1961-04-18

Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, a number of the members from western Canada have been asking me about grain quotas in Manitoba and in the central and eastern parts of Saskatchewan. I am now able to report that even though, because of ice conditions, navigation has not been officially opened at the lakehead, grain is now moving in substantial volume. Fourteen million bushels have now been shipped, of which 9.9 million bushels were wheat. These 14 million bushels compare with shipments to the same date last year of 10.4 million bushels. There are 15 vessels now loading grain at terminals at the lakehead with grain destined for eastern Canada and export markets.
It is expected that in the weeks ahead a substantial volume of grain will be shipped from the lakehead. This means that producers in western Canada at shipping points tributary to the lakehead can look forward to greatly improved delivery opportunities and a general rise in the quota level.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister should exert every influence to have an increased volume of grain moved eastward because of the very low delivery quotas in Manitoba and in parts of Saskatchewan, particularly the central and eastern parts. As of April 5 there were quotas of 2 bushels or less at 270 points in Manitoba as compared with only 58 in that position a year ago. In Saskatchewan 871 points had the very low quotas of 2 or 3 bushels as compared with 467 in that position a year ago.
I had hoped that the minister would have given the house more information, and I should like to ask him this question on the orders of the day. What is the objective for the quota at the end of the crop year? Is it the target of the government to have an equalized quota? If so, do they hope that the quota will be 7 bushels an acre, 8 bushels an acre, or what does the minister think the situation will be?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I am not the official spokesman with respect to agriculture on this side of
the house, but I could not resist the temptation to rise in connection with the announcement the minister has just made to indicate to him that while the announcement is most welcome, there is now every reason why an increase in the movement of grain, certainly eastward if not westward, can be expected because of the additional warehousing facilities that have been established on the St. Lawrence. I refer, of course, to Montreal where large extensions have been made, to Baie Comeau and, I believe, Sorel and Three Rivers.
There is one point I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. The former minister of trade and commerce when he was in office announced a reduction in the cost of moving grain of 3 cents per bushel, and I am wondering whether the government has given consideration to a further reduction. I do so because when the former minister made the announcement I think he gave some indication that the reduction might eventually be in the neighbourhood of 5 cents per bushel. I hope the government will find it possible to reduce freight costs to a greater extent than 3 cents per bushel.

On the orders of the day:


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might ask my question of the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister inform the house what the grain delivery quotas will be by the end of the crop year, and does he envisage a general 7-bushel quota, 8-bushel quota or what will the level of the quota be?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, any minister charged with responsibility for the Canadian wheat board would be reluctant to make any definite commitment. However, I think it has been definitely established that a tremendous amount of energy and intelligence is going into the moving of grain out of the country. We will do our level best to equal the record created last year by the wheat board when all but 47 points were equalized at 7 bushels.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question arising

Inquiries of the Ministry out ol a statement by the Prime Minister on December 2 that the period-that is, the period between the passage of the legislation preventing a railroad strike and May 15, when that legislation expires-would be one of continued discussion between the parties. Has the government taken any steps recently to bring the parties in this dispute together again?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Ever since the bill was passed by parliament, Mr. Speaker, the government has had this aspect continually under consideration, and we are very much aware that May 16 is the date upon which this legislation terminates. Every effort will be made to bring about a settlement.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Following the tabling of the report of the royal commission, have the railways asked for any instructions or directions from the government in the light of the report?


Michael Starr: Not to my knowledge.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask a supplementary question. In order to take a positive attitude, has the government or the minister made any proposals to the railway companies and to the employees that in the opinion of the government would be grounds for a fair settlement?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Speaker.



STATEMENT AS TO R.C.M.P. INTERVEN- TION IN LAUNDRY STRIKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Assiniboia asked me whether, in view of the statement made earlier by the Associate Minister of National Defence, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would respect the picket lines in operation in the course of a strike at the Rainbow Laundry and Dry Cleaners in Regina.
I said I would look into the facts and answer the hon. member today. I am advised -I trust that my information is correct, and if so I am sure the hon. member will be happy about it-that the strike ended on April 11.



GLEN EXELBY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisfa-Twil-lingaie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour if he can say, in view of the offer made in his letter, whether

the national employment service has as yet found employment for Mr. Exelby of Hamilton?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate did such an excellent job in regard to Mr. Exelby that we are having some difficulty in placing him now, but will continue our efforts and in spite of that will be able to place him.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether she can bring the house up to date on the present status of the Indian land deal at Sarnia.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the company involved defaulted on its commitments, and accordingly notice of cancellation of contract was sent to them last evening.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can the hon. lady give the assurance that no part of the lands involved in this transaction will be deeded to any other persons?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, if the Indians require some subsequent disposal of the land, that will have to be considered on its own merits, but not under the contract which has now lapsed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not make myself clear. What I was asking the hon. lady was an assurance that no deed resulting from that transaction will be given to any other person.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I gave that assurance to the hon. member the other day.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister or the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. As we have been informed that news services from Cuba have been cut off at New York since the attacks began yesterday, and we have to depend now on the limited facilities available through commonwealth countries; and in view of the desire of the Canadian people to know the

facts and the truth with respect to the present attacks on Cuba, can the minister inform the house whether he has any information as to the countries from which these attacks have been launched and the names of the persons responsible for this counter-revolution?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The answer to both parts of the question is no.



OLYMPIC GAMES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. L. McFarlane (Kootenay East):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has he been advised that the Canadian Olympic association is considering only two sites for the 1968 winter Olympic games, namely Banff and Garibaldi, as stated recently in Maclean's magazine, although the report of the Foundation Company of Canada has not yet been made public?


Hon. J. W. Monleith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I think the Maclean's article can only be regarded as speculation, since the Canadian Olympic association has not reached a decision on the best site at which to hold the games.


Murray Lincoln McFarlane: May I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister point out to the Canadian Olympic association that as of April 9 there was 47 inches of snow at the bottom of the hill and 15 feet at the top in the Fernie area, while Banff is now closed down for lack of snow and Garibaldi has been shrouded in fog all week.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member should ask for an appointment to appear before the Olympic committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to direct a question to the minister. Have any ministers of the government been present with delegations making representations to the Canadian Olympic Association in support of the Garibaldi or Banff sites for the 1968 winter Olympics?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether the hon.
Inquiries of the Ministry lady or her department is directing an investigation into the activity of a man in Toronto named John Withers, who claims some distant relationship to the hon. lady, and who apparently has been extorting money from persons under deportation orders.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: First of all, may I tell the hon. gentleman that if he will look farther along in the article he will find that the gentleman has denied any relationship, which I do also. In so far as an investigation is concerned, yes; the matter is being thoroughly investigated.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the hon. lady say whether the department had any previous knowledge of the activities of this person before the recent incident arose?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, we had none, Mr. Speaker.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. My question is based on reports that a Canada Steamship Lines vessel has been transferred to foreign registry, and that another ship of the Upper Lakes Shipping Company will also sail with a foreign flag at its mast. Can the minister indicate to the house whether the government intends to introduce legislation which would eliminate the unfair competition of commonwealth registered ships which are now permitted to carry goods between Canadian ports to the disadvantage of ships of Canadian registry?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am looking into the matter at the present time. Further examination by my department is necessary. As I indicated previously, I expect to have something to say about shipping policy generally before this session ends.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES PRAIRIE PROVINCES-INQUIRY AS TO INTERCITY SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. W. Brunsden (Medicine Hat):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising from current reports that at an early date, possibly next week, a decision will be reached concerning the abandonment by Trans-Canada Air Lines of the prairie milk run. Will the minister give assurance that before any act of relinquishment by Trans-Canada Air Lines,

Inquiries of the Ministry and the granting of a franchise to another carrier, public hearings will be held at which interested parties may attend? Will he tell the house when such hearings are to take place, and whether they will be held in the west?


Léon Balcer: There is no change in this situation. As I informed the house previously, public hearings will be held on this matter before a final decision is made. However, I am not yet in a position to say when these hearings will take place, but X can. say that adequate notice will be given.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. On March 23 I asked the minister if he would comment on reports that the C.B.C. was recruiting personnel in the United Kingdom. Has the minister yet received information from the C.B.C. with regard to that matter, especially in view of the continuing lay-offs of personnel in the field of private television?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have been told that they have been recruiting architects and specialists for service in Canada. In view of the fact that there has been some need for additional personnel they have made inquiries with respect to the possibility of acquiring some outside of Canada, but I do not believe any action has been taken with respect to that matter at the present time.



ACADEMY AWARDS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Will the minister inquire from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation why it places the future of Hollywood over that of the people of the North American continent? My question is based on the blackout of the C.B.C. news on Monday evening, the day following the anti-Castro landings in Cuba, which is an event that could seriously affect all of us. Instead of the news being televised, for several hours there was screened the awarding to several dozen voluptuous ladies-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not know whether the hon. member has finished his speech, but so far I have not divined a question.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I would think it was a compliment to the hon. member, because the C.B.C. assumed that he would be willing to sit up late to watch these voluptuous ladies and, having watched them, he would not mind sitting up even later to see the news.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the alleged statement by an official of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to the effect that the differential between a National Housing Act insured loan and an uninsured conventional mortgage is outrageous, does the minister plan an early reduction in the N.H.A. rate?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: I do not recall any such statement, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Do you not read the newspapers?


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: I have a supplementary question to ask the Minister of Public Works. Does the proposal announced by him yesterday permit the chartered banks to participate, in a back room kind of fashion, in housing mortgage lending in a way that has been denied recently by reason of the ceiling put on their lending rate?


David James Walker: No, Mr. Speaker.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Finance. Having regard to the statutory ceiling on interest rates for the chartered banks, and having regard to the announcement made yesterday by the Minister of Public Works with respect to secondary mortgage financing, does the Minister of Finance think it would be possible for the chartered banks to buy up old mortgages and take advantage of discounts which would give them an effective rate beyond 6 per cent, and avoid the existing statutory liability on banks with respect to mortgage lending?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I can draw no other inference than that this is the same question

that was put a moment ago by the hon. member to my colleague the Minister of Public Works, under a different disguise.


William Moore Benidickson: But you are the financial expert.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance. If Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is embarking on a project of peddling $750 million of mortgages at this time for the savings of the Canadian public, to what extent will this interfere with the opportunities normally available to the provinces, municipalities and industries which also have demands on the savings of Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, first I must draw your attention to the misapprehension under which the hon. member is labouring, as indicated by his question. It is not the intention of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to peddle the mortgages it holds at all. Where a proper market exists to absorb mortgages on reasonable terms then the corporation will be in a position to dispose of such mortgages as it chooses.
As to the latter part of the observation of the hon. member, I think I might say it is hoped that the mortgages being offered to a mortgage market will serve to attract into this area of investment money that does not normally flow into capital investment in the ordinary course, of the kind to which the hon. member refers. I do not think it is doing justice to the outlook for this country to assume that we have reached the end of our resources at all. The government is disposed to take a much more optimistic view of both the outlook for and the capacity of the Canadian capital market than evidently the hon. member does.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I can ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question. Would the minister assure the house that this is not an act of retaliation against Premier Roblin?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member seriously advances that question with the expectation of receiving factual information.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I quite agree that it is not a proper question, Mr. Speaker, but I am concerned in the event that an imputation of that kind is left on the record without reply. I can only say that a question of that kind is so nonsensical as to deserve only the rebuke of the house.
Inquiries of the Ministry



INQUIRY AS TO PRESENT OUTLOOK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Beech (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I wonder whether the minister could give us some information regarding the present housing outlook, and as to the present rate on limited dividend projects.


David James Walker: 
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am not sure whether the minister was answering a question, but in the event that he was perhaps I could pose a supplementary question. Does the minister have the figures for unsold houses at the present time as compared to a year ago?


David James Walker: No, Mr. Speaker, but probably the hon. member, who is in the business, would have better knowledge of that than I have.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: He would undoubtedly have a much better idea.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschafeleis (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In order to complete the figures of the last release on the labour force, will the minister be kind enough to tell us the actual number of unemployed drawing unemployment insurance benefits?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the release that has been made is complete. If the hon. member wishes to have any other information from the records of the unemployment insurance commission, I shall be glad to supply it if he will place his question on the order paper.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question to ask the Minister of Labour. I wonder whether the minister would care to comment on the dismal figures as far as general unemployment is concerned at this time, when there are 705,000 unemployed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is endeavouring to initiate a debate rather than to get information.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask the minister whether he is prepared to comment on the figures that have just been released today. Can the minister say whether the government has any new proposal to deal with this very grave emergency?


Michael Starr: If the hon. member refers to these figures as dismal, in his opinion, because they show a decrease in unemployment I can well understand-


Hazen Robert Argue: The figure is 96,000 higher than it was last year.


Michael Starr: This government realizes that the situation is serious. We have brought in measures-passed by this parliament and introduced in the budget at the end of last year-which we feel will bring about the desired result of supplying jobs for Canadians. This release shows a slight decrease in unemployment. We feel that is a great deal better than showing an increase. If that is a dismal aspect to the hon. member for Assiniboia, we are sorry to disappoint him.


Hazen Robert Argue: The dismal part is in the figure being 96,000 higher than it was last year.



INQUIRY AS TO FINAL PAYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. O. Cooper (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, on April 13 last I asked a question of the Minister of Agriculture regarding the barley payment. Has the minister anything to report with regard to the current payment on barley?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I have received a recommendation from the Canadian wheat board. When a government decision is made on the recommendation I will announce it to the house.
[Mr. Deschatelets.l



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Peterborough asked a question concerning the water levels on the Trent waterway.
The question of regulation of water levels in the Trent system has been under study for several months. The precipitation this year has been low, resulting in a serious deficiency in the volume of storage; and as a matter of fact unless greater than average precipitation is experienced during the next few months it may be impossible to maintain full navigation levels on the Trent canal system.
It is considered that due to the low volume of storage in the reservoir system, no major changes in the method of regulation are likely to be made this year. The views of all interested parties will be requested and studied prior to any decision to change the existing method and schedule of water control.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister say whether representations have been made to Ontario hydro to reduce the powermaking activity from those waters during the months of July and August in order to conserve them until the end of the tourist season? The waters could then be used during the later months of September and October.


Léon Balcer: Not to my knowledge.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister anything recent to report in regard to radiation in Canada and the strontium content of milk, cereal and other foods?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, the final quarterly report for 1960 in respect of this subject will be available very shortly, and I am sure the hon. member will find it interesting.



CUSTOMS TARIFF

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, April 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) for the second reading of Bill No. C-72, to amend the Customs Tariff.
Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard the minister complain that in his opinion the decisions of the tariff board had done injury to the interests of Canadian producers in that their decisions had eroded the intention to give the necessary protection to those who were engaged in manufacturing in Canada as opposed to importing. I indicated that in my opinion the tariff board was in fact a judicial institution established by the parliament of Canada, and that to express dissatisfaction with the decisions of that board comes very close to being in contempt of court.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I would ask that he be given the attention of the house. It is rather difficult to hear and I am sure it is difficult for him to talk with so many conversations going on.


Erhart Regier: I believe it would be much more responsible, if the government of the day is not happy with the decisions of the tariff board, to find ways and means of altering the responsibility of that board or by replacing its existing members. I believe it ill behooves us to permit individuals to remain in office while continuing to attack and criticize their decisions.
We are most unhappy with the legislation now before us, and we intend to continue to expose and oppose it. We believe the effect of this legislation will be to add to the cost of consumer goods in Canada, and we are more particularly concerned because we believe it is a means whereby the cost of production in Canada is going to be increased beyond the high levels that these costs have already attained. We believe that investment in equipment and machinery in our major fields of endeavour in Canada plays a very important role in respect of the cost level of our production. We would hate to see anything done which would add to the heavy investment burden that is necessary, in this modern world of today, to supply employment to the Canadian people.
We believe this legislation will do that. We believe it will add to the amount of investment capital required to provide employment for our people. I do not believe the government has paid adequate attention to the representations of Canadian entrepreneurs respecting this legislation. I can easily understand the position taken yesterday by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, who is very closely associated with the major commercial enterprise in the Pacific west, namely the lumbering industry. At least this member of the House of Commons had read the submissions of such reputable organizations as the Vancouver board of trade and
Customs Tariff
others in regard to this legislation. All he was doing was, to the best of his ability, defending the interests of Canadian producers. We feel that not only will the consumers of this country be hit by having to pay higher prices but our producers, and especially our exporters, will suffer if this legislation really becomes effective. We believe it will have an adverse effect upon our trading position with other nations.
We look upon this legislation as nothing less than a back door approach on the part of the Tories in office to a return to high tariffs. In my opinion it again underlines what I have said on other occasions, namely that in the field of tariffs at least the Tories are producing ample evidence to indicate that they have learned nothing since the days when they were last in office, the days of the hungry thirties.
The minister is pleading for the passage of this measure in order to provide employment in Canada. It is our contention that this measure, as well as other like measures that he has introduced in the past, is directly responsible for increasing unemployment in our nation. We do not provide employment for our people by ostracizing ourselves from the markets of the world, by raising our costs of production and by raising our tariff walls. In so far as the over-all picture is concerned, what we do may supply relief to individual concerns or individuals, but it will aggravate the very difficult economic situation that now faces us. What will happen is that it will add to the already growing ranks of the unemployed.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak for just a few minutes and express some views on this legislation. I wish to point out at the beginning, as has been pointed out very ably on a number of occasions by the Minister of Finance in dealing with this matter in the house, that this proposed legislation is intended to relieve Canadian producers from unfair competition. It is not a device to give new protection to Canadian industry.
As we know, we have in Canada a customs tariff that has been established over the past 75 years by the various governments that have held office during that time. It is interesting to note that in the adjustments which have taken place in that tariff since this government took office, the number of specific items which have been reduced have outnumbered by quite a wide margin the number of items which have been increased.
So the opposition may not claim that I am urging higher tariffs in speaking on this measure, I should like to spend just a moment

Customs Tariff
to outline very briefly what I said on this matter when speaking to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association in Toronto on February 7. This is what I said:
Some people say the government should give greater protection to industry by raising tariffs against imports. Those who make this suggestion should realize that those against whom they would have us raise tariffs are also our customers for the exports on which we rely so heavily for our economic well-being. They must also realize that one out of every four Canadians is employed in either producing for, or shipping to, the export market. Those countries, against which they would have us raise tariffs, would certainly retaliate by increasing tariffs against our exports. And, for every Canadian who would be helped by raising tariffs, there would be at least one Canadian hurt by tariffs being raised against the products we export.
I think we must all realize that, if we are to continue to have high employment in Canada, we can only do so by industry producing products which will be competitive, and sell against competition.
These were the views I expressed on that occasion, and I have expressed them on numerous occasions since. They are still my views, Mr. Speaker.
The purpose of this legislation is simply to eliminate the loopholes in the act by which foreign producers can obtain an unfair advantage over their Canadian competitors, by making their products differ in some small technical detail. I think it is clear, Mr. Speaker, that there never was any intention in the minds of those who established our tariff during the past 75 years that this sort of tariff evasion should be possible. The unfair competition that has arisen by reason of these loopholes being there has had a detrimental effect on employment in Canada. I also think it is clear that if these anomalies are not removed, further deterioration in our employment picture will result.
The intent of the proposed changes is simply to give Canadian industry those levels of protection which previous parliaments intended. Again I say that our tariff was established, not by any one government, but by all governments that have held office during the past 75 years. Over the years, those governments intended that industry in Canada should be permitted to build up and prosper. It was for these reasons that certain tariffs were established. They have been agreed to by the various parliaments that have sat during this 75-year period. It was not the intention of the members who sat in this parliaments that those tariffs should be circumvented. The changes which are proposed in this legislation will greatly increase the incentive of Canadian producers to broaden the scope of their production and thereby increase employment.
The nagging opposition to this measure which has gone on in the eight days during

which this measure has been before parliament, I believe, Mr. Speaker, is a clear indication of where the opposition stand on the question of providing jobs for their fellow Canadians. They obviously want foreign producers to have all the loopholes possible to get their products into Canada at unfair rates of duty and so take orders which should be providing jobs for Canadians.


Lionel Chevrier: Is that why your own members vote against it?


George Harris Hees: If the Minister of National
T-*______ _1

Jl 1___il

..

xvt:vt:iiut: uues ixut nave ulj.c puwa Ui uccioiuu
as specified in this legislation, foreign exporters can continue to enjoy these unfair rates of duty for up to another two years, because appeals to the courts could easily take that long. By their action on this legislation, the opposition have made it clear that they are in favour of workers in such places as Manchester, Dusseldorf, Brussels, Turin, Toledo, Marseilles and all the other manufacturing centres of the world having jobs producing products which are needed in Canada, and which would otherwise be provided by Canadian workers. They are in favour of those jobs being held by workers in other countries.
During this session the opposition has concentrated on conjuring up the gloomiest possible outlook with respect to the Canadian economy. This false picture of doom and gloom has been doing a great deal of harm to industry and employment in Canada from the point of view of the picture that is painted of Canadian industry in countries abroad. During the past few months I have been in Great Britain, the United States, France and Switzerland, and in talking to businessmen in these countries I have been dismayed to learn of the very alarming picture that has been built up in their minds by members of the opposition speaking here in parliament with respect to conditions in Canada. When I asked them where they got these impressions they said they heard reports over the radio and read newspaper accounts of speeches that had been made by members of parliament, and they were shocked at what these speeches indicated as to the state of our economy. I have been told by businessmen in all these countries that this kind of propaganda is having a very serious adverse effect on businessmen who are contemplating the establishment of plants in Canada which would provide jobs for Canadians.
I think it is obvious to all of us from talking to people in this country that the same kind of effect has been created in the minds of Canadian businessmen. When people in Canada who would otherwise be building plants and expanding inventories hear about

the picture of gloom and doom that is being painted in parliament, they are alarmed and have a tendency to delay their plans and not do the things they had otherwise intended to do. By their opposition to this measure hon. members on the other side of the house in my opinion have made it very clear that they are in favour of providing jobs for workers in other countries rather than for their fellow Canadians, as this legislation seeks to do.
This legislation simply enables Canadian products to receive the kind of protection that was intended for them by the various parliaments that over the years have established the rates of duty. The people who established these tariffs did not intend that by means of a slight variation, or a small change, a producer in another country could get around the tariff and bring in his product, varying only in some slight degree from the Canadian product, at a very low tariff rate or free of duty.
As these foreign producers are able to do this they are taking away a very large market from Canadian producers, and our producers are not given the confidence they should have to go ahead and expand their production and range of products because they fear that some foreign manufacturer can produce something almost the same and compete unfairly with the product they are producing or would like to produce. The very clearly demonstrated opposition to the bill before the house at the present time has the effect of doing everything possible to deny the right to work to Canadian workmen who would otherwise have jobs in plants manufacturing products that should be produced in Canada, and will be produced provided legislation such as that now before us is passed.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think it is about time the opposition took a realistic and objective look at what they are doing. The time is long overdue for them to adopt a responsible attitude toward the welfare of their fellow Canadians. I think they should stop doing what they have been doing for quite some time, namely trying to paint a picture of doom and gloom in order to create what they would consider a satisfactory picture in preparation for the next election, and get down to a realistic view of what is needed here in Canada.
What we as Canadians must all do is everything we can to make it possible for every Canadian to have a job. The opposition should not spend its time trying to hold up measures directed toward this end, because by so doing, they are doing everything they can in favour of producers in other countries and the provision of jobs for foreign workmen rather than for Canadian workmen. In my opinion it is about time the opposition took a realistic
Customs Tariff
and objective view of what they are doing, and they should let this legislation pass. The legislation is designed solely to provide more jobs for Canadians, jobs to which they are entitled, and the opposition should allow the legislation to pass, so we can get on with the business of the country.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in the debate on second reading of this bill, because our position was made very clear in the contributions to the discussion made yesterday by members of the party, a discussion which the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not hear because he was not in the house when it took place and about which he has obviously not informed himself by reading Hansard.
However, we ought to be grateful to the Minister of Trade and Commerce for the patriotic lecture he gave the opposition in his contribution to the debate this afternoon. He put forward his mature and considered view of what our duty should be not only in respect of the bill now before us but in respect of our attitude toward the Canadian economy generally. He gave us his usual sermon, variations 'on an old theme, part of which he read from a memorandum which I take it was from the statement he made in Toronto yesterday on the same subject. He said that we on this side should not, in discussion of bills of this kind or, indeed, in the consideration of any economic question, indulge in criticism of the economy, or expose the weaknesses of government policy in respect of the serious problems facing that economy because if we do so we are indulging in doom and gloom.
The minister told us once again this afternoon that he has travelled throughout Europe, which is perfectly true, and throughout the United States, which is also perfectly true. He flies from one country to another these days. He told us that he has talked to businessmen in Zurich, Paris and London, which is perfectly true; he spends a great deal of time travelling in foreign parts and talking to foreign businessmen. He has repeated the statement this afternoon that wherever he goes he finds a viewpoint on the economic situation in Canada which has been determined in the minds of these foreign observers entirely by speeches by members of the opposition in the House of Commons.


Hazen Robert Argue: They are all reading Hansard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Do these distinguished foreign businessmen never read the minister's speeches? Do they never listen to the Prime Minister of Canada in his broadcasts? Do they never listen to the Minister of Finance, who does his own travelling and his own

Customs Tariff
speaking these days? Oh, no; they have no confidence in these statements by members of the government. They understand the spokesmen for the government, and so they pay no attention to them; they get their views about Canada from the statements of the Liberal opposition. Could any greater compliment be paid to the influence of the Liberal party in the world today than to say that Canada is reflected in the minds of foreign businessmen by what we say in the House of Commons, not by what the minister says?
Unfortunately perhaps from the point of view of the Government, !VEr_ Speaker, the minister may be right; because in this house we have never hesitated to point up problems, to produce solutions for those problems if we can, to expose the weaknesses of government policy, and to emphasize the difficulties which this country faces in the light of those weaknesses. That is our duty. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, in the discharge of that duty we have been shown to be accurate and correct in the statements we have made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And by government statistics.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, and by government
statistics. This is in startling contrast to the kind of statements made by my hon. friends opposite when they deal in an exaggeratedly optimistic way with the situation in Canada.
However, I ought to be grateful to the Minister of Trade and Commerce for once more underlining the fact that our speeches in this house are those that really matter. The minister began his statement by saying that this was not in any way a protective measure. He first of all talked about freer trade, the historic policy of this country and the policy embodied in the tariff legislation which is now supported by both parties. He knows that in order to sell you have to buy. He does not want to do anything to increase the obstacles in the way of trade, and he says this bill does not do anything like that.
Having exhausted himself of this statement on the virtues of freer trade, he then went on to attack us for opposing this measure because we were preventing Canadian workmen from getting jobs and was giving those jobs to foreigners. We were preventing a bill from coming into effect which would, in fact, so he says, protect Canadian jobs.
The minister cannot have it both ways. The fact is, as the minister would have discovered if he had been here yesterday or if he had read Hansard this morning, that it is now quite clear that is not a measure which is concerned with jobs. We are attacking this measure particularly on two grounds; one, that it takes away from parliament, the tariff

making power and two, and even more important, that it takes away from Canadians a right which they have had previously in this field, the right to appeal to the courts from a decision of the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Since these questions were disposed of by a vote of the house, I trust the hon. member does not intend to elaborate upon these two grounds.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will try not to do that, Mr. Speaker. The only point I am trying to make in answer to what the minister said when he tried to throw s. smokescreen around the purpose of this bill is that the issue in regard to this bill is not employment, but is the transfer of arbitrary powers to the government of the day. The issue is the giving to the government of the day of powers which it has not had in the past, and including prevention of the people of Canada from appealing to the courts against the arbitrary exercise of these powers.


Mr. M. W. Marlin (Timmins):: It is not my
intention to speak at any length on this particular issue. However, I believe there are one or two things that should be brought to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and which he seems to have overlooked in his remarks today. One of the points that should be most obvious is the fact that those countries he listed, Britain, Germany, Italy and France, have not an unemployment problem as they move toward freer trade. There is no question of finding jobs for the people there; they have jobs now. It is in Canada that we have an unemployment problem, not in Europe.
Today we heard glowing words about the good turn in the unemployment situation. However, the fact that the decrease of 14,00(1 in general unemployment was matched by a 14,000 decrease in temporary employment was completely ignored. This means that the situation is just as bad as it was last month.
The minister has said that businessmen in other countries are shocked by the speeches of the members of this house. I should like to remind the minister that 206 of the 265 members of this house are Tories, and their speeches shock even us, let alone the people in Europe.
I do not believe I need to reiterate any of the reasons we have for opposing this legislation. This is a situation in which our actions speak louder than words. With this in mind I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Pitman):
That the word "now" he left out and the words "this day six months" be added at the end of the question.


Lionel Chevrier: I am
prompted to rise, Mr. Speaker, because of the remarks the Minister of Trade and Commerce has made, and which were surprising enough in the light of what he said yesterday in Toronto. He repeated here some of the statements he made on the occasion of his address in that city, and they can be found in this morning's issue of the Gazette under the heading "Gloomsters Blamed For View of Canada". The article reads in part as follows:
Canada is losing out because businessmen outside this country are receiving a distorted impression of her economy, trade minister Hees said last night.
He said that "professional doomsters and gloomsters . .. are doing our economy great harm by painting the blackest possible picture on every occasion when they have an opportunity to speak in public."
1 believe the Leader of the Opposition dealt satisfactorily with that part of the minister's remarks. However, I should like to put on the record certain statements which appear in this newspaper immediately below the report of the minister's remarks. The heading is "Worst Depression Since 30's", and the dateline is Washington. I quote:
Five United States rail unions describe Canada's economy as "in the throes of the worst depression since the 1930's".
The description was contained in a newsletter which the unions send out to "the shipping and travelling public".
"In the United States," it says, "the unemployment rate is reaching the 7 per cent mark-a sorry record for the most industrialized nation in the world.
"To the north, Canada is in the throes of the worst depression since the 1930's. Latest reports from Ottawa show 719,000 unemployed-
I believe that is now 705,000.
-or 11.3 per cent of the work force.
It is now 11 per cent of the work force.
According to the Canadian Labour Congress, the unemployment roles could reach a staggering 14 per cent."
The point that arises from that statement is this. It is not the speeches from this side of the house which have prompted the unions of the United States to make the statement they have made. The minister certainly will not impress anybody in the house-not even his own followers, I am sure, and certainly not the people of this country-by saying that if the economy of this country has reached a point wherein our affairs are on the decline or have been on the decline, it is owing to the manner in which this party has dealt with the economic situation. It is owing to the fiscal policies of the present government. Any attempt to state that this situation can be related to speeches that are made from this side of the house is certainly ridiculous.
Customs Tariff
The minister went on to say that the purpose of this measure is to provide jobs, and that those who oppose this measure are encouraging the workers of other countries. I am surprised that the minister would make a statement of that kind. I am sure he does not believe that to be the case.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I assure the hon. member for Laurier that I do very strongly believe that to be the case.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister now states that he does believe that to be the case. If that is so, then may I say that during the time that my hon. friends have been in office a number of Canadian corporations have established manufacturing and other businesses on the continent of Europe. What has the present government done to prevent them from doing so and to encourage them, by assisting secondary industry, to remain where they were and expand, as the government should have done? If the minister believes that the statement he has made is accurate, then he and those associated with him have done very little to assist secondary industry here.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, but that this measure has one end in view, namely the transfer of arbitrary powers to the government. This measure has another end in view. It takes away the right of appeal from a decision of the minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: I realize that the Speaker has called other members to order for going beyond that simple statement. For that reason I shall not pursue the matter any further.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce says it is not a protective measure. May I say that it has all the earmarks of a protective measure. By some of the statements he has been making outside of this house the Minister of Trade and Commerce indicates that he is in favour of freer trade. Not so the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance had the opportunity on one occasion to consider a proposal from the United Kingdom having to do with freer trade. However, to use an expression he likes to use in this house, he turned his back on it and ran away from it just as fast as his legs could carry him. The minister will probably recognize that expression as one of his pet phrases.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not recognize the allusion at all.


Lionel Chevrier: Then again, Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said about O.E.C.D. by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and by the Minister of Finance. But what is being done by the government to meet these great

Divisions
regional blocs which are being established and which have been established now for some time, and whose tariffs are being lowered? If some means are not taken forthwith in order to deal with that situation our trade and our economy will suffer.
I conclude by saying that this is a protective measure. I conclude by saying that this measure has but one end in view, and that is to take away from parliament a right which parliament should have-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: -namely the right of appeal to the courts from a decision of the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Is question?	the house ready for the


Some hon. Members:: Question.	
The house divided on the amendment (Mr.	
Martin, Timmins)	which was negatived on
the following division:
 YEAS Messrs:	
Argue	Habel
Badanai	Hellyer
Batten	Leduc
Benidickson	Lessard
Bourget	Macnaughton
Bourque	Mcllraith
Cardin	McMillan
Caron	Martin (Timmins)
Carter	Meunier
Chevrier	Mitchell
Crestohl	Pearson
Denis	Peters
Deschatelets	Pitman
Eudes	Regier
Fisher	Richard (Ottawa East)
Forgie	Richard (St. Maurice-
Godin Granger	Lafleche) -34.
 NAYS Messrs:
Aiken	Campeau
Allmark	Cathers
Anderson	Chambers
Balcer	Charlton
Baldwin	Chown
Barrington	Churchill
Baskin	Clancy
Beech	Coates
Bell (Carleton)	Comtois
Bell (Saint John-Albert) Cooper	
Belzile	Crouse
Best	Danforth
Bigg	Dinsdale
Bissonnette	Doucett
Bourbonnais	Drouin
Bourdages	Drysdale
Broome	Dubois
Browne (St. John's West) English	
Browne (Vancouver-	Fairclough. Mrs.
Kingsway)	Fairfield
Brunsden	Fane
Cadieu	Fleming (Eglinton)
Campbell	Fleming (Okanagan-
(Lambton-Kent)	Revelstoke)
Campbell (Stormont)	Flemming (Royal)

Forbes	Morissette
Fortin	Morris
Fulton	Morton
Gillet	Muir (Cape Breton
Grafftey	North and Victoria)
Hales	Murphy
Halpenny	Nielsen
Hamilton (Notre Dame	Noble
de Grace)	Nowlan
Hamilton (Qu'Appelle)	O'Hurley
Hamilton (York West)	O'Leary
Harkness	Ormiston
Hees	Pascoe
Henderson	Payne
Hicks	Phillips
Hodgson	Pigeon
Horner (Acadia)	Rapp
Howe	Regnier
Jones	Ricard
Jorgenson	Richard (Kamouraska)
Keays	Robinson
Kennedy	Rogers
Knowles	Simpson
Korchinski	Skoreyko
Kucherepa	Slogan
Lambert	Small
Legere	Smith (Lincoln)
Lennard	Smith (Simcoe North)
Letourneau	Smith (Winnipeg North)
Macdonnell	Southam
MacEwan	Starr
MacLean (Queens)	Stearns
MacLean (Winnipeg	Stefanson
North Centre)	Stewart
MacLellan	Stinson
MacRae	Tasse
MeCleave	Taylor
McFarlane	Thomas
McGee	Thompson
McGrath	Thrasher
McIntosh	Tremblay
McLennan	Villeneuve
McPhillips	Vivian
Mandziuk	Webb
Martineau	Webster
Martini	Weichel
Matthews	White
Montgomery	Winkler-141.
More


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.	
The house divided on the motion (Mr.	
Fleming, Eglinton)	which was agreed to on
the following division:	
	YEAS
	Messrs:
Aiken	Brunsden
Allmark	Cadieu
Anderson	Campbell
Balcer	(Lambton-Kent)
Baldwin	Campbell (Stormont)
Barrington	Campeau
Baskin	Cathers
Beech	Chambers
Bell (Carleton)	Charlton
Bell (Saint John-Albert) Chown	
Belzile	Churchill
Best	Clancy
Bigg	Coates
Bissonnette	Comtois
Bourbonnais	Cooper
Bourdages	Crouse
Broome	Danforth
Browne (St. John's West) Dinsdale	
Browne (Vancouver-	Doucett
Kingsway)	Drouin

Drysdale	Martineau
Dubois	Martini
English	Matthews
Fairclough, Mrs.	Montgomery
Fairfield	More
Fane	Morissette
Fleming (Eglinton)	Morris
Fleming (Okanagan-	Morton
Revelstoke)	Muir (Cape Breton
Flemming (Royal)	North and Victoria)
Forbes	Murphy
Fortin	Nielsen
Fulton	Noble
Gillet	Nowlan
Grafftey	O'Hurley
Hales	O'Leary
Halpenny	Ormiston
Hamilton (Notre Dame	Pascoe
de Grace)	Payne
Hamilton (Qu'Appelle)	Phillips
Hamilton (York West)	Pigeon
Harkness	Rapp
Hees	Regnier
Henderson	Ricard
Hicks	Richard (Kamouraska)
Hodgson	Robinson
Horner (Acadia)	Rogers
Howe	Simpson
Jones	Skoreyko
Jorgenson	Slogan
Keays	Small
Kennedy	Smith (Lincoln)
Knowles	Smith (Simcoe North)
Korchinski	Smith (Winnipeg North)
Kucherepa	Southam
Lambert	Starr
Legere	Stearns
Lennard	Stefanson
Letourneau	Stewart
Macdonnell	Stinson
MacEwan	Tass6
MacLean (Queens)	Taylor
MacLean (Winnipeg	Thomas
North Centre)	Thompson
MacLellan	Thrasher
MacRae	Tremblay
McCleave	Villeneuve
McFarlane	Vivian
McGee	Webb
McGrath	Webster
McIntosh	Weichel
McLennan	White
McPhillips	Winkler-141.
Mandziuk	
	NAYS
Messrs:	
Argue	Habel
Badanai	Hellyer
Batten	Ledhc
Benidickson	Lessard
Bourget	Macnaughton
Bourque	Mcllraith
Cardin	McMillan
Caron	Martin (Timmins)
Carter	Meunier
Chevrier	Mitchell
Crestohl	Pearson
Denis	Peters
Deschatelets	Pitman
Eudes	Regier
Fisher	Richard (Ottawa East)
Forgie	Richard (St. Maurice-
Godin	Lafleche)-34.
Granger	
Bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
Customs Tariff
On clause 1-Goods deemed of class or kind made in Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: Could I inquire of the minister whether the provisions of the Canadian bill of rights and the regulations incidental thereto have been given effect in so far as clause 1 of this bill is concerned?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is nothing in this bill that runs counter in any respect to the bill of rights.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to draw to the attention of the committee the regulations concerning the Canadian bill of rights, which are to be found in P.C. 1960-1972, which reads:
Regulations respecting the examination of bills and proposed regulations pursuant to section 3 of the Canadian bill of rights.
1.	These regulations may be cited as the Canadian bill of rights examination regulations.
2.	In these regulations, "minister" means the Minister of Justice.
I should like to draw clause 3 of the regulations to the attention of the minister. It reads:
3.	In the case of every bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons the minister shall, forthwith upon receipt of two copies of the bill from the Clerk of the House of Commons,
(a)	examine the bill in order to determine whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian bill of rights; and
(b)	cause to be affixed to each of the copies thereof so received from the Clerk of the House of Commons a certificate, in a form approved by the minister and signed by the deputy minister of justice, stating that the bill has been examined as required by the Canadian bill of rights.
Now, I repeat my question in respect of
(a)	. Has an examination been made of the bill in order to determine whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and the provisions of the bill of rights?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the terms of the bill of rights have been fully complied with and the procedures prescribed by the order in council passed in pursuance of the bill of rights have been fully complied with.


Lionel Chevrier: That is not the answer which the minister gave me in the first instance. The minister indicated another answer which was somewhat inconsistent with that which he has now given.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not at all.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, now, the next question which I am prompted to ask is covered by the
(b)	part of clause 3, which reads:
The minister shall cause to be affixed to each of the copies thereof so received from the Clerk of the House of Commons a certificate, in a form approved by the minister and signed by the deputy

Customs Tariff
minister of justice, stating that the bill has been examined as required by the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Has that certificate been affixed to the bill?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am informed that that has been done and I repeat that the procedures prescribed by the bill and the order in council have been followed.


Lionel Chevrier: I thought I understood the Minister of Justice to say that as far as he knew this had been done. Perhaps I misunderstood him.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I made no answer; I was advising my colleague.


Lionel Chevrier: I may have been mistaken. Then I address the question to the Minister of Justice and ask him whether a certificate such as that prescribed in clause 3(b) of the regulations concerning the bill of rights has been appended to the bill now under consideration? If so, can we see this certificate so that the committee will be in possession of it, as I think it is entitled to be?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the procedure read by the hon. member was worked out in my department with the greatest care and discussed with the Speaker of the house. I have every confidence that the procedure was carried out. If my hon. friend wishes to see the certificate, may I say the certificate itself, as I understand it, is in the possession of the Clerk of the house. I have no control over the certificate from that point on.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister who is piloting this legislation through the house to let the committee see this certificate. The Minister of Justice says he has every reason to believe that the terms of these regulations were carried out and I am not contesting his statement, but I think the committee is entitled to see it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The point I made, Mr. Chairman, is that the certificate is attached to the bill which is returned to the Clerk of the house and that certificate would therefore be in the possession of the Clerk. It is not any longer in the control or disposition of the government as such.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister whose department is responsible for this surely should be in a position to tell us whether the certificate is attached to the bill and that ought to be the end of it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course, Mr. Chairman, I can go and get from the department what I think should be obvious, namely a statement that they did in fact comply with the regulations concerning the matter. I said I had every confidence that that was done, but

I have not checked on this particular bill.
I will check personally, if my hon. friend wishes me to do it, and come back and say to the committee that we have complied with the act and the regulations. I shall be glad to do so, but I still point out that the actual certificate itself, being attached to the bill which has been returned to the Clerk of the house, is no longer in our possession but is in the custody of the Clerk.


Lionel Chevrier: I think the committee would appreciate it if the minister would inquire, as ministers have done from time to time, in the passage of their estimates. I think the committee would appreciate it if the minister would inquire and find out whether the certificate is attached to the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will not be able to say whether the certificate is now attached because physically it is not in our possession. But I will find out whether in fact the certificate was attached, or whether certificates were attached to the two copies which were returned to the Clerk certifying that the bill had been examined as, of course, I am confident that it was. I will get that information and bring it in.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, there is a particular aspect of clause 1 that in my opinion is rather impractical and unrealistic. I have reference to paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of the new section 2A, which reads as follows:
(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.
I also have reference to paragraph (b) of subsection 3, which reads as follows:
(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.
I do not believe that a Canadian manufacturer or anyone else wishing to obtain certain goods custom made to specifications should have to satisfy the government that every effort has been made to inquire throughout Canada whether or not some Canadian manufacturer may have the facilities to produce or desire to produce this particular article within a reasonable period of time and at a price level that could be considered economic. Especially in this day and age of automation when industrialists are continually looking into ways and means of installing new machinery, much of it of a highly technical nature, I think it is far too great an imposition to have to satisfy the minister that every effort has been made to find someone in Canada interested enough to offer to manufacture the particular article.

I have no particular quarrel with the legislation as it deals with articles of a class or kind that are being made in Canada but I think we are going much too far and will handicap continuing technological development in Canadian industry if it is insisted that the government has a right to ask that evidence be produced indicating that no one in Canada is prepared or able to manufacture the particular article at an economic level and within a reasonable period of time. Therefore I should like to move an amendment at this time. While it is somewhat technical in that it changes the punctuation, its effect is to remove from clause 1, new section 2A, the whole of paragraph (b) of subsection 1 and the whole of paragraph (b) of subsection 3. Therefore I move:
That this Bill C-72, entitled "An act to amend the Customs Tariff", be amended by changing the semi-colon in clause (a) of subsection 1, section 1, to a period, and eliminating the immediately following word "and", and by removing the entire immediately following clause (b) and also in changing the comma in clause (a) of subsection 3 of said section 1 to a period, and eliminating the word "and" in this clause, and by eliminating entirely the whole of clause (b) of said subsection 3.
For purposes of clarification, may I repeat that if hon. members will look at the first page of Bill No. C-72 they will see that the amendment calls for the removal of the two paragraphs (b) on that page.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before you put the amendment, Mr. Chairman, may I give the information requested by the hon. member for Laurier. I have made inquiries and am informed that the bill was in fact examined as called for by the regulations under the bill of rights. The clerks at the table have been good enough to send me a copy of Bill No. C-72 with the certification called for under the regulations signed by the deputy minister of justice, and I shall ask that it be sent across to the hon. member for Laurier. May I remind him that it is in the custody of the house through the Clerk and should be returned to the table. I should perhaps emphasize that if in the course of the examination in my department it were ascertained there was some provision of the bill not consistent with the provisions and principles of the bill of rights it would then have been my duty so to report. We have worked out this procedure with Mr. Speaker under which certification is given, and it should therefore always be assumed that in the absence of a report from the Minister of Justice there is in my opinion and the opinion of my department no inconsistency between the measure in question and the bill of rights.
Customs Tariff


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the minister for this information.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps I might say a word concerning the amendment moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


The Chairman:: If there is no comment about the regularity of the amendment I should like to put it first.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I think the mover of the amendment, inasmuch as we have just received it, is obligated to explain in more detail what its effect is. I am sure he is prepared to do so for the benefit of the committee.


Erhart Regier: I made an effort to do so before but perhaps I can enlarge a little. It is my contention that the minister should not preside as a judge on a number of indefinite matters that are referred to in the bill. Let us assume that I operate an enterprise and I want to buy an additional piece of machinery. Under the terms of the bill, if that class or kind of machinery, or approximately the same class or kind, is not being manufactured in Canada I have the right to import it at a reduced rate of tariff. However, if it is a made-to-specification piece of machinery then under the terms of the bill I have to satisfy the minister first that it cannot be manufactured in Canada. I believe this is an imposition on Canadian industry.
I do not think the minister would want to be in the position of having to explore all over Canada the possibilities of whether or not somebody might be prepared to undertake the manufacture of this custom made article. I believe this is a handicap to expansion and efficiency in Canadian industrial production. In my opinion great delay might be involved which could mean considerable expense to Canadian enterprises. Who is to decide what is a reasonable period of time? I also believe the present provision could lead to misuse. Someone operating a little machine shop employing three or four men and who possibly was politically influential could claim that he was able to manufacture the article in question and he would keep running to the minister to use his influence to ensure that the order was given to him.
I feel that a new principle is being introduced into the Customs Tariff and that we would be much wiser if we left it out entirely. As I said before, I can see merit in an increase in tariffs on imported goods if such goods are actually being manufactured in Canada. However, to increase the tariff or to potentially increase the tariff because there may be someone who may decide that he wants to manufacture a certain article, within a

Customs Tariff
reasonable period of time, is going too far and will hurt Canadian industry much more than it will help it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The purport of this amendment should be clearly understood. The scheme of the bill, the bulk of which is contained in clause 1 now under debate, is to divide goods into two classes. The first class is shelf goods and the second is goods custom made according to specifications. The criteria laid down in the bill to assist in the determination of whether particular goods are of a class or kind made in Canada are different in the two cases because there is such a difference in the nature of the goods themselves.
This amendment would have the effect of eliminating from the provisions of the bill what is now provided in relation to that one class, namely goods custom made according to specifications. The amendment would confine the criteria in the bill entirely to shelf goods. I think that point should be clearly understood.
Now, the hon. member shows great solicitude for Canadian industry. He does not want them to be bothered gathering information or bringing forward knowledge in relation to whether or not the goods in question can be produced economically within a reasonable period of time. All I have to say is that Canadian industry is not making that kind of complaint or criticism. The expressions of Canadian industry have been to the effect that, at long last, some of the benefits they enjoyed in this regard up until what I have called the decade of erosion are going to be restored to them.
What is the great burden that is alleged by the hon. member to be laid upon Canadian industry? I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that Canadian industry will not be retarded technologically in this regard as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam so erroneously concludes. The fact, which is apparent to all other hon. members of the committee, is that if this measure is adopted it will greatly assist the technological development of Canadian industry. It will give Canadians employment. It will certainly aid in developing productive Canadian enterprise.


Erhart Regier: The minister says this measure will aid Canadian employment. I hinted before that it is my conviction this is going to hinder Canadian employment and add to Canadian unemployment. The minister is attempting, by this paragraph (b), to impose a duty on goods that are not now being made in Canada. I believe this adds needlessly to the cost of production and eventually adds needlessly to consumer costs in Canada. Not only is the minister continuing to attempt

to raise a tariff wall against commodities imported into Canada that are being made in Canada now, but he is attempting to erect tariff barriers against articles that are not now being manufactured in Canada.
The effect of this measure will not be to cause Canadian factories to be built. If anything, this provision is going to hinder existing Canadian factories from improving there means of production. A lot of this machinery is very expensive machinery. There is a lot of money involved here. Some of the machinery is of a highly technical nature. I do not see Canadian industry becoming particularly involved in the manufacture of these goods. Even if they were, I think it is most unwise for the Canadian House of Commons to begin imposing tariff walls against goods, ostensibly for the protection of goods Canada hopes may some day be manufactured here.
Let us wait until the goods are being manufactured in Canada before we decide whether or not they need protection against imports. Let us not erect tariff barriers before the goods are actually being made.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The key words in the remarks just made by the hon. member are, "Let us wait". These words make a good summary of his approach to this matter. It does not matter that, in the meantime, Canadian producers have been deprived of what they possessed before under this legislation up until a decade ago. It does not matter that the jobs of Canadian workmen are involved. The hon. member says, "Let us wait". He says, let us wait, notwithstanding the fact that this legislation requires, before goods of this nature can be ruled to be of a class or kind made in Canada, that adequate facilities must exist in Canada for the economic production of such goods within a reasonable period of time. The hon. member says, do not pay any attention to the fact that the facilities are all here. It does not matter that Canadians can manufacture these goods on an economic basis within a reasonable period of time. So long as these specific goods, these identical goods, have not been manufactured yet in Canada, then there may not be any provision here for the assistance of the Canadian producer or Canadian workman.
This is just the sort of thing that has eroded the benefits of this legislation in the past. We are brought right back, by this stand, to the case of the power shovel. There had been a 2-yard shovel made in Canada and all the facilities existed in Canada for the manufacture of power shovels with a 24-yard capacity. However, because no shovels with a 2J-yard capacity had actually been manufactured up to that point, it was ruled then that a 2 4-yard shovel was of

a class or kind not made in Canada. This provision is intended to end the nonsense of that kind of interpretation. As long as the facilities exist in Canada for the production of such goods on an economic basis, not on some far fetched or fantastic basis but on an economic basis, and not at some far distant time in the future but within a reasonable period of time under all the circumstances having regard to the custom and usage of the trade in such cases, we say the goods should be ruled to be of a class or kind made in Canada. It is quite obvious that if they were of the kind being made now they would probably be shelf goods anyway. The provision which the hon. member wishes to strike out applies only in the case of goods that are made according to specifications.


George James McIlraith: There seems to be a good portion of the minister's remarks that is not relevant to the amendment and therefore tends to confuse the issue rather than clarify it. Frankly, I find it difficult enough to understand without any confusion being added. I do not believe the minister should be permitted to get away with what I consider to be a misrepresentation of the power shovel case.
The minister says, as a matter of fact, that facilities existed in Canada for the production of a 24-yard shovel, if I understood him correctly. The facts are that five years elapsed between the time that judgment was given and the time that the first 24-yard shovel was produced in Canada. The cost of providing the facilities to produce the 24-yard shovel-I have not the figure conveniently at hand-was a million dollars. These are the facts. I should not like anyone reading Hansard or the members of the committee to believe that facilities existed in Canada in that case because that is not in accordance with the findings of the tariff appeal board which dealt with this matter.
Perhaps we are now getting at the nub of why there is to be no appeal in these cases. The minister makes a finding of fact here by way of assertion that is very different from the finding of fact given by those who had the case before them and all the information surrounding it.


George Clyde Nowlan: There is a special section dealing with appeals, as the chairman will know. I do not think I will speak on the matter of appeals at the moment, but I certainly will have something to say about it later on when we reach that subclause.


William Moore Benidickson: In introducing this bill on second reading yesterday the Minister of Finance, while he repeated some remarks he
Customs Tariff
had made on December 20 and in the subsequent debate that took place in the committee of ways and means on February 2, 3, 4, 15 and 27 and March 2, introduced a fair amount that was new. He did not in detail introduce the items that are referred to in Hansard of April 17th. I suggest that in large part, by throwing dust into their eyes, he was attempting to convince his mass of supporters in this house that they should support this kind of legislation.
One of the bases of our controversy here with regard to this legislation is whether or not this bill is restoring historic interpretation or whether or not we are going back to the interpretation that was acceptable to the Bennett administration of 1930. In this context I want to go back to an origin that is not the origin to which the Minister of Finance referred yesterday, namely 1873. I want to go back to the origin of a Conservative administration under Sir John A. Macdonald when the minister of finance was Mr. Foster. On that occasion he made clear the reason for the kind of tariff distinction about which we are concerned here. At what time Mr. Foster indicated that for the advancement of the manufacturing industry of this country it was important that they obtain at the lowest possible price the essential elements related to their business and these of course included machinery. I refer to the budget speech of 1890 when Hon. George E. Foster-and he was not a Liberal-said this as found in Hansard of that period. His remarks are to be found in the budget presentation at page 2550 of Hansard of March 27, 1890:
It is stated that the best and most improved machinery must be used by experimenters who put their money into enterprises the outcome of which they cannot certainly see. It is felt by them that the very best possible machinery should be got. It is felt by some that for a period at least there should be no restriction whatever on the buying of it, and by others, that there should be no other restriction than that imposed by the consideration whether or not the machinery is made in this country. Looking over the whole question, the government-
That is the government of that day, as long ago as 1890.
-have come to the conclusion that it will not be wise or prudent to resist this demand at the present time, in the interests of the development of that large part of the country's resources, and it is proposed-
That is in the budget of 1890.
-to allow mining machinery of a class and kind which is not made in Canada at the time of the importation-
That is essential. That is the difference between the legislation we have here now and the concept of "made in Canada" that has been traditional, not made in Canada at this time.

Customs Tariff
-to be imported into this country free for the period of three years and no longer.
That was the inception of this important element in the tariff structure that had a great deal to do with the impetus given to secondary industry to get going in Canada. On the amendment before us, Mr. Chairman, I am particularly concerned about statements that have been made by the Minister of Finance when he says that no rate change of tariff is involved in the legislation before us.


Mr, Fleming (Eglinton):: What I said, if the hon. member will be good enough to quote me accurately was that there is no change in any tariff rate created by this bill.


William Moore Benidickson: The Minister of Finance says to me at this moment that this legislation involves no change in rate with respect to tariff items.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I said it involves no change in the rate of any tariff item.


William Moore Benidickson: That is correct. I assert as I said yesterday, notwithstanding this technical sophistry of the Minister of Finance, that in its effect there will be increased costs to manufacturers in this country, to importers who want to compete on the basis of machinery they want to import, that are of import to the extent of thousands of dollars of excess taxes involved in the legislation that is here. The decision is going to be made by the minister and it is going to be made without appeal. I say that this is going to prejudice these manufacturing importers to a very great extent from here on.
In addition to that, we know that the Minister of Finance who has just interrupted has said that there is no change in the actual figures put in the Customs Tariff. There is not anybody who does business internationally through tariffs who does not know that there are two kinds of imposts with respect to tariffs. There is the rate that parliament has been given to decide upon in amendments to the Customs Tariff. But here is the big thing that divides a Liberal and a Conservative, namely the difference between administrative protection as administered in the department by the minister. If one will look at the recent tariff appeals, one will find that fairly regularly officials of the Department of National Revenue have been more protective in their outlook and in their decisions than has been the tariff board or the exchequer court or the supreme court in times when the tariff board, or the exchequer court or the supreme court had a chance to consider some of these matters that parliament had decided upon.
In other words, we have ministerial decision here. I suggest to the committee that

this is a serious matter, because it involves something more than the rates about which the minister talks. We are here dealing with an opportunity for ministerial discretion. This will enlarge that which is feared most by our exporters, our traders through GATT, our consumers and other people, namely, the invisible tariff.
The invisible tariff is the tariff created by bureaucrats, the tariff that is created by obstacles and road blocks, the kind of thing to which we object when we try to export to our principal customer, the United States. I say that this is clandestine protection. This is a matter that is sometimes more important than the technical definitions in the clauses of the Customs Tariff.
I said yesterday that Khrushchev might laugh when he sees these provisions. I did not add that I do not think the Minister of National Revenue wants to be a dictator. I have sat with him for a long time in this house. I do not think that is his desire.


George Clyde Nowlan: I resented the fact that you called me single, when I have 14 grandchildren.


William Moore Benidickson: I really believe that the Minister of National Revenue wants to be a democrat. I have heard the minister speak in opposition. I thought he wanted the preservation of parliamentary rights. That is why I objected to the fact that the Minister of Finance boasted that, after long debate, not a word was changed in the bill that is now before us, from the wording contained in the resolutions proposed in the budget.
I do not think the Minister of National Revenue really wants these powers. I do not think he is that kind of man. When the government is going to change very shortly, I do not think he really wants to give those powers to his successors.


Mr. Bell (Carlefon):: You are living in a dream world now.


William Moore Benidickson: I say to the minister that I think the administration has been careless in the drafting of this power. Because they have behind them 204 supporters they have too much pride to back down and do something that is reasonable, just, and which should be done.
I am quite confident that on reflection of the debate at the resolution stage and at the stage of second reading the ministry is ashamed, having regard to what the leader of this ministry has said in times gone by as to the rights of a democratic parliament, that they have inserted this ministerial, autocratic right in this bill.

As I say I may have gone a little far yesterday in equating the Minister of National Revenue with Khrushchev, but I repeat-


George Clyde Nowlan: I appreciate the compliment.


William Moore Benidickson: -that Khrushchev will perhaps have occasion to smile when he finds that in a democracy the Minister of National Revenue has these autocratic powers.


Jacques Flynn: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Jacques Flynn: All those in favour of the amendment will please rise.


William Moore Benidickson: No, Mr. Chairman. I have not a right, of course, to speak. The hon. member for Ottawa West will perhaps-


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are taking a vote.


William Moore Benidickson: No.


George James McIlraith: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wish to address myself to the amendment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we are taking a vote.


Jacques Flynn: A vote was called. If there is unanimous consent-


William Moore Benidickson: There is not unanimous consent, and in connection with this particular debate-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Moore Benidickson: I am speaking to the point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Jacques Flynn: Order. The position is that the vote was called and I said that if there were unanimous consent to revert to the debate on the amendment, I had no objection. However, as the hon. member said, there is not unanimous consent.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, am I to understand your ruling to be that-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George James McIlraith: -the vote was under way and I am not permitted to speak, because on a point of order I would respectfully suggest that the question had not been put in the sense in which the rules contemplate and had not gone far enough. You had undoubtedly started to call the vote-


Jacques Flynn: Order. This is purely a question of fact. If I remember correctly, I said, "Shall the amendment carry?" Some hon. members said, "No". I then said, "All those in favour of the amendment will
Customs Tariff
please rise", and some hon. members did rise. It was only after some hon. members had risen that the hon. member for Ottawa West rose.
Therefore I think it is a question of fact as to whether or not the vote had already been called. I will call it again. All those in favour-


William Moore Benidickson: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I refer you to an issue which arose yesterday with respect to this bill. A decision had been given by the Chair on second reading. That decision was given by the Speaker of this house. The Minister of Finance rose after the decision had been given-and he was afforded complete courtesy on this side of the house-to move an amending criticism of the Speaker's ruling which, as far as I know in 15 years' experience in the house, has never before been done.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nonsense. We are taking a vote.


William Moore Benidickson: I am sure that as this is five o'clock and we are approaching private members' hour-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


William Moore Benidickson: -the Chairman would not want to advance the-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I see no relation between the incident to which the hon. member alluded and the position today.
There is a situation of fact involved. I have given my decision. I have allowed the hon. member to comment further, but I do not think he has advanced any reason why I should change my decision. Therefore I ask those in favour of the amendment to please rise.


William Moore Benidickson: Five o'clock.
Amendment (Mr. Regier) negatived: Yeas, 8; nays, 51.
[During the taking of the vote:]


William Moore Benidickson: Five o'clock. Pipe line. Closure.
[After the taking of the vote:]


Jacques Flynn: Order. I declare the amendment lost. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the chair in order to permit the house to proceed to consideration of private and public bills.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to consider

Private Bills
private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 28, consideration in committee of Bill No. S-2, to incorporate Aurora Pipe Line Company-Mr. Woolliams-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Mr. Broome:: Mr. Chairman, I am rather surprised by this bill being brought on for debate today. My recollection is that the hon. member for Bow River, who sponsored the bill, stated the last time this bill was debated that he was willing to answer any questions put by hon. members. I then posed three or four questions which he accepted and indicated he would forward to his principal and, in due course, present the answers to this committee. That hon. member is not here today and, therefore, cannot be blamed for not giving those answers for which I have asked. I feel the questions I asked are deserving of answers.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: The questions were answered when you were not here.


Ernest James Broome: We are now in committee and I will yield the floor to the hon. member if he can supply the answers. So far we have not received answers which would satisfy me at all except that which I feel is a reiteration of a lot of nonsense. When we expressed some concern in regard to the share structure of this company we were told to be quiet because we were not from Alberta. If the hon. member has something to contribute to this debate I will allow him to go ahead.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member for Vancouver-


Ernest James Broome: South.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -South, presented some questions, to which the hon. member for Bow River said he would endeavour to obtain answers. On at least two occasions the hon. member for Winnipeg South placed on the record the answers to the questions which the hon. member for Vancouver South raised, but he was not here. That was all I wanted to point out. The hon. member may refer to my remarks in any way he likes and I could perhaps do the same but will allow him to continue now.


Ernest James Broome: I thank the hon. gentleman. He is very kind. I have read every word of the debate on this bill but have not seen the answers to the questions which I asked. If the hon. gentleman will check the questions
[Mr. Speaker.)
I asked, as they appear in Hansard, he will perhaps then see that what he has now said is incorrect.
I cannot repeat in the same words the questions I asked but I suggest they have to do with the ownership of the parent company, Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited, and specifically in regard to the percentage of stock held by the public which the committee was led to believe had been offered by the company to the Canadian public. That is just not correct. The rights to purchase shares were given to individual shareholders of the Continental Oil Company and the Hudson's Bay Company. I asked how many shareholders in Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited were resident in Canada-not Canadian nationals-and how many shares these residents owned. I feel that is a rather easy question to answer because the records of the companies would show this. As far as I am aware this answer has not been given. That was one item in which I was interested. The other item I queried had to do with the supervisory personnel of the company.
I do not want to be accused of believing in a narrow nationalism or of being a person who is trying to throttle the development of this country but I would suggest that I have knowledge regarding this industry which is not matched by that of any other single member with the exception perhaps of the hon. member for Calgary South. I refer, of course, to the operation of that industry.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What do you want us to do, pat you on the back?


Ernest James Broome: Have you a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You asked me to give you the answer.


Ernest James Broome: If the hon. member has a question and will stand up in his place and ask it, instead of talking from his seat, I will be prepared to listen to him.


William Moore Benidickson: I am a friend of yours and will not challenge that boast.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Ernest James Broome: When I asked the questions in a previous debate I said I would not participate again in the debate at the committee stage. However, these questions have not been answered and I am not prepared to have the committee give approval to this bill until the answers are given. Quite frankly, as I have said before, because of the conditions set out by the sponsor and co-sponsor of the bill, I propose to vote against it. If a vote is called for and recorded on third reading I will vote against it then. I have said this before and now repeat it because the

sponsoring company has not taken into account the change in climate in this country regarding the development and use of our natural resources.
I welcome capital from the United States, Britain, Switzerland and every other country in the world but that capital must be used in partnership with Canadian capital. No matter what development takes place, if there are technically trained Canadians capable of holding the jobs, we do not have to bring in anyone to do the jobs in this country, with the exception, of course, of those individuals who have skills not possessed by men available here. What I am saying may sound like nonsense but I have been informed by Mr. Kerr, president of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, with whom I spent an afternoon, that because of the present policy of developing Canadian understudies to executive personnel the company would be within the space of a year, 100 per cent managed by Canadians. He also informed me that the purchasing policy of that company had changed in that the company was giving preference to Canadian suppliers.


William Moore Benidickson: Are you referring to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited?


Mr, Broome:: Yes, and I was showing, by its present operation-not its previous operation under Mr. Tanner and Mr. Coates-what can be done. I happen to know that the Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company built a pipe line through the most difficult terrain in the world and that company from inception was 100 per cent Canadian.
I have been referring to a number of matters of national import, which override the sectional problems which exist in Alberta, and in respect of which I feel answers should be forthcoming. Natural resources, although under the control of the provinces, belong to the people of Canada as a whole and I feel that the development of these resources must take place having some regard to the Canadian people as a whole.
According to a news item in the Financial Post, Interprovincial Pipe Line is quite prepared to run a line down to Chicago to serve that area with condensates. There are alternative means of allowing this modest amount of 11,000 barrels of condensates per day to reach markets, but some in this house take the attitude "grab it all and fast, we might not have a chance tomorrow." Well, our resources are too valuable and-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Like the coal.


Ernest James Broome: -too important to be bartered away in that fashion.
If the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company had wanted to really show that they were 90205-6-238
Private Bills
trying to operate in a manner which was for the over-all good of this country, and for the over-all good of the company as well, they would have seen to it that part of the ownership of that company was vested in Canada through the stock market, through the offering of shares across Canada.
Do not tell me that Canadians are not willing to risk their money in ventures such as this. This is the old bogey that has been thrown around altogether too long. When the shares of Alberta Natural Gas came on the market brokers right across Canada said they would have to ration the shares. Likewise Alberta Gas Trunk Lines which is a model of financing and a model operation. Certainly they would not handle matters in the way that is proposed for this puppet company or for the parent company. This is the way these developments should be handled; this is the way the financing should be handled. It could be done and it has been done.
There is actually a dearth of opportunity for Canadian capital to invest in the development of Canadian resources. There are not enough places, not enough avenues for Canadian risk capital, and I am no capitalist. All my life I have worked for a salary. I will not be able to take advantage of any of these opportunities except perhaps in a most modest way, if at all. But as long as these developments are offered to the people of Canada, then we have a Canadian outlook in the operation of that company, and this is an outlook we cannot get in any other way. We cannot get it through lip service, by having half of the directors Canadian and the other half representing United States ownership, with a Canadian as chairman, because the control of the company is not in this country and perforce the directors will be simply rubber stamps for the directors of the parent company. In this instance the parent company happens to be Continental Oil Company because they have 67 per cent to 68 per cent of the shares of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas, which in turn owns in its entirety Aurora Pipe Line.
I am not going to labour the points which have been pressed in this committee before with regard to capitalization stretching into millions to build half a mile of pipe line. The testimony in regard to this particular phase of the operation has been gone over in this committee time and time again. But it would be well for hon. members to read the testimony given to the standing committee and try to find out exactly what is being attempted. If they do I think there will be more of them come around to my way of thinking. The chief government whip has said that this is a private member's bill and hon.

Private Bills
members are free to vote for or against it as they so choose to do. This is true.
It may be that if this bill goes through the committee stage today-I doubt whether it will-there will still be a chance for the hon. member for Bow River to answer the questions I have placed before him. No statement has been made by the company, or I have seen no statement by any representative or any spokesman of the company, that they have any idea at all except that the operations of this company in this country can go on in the same manner and with some of the same philosophy that might have characterized a fruit company in one of the banana republics of Central America, or of more enlightened companies in Saudi Arabia, although in Saudi Arabia they are paying 75 per cent royalties and not 12J per cent.
The fundamental philosophy behind the opposition to this bill is simply that this company, which is gaining wealth through the exploitation of our natural resources, and which is rightly entitled to the profits it can make out of the enterprise, has a duty and a responsibility to the people of this country, a duty and a responsibility of which, as far as I can determine, it is not yet aware.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. Chown:: I have to take the responsibility for not answering the more significant questions of my hon. friend from Vancouver South as to the division of shareholders, the percentage of holdings in different countries. One reason is that he was not here at the time of the last debate on this bill in committee. On that occasion I answered his second question which has to do with Canadian participation. He will find that answer at page 3428 of Hansard of March 28, 1961, in the letter from management on the subject which I read into the record. I will not waste the time of the committee reading it again, because we have limited time in which to pass this bill through committee stage.
The answ'er to the first question as to the share participation and the division between individuals of different countries is set out in a letter from Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company to the legislative counsel, dated March 15, 1961. It reads in part as follows:
As of December 31, 1960, the company had 11,954 shareholders (excluding Continental Oil Company and Hudson's Bay Company) who in total owned 1,709,969 shares or 9.64 per cent of the total outstanding shares.
A classiacation by nationality of these public shareholders and their holdings is as follows:
Canada	
United States ... United Kingdom Others	
Continental Oil Company Hudson's Bay Company
No. of	Per cent
share-	of total
holders	shareholders
1,410	11.80
7,324	61.26
3,055	25.56
165	1.38
11,954	100
	Per cent	Per cent
No. of	of public	of totalshares	shareholdings	shares525,299	30.72	2.96831,096	48.60	4.69348,187	20.36	1.965,387	.32	.031,709,969	100	9.6412,025,967	67.774,008,592	22.5917,774,592	100
The letter goes on to say:
On completion of the initial distribution of the shares in 1957, the number of Canadian shareholders was 1,022 with total shareholdings of 306,287 shares and there has been a steady increase since that time to the totals shown above. During this same period the number of United States shareholders has declined by 747 and the total United States shareholdings by 278,337 shares.
There is increasingly active trading on the Toronto stock exchange in the company's shares. The total number traded in 1960 was 413,326 and in 1959, 327,792.


Ernest James Broome: Would the hon. member repeat the figures with regard to Canadian participation and particularly the percentage that Canadian participation represents compared with total public holdings of 9.64 per cent? I think the hon. member said 2.96 per cent but I am not sure.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The number of Canadian
shareholders is 1,410, the percentage of total shareholders is 11.80, the number of shares is 525,299, the percentage of public shareholdings is 30.72 and the percentage of total shares is 2.96. Therefore when you look at the column of figures you will see that actually the majority of shares publicly held are held in Canada and the United Kingdom.


Ernest James Broome: I should like to make a few comments, Mr. Chairman. When the shares were first issued Canadian shareholders owned 306,000 whereas their shareholdings now have grown to 525,000. I think this reinforces my argument about the willingness of Canadians to invest in resource development because they have had to purchase these shares either in the United Kingdom

or the United States and most likely they have done so in the United States because holdings by people in that country have gone down.
The same story is given by the management of McIntyre gold mine who in their last statement pointed out that their shares had been almost 100 per cent repatriated. Whereas in previous years the majority had been owned in the United States, over 90 per cent are now owned in Canada.
The point is, however, that in the present instance, although Canadian participation has risen to 30.72 per cent of the total public ownership of shares, the total public ownership is only 9.64 per cent of all the shares of the company and Canadian ownership of shares in this company is something under 3 per cent. That does not strike me as being what one would call a reasonable Canadian participation, and I come back to the fact that Canadians have increased their holdings by 66 to 70 per cent over what they were originally in 1957 when these shares were first offered.
This company might well have considered taking some of their treasury stock and making it available across Canada in order to increase Canadian participation to some point where the company might be truly classed as Canadian. Less than 3 per cent does not make it a Canadian company and if it is going to prosper from the development of our resources I suggest it should become more of a Canadian company than it is now.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, this is the first opportunity I have taken to speak on the bill at any of its stages. The title intrigued me, of course, when I first saw it because in our part of the country we have had in the past a rather small but clamorous group interested in secession from the province of Ontario and the setting up of a new province which was labelled Aurora by one of the more imaginative in the group. I have often thought that their scheme was highly imaginative, perhaps too imaginative, and therefore when this measure came before the house I was interested in hearing that some of my colleagues found it imaginative.
Quite frankly, I have enjoyed some of the debates that have taken place on the bill, no more so than the contribution I have heard today by the hon. member for Vancouver South. A number of members of parliament at the various stages of the discussion of the bill in the house and in the standing committee have gone to great lengths to disclaim their own knowledge of what is involved in this matter. When the hon. member for Winnipeg South introduced the bill he made it very clear that he was speaking strictly on the basis of information that had 90205-6-2384
Private Bills
been given to him and was not setting himself up as any kind of authority. There were many challenges flying back and forth across the house on second reading in that regard, and on the part of those who were very anxious to get the bill through the argument seemed to be that we did not need to know anything about it anyway, that it was merely a matter of incorporating the company. Therefore they said that we should pass the bill because the place where members could really find out things was in the standing committee on railways, canals and telegaph lines.
Then there were even some who felt that committee really did not matter too much because the matter would finally have to go before the national energy board and they would really look after our interests and the interests of all Canadians. Then, of course, there were those songbirds from Alberta who told us about the sweet things that happen during the Alberta conservation board hearings. We were all going to be protected, therefore, by these other agencies in any decision we might make to push this bill through on second reading or in the committee.
1 should like now, Mr. Chairman, to raise a matter on which I hope you will let me continue for a minute or two before you decide whether or not I am out of order. I believe it is relevant to this bill. I believe the treatment this bill received in the committee-I am not saying this by way of criticism of the members of that committee- is a fine indication it is about time we equipped ourselves with the resources for getting more of the information we need through the establishment of a permanent research group attached to the standing committees of this house. In reading the report of the committee one finds that hon. members of good will such as the hon. member for York North and the hon. member for Calgary South, whose opinions I respect, came forward and expressed some views. The final analysis was that the bill was sort of shoved through because we did not really know the answers to the questions that were asked. I can only assume from reading the report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines for Tuesday, March 21, that the house committee was really not able to assist in solving the problem from the point of view that the hon. member for Vancouver South and the hon. member for Vancouver East were prepared to present.
This situation indicates to me that it is time we gave our standing committees the personnel they need to enable us to know that when we go into a committee we are not completely helpless in facing parliamentary agents or representatives of these companies.

Private Bills
I will not say any more on this subject now. However, I feel that a great deal of the discussion that has taken place could have been prevented if we could have been sure, both in the committee and in the house, that we could have obtained the details we needed instead of obtaining information in dribs and drabs accompanied by a great deal of invective back and forth.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Oh, fiddlesticks; you are just delaying the bill.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I hear an interruption from the hon. member for Acadia. I am glad to have this interruption because I know he represents a definite point of view. It seems to me that in the province of Alberta they have some kind of fossil deposits. They have discovered ancient animals. It is known that that part of the province contains some of the oldest remains in existence. In taking the position that he has, and I say this quite honestly, it seems to me that the hon. member for Acadia is representing one of the oldest positions in Canadian and North American politics and to me it is a fossil position.
I have strayed away from the point-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am always ready to permit a question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member has gone to great lengths to describe the research group the committee should have. I am sure there is no one more qualified to speak about committee work than the hon. member, and he has done a lot of research in connection with committee work. However, can the hon. member tell me why the hon. member for Vancouver East and others did not ask the same questions in the committee when the parties were there to answer them that they have been asking in the house?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I could not answer a question concerning what role our members played. Normally, I am a member of this committee but I was bumped off the committee because the bill seemed to affect the regions of other hon. members. I do know that I found the committee's reports interesting. As a matter of fact, the central reason for my speech today is the information contained in the latter that the hon. member for Vancouver East received from the Pembina company and filed with the committee. When I compare the information contained in the letter with the information that has been given to us by the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Winnipeg South, I am convinced that the hon. member for Vancouver South has an excellent point. I had not realized

that a pipe line company in Canada today was so truly Canadian as this organization seems to be.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sure the hon. member would permit another question. Did he not see in the committee proceedings a statement to the effect that if Interprovincial Pipe Lines, I think it is, or the Pembina people, were given the contract by the United States oil company, then the United States oil company would be granted controlling interest in the Canadian firm? I am sure this statement appears in the evidence, and the hon. member would not want the members of this committee to be led astray.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I had assumed from the fact they were being given the controlling interest that it was a matter of trade. I want to come closer to the hon. member who has been interrupting me. I want to say that I have never been able to feel money has any flag on it. It does not seem to me that you can really put a flag on capital, especially in North America. It always seems unreasonable to me, especially in view of the part of the country I represent, to get so worked up over the question of the source of capital. We have had to face this problem since Canada first came into being, and the United States faced it before we did.
On the other hand, in recent years we have developed an attitude, which some people credit to the present government, that the principle of Canadian ownership in any further development of resource fields will be the No. 1 principle. It seems to me this subject was debated when the national energy board was created. The Prime Minister has included this topic in some of those lovely little television performances I have observed a number of times. I seemed to feel that I and all the other little Canadians were going to enjoy a chance to get into the development of natural resources.
I talked to a member of the national energy board the other day for whom I have a great deal of respect. I am not going to go into detail about what he said, but he certainly indicated to me he did not have any particular concern arising from what he knew about this particular line. I could be assured, he said, that the national energy board would give the full benefit of all their resources to any hearing on this matter and that they would also take a look at the opinions expressed by the members of parliament. This is fine.
However, if I may return to the point I would say that a principle has been presented, first by the hon. member for Vancouver East but possibly more forcibly by the hon. member for Vancouver South. In the light of this particular principle, I do not see how we can

agree to the passage of this bill. It seems to me it is a poor bill in the sense that it is the wrong kind of company bringing it forward. I make these remarks on the question of principle.
However, I should like to turn to a couple of other aspects of the bill that intrigue me. I really have not got a clear picture from anything put forward by the dual sponsors, but it seems to me that the question that was bothering the hon. member for York North was whether or not the launching of this particular organization would cripple, damage, ruin or cause trouble for the Pembina people, the Foothills people, in their attempt to get a much larger share of the product to market. The hon. member for York North was good enough to reveal that he did have a financial interest in the company involved. I think we all respect his integrity, though our views may differ from his. I do not believe the answers we have had from the two sponsors really clear this up. Reference has been made to the fact that this subject is too technical for us and we should therefore let the national energy board deal with it. It seems to me that it is in principle at least a fairly simple matter.
We have a company that has been working for two years part of the time in co-operation with the sponsors of this bill, and they naturally feel that the invasion in the field by the incorporation of this company might cause them difficulty in their attempts to set up the matter. This is the company-this company related to Pembina-that has shown to us that it has a magnificent ratio of Canadian ownership and of Canadian employees, one with which this other company cannot compare at all.
In this regard I should just like to point out that the Pembina Pipe Lines Limited company stresses that all its permanent employees are Canadians. This information was not contradicted before the committee. As a matter of fact, Mr. Burgis, I think that is his name, agreed that the general information contained in it seemed to go along with what had been filed, I imagine under oath before what has been made much of, namely a court of record before the Alberta group. I am therefore left with the feeling that, on a Canadian principle put forward by a number of members very feelingly, the bill is unsatisfactory. But from the point of view of the possibility of this company "snafuing" the works for the company that is already in the field, I have grave doubts that have not been answered.
There are a number of questions that I should like to put to the sponsor of the bill. One of the arguments that he put forward is that in 1957 public shares were offered
Private Bills
on the market to Canadians. I observe the hon. member for Vancouver South shaking his head with regard to the point to which I was referring. I was wrong. It is just that the shares of the company were listed on the Toronto stock exchange in 1957 and since that time have been actively traded and have been available for purchase by any Canadian who wished to invest in them. But as the hon. member for Winnipeg South has indicated in his statement, the shares available to the public and traded on the Toronto stock exchange are a pittance in relation to the total shares that exist in the company.
Despite the fact that in the letter he put on record at page 3428 of Hansard in which Mr. Burgis said that the company does not have any need for additional equity capital at the present time, I should very much like to know from him whether it might not be the time, in view of the criticisms that have been made, for these two organizations, namely Hudson's Bay and Continental, to make available to the public more of these holdings they now have. It seems to me that this would be an answer. I should like more of an explanation than we are given in this letter filed by the hon. member for Winnipeg South.
There is another point about which I should like to hear from the sponsors of the bill and it is this. I know I could get this information on my own, but I feel they should provide it. As found at page 3429 of Hansard, we are told that the company has issued and sold to Canadian investors three different issues which in total amount to $28,600,000. I should like to know more about the circumstances in connection with this debt issue. I should like to know whether they were debentures that were issued along with any shares at various times. I should like to know whether this debt issue is held completely by Canadians, or just how the matter came along. It would seem to me remarkable if this company has never, since it got operating here, put on the Canadian market an issue of shares and yet at the same time has offered debentures to the Canadian public. It would appear to me that it has been taking advantage of all the savings that might exist in various markets in Canada. I should like to think that if they could raise this much money on debt issues, they could also find all kinds of purchasers for stock put on the market. I know that the value of shares at the present time, or the median value of shares say for the last year, might indicate whether or not this is a sensible request for information.
In connection with this bill, I have been greatly interested to discover that the two Calgary papers take different points of view

Private Bills
on it. I was very much reassured when accusations were ringing in this house that a filibuster was going on. I wondered about the position of the members of this particular party. I wondered whether we were completely off on the wrong track. I therefore went to the trouble of checking in publications in Alberta and in other parts of the country. I was pleased to discover that the position that has been advanced here and has been supported so well by the hon. member of Vancouver East and by the hon. member of Vancouver South, has been supported by three publications, including the Calgary Herald. Even in the Calgary Albertan which rips strips off the C.C.F. for deliberately in a sense abusing parliament, it is conceded that the factor that the company would be United States controlled is something to which this House of Commons should give serious consideration. I was interested to discover that the periodical Saturday Night had an expression of opinion that would seem to indicate that the stand made against this bill has a great deal of merit.
By saying this I am not suggesting that this kind of support or this kind of view of whatever actions we or any other party may take is an essential thing. However, it is somewhat satisfying to find this situation in view of the bitter invective that has been hurled at the members of this party and even at the hon. member for Vancouver South when he has been making his objections to this bill.
It seems to me that the sponsor-I refer especially to the hon. member for Bow River *-has been far too aggressive, especially for a sponsor, in making this kind of approach. As I conclude, I can only add to that criticism that it seems to me most regrettable that he has not been here more often to present the case in a calmer and quieter way that may have led us to take a different attitude.


Mr. Peters:: The charge has been made that the aggressiveness was not shown in the committee. Hon. members will know that I am not a member of the committee. However, I availed myself of the opportunity of attending the committee hearings and listening to the arguments that were put forward. I believe that the hon. member who raised this problem a few moments ago will agree with me that the discussions that took place in the committee may have certainly been augmented to a great degree by the bits of information that have been continually fed to the house by the sponsors of the bill.
The hon. member for Vancouver East is specifically interested in the financial arrangement as it affects another company that has already been given the opportunity of doing a similar type of development work and the

hon. member for Vancouver South is interested in it from the point of view of the Canadian content. Both these hon. gentlemen in particular have been answered at great length and the answers that have been given have been supplemented and have been much more extensive than was the information that was given to the committee in the first place.
Many of the hon. members who sat in that committee were interested in one aspect of the bill and were not particularly interested in the over-all bill in relationship to the viewpoint of the two hon. members I have mentioned. Those hon. members, were more concerned with the financial arrangements than were some others. The information now available to the committee is a great deal more extensive than that available in the committee hearing and we are now more able to make a decision.
I am interested in this matter from another point of view. This is not completely divorced from the point of view expressed today by the hon. member for Vancouver South. I am interested in the relationship which this particular industry, or this particular company *-because it is almost all of the industry and will be the key to the industry-will have on Canadian development and the development of Canadian secondary industry in western Canada.
I spoke to someone the other day-the hon. member for Acadia may laugh-who pointed out that this was like putting a tap on the bottom of the oil barrel in western Canada, running this half mile of tap over to the United States and dumping the whole thing there.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a correction? He keeps on pronouncing my constituency as "Arcadia". There is no "r" in the spelling of my constituency. Also, it is in Alberta, not Nova Scotia, as the hon. member probably thinks.


William Arnold Peters: I thank the hon. member for his correction. I can assure him that I did not think he came from the maritimes area of Arcadia. I am familiar with the fact that he comes from western Canada and I will try to pronounce his constituency correctly in future.
If this is the tap on the bottom of the oil reserves, it seems to me that consideration of this matter should be extensive because we are discussing a resource that can be as advantageous to Canadian secondary development as the oil industry has been to those areas in the United States which are going to benefit from these oil reserves.
The development that has taken place around these refinery centres in the United

States has been phenomenal. It has been accomplished in a very short period of time, and the results of this development have brought untold wealth and benefits to the areas serviced by secondary development in the oil industry.
It is our hope that parliament will give consideration to this matter in relation to this particular bill. It is not enough to say that we should leave it to the Alberta oil and gas conservation board or the national energy board to make the decision. I think it is obvious that the obligation is on parliament to make the decision, and we should do something about it.
As we look around our country and the world today we see that there is a growing desire on the part of the people to keep their countries for themselves. We are witnessing a war in Cuba today, or a counter-revolution to overthrow the government that has as its motto "Cuba for the Cubans". That motto is similar to that the Conservative party adopted in the last election, "Canada for the Canadians".
I think those of us who do not support the Conservative party have an obligation to make sure that hon. members do not forget that particular fact. We have an obligation to see that they live up to the slogan "Canada for the Canadians".
I do not object to United States capital coming into the country. I do not think it is necessary that all the money going into this development should be Canadian, but I do think we should use our resources to the best of our ability. If we are going to drain our natural resources we are not going to develop any type of secondary industry in our country.
The Canadian chamber of commerce, which supports the present government, have this to say in their publication "Policy Declarations":
The chamber also urges its members to promote and support federal and provincial and business policies which will lead (1) to properly integrated development of Canada's natural resources in the interests of the nation as a whole; (2) to government policies in resources management that will ensure maintenance and where possible expansion of all renewable resources; (3) to fiscal and taxation policies consistent with good resource management and (4) to the development of educational programs with respect to the conservation and efficient utilization of natural resources.
They go on to talk about off shore drilling, and so on.


An hon. Member:: You are talking nonsense.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, these interventions continue to come from hon. members from western Canada who appear to have divorced themselves from anything the Conservative party has said about maintaining
Customs Tariff
Canadian industry for Canadians. They seem to be really happy to give all Canadian resources to the people of the United States.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is tommy-rot.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume consideration of the matter under discussion at five o'clock.



CUSTOMS TARIFF

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-72, an act to amend the Customs Tariff-Mr. Fleming (Eglinton)-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
Jacques Flynn: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
On clause 1-Goods deemed of class or kind made in Canada.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I was unable at five o'clock to make certain remarks in regard to the amendment put forward at that time, and because the amendment has been dealt with since I will not attempt to do so now. My proposed remarks will have to remain off the record of Hansard. Perhaps many hon. members in committee would be better off if their remarks were left out. I would suggest, however, that there is a problem in regard to the discussion of this bill because one clause essentially contains the whole substance of it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are three other clauses on the next page.


George James McIlraith: Yes, but there is only one main clause. It is subdivided in such a way that it becomes somewhat inconvenient for discussion. Perhaps in dealing with the subject matter of clause 1 it would be as well to raise one point at a time, and I propose to limit my remarks at this stage to one particular point. Perhaps I can do this best by indicating at the outset of my remarks the amendment I propose to move at a later stage. The substance of that proposed amendment, which I will move at the conclusion of my remarks, is that the clause be amended by striking out subsection 3 of section 2A.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Did you say subsection 3 of section 2A?

Customs Tariff


William Moore Benidickson: Actually this refers to the whole section.


George James McIlraith: 
William Moore Benidickson: Over-all, the hike is 15 per cent.


George James McIlraith: Yes, the difference resulting from the decision in most cases increases the duty by about 15 per cent. If the decision goes against the importer, even if it is a fair decision, it is an increase of the taxation; for it is 7J per cent when it is not made in Canada and 22J per cent when it is made in Canada. It is an increase of 200 per cent in the taxation rate applicable because of a decision made by the minister, which is not subject to appeal. Surely the principle should be that taxation should be set by this parliament. It is no answer to say that the rates of duty on the different items are set by parliament if the minister can, without being subject to any appeal or giving the citizen any right of application to the tariff board or to the courts, decide which rate is applicable. Surely this is something the minister will need to explain more fully than he has done heretofore in the debate.
I do not suggest that the minister will abuse this wilfully of his own volition, but surely he should not be left in a position whereby on his own whim or caprice he can raise the taxation as between two importers of the same article by that kind of percentage or that kind of interpretation. Surely that is not what our system contemplates at all, and surely a minister of the crown ought not to 90205-6-239
Customs Tariff
be left in the position where it can be said of him in any particular case that he did that.
It would be possible to elaborate upon the reasons why the right of appeal should be left in and not taken away, and why the right of taxation should be left in the hands of parliament and not given to the minister, as this clause in effect does. One could elaborate on that and bring in all those loud-sounding speeches that were delivered by the Prime Minister and others of his supporters on the bill of rights about the rights of the citizen to not be removed other than by due process of law, but perhaps at the committee stage it is not necessary to go into that. Surely in the light of the clause that is now before the committee, those words were a mockery. Therefore, without further ado, Mr. Chairman, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate:
That subsection 3 of section 2A be struck out.


Jacques Flynn: Shall the amendment carry?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I should like to start by echoing the words which have been uttered by the hon. member for Ottawa West about the loud-sounding speeches made and the hollow arguments used in this debate so far. Certainly no better description could be given of the speeches made by members of the opposition. Because of the fact that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, refrained from replying in the debate on second reading and I have not spoken at all and also the fact that we have now spent eight days on this debate, I would hope that by temperate statement and restraining oneself from saying the things that one would like to say we might be able to come to a decision on this matter without further prolonged and unnecessarily prolix discussion. I will not say "stupid" although one might be tempted to do so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a very good way of getting legislation through.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is clearly in keeping with what we have had to put up with for eight days but I am trying to restrain myself. I know it is not true of the hon. member for Ottawa West and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River who do have some knowledge of this subject, but one would almost think, in view of the debate that has taken place so far, that we were dealing with a new subject entirely of which hon. members opposite had no knowledge whatsoever. There is nothing new about this matter at all.
One would think that a "made in Canada" ruling was something which had suddenly developed or was being proposed in this legislation for the first time. As a matter of

Customs Tariff
fact, "made in Canada" rulings have been in force in Canada under various terminology, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate pointed out, for probably over half a century.
We have been discussing appeals. It might be interesting to point out this fact in passing over these things, and I hope, as I say, that we will pass over them fairly quickly and temperately. Sometimes one hears the late R. B. Bennett referred to in caustic terms as a protagonist of high tariffs. It might be interesting to point out to the committee in passing that the right of appeal to the tariff board was brought into effect by the late R. B. Bennett.


William Moore Benidickson: But his staff had the final say.


George Clyde Nowlan: During the years from 1921 to 1930, however, when another government was in power, with the exception of a short period in 1925 and 1926, there was a right of appeal to the customs board which was comprised of the deputy minister of customs, the assistant deputy minister of customs, another officer appointed by the deputy minister of customs, the deputy minister of excise and the deputy minister of taxation. That certainly could not be said to be an impartial board to pass upon appeals, and it was the late Hon. R. B. Bennett who created the tariff board and provided for appeals to that board, to which subject we have referred from time to time during this debate.
As I have said, there is nothing new about "made in Canada" rulings. They have been made over a long period of time. During my short term as Minister of National Revenue I have made scores of "made in Canada" rulings. Sometimes three or four a week come up, sometimes three or four a month. As a matter of fact, I made four last week under the provisions of the statute as it has existed for many years. So there is nothing particularly new about this.
All the bill does is (a) to insert the word "approximately" in order, as the Minister of Finance has pointed out, to restore the ambit of the act as it was intended and as it operated up to ten years ago and (b) to provide for a class of goods which has not heretofore been made but with respect to which the capability to make them exists, and so on and so forth. These are the purposes plus the fact that within a very narrow compass, to which I will refer in a moment, the right of appeal has been limited and in a very technical sense restricted. That is the only difference between the bill now before the committee and the act on the statute books today under which

the Minister of National Revenue has operated up till this moment.
There has been a great deal said about doing away with the right of appeal. There has been a great deal said about transgressing upon the rights of parliament, that parliament is the only body that should pass upon tariffs and that the bill before us constitutes an abrogation of the right of appeal and a reflection upon the rights of parliament. As I said, Mr. Chairman, one could refer to that argument in language which probably would prolong the debate for a much greater length of time than I should like to see it prolonged. However, pursuant to an order of the house moved by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River the decisions and orders which the Minister of National Revenue has made under section 38 of the Customs Act since December 1, 1958, were tabled in the house today. Section 38 of the Customs Act as it has applied going back to December 1, 1958, has nothing to do with the bill before us tonight.


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


George Clyde Nowlan: I should like to keep the floor if I may until I finish.


William Moore Benidickson: Would he allow me to ask a question later?


George Clyde Nowlan: I surely will. I gave this document to the Clerk this afternoon for tabling in the House of Commons.


William Moore Benidickson: After seven days of
debate.


George Clyde Nowlan: There are, I believe, 44 different rulings which have been made by the Minister of National Revenue under section 38 of the Customs Act since December 1, 1958. This act has been on the statute books for many years. It was in force under the regime of the preceding government, and with various and slight modifications-


William Moore Benidickson: This is a new ruling.


George Clyde Nowlan: These are not new rulings. These are rulings which have been made under section 38 of the Customs Act which has been in force in Canada for at least a quarter of a century.


William Moore Benidickson: It was not section 38 before.


George Clyde Nowlan: Without taking the time of the committee, I will simply suggest that those who are worried about the effect of making these rulings, and I know there are some who are worried, should peruse the document which was tabled in the House of Commons today. Section 38 authorizes the Minister of

National Revenue to fix values for duty without consultation with parliament. The minister has the right under that section to fix the value for duty purposes. I am not going to bore the committee because I do not wish to take too much time. I have marked 20 or 30 different orders which have been made and which are not subject to appeal.
These are ministerial rulings made by the minister pursuant to the act and whether they are right or wrong, and I hope they are right, they are not subject to appeal. So when we hear the talk we have heard about trespassing upon the right of appeal I suggest that one should look at the return which was tabled today and then decide how much substance there is to this argument about infringement of the right of appeal. There are orders here wherein the Minister of National Revenue has said that there shall be cost plus an advance of 25 per cent. There are other orders in which the Minister of National Revenue has ordered that there shall be cost plus an advance of 50 per cent. There have been orders dealing with imported goods from foreign countries where we have said that the value of the goods from that country shall be equal to the cost of the goods from another country.
As an example, I may cite the case of Chinese paint brushes. This is a very minor case, but it is one in which we have said that the value for duty shall be the value of the brushes exported from Great Britain rather than from China. One could go on and on giving examples. I would hope that hon. members who are concerned about this matter would take advantage of the opportunity to read the return which was filed today showing the powers which have been vested in the minister of national revenue, not by this proposed amendment, but which have been vested in the minister for over half a century by the parliament of Canada. This amendment relates to a minor matter. I would suggest, too, that these powers have been exercised, not by minions as was suggested yesterday, but by senior officials of the Department of National Revenue. These are men of experience who have been trained and who have spent a lifetime in the service of the department.
Although I appreciate the statement made by the hon. member for Ottawa West a while ago to the effect that no minister could possibly have the time to deal with all these matters, I want to assure the committee through you, Mr. Chairman, that there has not been an order made concerning a "made in Canada" ruling or fixing the value for duty which the minister has not perused personally, checked and rechecked before he signed it. There have been, I may say, scores and 90205-6-239i
Customs Tariff
scores of such orders. If the committee, in its wisdom, sees fit to pass these amendments, as I hope it will, I can assure you that these rulings and orders will be made in a manner no different from that of the past. I am sure that my predecessor the late Dr. McCann and his predecessor the Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley never made these rulings except in consultation with the senior officials who have available to them all the memoranda on the previous rulings, documents which go back almost to confederation and certainly for 60 or 70 years.
The Minister of National Revenue, with the advantage of these documents and the advantage of the experience and advice of the senior officials, has to make the decisions which he makes pursuant to the various sections of the act. As my hon. friend reminds me, there is no appeal from the decisions here. I invite hon. members to look at these orders tomorrow. They will see decisions here in which the value for duty was increased 100 per cent over what was alleged to be the fair market value. There are others in which the value for duty has been increased 25 per cent, 50 per cent and others where it has been marked up specifically by $5 or 50 cents, whatever the case may be. There are 44 of them, and they have been made since December 1, 1958. Every one of the rulings was made by the individual who happened, for the moment, to be the minister of national revenue. They were made without the right of appeal.
Then, we hear talk for seven days about the fact that we are transgressing upon the rights of parliament; that we are depriving someone of the right to appeal. Is it any wonder that one could speak of this matter in a way which would, I am afraid, prolong this debate to a much greater length than I hope it will last. I have been referring to one section, section 38 of the Customs Act, but I have in my hand a list of 64 different sections of the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff Act and the Excise Act under which the decisions of the minister of national revenue are final and without appeal.


Mr. Chambers:: How many different sections?


George Clyde Nowlan: Sixty four, and of those 64 different sections, 62 of them were on the statute books of this country when the present government took office in 1957. There are two of them which were enacted by the present government, the one fixing the value plus a reasonable mark-up for profit, and the one fixing the values of fruit to be imported. Not one order has been made under either section.

Customs Tariff
I think possibly some weeks ago I misled the committee when I said no action had been taken under the revisions of the Customs Act in 1958. There have been many decisions to which I have just referred which have been made under the revisions of the Customs Act in 1958. However, the revisions of the Customs Act were all consolidations of existing sections with the exception of the two amendments to which I have referred and under those two amendments no orders have been made. I do not believe I should worry the committee by enumerating these various sections. I have marked a lot of them and if I had the time I believe I would have a reasonable degree of fun by enumerating some of the powers given, rightly or wrongly, to the minister of national revenue and which have been exercised for almost half a century. They have been exercised by my predecessors and, at the moment, they are exercised by me as minister. They will be exercised by other ministers who come after us. In not one single case, Mr. Chairman, is there a right of appeal from the decision of the minister. Rightly or wrongly, the decision of the minister is final.
Then, it has been suggested that these minor little amendments which we are making today are an infringement of the rights of parliament; that they transgress upon the courts or obliterate the courts. As I have said, the language in which I should like to describe this argument is such as I should like to refrain from using at the moment. I have these four typewritten pages which set forth the sections of various acts to which I have referred. On the last page I notice one section which says that the minister's decision shall be final and he shall be the sole judge as to whether printed material is educational or otherwise. Well, that is not too heavy a responsibility but nevertheless it is indicative of the powers which are given to the minister of national revenue.
I have given some of the background of the practice which has prevailed throughout all these years as a result of the authority given by parliament. We are now dealing with amendments which, to some extent, enlarge the power of the minister with respect to goods which are ordered by specification and goods which are approximately of a class or kind. My colleague the Minister of Finance has dealt at some length with these matters and I do not propose at this time to weary the committee by dealing with those matters further. There are several powers of appeal given, but the decision of the minister shall be final with respect to the normal Canadian consumption of the goods described. My good, 
personal friend the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate said last night he could not understand why this appeal was to the "consumption", and why it was not to the "production" of the goods made in Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not advocate that.


George Clyde Nowlan: But yet my hon. friend and, I think, various other hon. members argue that the minister can fix normal consumption, that the minister can fix the figure very low, that he can have his friends and give them a hand-out. There was a score of quotations such as that emanating from the mouth of my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. Yet in the same breath last night he said that he could not understand why the appeal was from consumption and not from production.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. gentleman does not want to misinterpret what I said last night.


George Clyde Nowlan: Not at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said that I opposed the abolition of any kind of appeal. However, I said that if one were seeking to make a case for refusing an appeal, I could see slightly more sense in the case of production in Canada than I could in the case of consumption in Canada. I said that because I thought the producers might want to keep their production secret but I could not see why anyone would be interested in keeping the consumption secret. However, I want it completely understood that I am opposed to any abrogation of any existing right of appeal.


George Clyde Nowlan: Abrogation of any right of appeal as suggested in this legislation is infinitesimal as compared with the abrogations of rights of appeal which occurred under legislation enacted when my hon. friend was in the privy council and in the privy closet for years preceding me. It is rather refreshing to hear that this wandering gentleman from Winnipeg who sat in the closet here for 11 years and now has arrived fresh and salty from Bonavista-Twillingate, should be suspicious of the activities of the government in this country. It must suggest to hon. gentlemen that the companions and the associations which he had during those years rather twisted his thoughts and suggested to him suspicions.


George James McIlraith: Why do you not talk about the bill that is before the committee?


George Clyde Nowlan: These suspicions certainly would never occur to any of us on this side of the house. What I am getting at is this. If my hon. friends' suspicions are correct

and if the minister of national revenue can arrange for a coterie of friends somewhere in a room or, as he said, in a closet, to look after them, why have an appeal from the decision of the minister with respect to Canadian production, because it is Canadian production that is going to be made by those friends. But there is an appeal from Canadian production, from the activities of the minister's friends, from the activities of anybody who might be associated with this government within Canada. The appeal lies in Canadian consumption. Everyone knows that Canadian consumption-and my hon. friend will well realize this-consists of Canadian production plus imports less Canadian exports.
One question why there should be no appeal on that matter of consumption, I can give one little illustration of a case which was before my department and the tariff board in the end last year and the year previous. It was the so-called "ball bearing" case. As I pointed out on an earlier occasion, and I do not want to trespass on the time of the committee now, the Department of National Revenue, because of its dealings with all of these producers and the importers, the confidential nature of our transactions and all the documents involved, is in the position-and it is the only one-of getting all the information-and we did not always get it all-which is necessary on the case. In the ball bearing case it was necessary for the Department of National Revenue to get the information with respect to ball bearings produced outside of Canada. What did we find? After consulting with the United States embassy and checking the sources of information there we found there were 18 suppliers in the United States manufacturing ball bearings with which we were concerned. We found there were 94 of them producing ball bearings in Europe. We found a large number-we were never quite certain how large the number was, I may say frankly- producing ball bearings in Japan and others possibly in Hong Kong. For months and months the department checked and rechecked through the embassies, through our own commercial counsellors and through every source of information available, trying to find out the number of ball bearings produced and brought into this country.
Added to that, of course, was our own production which could be very easily determined. In the end after seven months, we were faced with the necessity of making a decision and we made one. We fixed the consumption of ball bearings in Canada. It took us seven months to get this information. There was the possibility of an error but there was a much greater necessity for giving
Customs Tariff
a definite ruling and for making it final so that business would know where it fitted and whether it could go ahead or whether it could not do so.
If after having spent months and months in trying to get this information and having used every possible source of information which is available to the department with all its far flung sources of information, some interested person could enter an appeal to the tariff board on some figment of imagination that there might have been a mathematical error in the computation of this consumption, then the situation would have been delayed for another two years before a definite decision could be made. How could business be carried on in that particular field?


William Moore Benidickson: So Queen Elizabeth is
wrong?


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not sure about Queen Elizabeth but I know that my hon. friend for Kenora-Rainy River is wrong. But that is the reason why we have said that, in so far as Canadian consumption is concerned, it is necessary in the end, having exhausted every possible avenue open to us in order to get it certain. In order to give a decision, in order that business may map its course and know where it is going we say that the decision of the minister in this mathematical computation in this area shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to compare that section with those to which I referred a moment ago in which, on important matters, no appeal has been allowed since the Customs Act was enacted.
Then there are two other areas in which there is no appeal and in which the decision of the minister shall be final. Section 1 is where goods are custom made to specification.


William Moore Benidickson: Whose specification?


George Clyde Nowlan: Surely any person with reasonable intelligence and having access to the documents can determine whether goods are being ordered by some hon. gentlemen opposite from a manufacturer according to the specifications of the hon. gentleman opposite or any hon. gentleman, and the person ordering them according to specification and not according to standard production of the manufacturer. Surely there is nothing there which causes any concern. It is a simple little elementary question of fact.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why take two years to decide?


George Clyde Nowlan: My hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition says it might take two years to decide.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is what you said.

Customs Tariff


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister said so. That is what he said a moment ago.


George Clyde Nowlan: I said that a capricious person or a person wanting to enter a capricious appeal might take two years, and since they raised this matter, Mr. Chairman, I will deal with it. We have had many motives imputed here. It has been suggested that there are friends with whom one might consort, that somebody must be getting a pay-off. The only reason I can see for this exaggerated or prolonged debate is the fact that there must be somebody, some period of someone on the other side of the chamber who is afraid of the rulings that may be made and he wants to be able to maintain a system of superficial and artificial appeal so that he can avoid rulings for a period of two, three or four years. One argument is just as good as the other as far as that is concerned.


Jacques Flynn: I am sorry to interrupt the minister but I must inform him that his time has expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let him go on.


Jacques Flynn: Is the committee agreeable that the minister continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Clyde Nowlan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see that the quality of mercy is not strained. I appreciate the courtesy I have been shown and I do not intend to trespass upon it.
The second section of interest concerns the right of appeal being restricted. The third one is whether adequate facilities exist in Canada for the economic production of such goods within a reasonable period of time. Of course, that is an involved sentence and could be subject to various interpretations.
I am not going to suggest for a moment that there is not some room for debate as to what is a reasonable period of time. If you are making a thermal generator, which takes three years to build, or tin cans-


William Moore Benidickson: What about a 2J cubic yards shovel?


George Clyde Nowlan: -or if you are making a shovel, which takes a month-


George James McIlraith: It took in that case five years.


George Clyde Nowlan: We can also argue the five-year period but we are not going to do that. Those are the three limited areas in which the power is vested in the minister. The right of appeal still exists in the major field.
It has been suggested that the right of appeal will be taken away by this bill. The right of appeal exists. Also, a great deal of

play has been made of the word "approximately". There is an appeal on whether goods are of approximately a class or kind which has been made in Canada before.
With regard to the determination of Canadian production, as I said a moment ago when referring to the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate, there can be no hole-in-the-corner and no arrangement can be made with your friends, as has been suggested, because in that area there is an appeal to the tariff board and again to the courts. Of course, with regard to whether Canadian consumption is actually 10 per cent or more there is also a right of appeal.
I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, to have taken up so much time, but we have been sitting here for some little while debating this subject and I thought I would be pardoned if I tried to bring this matter into perspective as I see it and as I think, frankly, the Canadian public see it and anyone who has dealings with the department.
I am very proud of the department. I think the departmental officials are recognized by everyone in Canada as being men of ability. The senior officials are recognized as being men of experience and integrity, with a record of service which is unequalled by any other department in this country or elsewhere. To suggest that these matters could be manipulated in any way, shape or form is rather difficult for me to accept.
I hope I have not transgressed the rule of good nature to which I tried to adhere myself with some difficulty when I started and that having had this discussion we can now proceed to pass this bill.
I say again that the amendments which are proposed are rather important. In so far as concerns the extension of the minister's powers by the use of the word "approximately", and extending the type of goods which have not been made in Canada before but for which the economic and productive capacity is here, this is a rather limited area in a field in which the Department of National Revenue has been actively administering for half a century. I suggest that the country and this committee can leave these matters for decision by the department, because after all the final appeal is to this supreme court.


William Moore Benidickson: Is the decision made by a junior clerk, or yourself?


George Clyde Nowlan: This is the supreme court of Canada, and no one can suggest for one moment that it is not. If there were any of the suggested derelictions of duty which have been put forward with exaggerated emphasis by hon. gentlemen in the debate on this bill, they would appear before this house within a month of their occurring. Here is the final

right of appeal given to the Canadian people, and I am sure they will not find that this section has been abused to the extent, or in any way such as has been suggested during this debate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I will take only a minute to attempt to deal with the minister's last remarks. We have heard from the minister a moving and indeed impassioned appeal. He will forgive me if I say that I am not impressed. Perhaps I had better put it this way; I was certainly impressed by the facility of his language, but I was not impressed by the logic of his argument, because for most of his speech the minister dealt with administrative decisions from which there is not an appeal now and has not been in the past.
We are dealing now with matters from which in the past there has been an appeal. That appeal is now being taken away by legislation. The minister may say that these matters are, the word he used in connection with one of them was infinitesimal in importance. However, we are dealing with matters of trade and business which may reach $250 million.
However important or unimportant these matters may be-and we think they are important-the fact remains that an appeal has existed from decisions in respect of them in the past and this government, by legislation, is now taking away that right of appeal. No eloquence on the part of the minister can deny that fact.
The minister says these matters are not important and should not cause any anxiety in our minds. The minister says that he and his department can be trusted to administer these matters. We have great respect for the minister's ability and sincerity, and we have great respect for the officials of his department.
However, the fact cannot be denied that something which has existed in the past in the way of an appeal to the tariff board and to the court is now being taken away. That is why so much anxiety has been created not only in the minds of the hon. members of the opposition but throughout the country. That anxiety and worry on the part of the people of this country has been expressed by us in the house, and no eloquence of the minister will be able to deny that fact.
No eloquence on the part of the minister and no effort on his part to read all the decisions on which there is no appeal can deny the fact that an appeal has existed over the years and that appeal is now being taken away by legislation.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, the minister said something about this house
Customs Tariff
being the supreme court of Canada. I should like to remind the minister that the only area in which this house has been the supreme court is in the case of divorces, and it is even running into road blocks there.
The minister is a very able man. In fact, the minister is one of the most eloquent speakers I have listened to for a long time. He can successfully pull wool over the eyes of almost anyone. I happen to be in the fortunate position where I have not much wool which can be pulled over my eyes and the minister cannot do this to me.
The minister talked about the possibility of capricious appeals. There is certainly the possibility of capricious appeals. But is there not also the possibility of a capricious minister if we give him all the power that is involved in this bill? I will not say the possibility is there now. I am not accusing the minister of anything. However, we have to look ahead. When bills are passed they become the law until such time as they are revoked at some future date.
There is another aspect of this matter which rather concerns me. The minister referred to it two or three times. I refer to the remarks of the minister when he said that the government has had to put up with a debate on this subject for a period of seven or eight days. I should like to warn the minister that he is treading on very dangerous territory and would suggest that he think-twice before taking a step such as this bill proposes. If this proposes nothing new, as the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce have said, then why should we be asked to pass it? Surely there must be something new involved here or it would not be before the committee at this time.
I should like to mention one other matter which comes to mind as a result of the wording of this proposed amendment. I had intended to move an amendment so similar to this that I should like to read it for purposes of comparison. The amendment I proposed was that Bill No. C-72 be amended by removing the whole of section 3 of subsection 2A. It is the experience of this group that any time we find ourselves as close as this in thought to the Liberals we have cause for grave concern and have to search our souls to make sure that we are on the right path.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would you be interested in knowing that the concern is mutual?


Murdo William Martin: We have learned from the hard lessons of history during the 94 years that this country has been in existence that we have no more reason to trust the Liberals than the Tories, and vice

Customs Tariff
versa. They are six of one and half a dozen of the other as far as we are concerned.


An hon. Member:: I do not think he even trusts himself.


Murdo William Martin: I would ask the minister whether he would be happy to place such trust in a C.C.F. minister granted these powers?


An hon. Member:: No, no.


Murdo William Martin: If the answer is no, then why should he-


Mr. Graffley:: That is hypothetically ridiculous.


Murdo William Martin: Why should he place such powers in the hands of a Liberal or Tory minister? There is one difference between this party and others in this regard, and that is we would not give this power to even a C.C.F. minister if we were the government.


An hon. Member:: That would be even worse.


Murdo William Martin: There is no place in a democracy for the granting of power in the way proposed by this bill, without any recourse to appeal. There is no place in a democracy for a provision of this kind, and that is why we support this amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Revenue was indeed very careful not to refer directly to anything I said in the hope that I would not reply to his argument. That is a vain hope because I intend to clear up one point at once. I said that a minister under this legislation could do certain things. I did not at any time suggest or insinuate in any way that the present minister would do those things. I am sure the minister will agree with me in that. I do say it is a wrong and unsound principle of government to trust even the most able and upright minister. I should like to quote again from what the right hon. gentleman, who is now the Prime Minister of Canada, said when he was over on this side of the house in 1950 with regard to this precise point. The Prime Minister is reported to have said:
-and if we are to accept at face value what ministers say, we had better all be absent from this house.
Those words of the Prime Minister ought to be remembered by all members supporting this bill, because it was on the basis of this kind of statement, and on the basis of specious arguments that were made by hon. gentlemen who are now on the treasury benches about their predecessors there, that the Prime Minister made his appeal to the country and

got into office. It does seem to me to be most extraordinary that the same gentleman, when on this side said:
If the cabinet is to be trusted and if we are to accept at face value what ministers say, we had better all be absent from this house.
The Prime Minister is now absent looking after the affairs of other countries than his own.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely what he is doing.


William Heward Grafftey: Shame.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that anyone who read the account of what the Prime Minister had to say today, as it appeared in the newspapers, would see that he was telling other countries how to run their affairs. I suggest that the Prime Minister has a more urgent task, and that is to deal with the way in which the affairs of this country are being mismanaged. That is what he was elected to do, manage the affairs of this country, not give lectures to other countries.


An hon. Member:: That is not worthy of you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I say that if the cabinet is to be trusted, as the Prime Minister said, and if we are to accept at face value what ministers say, we had better all be absent from this house. Yet the gentleman who said that now asks us to trust not just the cabinet, but a single minister and as my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition said, to trust a single minister in something which heretofore has been subject to appeal.
This bill proposes the taking away of a right. It does not seem to me that it makes any difference whether there are 64 or 6,400 cases in the statutes where there is no right of appeal and never has been. I think the minister will have great difficulty in finding one single case where a right of appeal, which has hitherto existed, has been taken away by this parliament. Surely, the point is that a right of appeal which now exists is being taken away; that which exists now will no longer exist. Notwithstanding the bill of rights, a right which a subject now has will no longer exist if this bill receives royal assent.
I have only one other point to make in regard to the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Ottawa West. It seemed to me that the Minister of National Revenue made a very weak argument indeed when he pointed out that Mr. Bennett provided a tribunal separate from the Department of National Revenue in respect to these appeals. I feel that was a forward step, but I wonder

why this government wants to undo, in some respects, what Mr. Bennett did. The minister has suggested, and I think rightly so, that Mr. Bennett set up a tariff board creating a right of appeal outside the department which had not before existed. When Mr. Bennett's successor came into office that right of appeal was made more complete and precise. This was done by the legislation brought forward in 1936 by Mr. Dunning. The whole trend has been to permit appeals and extend the area of them. This bill, which seeks to undo this, is turning back the clock. As my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, has pointed out, these are not insignificant matters. These are matters which may involve one quarter of a billion dollars' worth of business. These are matters which may affect the profitability of our export industries and their capacity to improve their capital structure. These surely are not insignificant matters, however much the minister may say they are.


William Moore Benidickson: I think many hon. members now sitting in this committee will recall that I protested with some vehemence last week with regard to a tendency that I thought had been developed by the ministry in presenting information to parliament after the opportunity for debate had been concluded. The particular instance to which I refer was the presentation of a document after the time when members of parliament would normally have it brought to their attention, and after debate had concluded in respect of a particular item in the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. I recall the jeers of last week with respect to this item. Hon. members thought perhaps I was not attentive, or something of that nature.
I wish to refer to notice of motion No. 50, which was a request for copies of orders issued by the Minister of National Revenue since December 1, 1958, under provisions of section 38 of the Customs Act. I wish to pay my personal tribute to the Minister of National Revenue who told me today that return to this order had been tabled. I appreciate that courtesy, but other members of parliament would not know about the tabling of this document until tomorrow when they received Votes and Proceedings, which are the minutes of the proceedings of the House of Commons. Only then would they have been alerted as to what was available to the public and to our colleagues in the house in connection with the business of the house.
In connection with the report of the grain growers association which was referred to by the Toronto Telegram, I wish to repeat that not one member out of the 261 in this house could possibly have known about the availability of the report until the day after the debate had concluded in the house. In
Customs Tariff
this instance, having regard to the matter before us and section 38 of the Customs Act, I thank the minister for drawing the tabling of this document to my attention.
When a committee of this house was set up in 1959, following amendments to the Customs Act in 1958, there was no difficulty whatsoever in providing the estimates committee of this house within a matter of two or three days with a complete list of all orders that had been issued under the new legislation of 1958. I say it is a travesty of the rights of members of parliament, who are seeking information, to receive, despite the courtesy of the Minister of National Revenue, information at the last moment. I would not have known until tomorrow, when Votes and Proceedings are published, had it not been for the courtesy of the minister, what was tabled today in the House of Commons. I refer to material which relates to this debate and to the provisions of section 38 of the Customs Act, which was amended in radical form in 1958 by the new government. I appeal to all on the opposite side not to continue this kind of thing. I want to assure them that to the extent that I am capable I will be alert to all kinds of offences of this nature. I referred to some of them when I spoke last week. This is not treating the opposition as they should be treated and I do not think that the Minister of Finance, who is looking askance, the Minister of National Revenue, or anybody else, despite their oratory in past days, will ever find examples of parliament being ignored to the extent that the opposition has been ignored in the past. After all, the opposition is a component of parliament.
As I say, my return was tabled this afternoon. Other members would not know anything about it were it not for the courtesy of the Minister of National Revenue who indicated to me privately that it had been tabled with the Clerk of the House of Commons. Only tomorrow would members of parliament generally learn that the return had been made.


Jacques Flynn: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Mcllraith) negatived: Yeas, 27; nays, 66.


Jacques Flynn: I declare the amendment lost.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, there is one point that I want to deal with rather briefly. It has to do with the term "custom made to specifications" in clause 2A(l)(a). There seems to me to be a lack of clarity in the language, and I think the Minister of National Revenue rather pointed it up in his own

Customs Tariff
remarks. It seems to me the reference should be to "user's specifications", so that paragraph (a) would read:
In the case of goods other than goods custom-made to user's specifications.
And so on.
Surely, the phrase "custom made to specif-, ications" should have some further definition in it. Whose specifications? Surely, this should be clarified. I admit it is a small point, but it should be dealt with and I propose moving an amendment adding the word "user's". If I put the amendment formally before the committee, then it will limit the discussion to the narrow point. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate:
That paragraph (a) of subsection 1 of section 2A be amended by adding the word "user's" in line 10 before the word "specifications".
It would seem to be obvious that if this amendment carries appropriate amendments would have to be made to the other subsections but if it is defeated there would perhaps be no need to cover the ground again.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Chairman, I cannot see anything wrong with the insertion of the word "user's" except that in many cases the specifications are the property of the manufacturer and he is simply meeting a condition of the customer. They are the manufacturer's specifications. There may be modifications to these specifications which are required because of peculiar circumstances with respect to the site, operating conditions or what not, but in very few cases would they be the user's specifications. I can understand the intent of the amendment and I can see that it would perhaps apply to such things as automatic transmissions where the specifications are those of the user, the automobile manufacturing company. If there are facilities in this country for manufacturing such items then the phrase "user's specifications" would be appropriate and I would be all in favour of such a change. However, having a little knowledge of the engineering and machinery field, it seems to me that the amendment would do more to confuse than to help. Although the amendment has merit, in my opinion it would be too limiting.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a brief comment. Normally the specifications that are contemplated by the bill would be user's specifications but there may be cases where the specifications are not those of the user. They may be those of the producer, just as the hon. member for Vancouver South has indicated. If it were not for this fact, one would be glad to meet the point raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West. The fact is there may be cases

where the specifications are not those of the user although normally that would be the case. For that reason, I think it would be unwise to limit this provision in the bill.


George James McIlraith: I should like to ask the
Minister of Finance one question on that point. I take it this provision will mean that the manufacturer in Canada can allege that goods are custom made to specifications when in fact they are shelf goods. Surely that was never intended, but as I see it that could be one possibility. It seems to me a more precise definition is required than simply "custom made to specifications". I am not arguing particularly that it should be limited to user's specifications but surely it cannot be left open so anyone can say that it is the specifications of the manufacturer of competitive goods or something of that nature. Surely there must be some tying down of the specifications to some person or group of persons. That is my point.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not follow the hon. member in his reasoning, either in his reference to shelf goods or in what he has last said. He is overlooking the fact, I think, that there may be a great deal of engineering work to be done in these situations. The user, the intending purchaser, indicates his problem. He does not lay down hard and fast specifications himself but rather indicates his problem. The manufacturer will then contribute not only the goods but the design and he takes full responsibility for a design to meet the particular need indicated by the intending user. In that case the specifications are not laid down by the user. They are the manufacturer's specifications.


George James McIlraith: May I ask a question at that point? Does the design not become a design that the user has procured? It is the user's design at that point although the manufacturer has provided it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, that is where I think the hon. member is in error.


George James McIlraith: That is the very point. The user may provide the specifications himself or he may procure them from another firm and it may be that the very firm which is to manufacture the equipment will provide them. However, surely they are still the user's specifications. Surely, something more precise than the present language is required.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sorry, I do not follow the hon. member and I cannot agree with him.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, when we can afford it the minister and I buy new suits and we buy them from swatches that

may involve importation from a British woollen manufacturing company. I do not know whether that is desirable-


Ernest James Broome: Very desirable.


William Moore Benidickson: -but I want to know what the officials think who are sitting in front of the minister tonight with respect to whether the ordering of a woollen worsted suit under such circumstances is considered to be an ordering of shelf goods-as far as I know the goods are not on the shelf when the suit is ordered here in Canada-or whether it is a custom made order. How is the administration likely to administer this kind of provision? People may laugh but this is a very important matter. With all our respect for civil servants, we are giving bureaucrats rights under this bill that are not subject to any appeal in the traditional way to the tariff board, the Exchequer Court of Canada or the Supreme Court of Canada.
I do not want to draw attention to my suit but let us say that a small swatch of suiting has been created in Great Britain for use as a sample in Canada. I am persuaded that the particular pattern is not run off for everybody. They only run off a few yards in order to have possibly 12 inch by 12 inch samples. After their agents have travelled throughout the world and obtained orders, they may then decide on a reasonable run of this suiting in order to fill the orders that have been received.
In such cases there would be a delay of six to nine months from the time of creation of the first small run and I should like the minister to tell me whether or not Canada is going to regard these suitings as shelf goods. In my view they are not on the shelf, but are importers of such goods going to be regarded as importing custom made goods?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Except for the dumping duty, there is nothing in this bill that has any bearing whatever upon suitings.


William Moore Benidickson: I am not going to be put off in that way. I know that on December 20 the minister asserted that there were no rate increases provided here. He stands on that position.


Thomas Miller Bell: There is no textile item involved.


William Moore Benidickson: The parliamentary secretary is quite right. There is no specific increase provided in respect of any individual item among the thousands we have in the Customs Tariff. However, as a result of parliament adopting this bill we will find, as we found during the Bennett regime, increases in the amounts of duty by tremendous percentages. There is no question about that. I know
Customs Tariff
that the committee does not want me to repeat the quotations I gave yesterday from reliable sources.
I want to say that there are two things involved here. There is a direct opportunity for the tariff administration in national revenue to make an assessment under the made in Canada or not made in Canada provision. I suggest the department is going to make many decisions in the future that such and such a product is the equivalent of that made in Canada and, as a result, the department will have the right to invoke dumping duties. Otherwise, they have no right to refer to dumping duties.
I want to emphasize to all members of this committee that every student of tariffs has said that he requires no final statute, he requires nothing in the Custom Tariff if he has what was given to this government in 1958 in the way of ministerial discretion. The tariff board has been enlarged. It was said that the final judgments of the board would be worthy and helpful in influencing the administration with regard to recommendations for changes in the tariff schedule. I repeat that from now on if the minister of national revenue has the powers granted by this bill added to the powers given by the bill in 1958, any recommendations from the tariff board, after thoughtful and deliberate discussion, will be a farce.
Amendment (Mr. Mcllraith) negatived: Yeas, 25; nays, 71.


Jacques Flynn: I declare the amendment lost.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not intend to detain the committee with any speech, but since the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Ottawa West has been rejected and it would, therefore, be improper to enter again into an argument on that amendment, I merely wish to say that since the committee has decided it will not recommend to the house that subsection 3 of the section be taken out, I move:
That a new subsection 4 be added to section 2A as follows:
(4) Any ruling made under this section shall be published forthwith in the Canada Gazette.
It does seem to me, sir, if we are not going to permit an appeal at least we should make a provision for publicity so that everyone will know what is happening. This does not mean that anything more than the ruling itself needs to be published. However, at least there would be a means for the members of this house, and for everyone, to know what the government was, in fact, doing.


William Moore Benidickson: I do not believe the members of the committee are familiar with the

Customs Tariff
fact that for many years a very fine periodical has been published by the Department of National Revenue under the title, "Made in Canada Rulings". This is the normal procedure of the Minister of National Revenue, and the rulings relate to what is considered to be made in Canada and what is not made in Canada. I think the minister should tell us to what extent these new amendments will avoid publicizing a decision in the way it has always been publicized. I will give an example. I have here series "D", decision No. 51, dated October 23, 1953, relating to gasoline engine driven fork lift trucks. Precise details are given as to what fork lift trucks are made in Canada and what fork lift trucks are not made in Canada. I think henceforth we in this committee want to know the intention of the Minister of National Revenue in this respect. In respect of a certain article he will reach a decision that it is going to be regarded as possibly being made in Canada and that the tariff rate will be 22J per cent vis-a-vis the United States instead of 7-J per cent, I think it is, if it was not an article made in Canada.
The point here to which I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance is this. In fairness to everybody across Canada there should be knowledge of what is going to be done. Inasmuch as it has been traditional for these rulings to be made public, what is the intention of the minister? Members of parliament may think we are asking for something that is unusual. However, this is something that has gone out every day in the week in the past. I refer to rulings with respect to what has been made in Canada and what has not been made in Canada, with definitive descriptions of the article involved. I want to know whether, under the new legislation, the Minister of National Revenue is likely to continue that form of advice to all interested in these trades so that, if he makes a decision under the laws that have been passed today, all people will be treated equally.


Donald Methuen Fleming: First, may I point out what the situation is at the present time. Class or kind rulings are all made at the head office of the department here in Ottawa. These rulings are public, although not in the sense that they are today published in the Canada Gazette. Copies of the rulings are available to anyone today. Certainly there has been no thought at any time on the part of the government that rulings made under this bill, when enacted, would not be available to the public.
The hon. member's amendment contemplates the addition of a subclause 4 and it reads as follows:

Any ruling made under this section shall be published forthwith in the Canada Gazette.
I had thought that what the hon. member was principally concerned with was the kind of rulings to be made which become final under subclause 3.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If that is what he has in mind in connection with this amendment, I think we can quickly find ourselves on common ground if he will be prepared to alter the proposed language of the new clause 4 to read after this fashion:
Any decision of the minister with respect to the matters enumerated in subsection 3 shall be published forthwith in the Canada Gazette.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That amendment will be completely satisfactory to me. I should be very happy to incorporate it in the language the Minister of Finance has just used. It seems to me that is precisely the point. We feel that there should be a certainty in the law that these findings under subsection 3 will be published. I am happy indeed that the Minister of Finance has seen fit to accept this suggestion, I do not pretend to be a legal draftsman and I am very happy to accept the suggestion.


William Moore Benidickson: I, too, thank the Minister of Finance for his acceptance of this advice. I think this means that all in a certain industry are likely to know of ministerial decisions that are made possible by this subsection 3.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish very briefly on behalf of this group to say that, while we frequently question the wisdom of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, in this case we think he has demonstrated some good common sense in putting forward this amendment and we intend to support it. We are also glad to note that the minister has agreed to accept it and that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has agreed to accept the minister's suggestion with respect to the slight amendment. We believe it is a good thing for the actions of the government under this bill to come into the light of day so that the public will know what is being done. At the same time I think the inclusion of this amendment in the bill will make the government conscious of the fact that the public, or the section of the public that is particularly concerned, will know of the the minister's actions in the administration of this act. While the minister mentioned that there are other means or ways of getting this information or that it is obtainable from other sources, we think that the Canada Gazette is the proper medium through which to inform the public of the government's decisions in this respect.

Before concluding my brief remarks I might say that I am under the impression that there must be some mental telepathy on this side of the house because we have been thinking of this matter for some time. That has affected the mind of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. We are extremely pleased on that account.


Donald Methuen Fleming: So that we may have the amendment in written form, Mr. Chairman, may I say that this is what I have drafted, if it is acceptable to the hon. member who has moved the amendment. The proposed clause 4 to be added would now read as follows:
Any decision of the minister with respect to the matters enumerated in subsection 3 hereof shall be published forthwith in the Canada Gazette.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is completely satisfactory to me.


Jacques Flynn: Shall I read the amendment again? Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Jacques Flynn: Do I understand that the committee agrees to having the first amendment dropped and replaced by this one?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jacques Flynn: Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 1 as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On division.
Clause as amended agreed to on division.
Clauses 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.


Jacques Flynn: Shall the title carry?


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: Shall the bill carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On division.


Jacques Flynn: Shall I report the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Next sitting of the house.



ESTATE TAX


Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill No. C-82, to implement a convention between
Estate Tax
Canada and the United States of America for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on the estates of deceased persons.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on February 17 I announced to the house, as recorded at page 2145 of Hansard, that an estate tax convention had been concluded between Canada and the United States. The convention was signed in Washington on that day.
Hon. members may be interested to know that this was the first treaty signed by the new United States administration, just as the Columbia river treaty was the last treaty signed by the retiring administration. The purpose of Bill No. C-82 is to implement this convention.
In my statement of February 17 1 described in general terms the purposes and effects of the convention. I do not propose to repeat the comments which I then made. I may remind hon. members that the convention is in addition to the existing Canada-United States convention of 1944 which continues to apply to the estates of persons who died before January 1, 1959.
The new convention applies to the estates of persons dying on or after that date, which is the date on which the Canadian Estate Tax Act superseded the Dominion Succession Duty Act. The convention follows the general pattern of the 1944 convention between Canada and the United States and the conventions between Canada and the United Kingdom, France, Ireland and South Africa. Certain desirable changes have, however, been made.
The convention is attached to the bill as a schedule thereto. The bill itself, in both substance and form, is familiar to hon. members who have in recent years perused a good many bills to approve and implement tax conventions. Since the convention, if approved by parliament, would prevail over the Estate Tax Act in the event of any inconsistency, care has been taken in drafting the convention to insure that the taxpayer secures any relief to which he is entitled under the convention without losing any advantage to which he may be entitled under the ordinary law.
The convention will not come into force until it receives legislative approval in both countries and certain formalities are completed. When it comes into force it will be retroactive to January 1, 1959 so as to provide continuity with the existing succession duty convention. Consequently benefits resulting from its terms will apply to the estates of persons dying on or after January 1, 1959.
Mr. Speaker, I think I may reserve my

Estate Tax
comments on the major articles of the convention until we are in committee on the bill. I recall that on such measures in times past, because of the fact that they follow a well established pattern, the discussion has been largely confined to the committee stage.
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy
River): Mr. Speaker, we are fast approaching the adjournment hour of ten o'clock. This bill involves some technicalities with which I assume very few hon. members of the house are familiar. I confess I am not too familiar with them, although we all participated in the revision of the Canadian Estate Tax Act in 1959, I think it was.
I recall that fairly long and interesting discussions that took place at that time in the banking and commerce committee of this house. I take it that as a result of a rather wholesale revision of Canada's system with respect to the estates of deceased persons, including persons with United States residence who might have a liability, this particular legislation is necessary.
I imagine that having regard to the technicalities involved the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) would be very pleased to accede to my request that we call it ten o'clock. I take it that this does not in any way involve another legislative act that we must pass in the House of Commons relating to a United States-Canadian tax treaty because of the minister's supplementary budget
of December. I take it this measure relates only to taxation with respect to deceased persons.
I see it is ten o'oclock. I am sure the Minister of Finance will agree-and I see that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) agrees-that we could discuss this legislation at another opportunity.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair perhaps the house leader will tell us, so it will be on Hansard, what is proposed for the rest of the week.


Mr. Churchill:: Tomorrow we will have third reading of Bill No. C-72 dealing with the Customs Tariff. Then we will continue second reading of Bill No. C-82, which has just been under discussion, followed by item No. 9 on today's order paper, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Labour dealing with the vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons.
If those legislative items are passed we will go on with the estimates of the Post Office Department, northern affairs and justice, in that order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That applies for the rest of the week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 19, 1961