said may be true about saw mills in some parts of the country but not true about saw mills in other parts of the country. I think if he will examine the saw mill operations in this country he will find that what I say is right. I regret that I have not the decision in the power shovel case here, and it is some years since I have read it.


George Clyde Nowlan: It was in 1954.


George James McIlraith: Customs Tariff
which prevents their being able to compete favourably with regard to the retail article.
In that context I point out the bearing the cost of the manufacturer's machinery has on the final cost of the manufactured article. The real problem that I think should be decided with regard to that type of manufacturer is whether or not he should be assisted in bringing in the most up-to-date machinery he can get for production or to get into his plant the very last word-if I may use a slang phrase-in machinery for production. That should be our concern. If that is so, consistent with helping our own machinery manufacturers-


Richard Albert Bell: Will the hon. member permit a question?


George James McIlraith: I will do so in just a moment, if I may be allowed to continue now. Any looseness of definition that is capable of permitting careless or arbitrary decisions that mean that, because of the price factor at that point, the manufacturer is going to have second best machinery or-perhaps I should not use the term "second best"-machinery that is not precisely suitable for the operation for which it is intended to be used has real adverse significance to our economy. I for one have no apology for expressing real concern about what I regard as the impropriety of the course being taken by the government in this proposed amendment. I refer to new sections 2A and 3. That is the nub of the proposition.


George Clyde Nowlan: In what way?


George James McIlraith: I do not want to give references to particular companies. I think the minister will agree with me in that regard.


Richard Albert Bell: Is the hon. gentleman not repudiating completely now what he said earlier in answer to a question I put to him?


George James McIlraith: Not a bit. That is the point the hon. member missed. That is why I am taking the time to try to clarify it. I think the hon. member completely missed the point in making a sweeping generalization or a broad generalization that was relative enough to off the shelf goods but which had no bearing at all on the disputed item.


William Moore Benidickson: The major item.


George Clyde Nowlan: Is the hon. member referring to shelf goods?


George James McIlraith: No.


George Clyde Nowlan: He is referring to the custom-made goods.


George James McIlraith: That is right, and other machinery used in manufacture. What I was suggesting was that the hon. member for

Carleton, in his large generalization, was putting them in one basket and so on.


William Moore Benidickson: He ignored custom-made goods.


George James McIlraith: He was dealing with another kind. I think his question was a perfect example of the impropriety of making a sweeping generalization with regard to a subject which, by its very nature, must be particular and must be somewhat precisely dealt with.


Richard Albert Bell: I have never seen such straddling of the fence as the hon. member is doing now.


George James McIlraith: I am not straddling the fence. I am expressing my views and I am prepared to defend them. I think the Minister of National Revenue is aware of the problem with which I am trying to deal. It is of real concern to the country in general and, I may suggest, to his area of the country in which I think it is the honest wish of all Canadians that there be more development of industry.
There is this proposition to be considered. When you get certain types of machines for use by manufacturers, on which they are dependent for a product to be manufactured, one particular machine with some slightly different characteristics may do the job at a rapid rate and extremely efficiently whereas another machine, which is remarkably similar but which perhaps does not have the same raise to it or does not have the swing characteristics to it, will not do the job efficiently. In one particular case I have in mind the difference in the duty was 22J per cent. If the ruling in that case was in accordance with the definition in this resolution the result would be that the plant would not have been established. I am happy to say the decision was under the kind of rulings that the minister's colleague described as erosion. It was treated as of a class or kind not made in Canada and the plant is now in extremely successful operation.
I want to go a step further and point out this consideration. Depending on the product being manufactured, the cost of machinery for the manufacturing operation can have a large importance in the final cost of the articles being manufactured. That is where the difficulty lies in this problem. That is why I am concerned with what I regard as an extremely loose definition in this new legislation being offered to the committee and for which the resolution is being submitted now. I am rather concerned about it.
It is all very well for the minister to charge us with having fears of return to interpretations in former days of Prime Minister Bennett and so on. I do not want to rehash that

old ground. Admittedly there was a high tariff movement in those days and legislation was submitted directly for that purpose. I will not re-argue the merits of it now. After reading this legislation and having observed the minister's curious attitude in presenting it-I refer to the Minister of Finance-the only way in which I can assess it and size it up is this. I think it is an attempt to do indirectly the same sort of thing in that connection that was done in that other era directly.
Having said that I admit that there are difficulties in the interpretation of class or kind; I am prepared to admit that there may be some need for clarification in the light of experience over the years because the tariff has in it a great number of items and some sections of it can get into an area where there is a whole new technology and development and so on. So I am not saying there is no need for any legislation on the subject, but I am saying that, looking at this legislation, it is an attempt to do indirectly what the government is not willing to do directly and what it is wrong to do.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, before the minister speaks I would like to say a few words. I am very keenly interested in the minister's personal viewpoints when we are looking at a section that is giving him personally, as minister, something that he has not today, a personal discretion, a discretion that will not be open to review by the tariff board or subsequently by the courts. I am particularly impressed after hearing the hon. member for Vancouver East and, just now, the hon. member for Ottawa West. One can see immediately that the minister is taking on very vast responsibilities.
Knowing the location of his constituency, in an area of Canada that could perhaps expect its greatest economic advantages in the future to come from extractive industries, I know that in Nova Scotia there is a great interest in the forest industry, and so on. I want to know, before we get into the next stage of debate, something about the sympathies of this minister who is given this personal discretion. I want him to tell us about his sympathies before we are presented with a bill in this connection.
If he is faced with a problem as to perhaps the establishment of a new paper mill in Nova Scotia, how will he interpret this proposed new law? That is what I want to know. Will he perhaps say that he finds there is somewhere in Canada adequate facilities to produce paper mill machinery, because it is possible that as a result of that decision the cost of that machinery could conceivably rise from 7J per cent to 22\ per cent on 90205-6-107J
Customs Tariff
tariff alone. And we all know that anybody financing and purchasing this type of machinery expects a mark-up on their purchase after that.
We also know that if that machinery could be imported at a rate of 7J per cent instead of 22J per cent it might be encouraging to the promoters of this new industry in Nova Scotia. At 22J per cent plus a mark-up on 22i per cent for financing it might conceivably discourage the advancement of that new enterprise and production in Nova Scotia.
I think we should hear very clearly from the Minister of National Revenue, who under this proposed new law is to be given these wide powers, an indication of his leanings in this respect.
What kind of evidence is he going to seek as to whether adequate facilities exist in Canada? We had a rather vague explanation from the Minister of Finance as to what he would call a definition of "economic production in Canada". It was obvious that it involved expense to the purchaser of equipment of this kind and meant a very substantial advance in price.
Why does the Minister of National Revenue, as a member of the cabinet which approved this resolution, want to take personally this kind of responsibility that is beyond appeal to our tariff board and subsequently to the exchequer court or higher courts of this land?
I think that before we proceed further we should have from the minister who is going to administer this particular section an indication of what his preferences are likely to be when faced with a direct conflict between the needs of primary production in this country which must ultimately sell its product in a highly competitive world and perhaps demands that will be made upon him by some industry which might be able to sell the minister-if they are not producing it now-on the idea that they have adequate facilities.
Again, I am not satisfied on this matter of "economic production". Then I am still not satisfied that manufacturers might be able to produce these goods within "a reasonable period of time". I think this is a perfect example of the opportunity that is provided at this stage of the debate for the minister to share his thinking with his colleagues in the committee on how he would deal with some of these problems.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise another question which I think has not yet been raised in our discussion on this resolution. It may not be generally known in connection with the "class or kind made in

Customs Tariff
Canada" regulations-which are the essence of the statutory revision before us at the moment-that this developed in a very clear way in 1936 when Canada decided to enter into a broader trade agreement with the United States.
At that time this became of the essence in our good relationships with the United States. Even prior to the opportunity for parliament to rectify some of the offensive restrictions that had developed during the Bennett regime prior to 1936, when we were entering into new faith with the United States on a broader range of trade, there were certain stipulations. One of those stipulations was set out in a letter dated November 15, 1935, on the very day this new trade agreement was signed. It reads as follows:
In Interpreting the words "of a class or kind made or produced in Canada", provision will be made to make it clear that the phrase "made or produced in Canada" in this context means "made or produced in Canada in commercial quantities" and arrangements will be made-*
This was a pledge of our embassy at that time:
__for giving adequate notice of the transfer, for
customs purposes, of a product from the category "not of a class or kind made or produced in Canada" to the category "of a class or kind made oi produced in Canada".
We know that to a tremendous degree our international trade depends upon working out proper arrangements with the country to the south of us. We know that the Minister of Finance, not only in his budget speech of March last but in his so-called baby budget of December 20 expressed some alarm that in this area there might be some risk of a diminution of our over-all volume of trade. The minister did indicate on December 20 and again yesterday, in his remarks in connection with the Customs Tariff Act... Incidentally, I should point out to the minister, who is a meticulous man himself, that as he would be the first to agree we should really refer in our pamphlet to the Customs Tariff Act. The word "act" is not referred to there.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No; the statute itself is called the Customs Tariff.


William Moore Benidickson: I know that in connection with income tax we say the Income Tax Act and I thought, when we look down and see in paragraph 1 that the said act would be amended, perhaps the word "act" should have appeared earlier in the resolution. However, I do not want to be diverted by what I describe as an incidental point.
The minister took great pains on December 20 and again yesterday to say that in his view at least technically, and from the point of view of language and phraseology, he felt

he could stand as a very honest man in connection with any negotiations in which he was participating as a representative of Canada with respect to our GATT trade relationships. That may be, but before we proceed very far I should like to have some further up-to-date information as to the present status of our all too vital negotiations in connection with GATT which have been taking place since last fall and which, unfortunately, we learned from the well informed financial press are not proceeding very satisfactorily as far as Canada is concerned. We learn, even, that there may be a complete break-down as of now as a result of which we would lose all the background of four or five months negotiations in connection with GATT. I should like to know from the minister whether he can assure this committee that if such an event is to take place it in no way involves any feeling on the part of our co-partners in the GATT agreement with respect to such a vital item with regard to the redefinition of what is a "class or kind item" in connection with tariff negotiations.
To return to the question of our trade relations with the United States, I would like to refer the minister to a comment which was made by Mr. Tim Creery of the Southam News Service at the time when the government hinted, in the speech from the throne, that it was intended to bring in amendments to the Customs Act such as we now have before us. Mr. Creery, a reputable reporter who is, I believe, a mutual friend of the minister and myself, said, writing from Washington, that these proposed changes in the definition "made in Canada" for the purpose of the class or kind provisions were causing great concern in that capital. In fact, the headline of the article reads "Terrible Concern in Washington". Before we proceed too far in connection with this particular statutory endeavour I think the minister should indicate to what extent he has found the new definitions do, in fact, offend the nation with which we principally trade, and I think the hon. gentleman should give all members of the committee an indication whether any objections have in fact been received from the United States in this connection.
In preparation for yesterday's discussion, the minister very carefully prepared, in writing, and then read, certain definitions which I felt were required by the committee in connection with this legislation. "Reasonableness", "economic production" and so on were defined. I do not think the minister today did in similar fashion indicate what was to be his view or the view of his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, when we

come to the word "approximately" which also would seem to be a key word in the resolution which is before us. I should like to draw this question again to the attention of the minister.
I spoke to the minister this afternoon indicating that I felt he had not answered the question I raised yesterday with respect to his assertion that it was obvious and clear that in the past ten years decisions of judicial bodies such as the tariff board, the exchequer court, the supreme court and so on had very patently led to an interpretation which was contrary to what the minister thought was the view of parliament. The Minister of National Revenue to a certain extent dealt with that tonight. I think this is basic to our discussion which involves an apparent need, as far as the ministry sees it, for something new in the definition of what is class or kind, made or not made or produced in Canada.
I think the minister should go beyond saying that there has been an obvious departure from what the minister says was everybody's idea of what parliament had in mind a little over ten years ago in connection with a definition in this respect. I think he should give us certain cases to illustrate those which in his opinion are responsible for bringing forward this change in the legislation. Naturally we shall say that if a ratification is required the ministry should not be afraid to bring forward that definition or bring it back if we are persuaded it is a bringing back and there was an original intention that has been subject to erosion by judicial decision that should be presented before the committee. We still insist that any new definition should still be subject to an appeal by the taxpayer above the minister to the tariff board and to the usual judicial procedure.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, the questions asked by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River are of a bifocal nature. In the beginning the hon. member referred some questions to me and later on referred some to my colleague, the Minister of Finance. I shall deal with only one or two.
There was a specific matter raised by the hon. member in the beginning. This is a very easy matter for me to deal with. It is not a complicated question, thank heaven, or I should not be able to deal with it. The hon. member was somewhat concerned about what might happen to a paper mill in Nova Scotia if this resolution passes.


William Moore Benidickson: Or in Kenora-Rainy
River.
Customs Tariff


George Clyde Nowlan: Or in Kenora-Rainy River. I am applying to the reference to Nova Scotia because the hon. member specifically referred to it and Nova Scotia is a province very close to my heart. My hon. friend was wondering what would happen to a paper mill there if I should make an unfortunate ruling with respect to paper making machinery which might prevent a Swedish firm spending the sum of approximately $40 million it plans to spend there. I have no problem in that regard and neither does the committee because paper making machinery and all incidentals, components, parts and everything in connection with it are economic, and therefore we can make no class or kind rulings. Therefore this will not affect machinery of that kind going into that plant. There are, of course, other machines with which I could deal but perhaps that answers the hon. member's questions.


William Moore Benidickson: Perhaps the minister was not in the committee when the Minister of Finance dealt specifically with paper making machinery. I must confess it occurred to me at the time that a year or two ago there was a change and that paper making machines would not any longer be within the 70 items that would be affected by the legislation now before us. However, I do not think that was made clear by the Minister of Finance and perhaps I did get a little off the track in that respect.


George Clyde Nowlan: In any event, Mr. Chairman, this is covered by paragraph 427, subparagraph 6. That was a specific matter to which the hon. member directed my attention.
Again there were references to the Bennett regime and so on. In passing let me point out to the committee as I mentioned before that the made in Canada rulings-whatever may have been the merits or demerits of the Bennett regime-the great majority of these rulings were made between 1936 and 1939 at the outbreak of war. I do not have the exact proportion but a substantial majority of them were made in that interval. That was when the made in Canada pattern developed and that was under the benign leadership of that great Liberal about whom my hon. friend directly opposite has recently published a part of such an interesting biography.
I am sure the hon. gentleman will agree with me that such an apostle of Liberalism could not be guilty of anything wrong, that he would never be guilty of high tariff practices and that whatever he did must have been right. Therefore, the most that can be said for what we are trying to do is that we are attempting to restore again the vision which Mr. Mackenzie King had when he had

Customs Tariff
the made in Canada rulings enacted and which afterwards were eroded, subtracted from and diminished. I do not want to offend the delicate sensibilities of my friend the hon. member for Ottawa West in the terms I use. In any event, let me say that the original scope of these rulings have been substantially diminished. That is one reason -and I think perhaps the lesser reason; the other factor is that dealing with custom-made goods-why we are bringing forward this amendment tonight.
My friend the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River asked me about my own personal feelings with respect to this amendment. I doubt if my personal views would be of very much interest to the committee. I hope I am broad-minded. I hope I am sympathetic. I also hope that I have done a reasonably good job in administering these rulings up till now. If Providence should ordain that I should continue in my present office for some time and continue to make these rulings I shall try to follow the pattern established in the past, which incidentally, I am told by those coming to the office, is very satisfactory and compares reasonably well with the practice which was followed prior to my succeeding to the office.
As far as the questions about GATT are concerned and the other queries raised by my hon. friend, I think perhaps I had better leave those to my colleague to answer because I know the Minister of Finance must have dealt with that subject to a certain extent earlier today. I am not sure how much ground my colleague covered and I prefer to leave those matters to him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, if I may deal with the balance of the questions asked by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, first let me comment on the origin of the so-called 10 per cent rule. It was in November of 1935 that a note was sent by Canada to the United States. At the time of the signature of the 1935 Canada-United States trade agreement. That note contained a paragraph under which Canada undertook:
-to make it clear that the phrase "made or produced in Canada" in this context means "made or produced in Canada in commercial quantities".
It was pursuant to that undertaking that the King government in the budget of 1936 introduced what is now subsection 10 of section 6 of the Customs Tariff.


William Moore Benidickson: That is the "substantial quantities" item for order in council, is it not?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. I referred this afternoon to the order in council of July 2, 1936, P.C.-1618, that was then promulgated

in pursuance of the authority conferred by subsection 10 of section 6. The point to note is that the undertaking which was given to the United States by Canada in that note referred to "commercial quantities". Those are quoted words. This phrase was not defined. The decision to implement by the 10 per cent rule which is now to be found in subsection 10 of section 6 was a decision of the Canadian government of the day and this particular formula was never bound.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, would the minister assist me. My notes have gone to Hansard. Was it "commercial quantities" or "substantial quantities"?


Donald Methuen Fleming: "Commercial quantities" were the words used in the note given by Canada to the United States. The expression used in section 6, subsection 10, is "substantial quantities".
Just to complete my comment, Mr. Chairman, I had just finished saying before dealing with that question that the particular formula was never bound. Moreover, I would say that the commitment contained in the note presumably expired when the 1935 trade agreement between Canada and the United States was superseded by later agreements. It was never incorporated in any subsequent agreement.
The next point raised by the hon. member concerned the United States. We have had discussions with representatives of the United States government on this subject. They were naturally curious to know what might be the effect of this legislation. There have been discussions and I think it may be said that the representatives of the United States government are continuing to follow this matter with interest.


William Moore Benidickson: I am sure they would.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They have received the explanations that have been given to the committee yesterday and today, explanations that I am quite sure would satisfy any reasonable person.
The next point raised by the hon. member concerned the definition of the word "approximately". This is the key word in subclause (a) of the resolution. The primary purpose of the introduction of this word is to change the concept that goods to be of a class or kind must be virtually identical goods. Recent decisions of the tariff board have pointed to the narrow interpretation placed on the phrase "class or kind" to the point where goods must be practically identical before they may be rated as being of the same class or kind. This, we say, is a rigidity that was never intended. Under the new definition of the phrase it will be possible

to restore and confirm the broad and historic interpretation which had been applied prior to 1948, with the result that similar goods may be placed in the same class or kind group. My colleague the Minister of National Revenue has given some specific illustrations tonight in that regard.
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. I pointed out this afternoon the three matters in which power is given to the Minister of National Revenue to make a decision, and those three matters are essentially questions to be resolved in relation to statistical data. They are not questions that involve the exercise of some judicial process in relation to interpretation of words in a statute. I am sure no one knows better than the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River that on an appeal to an appellate tribunal that tribunal will not enter into a rehearing of determinations of fact. The ordinary rule is that there must be something more than an issue over facts involved.
There are lots of situations under the laws, whether of parliament or of provinces, where the appeal is confined to a question in relation to law or jurisdiction or mixed questions. All that the minister is given power to decide finally is in relation to those three matters I enumerated and those, I have said, are questions essentially of a statistical nature. My colleague made it quite clear this afternoon that under the present practice of the tariff board, when they encounter such question what they do is refer to the Department of National Revenue for information.
I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that a bogey has been set up in this debate in regard to the matter of limitation of the rights of appeal. The right of appeal on essential questions has been retained; the right of appeal from decisions made by the department, and then to the tariff board and thence to the exchequer court and the Supreme Court of Canada. This is simply a bogey that there has been some arbitrary power conferred upon the Minister of National Revenue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Assertions do not make facts.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would commend that to the hon. gentleman. "Physician, heal thyself".
I am hoping that the committee will see fit to allow the resolution to pass tonight so that the bill can be introduced. I do not think I need-


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is not a chance.
Customs Tariff


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, then, in view of the fact that the hon. member of Bona-vista-Twillingate says there is not a chance I might just say-perhaps it is unnecessary, in view of what my colleague the Minister of National Revenue said earlier-that the case may be amply documented as to the course of decisions to illustrate what I refer to as the process of erosion.
Perhaps I might just touch very briefly on some of these things. My colleague referred briefly to the decision in regard to the .22 calibre rifles. This is a decision which was made in 1950. The department had held that all .22 calibre rifles were of a class or kind made in Canada. The tariff board decided that the .22 calibre class should be divided into subgroups. They held that the autoloading type rifles, which were not made in Canada, were of a different kind from manually loaded rifles which were made in Canada.
Let us go on to 1952. Here is a decision involving fork lift trucks. The department had held that fork lift trucks of sizes within a certain range were of a class or kind made in Canada. The tariff board accepted this establishment of classes by size range. Now, Mr. Chairman, note that this is a case in which the tariff board upheld the decision of the department on the question of a size range. But what happened later, Mr. Chairman, by 1960, in the light of certain intervening decisions that had been made by the board and by the courts in the meantime? Then came an appeal involving truck mounted cranes. The department had held truck mounted cranes of sizes within a certain range to be of a class or kind made in Canada. The tariff board rejected the range class, indicating that individual sizes were to constitute the criterion. Here is a case where a decision of the board in 1952 in regard to range was completely set aside by the decision in 1960 under strictly comparable circumstances because of the change in the course of decisions in the interval. Does anybody in this house say that it is reasonable to think that it was the intention of parliament that we should reject the idea of a range class, and that individual sizes are to constitute the criterion as to whether goods are or are not of a class or kind made in Canada?
Here is a decision in 1953 involving a Snyder car wheel boring machine. Although it was agreed that the imported and the Canadian made machines performed the same operation on railway car wheels, that is to say, the cutting of metal from the hub thereof, the decision of the board was to the effect that the machines were not of the

Customs Tariff
same class or kind as they operated on different mechanical principles. The imported machine operated through the action of a rotating spindle carrying the cutting tool on the hub of the wheel held stationary by a special holding device; whereas the Canadian made machine operated on the vertical lathe principle; that is to say, the tool bar moves vertically and does not rotate, while the wheel to be bored is held on a rotating table during the cutting operation. One might go on-


William Moore Benidickson: Has the minister anything there about the paper making machine which the Minister of National Revenue and I had some discussion about?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am just giving the decisions I have here. Here is a decision in 1954 involving the shovel to which my colleague referred this evening. The department ruled that while a two and a half yard shovel was not made in Canada, it was competitive with a two yard shovel which was made in Canada, and that therefore the two and a half yard machine should be considered of the same class as the two yard machine. The tariff board ruled that inasmuch as no two and a half yard sizes were made in Canada at the relevant time, such machines should be held as of a class not made in Canada.
An appeal was taken from that decision of the tariff board to the exchequer court and the decision of the exchequer court is reported in the 1956 Exchequer Court Reports, at page 379. The exchequer court upheld the decision of the tariff board. An appeal was then taken to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada is reported in 1958 Supreme Court Reports, at page 652. The supreme court upheld the decision of the exchequer court with Mr, Justice Rand dissenting. It was following that decision, and the protracted litigation that was involved in
it, that a more definite turn was given to the course of decisions and therefore the tariff board from that point on felt constrained by the decision of the supreme court to give that emphasis that I have indicated and was well exemplified in this very narrow distinction between a shovel with a two yard capacity and a shovel with a two and a half yard capacity.
We say-and this is my final word-that this is not in accord with the intention of parliament; it certainly was not in accord with the intention of the government which introduced this legislation over the years.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I presume we are to go on
with this business tomorrow?


Mr. Churchill:: Yes, we will continue with the budget resolutions tomorrow. If they are completed we will take up the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The forecast for next week, subject to change if circumstances so require, is as follows: Monday would be private members' day, the third one in the series; Tuesday we would commence with the resolution in my name dealing with the amendments to the Pension Act which were brought before the house before Christmas. If that is completed, then we would carry on with the budget resolutions and the legislation. Wednesday would be similar and we would take second reading of the bill dealing with the Pension Act and, if time permits, budget resolutions and legislation pertaining thereto. Thursday and Friday of next week would be available for the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

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

Mr. Bourgei: 1.	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?
3.	Is it the practice of the Department of Public Works to insist upon the use of materials of Canadian manufacture?
Question
4.	If so, is there any limit to the cost differential over imported products in directing the use of Canadian materials?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of
Public Works):
1.	Yes.
2.	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.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes. Each project is reviewed on its merits. Canadian parts and materials are however used to the full extent to which the same are procurable, consistent with proper economy and the expeditious carrying out of the contract.
90205-6-108

Friday, February 3, 1961



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon) presented the first report of the standing committee on mines, forests and waters, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South) presented the first report of the standing committee on estimates and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.