1963-07-16

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: May I refer to the question of privilege raised in the house yesterday by the Minister of Justice. In the July 15 issue of Hansard at page 2167 the Minister of Justice is reported as having raised a question of privilege in the following words:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On Friday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rose on a question of privilege, as reported at page 2121 of Hansard, which I think I can summarize. I quote:
"My point of privilege is that what we now have is precisely what we had last June. We have the government construing that the Financial Administration Act or regulations made under it gives them authority to do something which the act itself says cannot be done. The Financial Administration Act says that no appointments by the treasury board can be made under it."
The Minister of Justice then went on to say:
The hon. member's statement in this respect is not correct. If hon. members would look at section 5 (2) of the Financial Administration Act they would find it provides that the governor in council may authorize the treasury board to exercise all or any of the powers, other than powers of appointment, of the governor in council under the Civil Service Act, the Civil Service Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Act, and parts II to VI of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
The action taken was not under any of the foregoing acts, nor was it an "appointment". Section 39 of the Financial Administration Act authorizes the governor in council to make regulations with respect to the conditions under which contracts may be entered into, and it was pursuant to these regulations that the contracts were made. Section 5 (2) of the Financial Administration Act has no application whatever to the present situation.
Thereupon Hansard reports that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre stated the following:
Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege may I suggest that what I indicated on Friday was that the opinion in the name of Mr. Driedger tabled by the Prime Minister indicated that though it was purported that these arrangements were made under the government contracts regulations in accordance with section 39 of the Financial Administration Act, they do not come within the terms of the government contracts regulations themselves, as Mr. Driedger himself pointed out.
It seems to me that since we have had a question of privilege and a counter question of privilege raised in connection with the subject, the matter should be gone into. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam:
"That sessional paper No. 39B be referred to the committee on privileges and elections for study and report."
At this juncture I suggested that the motion might be allowed to stand until today in order to ensure that there was a prima facie case of privilege involved in the assertions of the two hon. gentlemen.
I do not propose at this time to review the authorities or comment on the nature of parliamentary privilege, but I would refer to the attention of hon. members May's sixteenth edition, pages 42 and 43; Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, fourth edition, page 37 and also Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, beginning at page 93.
The question of the privileges of this house is a wide and complex subject, and to try to cover that subject in a few words could be a most hazardous exercise. However, recognizing the risk that may be incurred in doing so I would say that, stated briefly, a question of privilege is a question relating to the rights, security, dignity and freedom of the house as a whole or of its members individually, and to the conduct and honour of such members.
If my summary of the authorities be substantially sound, I find no support in any of them for the contention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that a prima facie question of privilege of this house is involved in his assertions or in his motion. It seems to me that what we have is, in essence, a dispute between two hon. members with regard to the legality of certain action. In other words I suggest that the matter could be raised as a grievance on a motion to go into committee of supply or at some other appropriate occasion. In this regard may I refer hon. members to paragraph 5 of citation 104 of Beauchesne's fourth edition.
Since there is, in my opinion, no question of privilege involved I cannot give the hon. member's proposed motion precedence over the business set down for today.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, may I just say that I accept your ruling and will deal with, the matter on another occasion.
2234	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):



BANKING AND COMMERCE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Edmund Asselin (Noire Dame de Grace)
presented the fourth report of the standing committee on banking and commerce, in English and in French.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Now that the government has the report and recommendations made by Mr. Justice Norris, will he advise the house what the government intends to do about them?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the government received the report just yesterday morning. It is a very lengthy report with a number of far reaching proposals. It took Mr. Justice Norris a year to make this report and these recommendations. We do not expect to take that long to reach a decision, but we intend to study these conclusions and recommendations immediately.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: May I ask
a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he does not feel that some of the findings of the recommendations in this report come within the ambit of the Department of Justice, and what he intends to do about instituting remedial action in relation to them.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: It may well be, Mr. Speaker, that some of the recommendations contained therein come within the purview of the Department of Justice. However, as the Minister of Labour has said, the report was tabled only yesterday and I will have to give it careful consideration in order to determine what action should be taken.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour, in the light of the Norris report, whether he has called the attention of his colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to section 19 of the Immigration Act, which permits the deportation of any person other than a Canadian citizen who engages in the subversion by force or other means of democratic institutions or processes as they are understood in -Canada.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The matter raised by the hon. member is referred to in one of the concluding paragraphs of the Norris report. Yesterday I had the opportunity to discuss this matter briefly with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who was fully aware of the implications of the recommendation.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Is it
not a fact that Banks was admitted to Canada by a special order in council of the previous government?


Mr. Pickersgill:: That is not a fact.


An hon. Member:: It is so.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a question of privilege, the Secretary of State denied an assertion which I made a few minutes ago, but I have now found the reference in support of what I had to say. I wish to read from page 312 of the report of the industrial inquiry commission on the disruption of shipping:
The order in council of July 6th, 1954, which authorizes Banks' admission to Canada, was based on the fact that there was satisfactory evidence of his rehabilitation. He was granted status as a landed immigrant.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is correct that after Mr. Banks came to live in Canada he was given the status of a landed immigrant, but he was first admitted to Canada, it seems to me, immediately after the war and not at that time.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In answer to the hon. member for Greenwood the minister indicated that the Norris commission report had been discussed with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Does this mean that the government is considering the issuing of a deportation order with respect to Mr. Banks?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the discussion I had with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was brief and informal, and from that it is not to be concluded that the government is actively considering at the present time any recommendations made in the report.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the hopeful beginnings of the test ban talks in Moscow and the fundamental reorientation of Soviet policy

that appears possible in the light of the unprecedented attacks on the Chinese position, published on July 14 by Pravda, would the Prime Minister give serious consideration to holding in abeyance for the present any further discussions with the United States concerning the bilateral agreement for the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Canada?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government would be happy to take any action which would facilitate agreement at the talks in Moscow, particularly agreement in the field of test banning, but I do not think the course suggested by my hon. friend would have that result.



MID-CANADA LINE    CONTINUATION OF OPERATION OF STATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the statement made in the house yesterday by the minister that the United States government would be discontinuing the operation of some 20 D.E.W. line sites in Canada, could the minister advise the house whether the government has in mind any similar plan in relation to the mid-Canada line? If so, could he assure the house that ample notification will be given to any persons whose livelihood may be disrupted?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: There are no present plans for changing the requirements with respect to the mid-Canada line.



INQUIRY AS TO PERSONNEL OF DEFENCE SPENDING COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister give the house the names of the other members of the committee that will study defence spending under Dr. R. J. Sutherland?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any purpose would be served by making that information public.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS OF OPPOSITION PARTIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister give consideration to the possibility of inviting members of the opposition parties to attend the
Inquiries of the Ministry federal-provincial conference on July 26 and 27, in order to have them better prepared to study the bills when they are brought before the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a very interesting suggestion, Mr. Speaker, but I think before it could be acted on it would require consultation with all provincial governments.


Gilles Grégoire: As a supplementary question, would the Prime Minister agree to consult the provincial premiers in order to have members of the opposition parties present as observers at this conference?
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister tell the house whether the Quebec premier's ultimatum concerning a new sharing of the sources of income will be discussed during the federal-provincial conference which will be held on July 25 and 26?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is not on the agenda.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Can the Prime Minister indicate how many of the provincial premiers have signified their intention of being present at the conference? I know the notice just went out, but has he received any acceptances or any refusals?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not checked my mail since ten o'clock this morning. At that time there had been no replies, but some may have been received during the morning. (Translation):


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliefte-L'Assompiion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister intend to include on the agenda of the conference a discussion on the advisability of amending the Criminal Code to allow lotteries?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: The letter I addressed to the premiers of the provinces indicated the three matters that would be discussed, and that is not one of the matters for this meeting.



CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMANENT SECRETARIAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister consider at the proposed forthcoming meeting of premiers initiating discussions

Inquiries of the Ministry relating to the establishment of a secretariat or some other permanent organization for dealing with federal-provincial relations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The meeting next week is a preliminary one. The suggestion of my hon. friend, which is an important and interesting one, would I think be more suitable for the next meeting, which will be a longer meeting, in the autumn.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works on a matter about which I spoke yesterday, and of which I gave him notice this morning. Can the minister assure the house that the company to which his department gave a contract will fulfil immediately their obligation in the installation of a gate to the exercise area of the segregation section of the maximum security division at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, in order that the warden can release rough and tough men for short periods in the exercise yard?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelefs (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having sent me notice of his question, and I would like to tell him that temporary gates are now being installed and will be completed by July 18. The permanent installation is expected to be completed by July 31. The delay in the permanent installation was caused by the failure on the part of the contractor to obtain the special prison locking devices required.
As the hon. member knows, we have decided on an emergency program regarding the needs at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, and after hearing from the hon. member I am going to contact the architect in chief of the department so that he may present me with a report on the actual state of the works we have undertaken there.



PASSAMAQTJ0DDY    PARTICIPATION BY CANADA IN PROJECT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, no such request has been received by the Canadian government on this matter.']
Hon. H. J. Flemming (Vicioria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. With reference to the statement made this morning by interior secretary Stewart Udall of the United States concerning the Maine-New Brunswick Pas-samaquoddy power project, as reported in the press this morning, has the Prime Minister taken note of the report, and is he [Mr. Grafftey.l
in a position to inform the house with respect to the participation of the Canadian government in this project?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will certainly be glad to take note of this report which has just been released today, as my hon. friend has indicated. I understand that the President of the United States is expected to make a statement shortly commenting on the report. In the letter submitting the report to the President the secretary of the interior suggests that suitable arrangements would have to be made with the Canadian government for the United States to construct the Passamaquoddy tidal project and to work out an equitable sharing of the downstream benefits from power development of the Saint John river in Canada.
Then Mr. Udall recommends that the President request the secretary of state to immediately initiate negotiations with the government of Canada looking toward a satisfactory arrangement for the sharing of the power and flood control benefits of the Saint John river in Canada and the development of the Passamaquoddy tidal power project by the United States. Mr. Speaker, when a request is received from the United States government to initiate such negotiations, it will certainly be given immediate consideration here.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Soviet union has responded favourably to the suggestion of Canada's Voice of Women that 1965 be declared international co-operation year, will the Prime Minister give consideration to Canada also recommending to the secretary general of the United Nations, U Thant, that 1965 be declared international co-operation year?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me correctly, last year the then secretary of state for external affairs expressed on behalf of the government, support for an international co-operation year. I remember at the time indicating my own support for this proposal, and we would be glad to confirm that support at the forthcoming general assembly.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Mariineau (Ponliac-Temisca-minque):: I have a question for the Secretary of

State for External Affairs. Will the minister tell the house whether Canada's contribution under the commonwealth-United States military aid program to India is now taking the form of men as well as military supplies?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: As the house is aware, Canada agreed to take part in a joint commonwealth-United States air defence mission which went to India last January. This was in accordance with a decision made by the previous government. The report of the mission has been carefully considered, and the need to protect Indian cities against possible air attacks from the north has been recognized. However, we have reached the conclusion that we do not have the equipment or the personnel which would allow us to provide effective assistance to India in that particular field. It has been decided, therefore, that Canada should not be a party to current arrangements which might be concluded between India and other governments which may be in a better position to assist.


Miss Pauline Jewett (Northumberland):: Can
the minister say whether Canada has given any military assistance to India?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Yes, Canada has given assistance to India altogether apart from the proposed exercise which formed the basis of the question asked by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue. Canada has supplied eight Dakota aircraft, five Otter aircraft, 36 Harvard aircraft, personal military clothing, nickel for defence production, and training.


John George Diefenbaker: I compliment the minister on his wonderful memory, and ask him when the decision was made to do these things and when these supplies were given.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Since the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If hon. members will permit me, I was just about to say that since the Prime Minister, on my right, has suggested to me that part of the reply should be "Some time ago", I can only say to the Leader of the Opposition, whose status I always recognize, that the decision with regard to what was done in January was, of course, taken by the government of the right hon. gentleman when he was prime minister. The assistance given to India in the supply of aircraft was not all given during the period the right hon. gentleman was head of the government.


John George Diefenbaker: It was all agreed to and ready to be done.
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette): As a
supplementary question I should like to ask the minister if this assistance is given on the basis of lend-lease or credit or as an outright gift.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Some has been made available as an outright gift. Some military equipment has been supplied on loan, at reduced interest to the receiving country.
(Translation):


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could he tell the house if he has been informed of the reasons why the United States, the United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R. have not invited France, which is a nuclear power, to take part in the talks now being held in Moscow to ban certain nuclear tests? If so, can he tell us what those reasons were?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, that is a question which does not concern Canada.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the expressed hope of the United States state department that Canada will discontinue flights between Toronto and Havana, can the Prime Minister assure the house that the Canadian government will not comply with this request?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, no such request has been received by the Canadian government on this matter.



HONG KONG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday in a written reply the minister indicated that the emergency food relief program for Hong Kong initiated by the former administration would not be continued under the new administration. Would the

Inquiries of the Ministry minister not agree that the continuing emergency in Hong Kong requires continued extraordinary relief measures in which Canada might well assist?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, no one will deny the postulates implied in the question of my hon. friend, but I can now add no more to what has already been given by way of a written reply.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. Perhaps Your Honour would permit me to first say one or two sentences in explanation. This morning I paused for a few minutes from routine duties to observe the changing of the guard. Some 5,000 visitors had gathered to see this most interesting attraction on capital hill during the summer months.


Some hon. Members:: Come on.


Robert Norman Thompson: The guard reached the cenotaph, circled and returned to barracks. It is true that there was a threat of rain, but none was falling and none came. I was very disturbed by the fact that an announcement was not even made to this tremendous gathering of visitors, and I would ask the Minister of National Defence whether he could explain why such a thing was permitted to happen.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, in the event of bad weather the changing of the guard has on previous occasions been cancelled prior to the commencement of the parade. However, should the weather take a turn for the worse after the parade to parliament hill has started, the officer commanding the guard has authority to return immediately to barracks. This morning in the opinion of the officer commanding the conditions justified this procedure being carried out, and in consequence the guard did not proceed to parliament hill to carry out the ceremony.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the uniforms and equipment carried, including the colours, are quite valuable and if an exercise of judgment is necessary it is preferable to err on the side of caution.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not think it might have been courteous to make an announcement to the tremendous gathering of people waiting to see this ceremony?
[Mr. Dinsdale.l


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sure it would have been, Mr. Speaker, and this suggestion will be brought to the attention of the commanding officer so that it will be possible in the future to make some sort of announcement.



REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL CARILLON PROGRAMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to address a question to the most obliging Minister of Public Works. My question is prompted by conversations with tourists and the curiosity of one gentleman of the press. In view of the fact that 5,000 people attend the daily changing of the guard ceremony and that an estimated 10,000 tourists are in Ottawa every day, can the minister explain why there are only two late programs on the carillon, and would he consider making provision for at least one day time program and another at a suitable hour every evening of the week during the summer months?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I thank the hon. member for bringing up this question. I personally had the same idea while listening to the carillon on Sunday night. I shall bring the matter to the attention of the proper authority without delay.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reg Cantelon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to address to the Secretary of State in his capacity as minister in charge of the C.B.C. I hope hon. members will bear with me while I set the stage for the question.
A recent report of the C.B.C. approved a second television station in Saskatoon. Once it is in operation it is the intention of CFQC-TV in Saskatoon to leave the C.B.C. network and join a private television network. This will also remove the Stranraer satellite of CFQC from the network and will leave approximately 70 per cent of Kindersley constituency without C.B.C. coverage.
I would ask the minister whether he could now have the board of broadcast governors review an application of the Swift Current television station to establish a satellite in the Kindersley area or north of the Kindersley area in Kerrobert. I should hope that in the light of changed circumstances this would now receive favourable consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to draw the

hon. gentleman's speech to the attention of the chairman of the B.B.G.



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, having received some inquiries from a number of points in Meadow Lake constituency. Farmers are quite concerned who are only as yet on an 8 bushel quota. Could the minister give these farmers any assurance that they will receive the necessary box cars and orders so they may be placed on a 12 bushel quota before the end of the crop year?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the hon. gentleman that the wheat board has given me assurance that it will do everything possible to see that all points are on the 12 bushel quota before the end of the crop year.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the question asked in my absence yesterday by the hon. member for Kindersley concerning reinstatement of Canadian wheat board shipping order No. 1,000. I am advised by the board that order No. 1,000 will be reinstated after the start of the new crop year. I might explain that the reason the wheat board has seen fit to suspend their shipping order policy is that they are simply trying to equalize delivery opportunities at shipping points, which I know is supported by all members of the house. The suspension of order No. 1,000 means that those stations already on a 12 bushel quota will have to mark time until the others catch up.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question of urgency to the Minister of Trade and Commerce under whose jurisdiction the Canadian wheat board comes. As the minister is aware, the three western prairie provinces are expecting to harvest a very large grain crop this year. Since the prospects for export of this grain are very dim at the present time, as a result of which the biggest part
Inquiries of the Ministry of this year's grain will have to be stored on the farms, would the minister confirm or deny the report that interest free cash advances to farmers on farm stored grain will be drastically curtailed during the 1963-64 crop year on account of this unprecedented large volume? In that event, can the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest that this question be put on the order paper.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer the relevant part of that question. There seems to have been a suggestion that the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act would not be in operation in the coming crop year. This was the essence of a question put yesterday in my absence. I should like to say, so there is no uncertainty, that this act of course, remains in effect. Hon. members may recall, since this was legislation introduced by the party which is now in opposition, that under the act no loans are made after June 1 in any crop year; but on August 1 loans will be resumed, as they have been in any other year. The terms of the act speak for themselves, and there will be no curtailment in any way of its ordinary operation.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. The minister has said that these cash advances will be made. Are they interest free?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, I think the hon. gentleman was a member of the party which introduced this legislation and he ought to know. I can assure him that that is so.



ALBERTA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Did he issue an order than anyone wishing P.F.A. work in Alberta must apply to the office in Regina, Saskatchewan?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, if the department has issued such an order I will have to look into it and let the hon. member know tomorrow.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether all inspectors employed under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act last year have been fired by the new government?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, we select these people on the basis of merit only and I can assure the hon. member that there will be no changes if they are competent. I do not think this has always been done.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Clifford Silas Smallwood: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This order has been issued. Will the minister kindly inform the house who issued it if he did not?



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of assurances given earlier this session that consideration would be given to the position of retired civil servants whose pensions are inadequate, could the minister say whether we might anticipate at this session an amendment of the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act under which this sort of thing could be done?


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, there is an item in the estimates which will provide for this from July 1, 1963 on.



TABLING OF SALARY INCREASES FOR CERTAIN CLASSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he is now able to make public the schedules of increases that he announced would be tabled today?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they are available. If anybody would like to have them I would be glad to supply them. If hon. members would like to have them tabled I would be glad to table them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister in a position to say how many days it will be before a similar announcement is made in respect of the employees of the House of Commons?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think that will depend very largely on when Your Honour's committee is able to meet.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to request that the schedules be tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



RED CHINA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in regard to his statement in Regina

on wheat markets. In view of the importance of this subject in Regina and the west generally, has the hon. gentleman anything further to tell the house with regard to the China wheat negotiations?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have received a report from Mr. McNamara, who is heading this delegation, as he headed the previous one. He reported progress.



REPORTED CHANGES IN PERSONNEL OF WHEAT BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce with regard to his visit to the west. Would the minister comment on reports that there may be changes in, or additions to, the top personnel of the Canadian wheat board?


Mitchell William Sharp: I was asked a question about certain rumours I encountered in western Canada relative to appointments to the Canadian wheat board. I will give the same answer now that I gave on that occasion. I was asked whether it was true that Mr. C. W. Gibbings will be asked to join the Canadian wheat board. The answer I gave was that the Canadian government would be delighted to have a man with the vast experience and knowledge of Mr. Gibbings as a member of the board.



EFFORTS TO INCREASE WHEAT SALES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, notice of which was sent to him earlier today. It arises out of the announcement by the Australian wheat board yesterday to the effect that Australia is making a new, concerted effort to sell wheat to Brazil. Would the minister inform the house as to what special action Canada plans to meet this kind of competition and subsequently increase Canadian wheat sales to this country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the wheat board has been attempting for many years at a time when I was permanent head of the department, during the period the previous government was in office and today, to sell wheat to Brazil. Its efforts have never slackened, and anything the Canadian government can do to assist them is being done. I do not really think there is anything more I can say by way of reply.



RED CHINA-NEGOTIATION OF ORIGINAL WHEAT AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister in a position to confirm, or otherwise, the story in the Winnipeg Free Press by Victor Mackie that the wheat deal with China in 1961 was signed by the wheat board representatives in Hong Kong three days before the then minister of agriculture left Canada to go to Hong Kong? What does this mean with regard to the whole situation as to who negotiates these contracts?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I was not here and could not say when the former minister of agriculture left Canada to conduct these negotiations. I am told it was after April 22, 1961. If so, he arrived after the agreement had been signed. The answer to the second part of the question is very clear. Under the Canadian Wheat Board Act such negotiations are conducted, of course, by the Canadian wheat board. They were conducted in 1961 under the direction of Mr. McNamara, and they are now being conducted by him.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Who provided the credit terms?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Canadian people. (Translation):



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Has the minister any recent information to give the house concerning international air rates, following the meeting of the international air transport association which took place yesterday?
(Text):


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have no information on that subject to give the house, but perhaps I should explain that the meeting taking place in Ottawa at the present time is a meeting of the aeronautical authorities of the countries whose carriers operate air services on the Atlantic and Pacific. This conference is not dealing with air tariffs. International air fares are established by the international air transport association, which is an organization of air lines, and these fares are subject to approval by the appropriate government authorities. The present conference
Inquiries of the Ministry is dealing with the relationship between the international air transport association and the government authorities and the procedures to be adopted in dealing with fares when they are established by the international air transport association.
(Translation):



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Does the government intend to accede to the request of the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities of Canada as to the removal of tax on building materials for municipal works?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Premier Bennett has apparently agreed verbally, is the Prime Minister now in a position to appoint the commission to study biculturalism?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to make the announcement yesterday or today but we are still awaiting replies from, I think, two gentlemen who have been invited to serve on the board.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.
When the members of this commission are appointed, does the Prime Minister intend to ask them to present their report a few months before the confederation centennial? (Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the suggested terms of reference have already been made public.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister care to tell us how many members there are going to be on the royal commission on biculturalism?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: That will be clear when I make the announcement of the personnel of the commission, and I do hope to be able to do that tomorrow or the next day.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister anything to report on the condition of the Alaska highway?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the only information available at national defence headquarters was included in a message dated July 11, 1963 from headquarters, western command, which states:
Alaska highway is closed until further notice to all traffic from Fort Nelson, mile 300, to mile 496 due to flooding and washouts. Closure is expected to last several days.
Western command has been requested to report on the status of this situation.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Azellus Denis (Posimaster General):: May I answer a question yesterday asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam concerning mail service to British Guiana. This service was discontinued from June 14 until July 12 because of a general strike in that country. Arrangements were made, however, that anything sent by air mail would be accepted. This service has now been resumed on a regular basis.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Marcoux: I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Justice concerning the forged letter, purporting to come from Mr. Butterworth, does the Prime Minister intend to put the whole matter before the standing committee on privileges?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think any useful purpose would be served in submitting this forged letter to the committee in question.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In the interests of balancing trade and improving the employment picture will the minister take steps to assure that the P. and B.M. branch of public works will buy Canadian products rather than products manufactured in whole or in part outside of Canada?


Malcolm MacInnis: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In the interest of improving the employment picture, will the minister take steps to assure that the P. and B.M. branch of the Department of Public Works will buy their purchases from materials manufactured in Canada rather than materials manufactured, in part or in whole, outside this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Surely the purchasing policy of the Department of Public Works is a matter for that department. I am sure the minister is conscious of the employment effects of any of his activities in that department.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It stems from the public invitation issued last week by Mayor Jean Drapeau to the Republic of France to establish a television and radio station in Montreal. I should like to ask the minister whether Mayor Drapeau has asked the minister to act as his city's agent in connection with this very interesting proposition?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, sir.



WAYS AND MEANS

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

[Stage Direction]
That schedule A to the Customs Tariff be amended by striking out tariff items 24, 25, 179, 187c, 409f, 438h (1), 521 (1), 521 (3) (a), 521 (3) (b), 522 (6), 532g, 533, 536, 537, 537a, 537b, 537e, 537d, 537e, 538a, 538d, 538i (1), 538i	(2), 540	(a), 540	(b),
540 (c), 540 (d), 541, 541a, 541b, 541c, 541d, 542, 542a, 543, 546, 546a, 547a, 548, 548a, 548c, 549c, 549d, 549e, 549f, 569, 569a (1), 569a (2), 569a (3), 569a (4), 569a (5), 569a (6), 569b, 569c (1), 569c (2), 569d (1),

569d (2), 572a, 610, 798, 812, 812a and 812b, and the enumerations of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of these items, and by inserting therein the following items, enumerations of goods and rates of duty:
The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Nowlan:: No, I do not suppose it will carry at this time. I assume the minister would like to make a statement in respect of this matter before we engage in questioning and further discussion.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, hon. members will recall that there are six separate resolutions on the Customs Act. The first two resolutions relating to that act embody changes in tariff rates and the wording recommended by the tariff board in its last three reports under reference No. 125. In this reference the tariff board was asked to review all the items in the Canadian tariff covering textiles and to recommend a new tariff structure. The final reports, which are now being acted upon, are those covering miscellaneous textiles of jute, hemp, flax and rough fibres, and coated or impregnated fibres, hats, caps and related products. In addition to the changes in tariff and drawback items recommended by the board in the three reports to which I have referred, the resolution contains technical revisions relating to textiles woven of cotton yarns.
Negotiations and consultations relating to the tariff changes proposed in these resolutions were necessary because many of the items in question were bound under the general agreement on tariffs and trade. These negotiations have been completed with all the other countries concerned, specifically with the United States, the United Kingdom, the European economic community, Austria, Yugoslavia, Haiti, India and Japan. The other countries concerned recognized that while certain tariff increases would result from the adoption of the new textile schedule recommended by the board, they would be offset by approximately equally important decreases. As a consequence it was only in respect of rather specific problems relating to Canadian trade with particular countries that Canada was obliged to go outside the textile schedule to find additional compensation.
Hon. members will note that the resolutions contain proposals for reductions of duties on chicory, photographic dry plates, motor scooters, aluminum sluice type irrigation devices, hay stack forms and orchard heaters. These reductions comprise an integral part of the negotiated package. I should add that in this negotiated package a few departures were made from the recommendations made by the board.
28902-5-143
Customs Tariff


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, could we have some guidance here relating to procedure? Will we proceed item by item, or will we make general remarks on each resolution before we come to the specific items?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would think item by item might be the best way, if that is agreeable to hon. members.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Customs tariff-24. Chicory, raw or green; British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, 3 cents.


William Heward Grafftey: While I could not relate this general question to any of the specific items in the first resolution, I was wondering if the minister could inform us whether there are any net changes in the tariff results. As he just stated, there will be raises in the textile ranges and some lowering. Is there any net change involved, and what would the net amount be?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: By and large it is a balanced package that was renegotiated. I think perhaps the textile industry as a whole may have gained slightly, but not materially.


William Heward Grafftey: In the negotiated package were the compensatory items negotiated with the negotiated package? This was after the third report had come in. Am I right?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is consideration of item 24 completed?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-25. Chicory, kiln dried, roasted or ground . .. per pound: British preferential tariff, 2 cents; most favoured nation tariff, 2 cents; general tariff, 5 cents.
Mr. Nesbill:: As to these items on chicory, can the minister tell us where we import most of the chicory from?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Quite a number of countries, including the countries that comprise the European common market. France is an important exporter.


William Heward Grafftey: The minister stated that most of the items outside textiles were on the recommendation of the tariff board. Was this particular item on the recommendation of the tariff board?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Chairman, this was part of the package that was negotiated. The tariff board did not do the negotiating, of course.


William Heward Grafftey: As I understand it, some of the items are non-textile items and the minister said in his statement that some of the

Customs Tariff
non-textile items were recommended by tariff board and others were not.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: None of them were recommended by the tariff board.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Perhaps the minister could tell us whether any chicory is produced in Canada?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Thomas:: As I understand it, when these negotiations take place and a concession is granted in our tariff rates, we receive some other concession return. Can the minister tell us what concession was received in return for this, or is that possible?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: There are a lot of textile items, and taking in these non-textile items as well, on balance those officials who were conducting the negotiations were satisfied that what we gave was offset by what we received.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Is there any way of segregating these various items? Is it possible to know what concession was granted in return for this concession on chicory?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: There is no way to deal with it on an item by item basis. If you look at all these changes in toto you will see most of them have to do with textile items, and those that do not are relatively few in number and were mentioned in my opening statement. There is chicory, photographic dry plates, motor scooters, aluminum sluice gate irrigation devices and so on, but not very many of them.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is consideration of item 25 completed?


Mr. Barnett:: Actually the point I want to raise, relates to an item which comes after item 25 and is part of the next number on the list, but I thought this might be the appropriate point at which to raise the question. The minister may recall that when we had the budget resolutions under consideration last session some questions were raised concerning the duty on imported fish food for trout farms. In fact I shall refer to the question I asked last session. It had been pointed out that trout coming into the country under item 133A come in without duty whereas this feed, which it was claimed could not be produced in Canada, had a 20 per cent duty applied to it. I understand there was also a question related to the excise tax. I notice in item 7 in the excise tax resolution a reference to feed for trout, in which I gather the tax is to be lifted. What consideration did the minister give to the question of the customs tariff on trout feed?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think it is in resolution No. 4, the first item, that my hon. friend will find
[Mr. Grafftey.l
the matter he has referred to has been taken care of.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I had looked through the various items and I had an impression earlier that it was here, and I decided I was wrong in my earlier impression.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Anybody can be confused by these particular schedules and is entitled to be. They are voluminous, numerous and complex, but this particular one has been looked after.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I see it now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-179. Labels for cigar boxes, fruits, vegetables, meats, fish, confectionery or other goods or wares; shipping, price or other tags, tickets or labels, and railroad or other tickets, whether lithographed or printed, or partly printed, n.o.p.; the foregoing not including labels of textile fibres or filaments: British preferential tariff, 17J per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 22J per cent; general tariff, 35 per cent.
Tickets issued by railway systems in the British commonwealth (not including railway systems operating in Canada), shall be exempt from customs duty, when produced in countries entitled to the benefits of the British preferential tariff.
(Translation):
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the minister the clause concerning labels for cigar boxes. Will the minister give the house the assurance that this provision will not affect the consumption of tobacco which, unfortunately, is decreasing in Canada, especially that of cigar tobacco produced in the Joliette area.
There is overproduction at the present time and farmers belonging to tobacco co-operatives are compelled to fix voluntary quotas. I sincerely hope that this provision will do no harm to the consumption of cigar tobacco. Incidentally, when the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) declared that she was quitting smoking, she contributed directly to the decrease in the sales of Canadian cigarette tobacco.
On this point, would the minister assure the house that this provision will do no harm at all to tobacco consumption?
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to reassure my hon. friend on this subject. This will not affect cigar labels or the smoking of cigars at all. The only change to item 179 is the addition of the words in italics.


William Heward Grafftey: Then I would ask the minister whether I am correct in assuming that this is possibly a clarification item consequential of the report; that it was not because of the package deal itself, as a compensation item?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.


William Heward Grafftey: Then, Mr. Chairman, could some aspect of the clarification be explained in some detail.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: 
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question concerning the following item:
Railroad or other tickets, whether lithographed or printed, or partly printed-
Can the hon. minister tell the house what Canadian railways import their tickets? Is the C.N.R. one of those companies importing tickets printed outside this country?
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I should explain, Mr. Chairman, that there is no change at all in this section. The section provides certain protection for those people who print their tickets in Canada for the existing railroads, and the intention is that this protection should be retained.


Gilles Grégoire: I can see there is no change, as the minister pointed out a little earlier. But I would like to know this. We have here an item concerning the importation of printed railway tickets, and I would like to know whether there are some companies in fact which are importing their printed tickets, and whether the C.N.R. is one such company.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am very sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I do not know the answer to that question. I have consulted my officials, and they do not know it either. I will be glad, if the hon. member would like me to do so, to contact the two principal railroads and find out whether they do import any tickets.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister should not only find that out but should also see that these companies, especially the C.N.R., if they import their railroad 28902-5-143i
Customs Tariff
tickets should instead have them printed in Canada. I think we have good enough printing facilities in Canada to have the printing of these tickets carried out here. I suppose there might be some companies which import them, because the item is there in our law; it is not there for nothing. I would like the minister to make inquiries in this respect.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I share the hon. member's point of view in this matter. I would point out to him that the rate of duty is relatively high; it is intended, of course, to protect the people who print tickets here. But I will find out and let him know.


Mr. Valade:: On the same line of questioning, Mr. Chairman, I wonder why the minister included this provision in these resolutions, if he does not know whether the printing of tickets is helping Canadian firms. I wonder why this provision is included if he does not know whether it is going to serve any purpose.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: As I explained a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, the only change in this item is the addition of the words in italics. This particular item has been in the tariff for I do not know how long, and it provides protection for those printers who are in the business of producing tickets amongst other things.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-187c. Photographic dry plates: British preferential tariff, 75 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 12J per cent; general tariff 30 per cent.
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, could the minister inform the committee why photographic dry plates as such are separated from other photographic materials? Does this relate to some aspect of the made in Canada provisions?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I understand that these are rather specialized dry plates and they are not made in Canada.


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Chairman, is this the type of plate that is used by manufacturing firms for making specialized types of catalogues which are not available in Canada? Is the purpose to encourage the manufacture of these plates in Canada; is that part of the principle involved?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, the short answer to that question is no. This represents a reduction in duty. It was part of the negotiated package. The Canadian producers were consulted about this and raised no objection.


Mr. Scoil:: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether the minister could give us any idea as to the volume of imports that takes place in regard to this commodity.

Customs Tariff


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Last year the amount was $150,000.


Reid Scott: Does the minister not consider it might be appropriate to attempt the production of such a volume here in Canada?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I suppose it depends upon the individual producer and whether the market in Canada is sufficient to justify going into production of these specialized plates.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, am I correct in my assumption that the purpose of this provision and where the application is being considered is in the area where these plates are produced and then returned in the course of an involved production system, rather than for resale?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The answer is no, Mr. Chairman.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, has the industry involved indicated at all whether they are prepared in the near future to produce these items in Canada?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, the industry in question raised no objection to the tariff reduction, but they also gave no indication as to whether they proposed to go in for the production of this particular kind of plate themselves.


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister would draw this to the attention of the new department of industry.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will be very glad to do that, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-312d. Woven fabrics, wholly or in part of asbestos, for use in the manufacture of clutch facings and brake linings; British preferential tariff, 121 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 121 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Gilles Grégoire: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he is aware of the amount of asbestos imported each year into Canada. We all know that we are the biggest producer of asbestos in the world, producing I think 85 per cent of the total. If there is an item here dealing with asbestos it means we are importing it, and I should like to know how much we import.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: There are no statistics which would give this information, but I would be very pleased to see whether we could find an approximation which would satisfy the hon. gentleman's very understandable curiosity in this matter, particularly as we are such a large producer of asbestos.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if the minister could give me some clarification on this point. Perhaps I should

know it, but if I am clear on the item perhaps it will be helpful when future items are discussed. I notice that there has been no change in the British preferential, the most favoured nation or the general tariff rates as between what they are now and the rates in effect prior to the rates proposed in the budget. I also notice that there is nothing in italics indicating that there has been a change in reclassification.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This is strictly a renumbering operation. This item replaces without change in wording or rates of duty former ex-item 542. The tariff board did not make any recommendation regarding ex-item 542 as it was not included in reference 125. The item has been renumbered with a view to moving it to the appropriate section of the tariff relating to fibres and fabrics of asbestos.


Mr. Pugh:: There has been no change?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: There has been no change.


William Heward Grafftey: I understood that resolution No. 3 was devoted entirely to the renumbering of items in consequence of various changes. Why would this renumbering operation take place at this stage?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think that is a very natural question. It is included here because it was a bound item under GATT and was renegotiated as part of the package.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it this item deals with woven fabrics wholly or in part of asbestos for use in clutch facings and brake linings. Canada imports a great deal of clutch facings and brake linings. Are there any factories or manufacturing plants in Canada which go into the process of weaving asbestos fibre for brake linings and clutch facings?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, there are, but this does not change their position, of course.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, I realize that.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask whether representations were made to the minister prior to the budget to protect in a more practical way the automobile parts industry in Canada.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Many representations were received from the automobile parts manufacturers, but not relating to this particular item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-409f. Aluminum sluice-type devices for controlling water in irrigation ditches; animal clippers; automatic stock watering devices; bam hay forks, carriage, pulleys and track; bam litter carriers and track; combination excavating and transporting scraper units; egg cooling cabinets; elevators (other than storage elevators); grain crushers; grain or hay dryers; grain or hay grinders; grain loaders; gravity discharge farm wagon boxes; hay stack forms; heaters for orchards;

hitches and couplings; hydraulic hoists for unloading vehicles; land levellers; machines and tools for use on tractors, including blades, loaders, rippers, rakes and related operating and controlling gear; milk coolers; sodium metabisulphite; sprinkler irrigation systems; steel stanchions for confining livestock either in pens or individually, and complete equipment for milking parlours; all the foregoing for use on the farm for farm purposes only; brooders; ensilage cutters; fodder or feed cutters; hay loaders; hay tedders; post hole diggers; potato diggers; potato planters; snaths; stumping machines; all other agricultural implements or agricultural machinery, n.o.p.; parts of all the foregoing; British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, free.
(Translation):
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the minister with regard to this item. Does it include the irrigation systems, which are very important especially for tobacco growers. If not, I should like to know the reason why.
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, it could, Mr. Chairman.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, there were one or two things I should like clarified, and then I wish to make some remarks on this item. First of all it is my understanding that in these schedules the words in italics are the new additions. In item 409f there is an item dealing with steel stanchions for confining livestock either in pens or individually. Is this not a new item? If it is not, could the minister tell me when it was added to this list of quasi-agricultural machinery?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It is not a new item, and was added three or four years ago, but I cannot give the exact date.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I realize that this particular item is often used in conjunction with another item in the Customs Tariff Act. I have forgotten the number but I am sure the minister's officials will know. I understand that over the years the department have developed a ruling of their own with respect to how the word "machinery" should be interpreted. As I recall from conversations with the officials in the past, the word "machinery" is interpreted as having moveable parts. A great many pieces of equipment used for agricultural purposes do not come under this technical interpretation of the word "machinery", and this causes a great deal of inconvenience and over the years has caused a lot of expense and trouble to people in the farm equipment and machinery business, whether retail or wholesale, and I expect at the manufacturing level in some cases.
I was wondering, Mr. Chairman, whether the minister and his officials might give consideration to having that other section redrafted in such a way that this problem
Customs Tariff
would not arise in the future. The problem specifically is that you get some new invention used on the farm which, in the layman's term, is clearly farm machinery yet does not come under the technical term decided upon by the department in interpreting the word "machinery". The result is that the only way the matter can be cleared for non-payment of duty is to get it specifically listed.
There is a long list in front of us now, and there are no doubt more additions and I suppose more will be added over the years. But this could be avoided and much inconvenience avoided as well in the future if the other section which worked in conjunction with this one could be reworded in such a way that the words "agricultural machinery, equipment and the like used on the farm for farming purposes", was used instead of the very narrow term "machinery" which is used at the moment, which necessitates these long lists of specific items being included every time there is a budget. I wonder whether the minister has any observations on that.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Would my hon. friend think it reasonable for me to suggest to the officials concerned that we do take this matter under consideration, and if his suggestion can be implemented that we do it at a later time? The officials are fairly busy at the moment and they tell me there are some considerations which should be carefully looked at before we make the change suggested.


David Vaughan Pugh: If I could just follow that point up, over the years certain items which have been brought across the border, and on which we paid duty, have gradually been added to the list. I see heaters are listed. I believe last year stack heaters were excluded. What the farmer is faced with is the fact that when these pieces of equipment come in he suddenly finds he has to pay duty. This he cannot understand. Therefore if I might lend weight to what the hon. member for Oxford has said, I think there should be an early review of the question with the idea of bringing in some form of farm equipment section which will cover all farm equipment, provided that the equipment is used only as farm equipment.


Mr. Danforth:: May I add my observations to those of the hon. member who has just spoken. We have from time to time experienced difficulty with regard to this interpretation of what is and what is not equipment used exclusively for agricultural purposes. May I request of the minister that when this whole matter is in contemplation officials from the Department of Agriculture be asked to consult with the minister and his

Customs Tariff
associates so we might have a clear interpretation of what is meant by equipment used for agricultural purposes. Various hon. members do refer items to the department from time to time for a ruling, and we sometimes find that in the case of implements which are used almost exclusively on farms, farmers have to pay duty because they are not classified as such.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think that is a good suggestion and I shall be glad to follow it up.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On that same point, as an example of what my hon. friend undoubtedly has in mind, I recall that there is some equipment imported into this country, known as a cow trainer. I think the ruling of the department was that because this equipment did not have any wheels under it, it was not machinery. In fact the apparatus was suspended from the roof of the barn or wherever it was used, and duty had to be paid on it.


Mr. Hales:: 
Walter Lockhart Gordon: The rates to which the hon. member referred were the rates applied to the items listed in italics prior to the introduction of the budget. They are all free now.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Do I take it that there is a duty of 22J per cent on milk coolers imported into Canada from the United States?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No. On the previous page the hon. member will see that some items are in italics; for example, hay stack forms. They would previously have been subject to duty at the rate of 22J per cent, but all these items now are free.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If I may say a word on the same lines as the observations presented to the committee by the hon. member for Oxford with regard to the definition of machinery, I think I can give the minister a perfect example of an item which is certainly used on farms, though it is true it does not contain any movable parts. I am thinking of fence staves. A few years ago there was a demand for these staves particularly from the short grass country of southern Alberta where fence posts are hard to come by. A firm in Montana, I believe, put out a mobile stave, the idea being that farmers could put their fence posts further apart if they used these metal rods in between. A number of ranchers thought they would like to give them a trial, but when they tried to import them they were told they would be subject to a 22 per cent tariff. It seems to me that this is a perfect example of a product intended for agricultural use which is not a machine.
IMr. Danforth.1


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am informed the department has never had any representations on this subject, but I think the hon. member has made an excellent one and we will give it careful consideration before the next budget.


Stanley James Korchinski: I take it these are the three items which had tariffs applied to them previously and all the others were not subject to tariffs. I do not wish anyone to have the impression that all these items have been added to the schedule. Only the ones in italics are those with respect to which tariffs have been reduced.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is correct.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Still on the subject about which I was speaking a few minutes ago, may I draw the attention of the minister to the fact there has lately been an increasing demand for portable livestock scales. Farmers and ranchers who are conducting rate of gain tests need these portable scales, and I see they are not included under this item 409. Farmers are faced with the payment of duty if they wish to buy them.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The hon. member has made another representation which I am glad to receive, but in this instance it is not an original representation. The department has had representations on this point before. These scales are manufactured in Canada; that is why they have not been put on the free list.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On the same general subject, may I refer to the plastic tags used for the numbering of cattle. Many breeders have, over the years, bought large numbers of plastic tags which they fasten to the ears of their animals. These tags, too, are subject to duty. Has consideration been given to exempting them?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I understand that the previous government did give consideration to that suggestion and it was turned down. If the hon. member would like to connect all these things together and make a new representation at any time we shall be glad to take it under consideration.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to refer to one or two items which I think should be included in this category but which are not. I am rather reluctant to take the time of the committee with regard to the first of these because it is a somewhat small item. I should like the minister to know that I have written to him and to his predecessor with respect to it. Each time I write to the department I promptly receive a polite letter saying my representations will be taken into consideration. Nevertheless they are not successful in the sense that the items are included in these lists.

I wish to refer now to the rockets which are used experimentally to carry silver iodide crystals up into the clouds to induce rain. We acknowledge that these devices are still in the experimental stage, but many farmers in the dry part of Canada are convinced that they do produce results in increasing precipitation when atmospheric conditions are suitable. Some consideration should be given regarding them as devices for agricultural use. They have been imported under tariff item 655, which requires payment of duty at the rate of 22\ per cent plus a sales tax of nearly as much in addition.
I assure the minister that these rockets certainly come within the ambit of the definition as movable machines. As I said, they are now classified as torpedoes, firecrackers or fireworks, though they have absolutely no recreational or display value. The loss in revenue to the government if this duty on rockets were abolished would be very small, and the farmers who use them would be assisted in carrying out experiments which might bring beneficial results to those who farm these dry areas of Canada. Thus it is reasonable to ask that consideration should be given to including these rockets in the item before us so they could enter the country free of duty. I say this because these rockets are certainly for agricultural use and are used for experimenting.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: 1 think that is a good suggestion. My officials suggest that the matter has been under consideration and that some problems have been encountered. The proposal has not been rejected, and I can assure my hon. friend I will look into it before the next revision comes around.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Could the minister give us some idea as to the amount of aluminum sluice-type devices which are being used in irrigation works throughout the country?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but the imports under this item are not recorded separately.


Mr. Stenson:: Mr. Chairman, I am still not straight on this 15 per cent, 22J per cent and 30 per cent. Is this the tariff that was on some of these things and which has been removed?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It was the tariff that was on the items that are shown in italics, and it has been removed.


Fred Frise Stenson: Does that mean milk coolers?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, they were always free, or at least they were free prior to this.


David Vaughan Pugh: I should like to ask the minister if there is any protection at all for Canadian manufacturers. For instance, in the case of
Customs Tariff
heaters for orchards, stack heaters are produced in the United States and not in Canada. There is no comparable item made in Canada, and I can understand the tariff being removed. However, sprinkler irrigation systems are produced in Canada and also in the United States. Is there no protection at all for the Canadian manufacturer?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, these items can come in duty free, so there is no protection for the domestic manufacturer.


David Vaughan Pugh: Have any representations been received with regard to sprinkler equipment?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: There have not been any recent representations, that is within the last three or four months, but I understand there were some before that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have a question I should like to have cleared up with regard to gravity discharge farm wagon boxes. Would this include steel boxes?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, they are included.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It includes steel boxes to be used on farms? Further down there is reference to hydraulic hoists for unloading vehicles. I would assume, then, that one could import a steel box with a hydraulic hoist on it for farm use only duty free.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I was just about to say yes, but I think to be safe the prospective importer should get a ruling from the Department of National Revenue before he actually imports it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Can the Minister of National Revenue add anything or would he prefer to check with the officials?


Mr. Garland:: I think it will be understood that I would prefer to check with the officials.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have a further question with regard to farm wagon boxes. This item covers gravity discharge farm wagon boxes. I am thinking of potato boxes which are specially built steel boxes with a special means of unloading them. Would they come in duty free? They are used on potato farms.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think the safe thing again would be to get a ruling from the department. I cannot answer that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I notice that further down there is reference to potato diggers and potato planters, and that they come in duty free. Would the department care to consider the problem with regard to packing machines for potatoes? Would they also come in duty free?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am not in a position to give an answer.

Customs Tariff


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the minister look into the matter?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will be glad to look into it. I think I should perhaps add that, as hon. members know, these are highly technical questions and it would probably be unwise for a minister to attempt to answer them specifically or definitely. I think the best course would be to get a ruling from the Department of National Revenue. If the ruling does not suit the hon. member I am sure he will make representations to the Department of Finance before the next budget comes round.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, my question has to do with the very point the minister has just raised, the interpretation of the department with regard to grain or hay dryers. If a grain dryer of a mechanical nature is brought in with the tank or storage chamber included the storage chamber comes in duty free. On the other hand, if a storage chamber is brought in for the purpose of curing grain by air it is subject to tariff. Could this matter be clarified? Certainly grain is dried by air as well as by machine, and I fail to see why the storage chamber must be subject to duty if not combined with a mechanical dryer.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would be glad to give consideration to this matter, but I think the answer I gave to the previous speaker probably applies in this case as well.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, it is not my
intention to be redundant, but for the sake of clarification am I correct in understanding that resolution No. 1 involves textile items entirely with the exception of the clarifying item, No. 179? Am I right in saying that all other items in resolution No. 1 come under the package deal as compensating items?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, the hon. member is correct.


William Heward Grafftey: I was examining the Customs Tariff resolutions that we did not pass in the last parliament, and I notice that the majority of those items are contained in resolution No. 4 which we will be discussing in a few minutes. Item 409f, which was in the resolutions last year, is now included in resolution No. 1 simply because of three minor changes contained therein.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It is just a way of collecting them under these different headings.


Mr. Monteifh:: I notice that the second last item is "all other agricultural implements or agricultural machinery, n.o.p.". I wonder whether the minister can indicate how wide the scope is that the officials have in judging just what comes under this item.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Very wide indeed.


Jay Waldo Monteith: But still not wide enough to cover the items that various members have mentioned today?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No.


William Heward Grafftey: I should like to bring something to the attention of the committee under this item, and rightfully so, because a few minutes ago the minister suggested that before going ahead prospective buyers should get a ruling from the Department of National Revenue. Very briefly I should like to bring to the attention of the committee the problem of many small eastern farmers who buy tractors. I am sure many of the officials in the department will admit that the interpretation of the words "for agricultural use" has become-


Walter Lockhart Gordon: May I remind the hon. member that all tractors are duty free.


William Heward Grafftey: Yes, if they are for agricultural purposes. That is the problem.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: For any use.


William Heward Grafftey: I would assume then that the problem arises in connection with the excise tax. I know I am perhaps a little off the subject-


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am informed that the problem does relate to the excise tax.


William Heward Grafftey: The problem arises solely with relation to the excise tax.


James Ernest Pascoe: This question may have been asked earlier in the discussion, and if so I apologize. There is a long list of articles for agricultural purposes that enter duty free. Do our manufacturers have the same freedom in the United States? Do implements manufactured in Canada enter the United States duty free?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: In general, yes, Mr. Chairman, but there may be individual items to which that generality does not apply.


Mr. Enns:: Mr. Chairman, in so far as the tax on machinery is concerned, are manufacturers who are reusing these products or building these products in Canada exempt from the machinery tax? I am thinking of an industry in Peterborough which manufactures milk coolers. Will they be exempt from this machinery tax?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am not sure that this is the place to deal with that, but if it is for farming I think it will be exempt.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 438h, 521, 532g, 541a, 541b agreed to.
Customs tariff-542a. Woven fabrics, wholly or in part of vegetable fibres, and all such fabrics with

cut pile, n.o.p., not containing silk, wool or hair, man-made fibres or filaments nor glass fibres or filaments: British preferential tariff, 17J per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 22: per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, in a committee session of this sort I dislike having to ask the same question twice. I hope this question has not been answered before, but we are covering a lot of details in rather speedy fashion. I hope if this question has been answered the minister will forgive me for asking it again. We are now on a tariff item. I can assume that all the tariff items were recommended by the tariff board?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: All these particular ones, but as I explained in my opening statement this does not apply to every single item in all these five resolutions.


William Heward Grafftey: No; this particular resolution?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Except where there is an item negotiated as part of the package under GATT.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: There is one point here I should like to have clarified. I note that under item 542a there appears to be, at first sight, an increase in the most favoured nation tariff from 20 per cent to 22J per cent. Then I note that in the rate in effect prior to the proposed rate there is 20 per cent most favoured nation and 25 per cent most favoured nation. I was wondering if the minister could clarify exactly what are the implications of this.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This is a consolidation which includes a number of items that are now all included at a single rate of 22J per cent. Prior to the consolidation I think some were at 20 per cent, some were at 25 per cent and other amounts.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Is there a net gain or is the position the same?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It would be about the same, but it was part of this negotiated package.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 542b, 542c, 543a, 543b, 543c, 543d and 559g agreed to.
Customs tariff-567. Sails for boats and ships: textile fabrics, in the web or with fused edges, for use in the manufacture of such sails; British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 22\ per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Mr. Crouse:: In Nova Scotia, and I suppose in the other Atlantic provinces, there are a large number of small yacht builders and sail manufacturers who must compete with United States manufacturers of sails. This item, I believe, should apply to sails for boats and ships, because the continued imposition of this tariff on sail cloth creates considerable hardship on these small industries. It puts these 28902-5-144
Customs Tariff
small sail manufacturers in a non-competitive position with their United States counterparts. While I realize there has been no change, I believe if the cloth itself were removed from this tariff it would assist in creating more employment because more of the sails used by yachts and other ships would be manufactured right in the Atlantic provinces. I should like to bring this point to the attention of the minister.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, the point is a good one. As the hon. member knows, certain tariff items are reduced by order in council for a limited period of time. This provides an opportunity for the industry to review the situation. In this particular case, this tariff item was reduced from July 1, 1963 for one year to a free rate under the British preferential tariff, 7i per cent under the most favoured nation tariff and 15 per cent under the general tariff. This will provide the industry with an opportunity to see how the situation works out, and the matter will be reviewed a year from now.


William Heward Grafftey: Perhaps this is a good time to ask a general question for the purpose of clarification. When the officials sought compensatory items for this package deal, what principles were involved apart from the notion of class or kind made in Canada? I am sure that things were not just pulled out of the hat in an ad hoc fashion. I hope I am not asking for anything that would prejudice negotiating procedures, but in the light of common sense could any principle be outlined at this stage of the committee hearing?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: 
Walter Lockhart Gordon: This is the regulation tariff, and this was reduced by order in council for one year. The normal tariff will then come into effect again a year from now, unless the exemption or reduction is renewed once more.
In reply to the other question, I do not know what principles really apply to bargaining except that you try to get the best deal you can. I think the officials who were responsible for these negotiations had in mind making concessions on what are called nonsensitive items, that probably would be looked upon favorably by the receiving parties to the bargain, and that would do as little damage as possible, or preferably no damage at all to Canadian industry. It was a negotiation and a bargain. Those would be the general approaches, but in the end they have to balance

Customs Tariff
up what we gained with what we gave; and that, in the end, is what was done.


William Heward Grafftey: I wish to offer a word of congratulations because it does seem to be a happy consequence when reductions of agricultural items are done in conjunction with textiles. This seems to produce an all round result that gives much heart to many people in many sectors of the economy.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would be very glad to accept those kind words on behalf of the officials who did the negotiating, which was some months ago.


Mr. Greene:: Could the minister inform us where we could determine what concomitant reductions in tariff had been made by other members of GATT to compensate for these reductions made here in our tariffs? In other words, how are we to determine whether our bargainers were capable and did a good job for our manufacturers unless we have both sets of figures?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: All I can say in answer to that is that when these tariff board reports were received there were certain changes that we wanted and we went out to get them. We had to make some concessions in order to get what we wanted in return. There is no exact balance that I can produce to show exactly what we received and exactly what we gained. It is a very detailed operation, and I am not sure how you can check up on this particular negotiation.


Fred Frise Stenson: In sail cloth there has been a reduction across the board of 7J per cent. Are there any other items to be approved that have been reduced in the same way as sail cloth, and which do not show in this book?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, I am informed that is the only one.


Mr. Otto:: Getting back to sail cloth, an industry with which I have been made acquainted whether I liked it or not, it is a very promising industry in Toronto. Am I to understand that sail cloth not made in Canada has been reduced to 7J per cent tariff or has been reduced by 7 per cent?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It is 7i per cent most favoured nation tariff for one year, by order in council.


Steven Otto: I take it this is for sail cloth of a type and nature not made in Canada.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, that is right.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of speaking out of order, but it has occurred to me that before we came to consideration of these items we passed and discussed two very important measures relating to a department of industry and an economic council. We have had many discussions in

the house about secondary manufacturing in Canada, and there is a large body of opinion which feels that very often we are not manufacturing the goods that possibly we could manufacture. I am sure it would be a good thing for the department involved here to catalogue in some way a list of goods that are not of a class or kind produced in Canada, so that this could be passed on to the new department of industry.
I am sure this has been thought of prior to my advancing it. It would be a useful item for the department of industry to have such a catalogue and I believe it is self-evident that the officials here would have that list and could make it readily available to the new department for more profound study. Perhaps the officials could indicate whether this has been considered, and whether my suggestion has any merit.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think the suggestion has merit and I shall be glad to convey it to the minister of industry and commerce and suggest to him that he follow it up.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Earlier the hon. member for Renfrew South asked how we might be acquainted with compensatory reductions in certain cases by other countries. Is there no method whatsoever by which the House of Commons is made aware of the reductions made by other countries in return for the reductions we make? It occurs to me that there should be some method by which we could examine the one against the other.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: As the hon. member probably remembers, when there is a major negotiation of tariff items it is customary to table a statement in the house showing in detail what was gained and what was given up. It has not been the practice to do that on these relatively minor renegotiations. As I said earlier, we were the suppliants in this case. We wanted certain things and we succeeded in getting them. In return we made some concessions, and by and large I think it is probably fair to say they were not very costly so far as Canada is concerned.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am not disputing that at all but I feel that both sides should be given to us in some form, in the minor negotiations as well as in the major ones.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister said two or three times that we wanted certain things and we got them. Could he enlighten us by telling us what certain things he wanted and got?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: We wanted the agreement of the other members of GATT to change certain items in the textile tariffs in line with the recommendations of the tariff board.

I forget how many reports were received from the tariff board on textiles. There were ten in the whole series, and three are being dealt with here. The items we gave in exchange are all recorded in these resolutions, and I do not know how to summarize them in a way that would produce a simple statement that would meet the very valid point made a moment ago.


John James Greene: To clarify the point, is it fair to state that what we have here in the form of tariff reductions is the price we are paying for these other concessions that we received by virtue of what the tariff board wanted for textiles?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, that is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 569a agreed to.
Customs tariff-569b. (1) Hoods and shapes, caps, bonnets and berets, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 22\ per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 30 per cent; general tariff, 45 per cent.
(2) Hats, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent and per dozen 75 cents; most favoured nation tariff, 25 per cent and per dozen $1; general tariff, 35 per cent and per dozen $1.50.
Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, in the case of item 569b there is drastic increase in tariffs perhaps more than on any other item we have considered heretofore. May I ask the minister, through you, sir, if this is the recommendation of the tariff board, or does it represent direct representations from the manufacturers themselves?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, these were the recommendations of the tariff board. I do not think it is fair to say that there are any substantial increases. Under item 569b (1) there is an increase in the most favoured nation rate from 22J per cent-and various other items were consolidated-to 30 per cent. I quite frankly do not know whether that represents an increase or a decrease.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. Weichel:: Mr. Chairman, could I ask for leave to go back to item 559 for just a second.


Lucien Lamoureux: Item 559g?


Oscar William Weichel: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Customs tariff-559g. Batts, batting and wadding of wool, cotton or other textile fibre, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 171 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.


Oscar William Weichel: I would like to ask the minister this question. I understand the government is proposing to reduce the tariff protection under tariff item 559g from 20 per cent to 17J per cent. Could the minister give us a little explanation on this?
28902-5-144}
Customs Tariff


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I know this is most unusual but I would like to ask your consideration, sir, to this committee rising immediately in view of a statement which is to be found in the Citizen of this afternoon relating to the departure of the defence committee to NORAD headquarters.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Is the hon. gentleman rising on a question of privilege or a point of order?


An hon. Member:: On everything.


Harold Edward Winch: Sir, I am rising on something which I just do not know quite how to handle; but I now have in my hand a clipping from a newspaper published this afternoon, the Ottawa Citizen, which says:
The Commons defence committee has been informed that it cannot be given secret information by North American air defence command headquarters because the members haven't been checked for security by R.C.M.P.-
Our committee on defence leaves in 45 minutes and we now find, according to this newspaper, that the committee going to Colorado Springs has not been cleared by the R.C.M.P. for security and therefore we cannot get the information for which we are going to Colorado Springs. I ask, sir, as a question of privilege, that this committee rise now from its present business and for the Speaker to be in the house, in order that we may find out what this article means when it says the defence committee cannot get information because we have not been cleared for security by the R.C.M.P. This matter is of great importance. I have-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The point has been made by the hon. member. He realizes this is implied in the statement he has made, that he cannot raise this question except when Mr. Speaker is in the chair. We are bound by the terms of the resolution now before us and so we have to proceed with the business now before the house.


Harold Edward Winch: Could I ask, sir, that in view of the importance of this matter the committee rise and report to the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if the hon. gentleman would care to raise this point just before six o'clock there might perhaps be general agreement.


An hon. Member:: That will be too late.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But in the meantime I will be very pleased to make some inquiries privately. This, after all, is only a newspaper story and we know that newspaper stories are not always accurate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

Customs Tariff


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I call to witness many hon. gentlemen now sitting over there, notably the honourable and absent member for Qu'Appelle, who has his views about the subject. But I will undertake to make inquiries at once to see if I can find out whether there is any substance in this story, and I will report to the chairman as soon as possible.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, we have to leave at-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. In view of the assurances which have been given by the house leader of the government may I suggest that the matter be allowed to stand and that we revert to the business of the house.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I understand that it is a point of order; a motion has been made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There has been no motion.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of State has just accused the press of not reporting the truth-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lucien Lamoureux: This is not a point of order and the Chair did not understand the Secretary of State to have spoken those words.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, could I ask what it is that is recommended, because the 24 members of the defence committee are to leave from the front of the House of Commons in 40 minutes. Could I ask what the-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I suggest that this question cannot be discussed at this time. This may be considered a very urgent question and a very important matter by the hon. member, but we have rules and regulations as to the order of business to be followed. The committee is now considering a specific resolution. I would submit that, the question of privilege having been raised and in view of the ruling I have made, this matter should not be discussed any further and we should revert to the business of the house.


Harold Edward Winch: I am going to Colorado Springs, and God help them if I find that we do not get information because of the R.C.M.P.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the hon. member made a motion that we adjourn and report progress.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was no such motion.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Am I correct in that understanding?


Lucien Lamoureux: No such motion has been made.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then I will so move, Mr. Chairman.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I second it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid that instead of making the inquiry which might have obtained some information for the committee, I will have to ask you, Mr. Chairman, to put the motion and I trust the committee will not accept it.


Lucien Lamoureux: The Chair requires to have the motion in writing.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would like to speak to the motion.


Lucien Lamoureux: There is no motion at the moment. I will have to have the motion in writing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A motion is not debatable.


Lucien Lamoureux: There being no motion before the committee, we shall revert to the item now before the committee, which is item 559g.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: 
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the item carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 569c agreed to.
Customs tariff-569d. Hat sweats, cap peaks, stiffening bands for the inside of hats and caps, tips and sides when cut to shape, and materials for use in the manufacture of such articles; all the foregoing for use in the manufacture of hats and caps: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, free.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: On this item, Mr. Chairman, could the minister explain why it is here. It has been free previously and it is free now; and I fail to see any words in italics. Is it something itemizing these items for the first time?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The item is being renumbered, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 569e and 569f agreed to.
Customs tariff-572a. Carpets of sisal, palm straw or cane straw:	British preferential tariff, 17!
per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 17J per cent; general tariff, 40 per cent.

Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am rather curious about this item. Are the tariff rates here levied for the purpose of revenue or for some other purpose? I was wondering whether the minister could give us some background to that.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would say a little incidental revenue. It is not a big item.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Following that question, is this the policy of the government, to put on duties for revenue purposes?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would think that the hon. member knows that this particular item has been on the books for a long time and certainly during the past six years.


William Heward Grafftey: Could the minister inform the house from which countries these items are mostly imported?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mainly from tropical countries, India and Japan.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-574. Coated or impregnated fabrics, containing textile fabric, produced by any method, including lamination, if the weight of the textile fabric is less than two thirds of the weight of the coated or impregnated fabric:
(1)	The textile fabric being wholly or in part of man-made fibres or filaments or of glass fibres or filaments: British preferential tariff, 271 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 321 per cent; general tariff, 50 per cent.
(2)	The textile fabric not being wholly or in part of man-made fibres or filaments or of glass fibres or filaments: British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 40 per cent.
William Heward Grafftey: Could the minister explain the listing under the general tariff, the 35 per cent and 4 cents per pound, etc? What does that involve? What is meant by the ''various, various various" under the three items?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It means that there are a variety of rates applying to various items which have now been consolidated under the new rates of 50 per cent and 40 per cent respectively under the general tariff. But in practice this would not be the tariff which would apply. The effective tariff here is the most favoured nation tariff which, as the hon. member says, is 32J per cent and 25 per cent, reduced from 35 per cent and 32 J per cent. The other rate was 25 per cent, 25 per cent and various, which is now consolidated at 25 per cent.


Mr.   Scoll@: In 574 (2) it appears as though the general tariff has been increased to 40 per cent. Is this an actual increase? If so, was it made on the recommendation of the tariff board or the industries concerned?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am informed, Mr. Chairman, that the 40 per cent is approximately equivalent to the previous 35 per cent tariff plus 4 cents a pound.
Customs Tariff


William Heward Grafftey: Could we have some sort of explanation of the new wording in this item? Quite frankly, it is a completely new item under 574b.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It is my understanding that we are discussing item 574 which has not yet been carried.


William Heward Grafftey: Excuse me.


Gilles Grégoire: Carried.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall item 574 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 574a agreed to.
Customs tariff-574b. Canvas in the web, wholly or flax or hemp, or both, plain woven, coloured or not, treated with weatherproofing or preservative materials, weighing more than six ounces per square yard, when the weight of the untreated fabric is two thirds or more of the weight of the treated fabric: British preferential tariff, 17J per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 22J per cent; general tariff, 40 per cent.
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, I understand that hon. members in the party to my left have decided not to participate in an item by item discussion of the extremely important resolutions now before us. Having decided upon that I respectfully ask their courtesy in letting other hon. members question the officials through the minister. We have done our homework and consider it important to question the officials. We would appreciate the courtesy of not being interrupted while in the middle of discussion of very complicated matters by shouts of "Carried".


Gilles Grégoire: On a question of privilege; after what the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi has said he has not proved to us that it is very important.


Mr. Ricard:: You would not know the difference anyway.


William Heward Grafftey: In answer to that-


Lucien Lamoureux: Would the hon. member resume his seat. I think we are getting into a debate which is not at all constructive and I suggest we return to consideration of these items. We are now considering item 574b.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: These items are important and I want to take an interest in them. This item deals with canvas in the web. If I go back to item 40 9f, that dealt explicitly with agricultural equipment and includes "parts of all the foregoing". They come in free under 409f. I am wondering whether canvas in the web used in farm machinery would come under this item, or under farm machinery or parts thereof, duty free.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: All I can say to the hon.
member is that this is a textile item not farm

Customs Tariff
machinery, and would come in under this item.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is the point I want to get across. I agree it is a textile item. Canvas is used in swathers, in combines, binders and all the rest of the farm machinery, and is made of textiles. But it is also part thereof of farm machinery under item 409f and should in my estimation, if the canvas were bought alone to replace part of a machine used as farm equipment in Canada, come in duty free as a part thereof under item 409f.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If what is coming in is a bona fide piece of agricultural machinery it comes in duty free. Whether it is classed as a bona fide part or not I cannot say; that is something the hon. member will have to get a ruling on from the Department of National Revenue.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This has been one of the sticklers with regard to item 409f. 1 find a perfect example in canvases. Many items coming in as farm machinery, if they come in complete, are entered duty free. However, if they come in in parts, such as binder canvases or swather canvases, in many cases the duty is put on the piece coming in separately and not attached to a piece of machinery. I think the minister should clear this point up because he said that canvases used in agricultural machinery came in duty free under "parts of all the foregoing" in item 409f.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If it is a complete part, Mr. Chairman, it comes in duty free.


Harold Warren Danforth: 
Walter Lockhart Gordon: In general, Canadian tariffs go up in steps of 2J per cent. Whether there is any great principle behind that, I do not know. That is the way the tariff is constructed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Before this item carries I should like to ask the minister about the importation in bulk of canvas in the web. A number of manufacturers are engaged in the business of making up canvas for agricultural use. If they import canvas in bulk they will be paying duty under item 574b. Am I right?
	i


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am informed that in the case to which the hon. member is referring the canvas comes in duty free, and under item 442 for manufacture.


William Heward Grafftey: Could we have some explanation for the phrase "materials, weighing more than six ounces per square yard, when the weight of the untreated fabric is two thirds or more of the weight of the treated fabric". Could we, also, be told whether there is any reason for the comma being placed where it is?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This was an attempt by the tariff board to simplify the tariff to some extent and arrive at a line between heavily coated and lightly coated fabric. I am not sure where the comma should be; I am sure we could move it around. Perhaps we cannot. It should probably stay where it is.


William Heward Grafftey: Does this mean that fabrics of a certain weight are widely made in Canada, but that others are not?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No. In this case there were, formerly several items dealing with heavily coated and lightly coated fabrics. Now they are covered by one item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-597a (5). Accordions: British preferential tariff, 2] per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 25 per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: This is an intriguing item. I see the tariff on accordions is being reduced and I was wondering whether the minister could give us an explanation of this slight reduction. Obviously he cannot be giving up much revenue. Possibly, he is assisting some other countries or perhaps he is benefiting gypsies, or night club owners or high school students taking accordion lessons. Could the minister in his genial way tell us the reason?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would be glad to do so, especially since I represent a riding which has in it many Canadians of Italian extraction. It was agreed that the rate on accordions should be reduced by 2J per cent in the course of the negotiations which took place in connection with the textile items. Imports are largely from Italy and Germany; they are not separately recorded, so I do not know the exact quantities involved. However, I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that we need more accordions in Canada, not fewer, and none are made here at present.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-610. Belting, n.o.p., not including single ply belting wholly of textile fibres: British preferential tariff, 75 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 275 per cent.
Gilles Grégoire: I should like to ask one or two general questions on all the items, now

that this last item on the page has been reached.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Before the hon. member deals with the subject in general I have a particular question to ask on this item.


Gilles Grégoire: Very well, I will wait until the hon. member has finished.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would belting imported for use in connection with agricultural machinery come in duty free under this item or not? This is the same question as the one I had in mind with regard to canvas.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It would come in duty free under 409f.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Suppose a wholesaler brings in a shipment of belts which have numerous uses, though they have been purchased for agricultural machinery. Would those who buy this material be reimbursed under item 409f?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am informed that in such a case, where there is multiple use, the Department of National Revenue insists on repayment of duty, then gives a refund if the material is used for agricultural purposes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That was my understanding, but I wanted to confirm it. Would the wholesaler apply for the rebate, or the retailer?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The importer of record.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In many cases that would be the wholesaler. But how does he know the belts are sold for agricultural uses? I am afraid many farmers have been buying belts at prices a little higher than they should have been paying.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not know about farmers in Alberta, but in my opinion no farmer in Ontario has been led down the garden path that way.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not want to get into a discussion of any differences there may be between farmers in Alberta and farmers in Ontario. I know the farmers in Alberta have been led down the garden path in many ways. Looking over to my left I am reminded of one way in particular.
I do not want to believe that farmers in Ontario are smarter than Alberta farmers, but if the wholesaler is the one who is reimbursed by the Department of National Revenue in connection with the purchase of belts, can the minister explain to me how the farmer who buys a belt can be certain he is not paying a duty which may amount to as much as 20 per cent?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I am interested in this point as it applies to the fishing industry. Belting
Customs Tariff
is used in drag net fishing. I wonder if material for this purpose would enter free of tariff or whether the tariff would have to be paid and an application made for drawback?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have two questions here. In answer to the first, the farmer who buys a belt gives a certificate of use to the man from whom he buys it, and that man, if he is a retailer, presumably passes it on to the wholesaler or whoever was the importer. He is the one who applies for the rebate.
The other question is a somewhat different one. It has to do with the fishing industry.
I am informed that the duty applies in the case the hon. member mentioned.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is the very answer that I thought would be forthcoming and this is the point I want to clear up. The minister has suggested that the retailer would reimburse the farmer. He said that a statement would have to be signed by the farmer that the belt was going to be used for agricultural purposes and he would then be reimbursed a percentage, depending on where the belt was made. The point is that farmers use a number of belts and are never given any form to fill out. The retailer does not give them a form. This suggests to me that many farmers are buying imported belts for various agricultural uses and, just as I thought, paying an additional 20 per cent. Certainly there is a possibility that the wholesaler, retailer or middleman between the farmer and the maker of the belt is receiving an additional 20 per cent in many cases.
I think the minister and the department should give a great deal of study to the problem of belts used on agricultural machinery. Many members may think this a small item but belts for combines, mowers and so on can run into a lot of money. It is nothing for a farmer to have to pay from $14 to $30 for a new belt, and on larger combines it is more than that. I have used combines as an example of the cost but I know of a particular mower that requires a $10 V-belt. I am certain that combine belts would be classed as agricultural items, but many smaller belts costing nearly as much can be used for various purposes and could have the 20 per cent duty applied to them. The farmers are paying this money and receiving no benefit. I think a study should be made to devise a better method to alleviate, if possible, this extra burden so far as belts are concerned.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I should like to make one comment. I can very much appreciate the fact that farmers are eligible for this drawback, even though it would appear from the

Customs Tariff
remarks of the hon. member for Acadia that they are not always getting their just due. But I am somewhat surprised by the statement of the minister that one primary industry, agriculture, is eligible for this drawback while another primary industry, fishing, is not eligible. Fishermen also use large quantities of belting of various types. I should like to take this opportunity to ask the minister to reconsider this aspect of the application of the tax with the hope that the fishing industry, which does produce a large part of our revenue and provides a considerable amount of employment, will be given equal consideration when he reconsiders the matter.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think the point is very well taken and we will be glad to give it careful consideration.


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to ask a couple of questions covering all the items in Customs Tariff resolution No. 1. Can the minister tell us how much the government will gain or lose by all the changes in resolution No. 1? Can the minister give us the approximate amount?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: According to the best estimate we can get there will be no change whatever. This is a tidying up job.


Gilles Grégoire: Can the minister tell us how many more employees it will take to put these changes into effect? How many people will be required to instruct all the employees throughout Canada as to these changes and what will the cost be?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have always thought that when you simplify the tariff even to some extent, and I am not suggesting this is a great simplification, it should be easier in the long run to administer than it has been in the past.


Gilles Grégoire: Then in summary it is just a matter of simplification with no change at all?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It is simplification plus implementation of the reports of the tariff board arising out of its investigations into the textile industry. As was said earlier, these investigations continued for some years. They started in 1957 and this is the end of it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This item covers belting, not otherwise provided, not including single ply belting wholly of textile fibres. Would this not include belts with metal in them? Many V-belts particularly have a metal core. Would they be included in this item? If not, where are they included?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The exclusion is of the textile fibres, not of the metal. If there is any metal it stays under this item.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The only change li. this item is the words in italics?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is correct.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the minister tell us if there are manufacturers in Canada making V-belts?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, there are.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not want a specific figure but could the minister tell us what percentage of belting used in Canada is imported and how much is produced here?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not think I have that information. In 1960 total imports under this item or under the items that precede it were about $1,750,000, but I do not know the value of the production in Canada.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is a very interesting item having regard to the value of the imports just given by the minister. We have manufacturers in Canada in this field. This is interesting from the point of view that we have been discussing a department of industry and the creation of more jobs in Canada. Can the minister give us any idea now or obtain for us the extent in percentage to which we rely on foreign imports and on Canadian production?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: One of the things that I think all hon. members have deplored in the past is the relative shortage of statistics giving a breakdown with regard to manufactured goods in Canada. It is very difficult to find out these things. We may be able to get an estimate and if so I will be glad to supply it.


Mr. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):: Could the minister indicate what this belting is that is mentioned here? Belting is used in many different processes outside the field of agriculture.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The most important item that would come under this is what is generally known as rubber belting.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, arising out of the question asked by the hon. member for Lapointe the minister said that as far as he could see there was no revenue significance in the resolution. In regard to resolutions of this sort is there no detailed calculation of how they will affect ways and means in the result?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The best calculation that has been made is that it balances out.


William Heward Grafftey: The minister means that it does not affect ways and means at all. Actually my question was whether it is normal practice in the case of resolutions of this kind to make calculations in order to find out how the balance of ways and means is affected.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think it is fair to say, Mr. Chairman, that if the revenue effects are at all significant they are taken into account. In this case the conclusion was that they were not significant. There were some pluses and some minuses, and they balanced out. There is not enough difference to put in your eye.


William Heward Grafftey: I should like to say, frankly, that I do not know what the strict procedure is in the discussion of budget resolutions. I noticed that the hon. member for Lapointe, perhaps realizing that these textile items were at the end of the list, used the occasion to make some general remarks. I noticed that the minister did make an opening statement on this resolution. I was wondering, then, if I could be permitted to make some general remarks on this last item? I do not know what the procedural details are in this connection, but we have gone through the item by item discussion, and at the beginning of the discussion I did ask what procedure should be followed. I think there is a certain amount of give and take on these matters and I should like, very briefly, to make a couple of general remarks.
First of all, sir, I should like to mention to the minister and his officials that after examining these items-


The Deputy Chairman:: I do not believe the hon. member would be quite out of order at this stage if he were to keep his remarks rather brief. May I ask him to do that?


William Heward Grafftey: At the beginning of the discussion on this resolution, I did ask for some indication as to the proper procedure. Since I have been in the house, it seems to me that every year there is a different procedure followed in the discussion of these budget resolutions. I do not want to be lengthy, and I did not want to open up a general discussion in the middle of the item by item examination, but I do want to make some general remarks on this particular resolution.
My brief remarks are simply these: I am very happy that the minister informed me and the other members of the committee that it is only when significant revenue changes are anticipated that they are reported in so far as they affect ways and means. I think another thing that should be underlined is the fact that as we have gone over the resolution item by item this afternoon, we have become involved with the expression, "of a class or kind made in Canada". During the discussion of one item I did mention the fact, and I should like to repeat it at this stage as we close the debate on the resolution, that this would be a very convenient list to hand over to the new department of industry. I
Customs Tariff
think it is important that we consolidate, as much as possible, the list of a class or kind not made in Canada for future and more profound study.
At this point, I should like to underline the fact that we are passing a resolution which, in principle, goes a long way towards satisfying three things. It would seem that our trading neighbours are satisfied with the results of this package deal which was negotiated, and which the minister took great pains to explain to the house. I thank him for that. It would seem, too, that while no one industry is ever completely satisfied, I think we have gone some distance towards rectifying many of the problems which faced the textile industry. It is more than a mere coincidence that many of the compensatory items involved, and which are inserted in this resolution, will naturally have a beneficial effect upon the farmers of Canada. I should like to point out that this resolution virtually satisfies three such points of consideration.
I should like also to state very briefly, and as uncontentiously as possible, that the administration which I supported for a number of years in this house felt it was very important for Canada to have an operating textile industry, a healthy textile industry. I do not want to be too contentious, but prior to 1957 there was some doubt whether the government of that day thought it was important that Canada should have a textile industry capable of survival. I hope that the presentation of this resolution to the committee indicates that the administration has now come round to the point of view that a healthy Canadian textile industry is something worth while.
The last general point I should like to mention as we close this debate, Mr. Chairman, is the hope that the minister will clarify our thinking on some of these points as the discussion proceeds on the other resolutions to come before us. It would be most helpful if the minister informed us whether the attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the attitude of the Prime Minister is going to prevail in the approach to tariff negotiations in relation to the United States proposal. If the Prime Minister's approach is taken holus-bolus, I think it is right to assume that this attitude will have definite effects on the tariff board's decisions and recommendations. This attitude will have effects on our secondary industries. We would all like to hear about that.
This is all I will say now because if I were to continue in this vein much longer I would no doubt be out of order. I would like to indicate that is the approach we will be

Customs Tariff
having to the discussion of future resolutions. I thought this would be a good time to indicate it. I thank hon. members opposite for their indulgence in allowing me to make these observations at this stage of the discussion. I know there are certain rules covering this discussion, but I thank you for the flexible approach that has been accorded me.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Before the resolution carries, I should like to make a short comment. I know that I have taken up perhaps enough time of the committee this afternoon, but I should like to thank the minister for trying to answer my questions at all times and taking them seriously. Those questions which he could not answer, he has promised to consider. There is one subject, however, with which I have been dealing most of the afternoon, and that is agricultural products.
I know item 409f was dealt with already, but just before we pass the first resolution I would like to point out that it says at the bottom of that item, "all other agricultural implements or agricultural machinery not otherwise provided." I asked about four or five particular agricultural products, and in each case was told by the minister that he would have to discuss it with the officials and an individual study of each would have to be made.
Before the resolution passes I wonder could the minister give us some idea regarding what form of a directive is sent to officials in the offices of the Department of National Revenue across the country, with regard to other agricultural implements and machines used in agricultural production. What guidance is given to these officials across the country?
I listed portable livestock scales, steel' boxes with hydraulic dumps, potato boxes, steel potato boxes which are a special machine used on potato farms, potato bagging machines, metal fence stays and a number of other items. Surely the minister could clarify the other agricultural machinery used in the production of agricultural goods? Surely these could be classified under one broad directive and sent to all officials across the country.
I could list a number of cases which I have had the privilege of dealing with, particularly over the last couple of years. I know some of the difficulties that importers and purchasers in Canada encounter in trying to decide whether an imported machine not commonly used in agriculture production, or shall I say specifically used, can come in duty free because it is not specifically listed in item 409f. Further I would point out that under resolution 1 we have three more items added to item 4091

It seems to me that every possible agricultural implement should be listed under this item because, unless they are listed, Department of National Revenue officials across the country tend to turn them down in most cases. The only alternative left to a purchaser is to approach his member of parliament and hope, through his pressure, to get the officials to rescind the tax already paid on an imported machine.
I am sure that if a wide enough directive were sent out to the officials this would not happen, but as it stands at present it is my opinion, and that of a number of people throughout the country, that any item, in order to come in duty free, must be 1'isted under item 4091


David Vaughan Pugh: Before the minister replies I want to say I listened with a great deal of attention to the hon. member for Acadia when he was questioning the minister on steel boxes for the ordinary farm wagon. The minister said, "Yes, that sounds as though it ought to come in." When an extension was asked on the hydraulic equipment the minister said, "Well now, I think at this stage we should query the actual department, just to make sure whether it comes in or not." It just so happens that a steel box with hydraulic equipment cannot come in duty free. It is not listed.
I am not sure whether the hon. member for Acadia asked about this previously and was turned down, but there is no question about it that such a steel box has a farm use, and has only got a farm use. However, with the hydraulic equipment it is turned down. When the minister was giving his answer on this general category under item 409f, his own common sense told him a farm wagon should come in; but yet he said, "No, I think we had better go to National Revenue and find out whether it should be allowed in or not."


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Before the minister answers I would point out that he said steel boxes were duty free. He made this statement, and I think Hansard will bear me out. It certainly bears checking at any rate.


David Vaughan Pugh: I know, but I think somebody nudged him after he gave the answer. When the hon. member for Acadia started talking about hydraulics, at that stage he began to wonder and I think he got an extra nudge. If the minister feels that common sense says a steel box should come in duty free, then why should not a hydraulic equipped box come in duty free? If the minister is perplexed, then what about the average farmer across Canada, and I am talking about the

western farmer as well as the eastern farmer? Surely they must be really perplexed?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If I may, I will just clear up this last point. When I was talking about farm wagons we were on item 409f and were talking about gravity discharge farm wagon boxes. This item comes in free, but we all know there are other items in the tariff. Generally speaking-and I suppose it is unwise to generalize in this as in other fields -but by and large agricultural machinery comes in free, and by and large I think it is fair to say that the farmers of Canada know this. I think it is fair to say that most farmers recognize a piece of agricultural equipment when they see it. Then there are borderline cases and there are situations where the case is not clear.
I would point out that the Department of National Revenue has some 47 ports of entry across the country where all the information that is available at headquarters is duplicated and available. If anybody is under any doubt as to whether an item is dutiable or comes in free of duty, all he has to do is ask somebody in one of the offices of the department, or write to the head office. In this resolution-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I wonder-


Walter Lockhart Gordon: May I finish? We were dealing with fairly certain specific items and I had not undertaken to embark on a full discussion of the tariff, or even on a full discussion of the tariff as it applies to the agricultural industry. I was dealing with these specific items, which for today was about as far as I had hoped I would have to go. I think I will leave it at that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I want this particular item cleared up before we proceed. The minister stated earlier this afternoon that gravity discharged farm boxes would include wooden and steel boxes, but I think the only type of steel box that would be gravity discharged would be one parked on a hill. The minister made the remark that is often the illusion of many people not directly in contact with the agricultural industry, that an agricultural implement is easily recognizable. Not today it is not. Today agricultural machinery is becoming highly mechanized and farmers are resorting more and more to hydraulic and highly machined equipment. This is, in a sense, part of the automation that has taken place throughout the country in other industries as well as agriculture. When I asked the minister whether steel boxes are included under this item, he said yes. I asked him for the explicit purpose of clarifying that particular thought that was in my mind, and has been in my mind for some time. Now
Customs Tariff
he and the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary are suggesting that steel boxes might be duty free, but if they have a hydraulic hoist attached to them, they are not duty free. Yet further down in item 409f hydraulic hoists are duty free. Perhaps the minister or his officials could clarify the position with regard to this matter. Surely an importer does not have to take the hydraulic hook-up off the steel box and import it separately; surely he should be able to import the two items attached together, if he so desires. This is the point I have been trying to make under this particular item.


David Vaughan Pugh: It will cost the farmer more money.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary says, it will cost the farmer more money. This is just the point I am trying to make. The government, and we as members of parliament in this house, should try and facilitate the economy of Canada and, in this particular item, the farmers of Canada. We do not want to charge them more money because of an error in the regulations, because of the advanced technological knowledge applied in producing farm equipment today, or because of general automation in agricultural and farm machinery. Surely we should accept the fact that steel boxes with hydraulic hoists attached should come in duty free; that a farmer should not have to send his hired man down to the United States, for example, to take the hoist off the box and let them come in as two items. This is one way he could do it and get around the duty; or if it were cheaper he would pay the duty and keep the hired man at home. This is, in a sense, how ridiculous this item has become. Surely the minister and the officials are prepared now, after our thorough discussion of this particular item, to say that steel boxes with hydraulic hoists are duty free if they are used for agricultural purposes.
I think a purchaser should have to fill out a form and swear that this machine is purchased for agricultural purposes. That is done, in regard to the purchase of machinery, in a number of cases. I can think of air cooled motors, for example; when you buy them for farm use, you fill out a form to this effect, "This machine will be used on the farm for agricultural purposes" and you do not pay the duty. This could also be done in connection with steel boxes with hydraulic hoists attached. I am sure the officials understand that; they are well aware of the forms that farmers fill out and sign. I am sure that if gravity discharge steel boxes can come in duty free, and hydraulic hoists down below can come in duty free, the two items attached should come in duty free. I would like the

Customs Tariff
minister to accept this as a very reasonable argument on behalf of those farmers who are trying to mechanize or further mechanize their farms.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, before the item carries I wonder whether I could ask the minister a question for the purpose of bringing those of us who were not here during some of the previous sessions up to date, in line with the point which the hon. member for Acadia suggested has been bothering him for some time. In addition to that there is the fact that previously both these items were included, I think, under tariff item 409f; in other words, they were not added this time. I am wondering whether the representations that are now being made to the minister were made to his predecessor, and what were his reasons for retaining the confusion about which the hon. member has spoken.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, that thought did occur to me as the hon. member for Acadia was speaking; but I did not want him to think this should influence me to the point where this government would not give his representations the very closest and most careful study. I am sure the officials will do that. We will certainly look into this question.
I do not know that I should answer the question of the hon. member who has just spoken any more than I have, as to why this might not have been dealt with as extensively during the last six years. The hon. member for Acadia looks as though he wants to answer the hon. member himself; he is sort of on the edge of his chair. Perhaps it would be kinder to let him rise and give the answer.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I realize the question was not directed to me but it did implicate me and I would like to say a word further on this item. Perhaps in doing so I can allay the hon. member's anxiety with regard to this particular subject and my actions in connection with it in the last six years.
This matter was brought to my attention about two years ago. I took it up thoroughly and worked hard on it. Then, as I mentioned, because of the vastly changing agricultural scene and the illusion that exists in many people's minds that agricultural implements are easily recognizable, I found it takes some time to convince officials in one government or another that steel boxes with hydraulic hoists that are used on farms should now be duty free. Because government has changed hands gives me no excuse to quit working on this particular item or this particular subject. Perhaps the hon. member for Medicine Hat thinks I should not now continue to press for clarification of this item. But that is not

my understanding as to why I was sent to Ottawa. If a problem existed two years ago, and still exists today, I will continue to work at it and try to have the item cleared up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I was not successful- I should not say "I", because several other hon. members had the same problem-


An hon. Member:: "We".


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We were not successful in convincing the officials that agricultural implements are not easily recognizable. We will continue to work on this subject and I think, thanks to the hon. member for Medicine Hat and his great patience-of course, he was out of the chamber for quite a while this afternoon, so perhaps I did not cause him undue hardship in listening to what I had to say on this particular item-and thanks to his colleagues who have been patient with me while I have been dealing with my agricultural problems this afternoon, I think we have made, with the help of other hon. members, great progress on this very ticklish subject.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The farmers of Medicine Hat will be glad you raised this matter.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am glad the minister has said he will continue to consider my views and give them serious study. Perhaps because of the arguments advanced this afternoon this whole matter can be cleared up relatively quickly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, this is really on another subject and I am certainly not going to hold myself out as one who is knowledgeable on this matter. I would like to ask the minister a question under this item, where all other agricultural implements or agricultural machinery come in duty free. I am thinking of those machines owned by rural municipalities, and particularly the machines used in western irrigation districts of Alberta and eastern irrigation districts, for ditch irrigating. The same kind of machine is used in northeastern Saskatchewan and the northern part of Alberta. They drain swamps with these machines. Are these machines categorized as agricultural machinery if they are owned and operated by the municipality, and do they come into the country free of duty? I have received inquiries from rural municipalities, from the western and eastern irrigation districts of Alberta in this connection. This is a new subject about which I am completely green and I would ask the minister to explain it.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This item was not included in the resolution. With the help of the officials I could probably give an answer but it might

not be a complete one. In the circumstances I would ask the hon. member to let me get the correct answers and send them along to him. If I try to deal with tariff items at random in this discussion I am afraid we will be here for some time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I was not, of course, trying to embarrass the minister in any way. I have inquiries on this subject and I realize that no official can carry all the items in his head. I am willing to wait and get the answers, and I am sure the minister will give me his co-operation now, as he always has in the past.


David Vaughan Pugh: I think the hon. member for Bow River has made an important point. Not only is there customs involved, but if it is not classified as farm equipment then the 4-4-3 sales tax percentages would apply on the purchase. I have another point I should like to put to the minister. We are dealing with textiles and textile fabrics. I was wondering whether the proposed trade with China was the basis for any of the tariff changes which have been made.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall resolution No. 1 carry?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Before it carries, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to ask the minister to be lengthy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -some of us are tall enough; but this is a problem all of us as politicians have, our inclination to talk too much. I want however to ask about snow blowing equipment. I mentioned a lot of agricultural implements this afternoon and the minister kindly accepted them and said that he would look into them. There is a problem concerning the classification of certain items under "All other agricultural implements or agricultural machinery, n.o.p.;" in item 409f. What about snow blowing equipment or snow removal equipment? Would they qualify under that part of item 409f which says:
Machines and tools for use on tractors, including blades, loaders, rippers, rakes and related operating and controlling gear;


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am not too familiar with this snow blowing equipment. I do not think it is specifically designed for agricultural use and so does not come under the specific item here. As I said to the hon. member for Bow River, perhaps on this particular resolution it would be a mistake to discuss the tariff itself, to discuss the items not included in the resolution. If the hon. member for Acadia would like an answer and would be kind enough to write
Customs Tariff
a letter to the Department of National Revenue, they assure me that they will be glad to supply the information.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would be glad to write that letter, but I should like to correct a misunderstanding with regard to snow blowing and snow removal equipment not being part of agricultural machinery, as I understood the minister to say. This is another perfect example why agricultural equipment is not easily recognizable.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If the hon. member would allow me to interrupt, I think I said it was not specifically designed for that purpose.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sorry if I misunderstood the minister.


Mr. Byrne:: It is like a straw blower.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are blowing a lot of straw now.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: They are used to manure spreading.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Snow plowing equipment is not designed specifically for agricultural purposes but in many cases is used for such. I can remember many a hard winter when a lot of ranchers and farmers plowed the snow so that their cattle could follow up behind and eat the grass which remained. In those days a snow plow was a very vital machine to have around when a rancher was caught short of feed. The last few years have been pretty warm, I do not know whether or not because of the political activity in Canada, but they have not been so prominent on farms and ranches as in the past. But in the future no doubt they will be used to quite an extent by many farmers. I should like to know whether or not they would be included under machines and tools for use on tractors, including blades, loaders, rippers, and so on. Snow blowers are not specifically designed for agricultural use, but they are used for such in many cases, and they are made readily to attach to tractors. I wonder whether they would come under this head or not. Would they come in under that catch-all phrase or under the other catch-all phrase, which is:
All other agricultural implements or agricultural machinery, n.o.p.;
I have taken a great deal of time and I see it is nearly six o'clock, but I hope the minister and his officials will take this snow blowing equipment along with the other items I have mentioned this afternoon and give it some thought as to whether it is already included under "all other agricultural implements".


Mr. Gundlock:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Medicine Hat brought up the

Customs Tariff
question why something was not done under the previous government, and I should like to call this matter, which is very important, to the attention of the minister. I have before me a letter from an industry which is trying to establish itself, and as a matter of fact is establishing itself, in Lethbridge. It is an industry which produces, processes and packages vegetables, and in our area of Alberta we import over 90 per cent of the vegetables we process. By way of example-and I concede this point to my hon. friend from Medicine Hat-I should like to bring to the attention of the minister that automatic stock watering devices are exempt from duty, whereas automatic stock feeding devices are not. This is not an old thing; it is a new thing. For example, there are egg cooling devices and milk cooling devices, but there is not this new device which we need so badly and which I call a hydro cooling device. Industry is trying to develop in Canada today-and by today I mean the last month or two-and they need these machines which represent millions of dollars to Canada and Canadian producers. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Even though it is a little late, Mr. Chairman, before you leave the chair, and for the benefit of the record, I should explain that there seems to have been a good deal of misunderstanding about the press report which the hon. member for Vancouver East referred. I am informed by my colleague the Minister of National Defence that there was no suggestion whatsoever that any member of parliament was being screened in any fashion at all.


David Vaughan Pugh: What is it all about?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not know what it is all about. I did not make the statement referred to. All I am saying is that the Minister of National Defence tells me there is no thought of screening any member of parliament. This is a perfectly normal type of official visit being made in a perfectly normal fashion, and I was able to assure the hon. member for Vancouver East of this before he left and, I think, to satisfy him.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask the Secretary of State a question? Does he not have in mind an article on page 5 of today's Citizen in which the following appears?
The Commons defence committee has been informed that it cannot be given security information by north American air defence command headquarters because its members have not been checked for security by the R.C.M.P., Chairman Maurice Sauve said Monday.
I take it the Secretary of State is telling us either that the chairman has been misquoted or that the government does not agree with his statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. member could perhaps find out from the chairman what he meant.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7 p.m.
Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Chairman, as I was saying at six o'clock I wanted to bring to the attention of the minister and the committee a particular point with reference to items discussed earlier by certain hon. members. The question was asked why action had not been taken under the previous government. I want to make this point very clearly to the minister and his advisers because I think it is most important not only to the house but to Canada as a whole.
I gave an example which admittedly is an old one. I referred to the fact that automatic stock waterers were exempt while automatic stock feeders were not and are not exempt. The real point I should like to make to the minister and his advisers is this, and it is a new one, not an old one. This came about in my constituency only a week or two ago and I think the same thing applies throughout Canada. New industry is developing in Canada and certain items, as in the case of my previous example, are not listed and are subject to duty.
I do not want to leave the impression with you, Mr. Chairman, or with the committee or Canadians as a whole that we are striving to have more and more exemptions made possible for Canadian users. The real point that I think the minister and his advisers should take into consideration is this. I do not think we should have to fight here in committee to have exemptions made for certain articles. I think it should be made known throughout Canada if these articles are manufactured in Canada, and I see no reason in the world that they cannot be or should not be. If they are not available I think they should be made available to Canadians in order to increase secondary production and particularly primary production in the field of agriculture, because whether we like it or not we must admit that across Canada agriculture is one segment of the economy which one might say is in the lower brackets. It is not at the top of the Canadian economy.
Before we move on from this item I want to emphasize, by way of repetition if I have to, the fact that we are not making these arguments just to belabour the government. We are arguing in favour of increasing Canadian production. We are not rehashing old

arguments. As I pointed out earlier, I have a letter here dated as recently as July 11 with respect to a new industry trying to establish itself in my constituency. I do not mean to be selfish by talking about my constituency, and in any event what I am saying applies all across Canada. I referred to the example of stock feeders. I referred to corn coolers, milk coolers and hydro coolers. Hydro coolers are actually only a magnification, if that is the proper word, of these other things. The fact that they are not listed here and apparently are not obtainable in Canada places a very great hardship on a new secondary industry, an industry that Canada needs badly. This is borne out by other speeches we have heard this session.
I should like to leave that thought with the minister. I am not belabouring the point at all. I think they should be made in Canada and perhaps they are available, but as far as this company knows they are not. They are not listed, so the company is hampered in developing a new secondary industry.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that the minister would tell the committee and the country generally what is included in the words "all other farm machinery" in item 409f. It appears to me and to many others that very little is included in "all other farm machinery". This afternoon I listed a number of types of farm machinery that could come under those words and I thought at one time that the minister was going to give us the directive that the department issues to its officials across the country. Surely that is not asking too much. Surely the minister can make available to us the directive that the department issues to officials across the country in order to clarify once and for all what is included in "all other farm machinery". I listed a number of items this afternoon and I can think of several more. We have been dealing with hemp and woven material. I can think of lariat rope which is used on many farms; but there is a duty on lariat rope coming in from the United States. Certainly that is something used in farming or ranching in southern Alberta and could very well be classified under a broad definition as a piece of farm equipment. Yet a duty is paid on it. Could the minister outline for us what directive the officials receive across the country with regard to this all-inclusive clause in item 409f?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: We seem to be back on an item that was dealt with some time ago. This particular item to which the hon. member seems to be objecting is just as it has been for many years. It is designed to allow the importation, free of duty, of all items that
Customs Tariff
are not otherwise provided for. I suppose I can go on repeating the explanation I have given so often, but there is nothing new about this proposal. It has been in the tariff for some time. It is intended to cover all agricultural machinery items that are not otherwise provided for. But, as I say, we have already dealt with this particular item.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I know there was a discussion of this item this afternoon, but the minister has not really dealt with it by way of explanation. He mentions repeating himself, but I have listened very carefully to his remarks and while he has been very kind in enlightening me and the committee on many items, he has not given us an explanation of this matter. I will admit that this item has been in the tariff, but the difficulty I have run into in the last couple of years is trying to ascertain what is included in the phrase "all other agriculture implements". I heard one definition this afternoon to the effect that all agricultural machinery must be on wheels and movable. I took that to be the definition, but I do not believe it is enough. I think it should be wider, and cover a wider range of equipment. It is for this reason I am pressing this argument this evening.
I believe the minister should be able to give the committee an outline of the definition given to officials across the country. No matter in what part of Canada you are, the goods you buy go through the various customs ports such as Calgary, Drumheller or Regina. Nine times out of ten the officials at these places have to make a ruling on a piece of equipment, and surely they have some directives to follow in this regard. All I am asking the minister for this evening is to have his officials give us some idea as to what agricultural implements are included in this item.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, this matter was mentioned earlier this afternoon. I think a great deal of the trouble arises, as has been pointed out by many members today, from the restrictive and unrealistic definition of the word "machinery". I am referring to farm machinery. As I understood it, earlier today the minister undertook to review this matter with his officials with a view to redrafting the section. I trust that my understanding is correct.
As the minister pointed out at the time, he would not want to redraft the section on the spur of the moment. I think anyone would agree with that. However, it was my understanding that the minister gave an undertaking that some time in the very near future he and his officials would go over this with

Customs Tariff
a view to redrafting the section, so this problem would not occur as often in the future as it has in the past. In fact we would hope it would not occur at all. Perhaps the minister could tell us whether or not I was mistaken in this understanding.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not believe we can say that this particular minister is the one under whom this problem developed. I have always believed that the spirit of the law is important. I think what everyone has missed, particularly the officials, when they were discussing this matter with the minister, was this: What was really intended was that all equipment, whether you call it machinery or equipment, that can produce a dollar on the farm would be exempt from tariff. As the hon. member for Acadia mentioned, we are paying duty on lariats. What I would suggest with the greatest respect is that the wording be changed.
I should like to refer now to the leading case before the privy council in 1936 in which they dealt with the word "banking". I want to draw this analogy. In 1867 we defined the word "banking", and it did not include the lending of money. When the Social Credit government come into power in Alberta they passed certain measures controlling the lending of money. This particular piece of legislation went all the way through the courts to the privy council. Lord Simon said, in that particular decision, that the word "banking" like other words must grow with the economic factors and circumstances of the country. This is what the hon. member for Acadia has been talking about. Basically, the point he has been trying to make with the officials is that farm machinery is not being treated as farm equipment or being defined so that the farmers of western Canada can understand the definition.
This is the problem. We cannot put any blame on the new minister, but I would suggest that his departmental officials think about this and either give us a new interpretation or redraft the section so that the term "farm equipment" encompasses the whole field and includes any equipment that goes to make a dollar on the farm. I do not believe the minister realizes it, but when I raise this question I do so because millions of dollars have been spent and will be spent in irrigating western and southern Alberta. These irrigation companies are really cooperative companies formed by the farmers. They have complained for many years when the old Liberal government was in power, when the Conservative government was in power and now when another Liberal government is in power, that although they use this equipment in farm operations they are

paying a tariff on it. Political science professors have pointed out that when it comes to tariffs, and it is time the country understood this, there is no difference between the philosophy of one party and another in this house. These recommendations are made by the tariff board and if they mean upping the tariff, the Liberal party ups the tariff. They have always painted a picture of themselves as being the low tariff party. They are no more the low tariff party than any other party. We are trying to plan the economy in such a way that it will help all Canadians. I am glad the Secretary of State is here because he spent four or five days last session on this very subject we are discussing now.
Let us get a definition that is workable. This is what all the argument is about. There may be some who feel there is a filibuster going on. There is no filibuster. The farmers want to know where they stand so far as farm machinery is concerned. I have seen articles in the press to the effect that important things come before this house in the dying days of the session, and yet the opposition has remained silent. They allowed these important matters to go through. This is important today to the people of western Canada, and that is why members like the hon. member for Acadia are asking these questions. I do not see the hon. member for Medicine Hat present. He should be questioning this item because he represents a farming community. The farmers of western Canada want a clear-cut definition. That is all they seek. I am coming back to that point when it comes to eastern irrigation equipment. Millions of dollars have been spent and millions of dollars will be spent, and if they are paying tariff on this farm machinery they want to ask the officials why.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Before it carries, surely the minister can give some idea or outline of what is included in "other agricultural machinery"?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think we are out of order. We are now on item 610.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When did you join the Liberal party?


Gilles Grégoire: We did the same with you last year. We tried to help you and you did not want it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We know what help you gave.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. For the enlightenment of the hon. member for Lapointe we are not on item 610. We have passed that item and are on the general resolution No. 1, I should add that it seems to me we are getting

a little far from the principle of that resolution, and I would ask the co-operation of hon. members in limiting their remarks to the resolution.


William Heward Grafftey: I appreciate your guidance, Mr. Chairman, but before we close off discussion on resolution No. 1 I think it is important that we arrive at a proper definition regarding agricultural machinery and uses. I am not necessarily asking for an answer tonight, but the minister did make a remark, when I was asking questions under a specific item, that it would only have effect under the excise tax resolutions. It is important we arrive at a good definition of machinery or goods for agricultural use under this resolution, because I am sure all hon. members would agree that by analogy we could easily argue it would have effect on the excise tax resolutions.
I should like to bring to the attention of the committee a typical situation that exists in eastern Canadian agriculture. Very often a piece of machinery that is imported is not specifically designed for agricultural uses. It could be a tractor that might be employed in other commercial uses, but a farmer buys that particular machine because it happens to fit into his particular agricultural operation. He may be a small farmer in Quebec or Ontario -and I am sure the same situation holds true in the west-who often has to use the tractor outside his farm to gain extra revenue.
It is very easy for us in the ivory tower of Ottawa to say that he should get a prior ruling, but he does not get it. Then an inspector comes along and says he is using the machinery principally for non-agricultural purposes. We have gone through this in other parliaments but, as the minister explained so ably an hour or so ago, in practical effect this discussion today would only bear on the excise tax resolutions.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The definition may not be perfect but is exactly the same as it was when the hon. member was parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance. I would also like to say I was relieved to hear the hon. member for Bow River say there was no thought on his part of filibustering this particular resolution, and I am sure that is a fact. On the other hand I feel and suspect that some of the questions that have been asked were asked a little earlier this afternoon. Perhaps if we had some new questions it would be easier to deal with them.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Those remarks tempt me to rise once again. The minister said the definition is the same as it was before. I am not saying it is changed; all I am asking is, what is the definition for all other agricultural implements? The item says all other
Customs Tariff
agricultural implements and agricultural machinery. To me the word "implements" is different from the word "machinery." I would call a lariat an implement. It assists a farmer or rancher in his work. I am using this an an explicit example, and I think it should be covered in item 409f.
Some hon. members say we should pass the resolution, but if it is passed now it will not be re-opened until the next budget comes in. I want the definition now, so that we will have the benefit of it for the coming year, and so that we will not have to go into it again next year. We have only one chance to review the budget resolutions and we should avail ourselves of it to make sure we know what changes are proposed.
I think the hon. member for Bow River made a very good point when he brought out the idea that legislation is enacted in the concept of growing. Certainly the term "agricultural implements" or "agricultural machinery" should be considered as a growing term in the legal sense.
We have complained to the department over the last two years that agricultural implements are viewed as though we were still back In the horse and buggy days, but all across Canada we are advancing rapidly out of the horse and buggy days where agricultural machinery is concerned. The minister said the definition is the same as it was before. We want to know what it is and whether it is broad enough to cover the growing aspect of automation in the whole farm machinery picture. Before the resolution passes I hope the minister will give us some outline of the directive that is issued to departmental officials all across Canada.
(Translation):


Mr. Paul:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder why the Minister of Finance will not give the clarification asked for by the hon. members of the opposition.
The minister replied a while ago that the definitions were the same as those figuring in the provisions of the legislation during the last parliament.
Well, what we are asking for is to get some easing or some clarification so that farmers will know what agricultural machinery will be exempt from excise tax and customs duties. Surely it is not when people rise and show arrogance that the discussion can come to an end; this is no way to speed up passage of this budget resolution.
Nowadays, farmers are modernizing their farms. They buy some quite expensive implements and when they go to work outside the farm to get some additional income, they immediately have to pay excise tax and duty on that machinery.

Customs Tariff
We are asking the minister and his officials to set up a catalogue of the implements which must be considered as farm machinery. Is this determined on the basis of manufacturing conditions or of the use made of them?
It is merely in order to get such clarification that we urge the minister to give us an answer. It is surely desirable that he should stop being stubborn and co-operate with opposition members so that we will know where we stand in order to accelerate the passage of this resolution.
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reply to this particular question because I do not think the hon. gentleman was in the chamber this afternoon when I answered this question-
(Translation):


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I must say that I was present in this house this afternoon and I may add that I am perhaps more often in the house than the Minister of Finance, for I am not in the habit of blundering and of slipping away because of my arrogance. I am anxious to do my duty.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I recognize the
Minister of Finance.
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I had no thought of suggesting that the hon. member was not a diligent attender at the sessions of the house. However, I did think that when I answered this particular question he might not have been present. But if he was, perhaps I did not notice him, and I usually do notice him. If he was here, I apologize. If the hon. member was here he will remember that I said in reply to this particular question, put to me by somebody else, that an agricultural implement as such is, under the tariff, an implement that is specifically designed for agricultural use.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman-


Walter Lockhart Gordon: May I finish, please. I daresay there can be some misunderstanding as to what is or what is not specifically designed for agricultural use. But if there is any doubt about it, the doubt can be resolved very quickly by applying for a definition or a ruling from any of the many branches of the Department of National Revenue.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I think the whole point has been missed. I am not trying to be difficult, sir, believe me, but the minister has just said that a machine must be designed for farming, and therein lies the difficulty.

Many machines designed for many things are used in agriculture. I think we should have the wording-this is how I think it should read-to cover all other agricultural implements or agricultural machinery which serves farmers and ranchers in their operation of business. This is the point, and I am going to labour it for a moment.
The hon. member for Acadia this afternoon dealt with snow clearing or snow blowing equipment. It may be necessary to have snow clearing equipment to get your products to market. If this equipment is used in agriculture in that regard, it should be free of tariff. The minister says the machinery must be specifically designed for this purpose. I have the greatest respect for the department- and I know they are always behind the minister-but they must grow in the way I stated when dealing with the growing philosophy of that earlier case. The fact is that equipment should be exempt if it is used in agricultural operations of any kind or form. This is what we are trying to make clear. If we could get such a statement from the minister there would be no hold-up of this item as far as I am concerned, and I can almost speak for the other hon. members who represent large farming constituencies throughout Canada.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I have only-


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Cariboo.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Chairman, I am rising to say that in this matter I agree with hon. members who have just resumed their seats, because this is something that not only affects farmers but other people as well. I believe hon. members who have just spoken are right in pursuing this question in order to obtain an answer. I would hope the minister would, in the genial atmosphere of this chamber, rise and tell us that steps will be taken to settle this matter. I hope he will say that anything used in agriculture and which can definitely be shown to be used in agricultural production will be reckoned to be such by the various people he mentioned as being those to whom we could apply for a ruling.
If the minister cannot say now that the ruling will be this or that, when the application is made it is only common sense that the officials are going to say, "It is not of a class or kind that comes under these tariff exemptions" and we will therefore be stuck with this problem. I agree with the hon. gentlemen who have dealt with this matter; I think they are absolutely right.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, there is a suggestion I would like to make which might help us out of the difficulty. In view of the restrictive way in which the phrase "farming

machinery" has been interpreted to date, I would hope my suggestion would help solve this problem. I am sure hon. members on both sides of the house have had this difficulty and, as the hon. member for Bow River pointed out, nobody is for a moment suggesting that the Minister of Finance is in any way to blame, because this terminology has been used in the tariff item for years. But it has become an acute problem in the last couple of years, during which time it has been brought to my attention, because of the new types of farm machinery which do not fit into the restrictive interpretation of the word ''machinery".
Naturally one could not expect the minister to redraft the terms of the act on the spur of the moment, because this is a very complex matter. However, I would suggest to the minister that between now and the time the budget bills come down he might discuss the matter with his officials and the Minister of National Revenue and perhaps some way could be found out of this difficulty. Nobody would, of course, expect the minister to make some suggestion now on the spur of the moment, but perhaps he would give an undertaking that he will discuss the matter with his colleague the Minister of National Revenue and his officials, and when the budget bills come before the house some arrangement might have been made.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Chairman, I fully realize, as do all hon. members, that the Minister of Finance is anxious to balance his budget and therefore he wants every dollar he can get. Perhaps I can suggest something that will throw the odd dollar up his alley. I agree with everything that has been said by my colleagues on this side of the chamber, that every item of farm machinery should be spelled out so that those who import this type of machinery could buy it knowing it to be tariff free.
However, we have the other side of the coin. We should also have a list of machinery which is subject to tariff, which is used for agricultural purposes and which, according to the law, is of a class or kind made in Canada but enters free of tariff. I have one item in mind to which the minister might give consideration. I refer to cabs for tractors and combines, which are made in a factory in Manitoba right in my own constituency, of material better than anything imported from the United States, at a price which meets and beats that of the United States article. Yet these cabs come in tariff free from other countries, and we are up against it in this regard. I suggest that the Minister of Finance should look into this matter. This is one item that is made in Canada by Canadian labour,
Customs Tariff
Canadian brains and with Canadian finance. If anything should receive a little protection, I think this article should, because it is an agricultural implement. These cabs are used on tractors, and our tractors out in the west are used in all kinds of weather conditions. They are mostly used on the farm. It is true that often a farmer will take a tractor out to open up a highway, and he is then accused of not using his tractor for agricultural purposes and the excise boys get right after him. That is not fair, if he has no other way of getting to town, which is often the case. These cabs keep the farmer warm while he is driving the tractor; they shelter him from rain. The same cabs are made for every make of combine. I suggest the Minister of Finance take this under consideration, and it being a product of a class or kind made in Canada it should get the protection it deserves.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I have only one remark which may resolve the problem. The minister is rapidly finishing so he can consult his experts.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am sure that was an ingenuous remark and I will accept it as such. A lot of very useful suggestions have been made in the course of this debate and I can assure all hon. members that they will be taken up and considered very seriously. I think the hon. member for Oxford suggested that it should not be expected that the Minister of Finance should make a snap ruling in these matters, and I thank him for that suggestion. The hon. member for Marquette made a different kind of suggestion, and I was very interested in his exposition of what was being done in his constituency. I will draw it to the attention of my colleague the minister of industry. I think all hon. members will agree that some of these things are not susceptible of being resolved on the floor of the house in a few minutes or even a few hours. All I can do is assure hon. members that everything that has been said will be considered as carefully as it deserves.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I realize the minister will carry out to the letter what he says, but I am not satisfied with the definition he has given the committee. He stated that agricultural implements are specifically designed for agricultural uses, and if so they are allowed in under this all-inclusive item 409f. I want to point out to the minister and his officials that air-cooled motors, whether made by Briggs and Stratton or anyone else, are not designed specifically for agricultural use. I am sure the minister and his officials agree with me when I say that. Yet a farmer can buy them in Canada duty free if he fills out a declaration that they will be used exclusively on his farm for agricultural purposes.

Customs Tariff
An air-cooled motor does not fit the definition the minister just gave us. Why cannot a whole host of other implements used on farms today be handled in the same way as air-cooled motors? To my knowledge there is no reason why a farmer cannot fill out a form and swear that the implement he is purchasing will be used on his farm. The minister says, in effect, that this is the directive issued to the officials, that the machine must be designed specifically for agricultural use.
I was not here when he said that this afternoon, but if I had this matter might have been cleared up a lot earlier. The minister's definition of 409f does not console me at all. If air-cooled motors can be purchased by farmers for agricultural use, duty free, then I submit a whole host of other machines could also qualify. I used as an example a lariat. To me a lariat is designed for catching cattle.


An hon. Member:: You mean for hanging.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Someone says for hanging. I think a bigger rope is used for hanging. If the hon. member knows anything about ropes he can check with me later.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If the hon. member stays here he will hang himself soon enough.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Minister of Agriculture, coming from the great city of Calgary, will agree with me that they have been using a lot of lariats recently in that city. A lariat is designed specifically, I think we will agree, for agricultural use.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can I make an offer to the hon. gentleman. I will be glad to pay the duty on any he needs for the next couple of years.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How about the rest of the population of Alberta? Is the hon. member so fat and healthy and so financially wealthy that he can afford them?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would buy two for the hon. member for Bow River.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot be bought.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not even with a rope?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Not even with a rope or the offer of a supply of ropes for the next two years. I am not going to be bought that easily. I was sent here by an agricultural constituency basically and many of the items I have mentioned this afternoon have been brought to my attention over the years by my constituents, and I will continue to work for the clarification and the easing of any tariffs which may be imposed upon agricultural implements or implements used for agricultural

purposes. It makes me proud to feel that I have so many cohorts on this side of the house who are working so hard for the reduction of tariffs. I am proud to say that I worked for five years on these items and did succeed in making a number of changes to item 409f. But I did not accomplish everything, and perhaps that was because I had not the assistance of the brains the hon. member for Red Deer has in his party.
I am also proud to say that I did not vote for this budget, which is more than the hon. member for Red Deer can say. He is one of the people who want higher taxes imposed on the Canadian public, whether they be farmers or otherwise. He voted for the 11 per cent tax. I am trying to reduce taxes on agricultural products. I think this is a vital issue to the members sent here by the farmers in agricultural ridings. We are discussing resolution No. 1 which deals with the duty on agricultural implements. This sort of resolution comes up for debate only once a year after a budget, and this is the one time when hon. members have the chance to make changes.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to hear from the minister how he justifies his definition of agricultural implements when air-cooled motors which are not designed specifically for agriculture, but are nevertheless used in a multiplicity of ways throughout Canada, are allowed in. Certainly the same provision should be made for a host of other machinery used for agricultural purposes. I should like to hear the minister explain the definition his department uses in this regard.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to say I am very surprised to hear these hon. members speaking so loudly this year on these matters when last year we never heard about them.


Mr. MacEwan:: You were not around, that is why.


Gilles Grégoire: In fact, I think I hear it for the first time. Last year they did not say a word. They had six years in which to do that. What have they done? They never presented a budget last year, yet this year they are crying out loud. Why did they not do this before? They say: "Why don't you join the Liberals?" We have not changed sides. We remain here. Hon. members to my right are the ones who changed. Why? Because last year they stuck to their benches. They never got up.


An hon. Member:: How do you know? (Translation):


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) will agree that as far

as his comments are concerned, he must limit himself to the substance of the resolution that is being discussed.
(Text):


Gilles Grégoire: Very well, Mr. Chairman, I think I have made my point. I think they can understand it. If they were mute last year, I hope they will not be blind this year.
We are discussing the problems of the farmers. I know they have problems. In particular, we are discussing the excise tax, not the sales tax. If we try to help the farmers by making unwise reductions in the excise taxes, we might be making trouble for the workers of this country who are ready to build equipment and materials to be sold to our farmers. We have all kinds of industries able to furnish equipment and machinery to our farmers. By abolishing these tariffs we might not help the workers of our country.
(Translation):
The workers of our country who can manufacture that farm machinery will find themselves out of work if an attempt is made to remove the customs duty on all that equipment and that machinery, whether it be snowplows or other material. Our workers would then be deprived of work in our factories, because taxes being higher in Canada than in other countries, prices are higher.
That is why customs tariffs were established, in order to protect Canadian industry. Otherwise, our workers, as well as various other classes of society, would suffer from unemployment, because Canadians would not buy production equipment. Farmers would be the first to be affected, because they would no longer be able to sell their products.


Rémi Paul: I rise on a point of order. In my opinion, the consideration of this resolution is not an occasion for setting forth a theory on production and consumption. We are considering a particular resolution and I would ask the hon. member for Lapointe to abide by the provisions of standing order 59(2).


Gilles Grégoire: I will try to be more to the point than the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere. We are at present discussing a clarification of the Customs Tariff. I am not one of those who would like to increase the tariff to protect industry, but when it is increased inconsiderately, we are asking for retaliation. But there are some reasonable limits to favouring exports without risking retaliation.
I am not an expert, but I believe that those remarks are relevant to the item before us
Customs Tariff
more particularly because of the many exemptions found in the Customs Tariff concerning the importation of many items in our country. This is why, Mr. Chairman, we must assist industry in Canada so that it may produce our farm implements. All sectors of our community, the retailers, the farmers or the labourers must, first of all patronize Canadian production. That way our whole community will benefit, and particularly those who are actively engaged in production, because Canadian products will then be marketed in our country.
We believe industry should be protected not with high tariff walls but with normal tariff. Mr. Chairman, we do not object and let us not be accused of being Liberals, as was mentioned a moment ago, because in connection with the 11 per cent tax on building materials I did not hesitate to protest as I will do again if need be. When the time comes I will again enter the debate because we do not talk for the pleasure of hearing our own voices. When there are improvements to be adopted, we must set aside all partisan and political considerations, which is not what the Conservatives have been doing for the last few hours.
I would like to conclude by saying this: I am very happy to see that the Minister of Finance, while introducing this resolution, has not deemed necessary-and had he done so we would have blamed him for it-to impose a tariff surcharge that would have been more prejudicial to this country than the present problems.
(Text):


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to say a few words after that verbose speech. The hon. member made some strong remarks directed, I suppose, against myself and other members who have been fighting hard to make a case on behalf of farmers all across Canada so that the items they need, the implements they use, might be available to them at a cheaper cost so that they in turn produce more cheaply. He suggested that I had been very quiet in the recent years. Let him check back in Hansard at any time; I wager I made just as many speeches last session as he did.


An hon. Member:: Not as intelligent, though.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will let the public judge as to their relative intelligence. In any case I am pleased to see exactly where the Social Credit party stands with regard to the question of lower tariffs on farm machinery. Apparently they are opposed to this idea-I gather so from the remarks just made by the hon. member. That party has three spokesmen

Customs Tariff
now, the hon. member for Lapointe, the hon. member for Red Deer, and the other more notorious hon. member who they are trying to
get rid of. They really should not worry about him because I am sure when they do get rid of him the hon. member from Lapointe can fill his boots without much trouble.
I wish to deal with resolution No. 1 which includes this first item 409f, which the minister has suggested the committee should adopt. Perhaps, after study, we should adopt it. I am sure I will be satisfied if the minister would inform the committee and myself how air-cooled motors are brought in under the definition he gave us a while ago-that of implements used for agricultural purposes.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Would the hon. member like me to give him his answer right now?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Fine.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The motors he is referring to come into Canada duty free under 409q.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thanks. I do not have 409q in front of me but I am accepting what the minister says. I intend to pursue this matter a little further, if hon. members will bear with me. I would not want to think the Liberal backbenchers were trying to suppress free speech by interrupting what I have to say.


Lucien Lamoureux: Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat. I should like to remind the hon. member again that in the course of his speech he should try to limit his comments and remarks to the resolution before the committee.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to limit my remarks to resolution No. 1. I must admit I was sidetracked by some comments thrown at me and I apologize for more or less allowing myself to be baited. I will deal with resolution No. 1. The minister stated that aircooled motors are brought in under item 409a.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Item 409q.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, I was close.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, if I could have your attention for a moment I should like to deal with what the minister said. He suggested that air-cooled motors to be used for agricultural purposes come into Canada under item 409q and are exempt. Fine. All I am saying is that all the other implements that I and other members have suggested should also come in under one item or another and be exempt. We only

have a certain number of items before us and that is why I am dealing with the items that are before us.
I should like the minister to comment on this proposition, and it does not necessarily mean a change in these items. However, before resolution No. 1 passes I should like to hear the minister comment on this suggestion with regard to the wording: "All other agricultural implements or agricultural machinery which serve farmers and ranchers in their operations, not otherwise provided". Surely it could be made clear with those two or three or six additional words. It could even be shortened. You could say: "All other agricultural implements or agricultural machinery used in agricultural production". Maybe those three or four additional words would solve the situation and give a clearer understanding to the officials all across the country and a clearer and more precise understanding to all people wishing to buy machinery for use in the development of their farms, something that we very much want to see them do. The farmers have been in a cost-price squeeze over the years and we have all been trying our best to help them to meet rising costs.
I do not want to be a party to any group which suggests that we should not lower tariffs. I think the principle was initiated a good many years ago that farm machinery, whether it comes from England, Ireland or anywhere else in the world, should enter Canada duty free.


John Whitney Pickersgill: By Mackenzie King.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The tariffs have been reduced gradually since 1897 by various governments, and I think the record will prove that is so. Certainly I read in the Gordon economic report that the Conservatives removed just as many tariffs as the Liberals did. If hon. members want to check that, it is in the Gordon royal commission report.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: What page?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I can give you the page. If you will bear with me a minute I will look it up. I think the principle has long been accepted in Canadian agriculture and in the Canadian parliament that agricultural machinery should come into Canada duty free. Certainly farmers today are purchasing tractors and combines. These are the big items in farming today on which the farmers spend their money. Nearly 50 per cent of the money spent by farmers on agricultural machinery is spent for the purchase of tractors. They are duty free, but here we are quibbling about smaller accessories. If large machinery is

allowed to enter duty free certainly the principle should be well established that accessories should also enter duty free whether they be lariat ropes, a snowplow or a piece of fence


An hon. Member:: Or a calf.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -or steel boxes, or what have you. The principle is an accepted one in the Canadian parliament since away back in 1897, and the tariff was gradually reduced from that time onward. Surely, therefore, we should accept the idea put forward this afternoon that the definition should read "all other agricultural implements or agricultural machinery which serve farmers and ranchers in their operations". Surely that would not be straying from the principle or bringing any new concept into the legislation. Certainly not. There is no straying from the principle, no straying from the concept or intent of the original legislation. It would be no trouble at all to add three or four words to that particular clause.
I do not really think it has to be done by way of amendment tonight, as long as we have the assurance of the minister that the department will issue a directive to officials all across the country so that from now on all machinery used on farms for agricultural production will enter Canada duty free, and so that all the farmer will have to do if duty is charged is to sign a declaration similar to that used in the case of air-cooled motors. All the minister has to do is accept the principle that all farm machinery should come in duty free.
As far as the government is concerned there is no particular amount of money involved here. The government is budgeting for a deficit of nearly $800 million, but there is no great amount of money involved here as far as they are concerned. There is a great deal of money involved, however, in the case of the farmer who is trying to automate by adding to his machinery and thus perhaps lowering his expenses. He may buy a machine to take the place of a labourer or something like that. But certainly there is no deviation from the principle in the argument I am trying to present. There is no deviation from the original concept, and I can see no harm in the minister saying that this resolution will now be interpreted to mean that it includes all machinery for agricultural purposes. I should like to hear the minister comment on my suggestion with regard to the issuing of directives to officials across the country on the ruling respecting all agricultural implements.


Harold Warren Danforth: Before the minister replies may I say that I am sure the minister perhaps does not appreciate just how serious this
Customs Tariff
matter is. Some of us who have been in the house for some years have followed the principle he laid down this afternoon of making representations to the department and accepting rulings on various types of machinery with regard to which we had requested a ruling. In nearly every instance, unless it was covered specifically in the regulations, the rulings went against the persons applying for exemptions from duty under the act.
I think that perhaps one of the basic reasons for this is the fact that agriculture is progressing much faster than the regulations covering it. In various areas of Canada today tremendous amounts of money are being invested in machinery used for agricultural purposes. One reason I cannot accept the minister's definition tonight with regard to agricultural implements and agricultural machinery arises from the fact that there are instances now where air conditioning is being used for livestock buildings, and by no stretch of the imagination can anyone say that air conditioning was designed specifically for agriculture.
We are very much concerned about this matter not only because there are a great many implements involved but because some of the implements are extremely costly and the imposition of a tax makes quite a bit of difference in the cost price to the farmer. We are also concerned about the great number of new implements coming on the market each year which are designed specifically to advance the automation of agriculture. These are the things we are vitally concerned about and this is why we feel some help should be provided. I believe that the minister was sincere and earnest in his presentation this afternoon, but as far as we can gather there is no intimation that the procedure to be followed will be any different from that followed in the past. This, sir, is not good enough for the farmer of today. He wants to know when and how he can get the necessary relief that we feel is so desirable at this time.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, since this question is of great interest to the farmers of this country, we would appreciate very much hearing the views of the Minister of Agriculture on this matter.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I dislike taking up the time of the committee at this moment, but there are several hon. members who have made a reference, indirectly, to the Canadian people, and I do not believe it should be allowed. As a matter of fact, there was a reference directly to hon. members beside me in another party. The hon. member even went so far as to say, "Where have you been

Customs Tariff
for the last two years?" I might ask him the same question, and I am referring to the hon. member for Lapointe.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Is that a question?


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Yes, that is a very direct question.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, would the hon. member resume his seat? When remarks along this line were made by an hon. member a moment ago I called him to order and I am doing the same thing in these circumstances.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should like to remind you, and other hon. members of the house, of what has been said in this committee. As a matter of fact, we were talking about the development of Canadian industry. We were not criticizing for a moment. Actually, we were asking the minister, or calling his attention to the need for the development of Canadian secondary industry. Earlier, Mr. Chairman, I quoted from a letter dated July 11 from one of my constituents. It is not dated two years ago, but is dated 1963. I think other hon. members of this house might do well if they read their mail, and they might find one of these letters from their own constituents.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am going to be brief, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I still think the minister could get around this difficulty, and I say this with sincerity-


An hon. Member:: Can we believe you?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is all right for you people, but somebody has to be concerned with the farmers, and we certainly happen to be concerned about them.
While I am answering, and in spite of the fact you brought several members to order tonight, Mr. Chairman, I want to answer the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. He said that it was the government of Mackenzie King that set down the terms of reference when farm machinery came into this country free of duty. Let him come forward tonight with the evidence that farm machinery coming into this country was at any time subject to a tariff, either under a Conservative or a Liberal government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will accept that challenge right now. The duty which previously was on farm implements was taken off completely in the budget of 1945.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Not all machinery.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman can find that out very easily by looking up the budget speech, which perhaps would be a profitable exercise.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I said all machinery.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said farm machinery.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I said all farm machinery, and that is my answer to you.
I want to go back to what I was saying before I was sidetracked by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I still say that this problem could be solved if we could have an assurance from the minister that all agricultural implements or agricultural machinery which serves farmers or ranchers in their production, would be free from tariffs. We have heard from the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who has expounded on the idea to get rid of tariffs. They are supposed to be the tariff free party. Let us have some evidence of what they have been preaching since the days of confederation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let us have the evidence.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We are asking for only one thing, that you assure the farmers that whatever equipment they use for production will be free from tariffs. Surely, that is not too much to ask from the Minister of Finance or his department tonight.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Acadia has roamed everywhere from lariats to snow blowers during this discussion. I do not think it is inappropriate that he should be concerned with blowers. It certainly should be a matter of vital concern to him. He also professes to speak in this house on behalf of all the farmers of Canada. It may be that he speaks on behalf of the poor, downtrodden impecunious wheat farmers, but I think there are other farmers in Canada. I think, in that regard, the hon. member for Lapointe stood head and shoulders above the hon. member for Acadia when he made his statement.
The farmers I represent-and I represent some too-are quite willing to have some reasonable concession in the tariff such as we have at present whereby the farming community and the industrial community can live in harmony. This enables the industrial workers to have money with which to buy farm produce. I think all this item attempts to do, when it comes to giving protection, is to put a tariff on those items which are produced in Canada, so that the Canadian manufacturer-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It does no such thing.


John James Greene: If this is not the case, Mr. Chairman, then the seatmate of the hon.

member for Acadia is off on a different tangent. This is the trouble with the party across the way: The left hand never knows what the right hand is doing. The hon. member's seatmate has just finished requesting protection for his industry at home, which is exactly the kind of thing this item attempts to do. It attempts to give some freedom from tax on machinery, but at the same time give protection to those items which are made in Canada, I think this is what the measure does. I think this is what most of the farmers in Canada want, irrespective of what the hon. member for Acadia may believe his constituents want.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I had no intention of speaking again on this item, but the hon. member for Renfrew South tempts me to do so, as does the silence of the minister. The hon. member said that resolution No. 1 exempts from duty those items not manufactured in Canada and puts a tariff on those items manufactured in Canada. Well, Mr. Chairman, if members did a little homework or at least paid some attention to what is said in this committee, they would surely know that Cockshutt tractors were at one time made in Canada, and may still be made in Canada. Well, tractors have come into Canada duty free for many years. How does that apply to this item?


William Heward Grafftey: It doesn't.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Certainly not, it does not. Item 409f of resolution No. 1 deals with items which shall be exempt from tax, and it includes three additional items specifically, aluminum sluice type devices for controlling water in irrigation ditches, haystack forms and heaters for orchards. Those are the only three items that it includes specifically. This is the reason the whole debate has been engendered. We want all agricultural implements, and all implements used for agricultural purposes, allowed in duty free; and as I pointed out the major, big and costly items now used in agricultural production do come in duty free. I am sure the minister will agree with that concept, and that his party will, even though it may have many members who want protection. They have retreated from one position to another and now they may well be termed accurately the high tariff party of Canada.
In rising to speak on this item I certainly feel I represent my constituency, but I also realize that in coming to this great place one must speak for those things which are beneficial to all Canada. I have tried to make my remarks general enough to include the east and the west. I do not want to belong to a party that wishes to split Canada between east and west, as the party opposite now does 28902-5-145
Customs Tariff
in agricultural matters. I do not want to become a part of that thought. I want Canada united. I want farmers in eastern Canada to enjoy the same privileges as farmers in western Canada.
I want farmers to be able to get their implements in duty free. This is a principle that has been established over the years. As matters stand now, if a farmer is a particularly good arguer and is sufficiently cantankerous, whether he be in New Brunswick, Renfrew, Calgary or Drumheller, he can convince a departmental official that what he is importing qualifies as an agricultural implement and he can have the 20 per cent tariff taken off.
This matter should be explicitly nailed down this evening, particularly since we have spent so much time on it, and since so many hon. members have shown such a great deal of interest in it. We should at least accomplish something this evening for the benefit of farmers all across Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I know that many hon. members do not care about farm problems. They want to see this carried and they think these matters are not important. I know there are people in Canada who do not care a hoot about the farmers; but the farmers are the backbone of the nation and of the economy of the country, and will remain so for a good many years. Members of the Social Credit party wish to put this through in a hurry, but we can solve this sticky problem this evening if the minister will give an assurance he will discuss the matter with his officials and ensure that the words in item 409f will include all machinery used for agricultural purposes, or used for the production of agricultural goods.


John James Greene: Air conditioners?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I hear a chorus of nonsense coming from the other side of the house. Certainly if radios help to produce more milk, then they are agricultural implements. The hon. member for Renfrew South owns a dairy farm. It is a great dairy country down there, and they grow a little tobacco once in a while if the Liberal party does not outlaw it. I think Webster would agree with me when I say a proper definition of the word "implement" is a tool used to assist somebody in his work. I am sure some highly trained legal advisers would agree with that definition. It is a tool in this case used to assist farmers, and this afternoon the hon. member for Lethbridge suggested that automatic feeders should also qualify. Certainly they are a tool used to assist in the

Customs Tariff
feeding of beef cattle, and I am sure the Minister of Agriculture would agree with that.
So far we have had nothing but silence or nonsensical quips from backbenchers on the other side with regard to the suggestion I have tried to make within the last hour.


An hon. Member:: Why not within the last five years?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Surely some of the backbenchers opposite represent farmers in eastern Canada? I know there are not many of them represent farmers in western Canada, but those who do represent farmers must know this is important and should bring pressure to bear on the minister and his officials. We should have this definition made clear once and for all.
I do not want to propose an amendment to this tariff item. I do not want to go into that detail. All I am asking is that the minister issue a directive to the officials all across Canada that from now on machinery used in the production of agricultural goods shall come into Canada duty free. This is nothing new. It is a well established principle and a concept that was agreed upon by parliaments years ago.
I am taking this opportunity to express my views and thoughts on the matter. Some hon. members say this should have been done earlier. I agree wholeheartedly with them; but because it was not accomplished earlier, I am trying to accomplish it now. It is not a question of getting re-elected or not. It is a question of coming down here and doing a job.
As I said before, I represent a constituency largely devoted to agricultural production. You might well term me an agricultural representative, and I see no harm whatsoever in arguing on behalf of the farmers, even though some hon. members would like this item to pass hurriedly. I sat quite patiently this afternoon while the committee dealt with textiles. There are no textiles produced in my constituency.
All I am asking now is that the minister accept the principle which was established years ago that all agricultural implements should come into Canada duty free. The concept has been proven in law that the interpretation of legislation must grow with the economy. This definition of agricultural implements has not grown as it should have in the past number of years.
(Translation):


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the hon.

members do not have to hear the same sentence repeated more than ten times during the same day.
(Text):


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I have been in politics for only a few years but I have found that the only way to accomplish anything is to repeat your request until results are achieved. If I have to repeat it a number of times for the particular hon. member, in order for it to sink in, I guess I am prepared to do so. If he is not interested in agriculture, fine. When he wants to debate textiles, or whatever it is, I will be prepared to listen to him. But if I find him too much to stomach, I will go behind the curtain.


Some hon. Members:: Now?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am not asking for the impossible. I am not asking that the resolution be changed. All I am asking is that the definition and the directive sent out to officials across the country be broadened and widened to take in the whole scope of this now vastly automated agricultural economy in which we are living. Certainly that is not too much. Certainly we as legislators cannot continue to allow the existence of this problem which so vitally affects our primary industry and the life of our farmers. We cannot continue to view it as though we were still in the horse and buggy days. We must advance our views on this important subject. We must bring our views up to date if we are to be effective, if we are to bring about legislation which will accomplish the aims of the legislators.
This is all I am asking this evening, to raise our sights; to have a new fresh look at the agricultural industry as it exists in Canada today; to bring our views and opinions up to date on what this industry needs and what it is doing. Certainly if we are to bring about legislation which is accurate and effective, and if we are to bring about proper changes in item 409f, we should apply our minds to this problem. It has been the complaint with regard to this item that unless an item is specifically listed here you have to pay duty on it. I do not think it is possible to list all the agricultural implements or agricultural machinery used for agricultural purposes, because these implements, machinery and the agricultural economy are continually changing. What is not used in farming today may be used in farming tomorrow. That is why I am opposed to the idea of three items being added to this resolution today. I am opposed to it because three is not enough; you must add a whole host. I do not think we could possibly add enough. We must, with regard to this all-inclusive clause at the

bottom, "All other agricultural implements or agricultural machinery'', take it to mean precisely what it says. "All other" is what it says, and we must take it to mean precisely that. If the minister would rise and say yes, that is what it means, I would quickly sit down-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -and for my part this item could pass. If the minister would rise and say yes, the all-inclusive clause includes all other agricultural implements and machinery. I would be satisfied. But certainly we should not lose this opportunity of presenting our views, of strongly arguing the case for farmers all across Canada that tariffs in connection with agricultural machinery and implements should be reduced.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the section already reads, "All other agricultural implements". My hon. friend might read the section; that is what it says.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the point of order. The hon. member seems to have missed the point. We are not complaining of the use of these words in the section; it is the interpretation applied to them to which we object. Certainly equipment used on the farm or used in the production of agricultural products has not been free of tariff, and unfortunately some of these producers have to quibble and argue with the department. Sometimes they win; sometimes they lose. That is the point the hon. member for Acadia and other hon. members have been trying to make this afternoon. The hon. member raises a point of order, but I say this discussion is in order; what the hon. member is discussing and wants clarification on is the law as applied to this item.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is exactly the point.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the hon. member for Acadia would permit a question, then.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Certainly.


John James Greene: The hon. member has referred to the words "all others", which are already in the section. One of his associates on the other side of the house has said he wants, I take it, air conditioning equipment included. I wonder whether the hon. member for Acadia would include air conditioning.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: 
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit me to ask him a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes, as long as it is an intelligent one.


Gilles Grégoire: Suppose some farmers live on an island and have to have a yacht to go across to their island; would the hon. member include the yacht under this item?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to comment on the "ifs" and "ands" of what I would do, and so on and so forth. I am being sidetracked by these comments.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I was in the position where I was going to say something.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: The hon. member addresses all his questions to the minister. Supposing the minister does not know, or has no knowledge of agricultural implements? Perhaps the hon. member should address his questions to the officials here.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Or the Minister of Agriculture.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Or the Minister of Agriculture.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I have been trying to make my remarks general, and on two or three occasions this afternoon I asked the Minister of National Revenue particular questions. Earlier this evening I asked the Minister of Agriculture for assurance with regard to several items which I mentioned, and I took his silence to mean he was in agreement with me; and I am sure he was, on those particular items. To get back to the subject and the point I am trying to make-


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes.


Reid Scott: I have sat for 4| hours now listening to this interesting discussion. I wondered whether the hon. member could give us some kind of economic reason why

Customs Tariff
the farming community should be singled out for this special type of concession against any other section of the economy. I am perhaps giving him additional leeway to get going again, but I would be interested in hearing from him some purely economic reason for granting these particular concessions to the farmers as against any other part of the industrial community of Canada.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, I am not going to be sidetracked by this question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Oh, I would love to deal with it. Certainly we all know the conditions which existed throughout Canada and the position the farmers were in. The Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce have just been out to western Canada, where they saw a wonderful crop in the growing stage. But who knows whether at this very moment tonight hail might not wipe it all out. A year ago the air force had to fly grasshopper poison to the aid of farmers in western Canada. Farming is a very risky operation and livelihood. A crop is never harvested until it is in the bins and even then it may spoil. Farmers have no unemployment insurance or many of the other insurances of other classes of business. All one need do is look at the income figures to see how farmers eke out a living providing for their families as best they can. Perhaps the hon. member was serious in his question, but this is the first time I have ever known a New Democratic party member support higher tariffs on agricultural machinery. I am sure the former premier of Saskatchewan knows full well the hazards farmers face from day to day and from year to year.


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege; I was not suggesting we were dealing with the tariff one way or the other. What I was asking the hon. gentleman, and obviously he is not the slightest bit interested in responding, was to give us a logical, economic reason, instead of a lot of hollering and shouting such as we have listened to over the last four and a half hours.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sorry if I appear to be hollering and shouting. I tried to answer the hon. member's question but I do have to contend with a continual and nonsensical yapping, and I have found that if I raise my voice I drive my point home a little more quickly. I want to sit down. I am tired of pressing this argument. One has only to look at the figures to see the incomes of the farmers throughout Canada. I am arguing the principle which has been accepted by parliament in years gone by. It is a well established

principle and I do not want to go back and rehash it. I am asking the minister and his department to accept this concept wholeheartedly and to interpret the word "implement" as I think it should be interpreted.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Now they want a definition of the word "implement". My definition, which I am sure will be supported by Webster, is that it is anything used as a tool for the aid or assistance of the person using it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They can laugh. Perhaps some of them have mowed their lawns recently. Well, a lawnmower is an implement, but not necessarily an agricultural implement. Perhaps they have actually hoed a garden. In this case the hoe would be an implement but not necessarily an agricultural implement. If one turns on a sprinkler, then the garden hose to which it is attached would be an implement. It is assisting in the spreading of water on a lawn, but it is not necessarily an agricultural implement.


An hon. Member:: What about a rake?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister and his officials will agree deep down that this is a realistic and a proper view of the word. The hon. member for Renfrew South, if he were minister, would apparently agree that the broad concept of agricultural implements should be accepted, and I think the minister should stand up and say: "Yes, this is my interpretation and I will so direct the officials throughout Canada". That is all I am waiting on.
If the minister will be kind enough to do that we can pass on to other items, and I only wish his backbenchers would give him the opportunity to stand up before they immediately holler "Carried".


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Acadia was unable to give the committee the reasons for his argument I should like to do so on behalf of this group. I think his argument is soundly based. If an examination were made of the bureau of statistics figures the return per thousand dollars invested in Canada in agriculture compared with the return per thousand dollars invested in industry can be ascertained. Reference was made to yachts in a rather playful manner, and I understand farm transportation is exempt from duty. Would the minister include as an agricultural implement a launch required by a farmer who had no other means of transportation but water?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: A number of different points come into this general area of discussion. I was asked about radios which were used to help hens produce more eggs. Radios are also used for other purposes so they are not exempt.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: So are air-cooled motors.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I was also asked about trucks used by farmers. Trucks are used by other people for other things so they are not included in the definition. The same applies to the launch. This is a difficult subject. I dare say the whole tariff should be revised and rewritten from top to bottom. I have asked questions about this from time to time and have been assured it is a ten or 12 year job, perhaps longer. That is not a reason, in my opinion, why it should not be attempted, but it is certainly beyond the scope of this committee to do it tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am not going to be too long. I realize that I have been battling this afternoon and evening against a high tariff party, a protectionist party, a party who wants to maintain high tariffs-


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I wonder if the hon. member would allow me to make a brief comment on that. He made reference to high tariff parties and even at one stage purported to quote from a royal commission report with which I had something to do. He said he did not know the page he was quoting from. I would refer him to pages 438 and 439. As to high and low tariff parties-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Give the information to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. He wanted the page.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -and that sort of thing, I would remind him- am I right in saying this?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I understood that in committee it was customary for ministers to consult with their officials. It is a good custom, and if I may be permitted to do it I will probably avoid trouble. As I was about to say, the net result of all these tariff changes is a reduction in tariff, not an increase. If what the hon. member has in mind is that tariffs should be reduced drastically, I would suggest to him, with all deference, that he take this idea to the next convention of the Conservatives and see whether it is approved by that body.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister's last remarks might in the long run point to the quickest way in which I will get this done.
Customs Tariff
I realize that this party will very soon be sitting on the other side of the house and, when we are once again in office, we will be able to give a better definition of the word "implement". I have the Oxford dictionary here. It states that an implement is a tool or an instrument. That is good enough for me. I would think the cowboys in the Calgary rodeo last week would have had a hard time trying to rope a calf without a lariat. I would think that many agriculturists in western Canada, including the Minister of Agriculture, would declare that the automatic feeders on his lot are a tool and should be regarded as an agricultural implement. I know. I have put up with a lot of interruptions from backbenchers opposite. I have had to cope with an attitude of disinterest. I do wish to thank the senior member of the New Democratic party for supporting my argument to some extent at least. I realize that the minister may not have been on a farm recently.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I was on my farm last week end.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am pleased to hear that. It really pleases me to think that the minister was on his farm. Up to this time I had no idea he had a farm. Anyway, he has not shown me he has any concept of what a farm implement is. He told us they were easily seen and categorised. Well, he is not prepared to broaden the scope of the decisions which have been made.
I do not intend to persist in this. I know the minister does not intend today to go ahead and act on the suggestions I have made. However, he has a record which suggests that tomorrow, or the day after, he may think otherwise. His record suggests he can readily retreat from a position he has taken, and this may be the case in the present situation. I have enjoyed defending and representing the farmers in my constituency and across Canada this afternoon and evening. It disheartens me to some extent to note the lack of interest taken in this primary industry by backbenchers opposite. But I am pleased to learn that the minister has a farm and that he was on it during the week end. I hope that when he visits it from now on he will see things he did not see before.


An hon. Member:: Air conditioning.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Maybe not at his
farm, but perhaps if he goes into the areas concerned with tobacco growing he would learn something about that, too.
I have taken up enough of the committee's time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Customs Tariff


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sure that if the backbenchers over there have not learned anything, the officials have. I believe the minister will, tomorrow, take a new look at the implements on his farm and that if he has the privilege of bringing in another budget, changes will be made in this respect in another year. In saying this I am, perhaps, accepting defeat, which I find hard to do, but the officials and the minister may rest assured they will hear from me in the future by way of letters until the principle which has already been long established is carried out to the letter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolution agreed to.
2.	Resolved,-That schedule B to the Customs Tariff be amended by striking out item 1012, and the enumeration of goods and the rate of drawback of duty set opposite that item, and by inserting therein the following items, enumerations of goods and rates of drawback of duty:
Lucien Lamoureux: The first item is 1008.
Customs tariff-1008. Materials, woven, knitted, bonded, braided or felted, whether or not pleated, folded or sewn.
When used by manufacturers of hats in making bands for, or in binding the edges of, men's hats, 99 per cent.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have only one remark to make. I notice that in item No. 2, there is a word which translators failed to translate into French, perhaps because it was difficult to convey its meaning. I wonder if we could not be given at least an explanation of what is meant exactly by the word "drawback".
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Put in simple language it means the duty is paid when the goods come in and is refunded when they are exported; when the goods are used for the specified purpose, or exported, the duty paid on their importation is refunded.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Could the Minister of Finance be asked to see that his experts find a French translation for this word, Mr. Chairman?
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would be delighted to do that, and if the hon. member for Lapointe has a suitable suggestion to make as to an appropriate word I hope he will give me the benefit of his suggestion.


Gilles Grégoire: I will try to help, Mr. Chairman.


William Heward Grafftey: With respect to resolution No. 2, I should like the minister to tell us whether

I am right in saying that the new item 1008 is as recommended by the tariff board.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this resolution arises directly from the tariff board's report on textiles. It would implement changes which the board recommended in the drawback provisions relating to certain materials used in the production of hats and caps.


William Heward Grafftey: I should like to ask the minister if the old item 1012 is almost the same as 1009. If there is a difference, would the hon. gentleman say where it lies?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It is very similar. The new item is more precise.


William Heward Grafftey: It is simply a case of increased precision.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if this item can be related to the import of British woollens, but I remember that when we were on the government side, we had increased the tariff on the import of British woollens. We on this side of the house, remember also the questions which had been raised, the objection for example of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). I would therefore like the Minister of Finance to tell me whether these customs duties which we had increased to protect the Canadian textile industry will be maintained or whether they will be reduced to their former level?
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: These drawbacks apply to imports from all countries but they happen mostly to affect imports from the United States.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister whether it is possible to be more explicit in his answer, because he has not answered my question. I ask the minister whether the government will maintain the customs tariff on imported British woollens.
The hon. members of the previous opposition, especially the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, objected when the Conservative government raised the tariff on imported British woollens in order to protect our textile industry. So I ask the minister whether the present government will maintain that tariff at its present level or reduce it to its former level.
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, this particular resolution involves felts and synthetics and it does not involve the items about which the hon. member was talking.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Customs tariff-1009. Woven fabrics in the web. When used in the manufacture of linings for men's or boys' hats or caps, or in the manufacture of buckram shapes for women's or children's headgear, 99 per cent.
William Heward Grafftey: Is this as recommended by the tariff board?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, Mr. Chairman, some time ago.


William Heward Grafftey: For clarification purposes, could the minister explain in a general way what effect this has?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It just makes it a little more specific than it used to be.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolution agreed to.
3.	Resolved,-That schedule A to the customs tariff be amended by striking out tariff items 535, 535a, 535e, 535g, 538c, 539, 569e and 575, and the enumerations of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of these items, and by inserting therein the following items, enumerations of goods and rates of duty:
Lucien Lamoureux: The first item is 540a.
Customs tariff-540a. Grasses, seaweed, mosses and vegetable fibres other than cotton, not coloured, nor further manufactured than dried, cleaned, cut to size, ground and sifted; oakum of flax, hemp, or jute; coir and coir yam: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, free.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, after some degree of examination I have been able to ascertain that resolution No. 3 merely renumbers items in consequence of various changes. In the first resolution we noted that there were some entries having to do only with renumbering. Could the minister explain in a general way the method of renumbering used?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The purpose of this resolution is to renumber eight existing tariff items so as to fit them into the revised tariff schedules. This is the point at which it was desirable to fit them into the revised tariff schedules. There are no changes in substance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 540b, 540c, 540d, 541c, 541d, 568 and 569g agreed to.
Resolution agreed to.
4.	Resolved,-That schedule A to the Customs Tariff be amended by striking out tariff items, 180e, 180f, 188, 206b, 208x, 237a, 296g, 399a, 431h, 440ml, 440nl, 462d, 462i, 469, 478 (2). 570a (2), 597d, 696 (1) and 703b, and the enumerations of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of these items, and by inserting therein the following items, enumerations of goods and rates of duty:
Lucien Lamoureux: The first item is 9i.
9i. Feeds for use exclusively in the feeding of trout: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured
Customs Tariff
nation tariff, free; general tariff, 25 per cent. On and after July 1, 1964: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, this resolution provides for a miscellaneous group of amendments, mostly of a relieving nature, affecting 22 different tariff items. As hon. members may have noted, the effect of several of the proposed amendments is to enlarge the scope of existing free entry items by adding the words which are shown in italics. It is also proposed that several items which provide for the free entry of specified goods for limited periods of time, for example, heavy water, borate ore for use in fighting forest fires and aircraft of types and sizes not made in Canada, be extended for further periods.
Item 703b deals with the tourist exemption and I might make special reference to it. The proposed amendment to 703b would provide statutory authority for a reduction in the tourist exemption. That is the amount which returning Canadians may bring in duty free and which has already been in effect for more than a year. It was introduced by order in council P.C. 1962-903 of June 24, 1962.
No doubt many Canadian travellers to the United States and other countries woud be glad to make use of larger exemptions if they were available. However, experience shows that this change is making a substantial and relatively painless contribution to improving our balance of payments on travel account.
Since 1936 tariff item 703b has provided that Canadian residents returning from abroad after an absence of 48 hours may bring in with them free of duty goods to the value of $100 provided four months have elapsed since their last claim. In 1958 provision was made that in addition to the $100 basic exemption a resident returning from overseas after an absence of not less than 14 days might claim an additional exemption of $200. If advantage is taken of the special exemption no further exemption, basic or special, may be claimed for a further 12 months.
The statutory provision relating to the tourist clause has not been amended since 1958. However, P.C. 1962-903 of the 24th of June, 1962 had the effect of reducing the basic exemption to $25 and the special exemption to $75. The limitation is having a substantial effect on imports. In the six months July to December, 1962, total imports under item 703b were only $19.6 million compared with some $43 million in the corresponding months of 1961. Imports from the United States dropped from $35.6 million to $12.9 million for the period. In the peak year of 1960 total imports under the item were $82 million of which $71 million were from the United States.

Customs Tariff
Taking account of undeclared imports and expenditures for accommodation, the total net saving in our tourist account with the United States attributable to the change in the exemption is likely to be of the order of $70 million to $80 million per annum. Other factors, including changes in exchange rates, are also contributing to an improvement in the over-all balance of our travel account. We had a deficit on travel account in every year from 1953 to 1962 inclusive. The deficit reached a peak of over $200 million in each of the years 1959 and 1960. It declined to $160 million in 1961 and $50 million in 1962. In 1963 we are likely at least to break even and may well have a surplus.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put two brief questions to the minister. Can he inform the committee as to the total effect this resolution will have on the balance of ways and means? There is another point I should like to bring up briefly. I have compared the tariff items in the resolution before us with the items that were introduced in the last parliament but not passed, and I have noted that some of the items in the resolution under discussion are items that were included in last year's resolution while some of them naturally are new items proposed by the new administration. I was able to find on close examination that the following items included in the last budget resolutions are in the current tariff resolutions, namely, 206b, 237a, 296g, 43lh, 440m, 440n and 696. I have noted that while item 409f was in the last tariff resolution it is not in this resolution, and the minister explained to me an hour or two ago where it was picked up. I have noted that item 611a in the resolutions we brought before the last parliament, which I believe relates to some type of hospital goods, is not currently before us. Has the minister any explanation?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The answer to the first question about the effect of these changes on the balance of ways and means is that it is negligible. In so far as the tourist exemption is concerned, there may be a slight change in this year's against last year's but it is not appreciable.
On the other points that the hon. member raised, there has been an attempt to do a bit of a clean-up job here and pick up a lot of loose items that were presented last year to the house but were not passed. In respect of the two items to which he referred specifically, the first one that he pointed out has been dealt with in another place and the hospital shoes item has been dropped as these products are now being made in Canada.


William Heward Grafftey: Only temporary relief was asked for originally?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My question was in the same vein as the first part of the question just asked by the hon. member for Brome-Missis-quoi. I, too, had in mind what I think was Bill No. C-81 of the last session of parliament. As the minister knows, it got first and second reading and we got started on third reading, but it was never passed. Nevertheless, as I understood it at the time, certain of its provisions were brought into effect subject to the passing of the bill. Now, will the bill based on this resolution take care of that situation so that any changes that were proposed by the last bill will now have the force of law?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is correct, Mr. Chairman, except for the item on hospital shoes which is now being dropped and which was a temporary item to allow these products to come in free. They are now being made in Canada. Apart from that one exception, the answer to the question of the hon. member is in the affirmative.


William Heward Grafftey: May I ask just one general question in the way of clarification before we go into the item by item examination of this measure? Am I correct in assuming that all the changes we are about to examine came about as a result of the normal operation of government business and did not involve tariff board recommendations?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is correct, with the exception of the item dealing with architects' plans and drawings.


Robert Norman Thompson: I should like to ask a question of the minister relating to item 9i. I notice you are removing the tariff on this item of feeds for trout farming, and then after a delay of one year you are reimplementing it. Does this mean that these feeds will be manufactured in Canada between now and that time?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This item is related to the many representations which have been received from commercial trout farmers in British Columbia. The imports of trout feeds are estimated at around $30,000 annually. The representations for free entry were supported by several members of the house and by the government of British Columbia. I should point out that there are three Canadian producers of trout feeds in Canada. The government has been informed that these products have proven unsatisfactory for the raising of trout. Since there is a Canadian producer of trout feeds, it is proposed that free entry be for a limited period and a careful review will be made before the item comes up a year from now.


George Clyde Nowlan: Before we deal with the individual items, I may say that I did not quite catch the figures given by the Minister of Finance. He told my friend from Brome-Missisquoi that he did not think this particular resolution would affect materially the balance of ways and means. I am not prepared to debate that with him at this time. However, I would take it that the minister would agree that the items dealing with restrictions on importations by tourists would materially affect the balance of payments deficit.
I am speaking from memory now about matters with which, at one time, I was fairly conversant, but this relaxation of controls on imports by tourists going abroad would substantially lessen the deficit in the balance of payments, and has had a very material effect in dealing with this problem at this time and will continue to do so in the future.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to confirm that fact. I think that is what I said in my remarks.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In reference to item 9i, the minister was good enough to draw my attention to this item when I raised a question earlier in the committee's proceedings. I had in mind a question related to the one asked by the hon. member for Red Deer with regard to the reimposition of the tariff. I gather that the minister said representations on this subject have come principally from British Columbia. I could not quite follow what he said about manufacturers in Canada, but I have here a copy of a letter which was addressed to someone in British Columbia from the Quaker Oats Company, which apparently does manufacture fish food.
They point out in this letter that the matter of freight makes it prohibitive for the products of their plant to be shipped as far west as British Columbia. They mention that they have had some inquiries from Winnipeg, but even at that distance the freight was almost prohibitive. I was wondering in view of the suggestion in the resolution that this tariff be reimposed, whether the minister had made any inquiries to ascertain whether a manufacturer in Canada would be capable of producing a satisfactory formula anywhere in the western part of the country. I mention this particularly because in this letter the Quaker Oats Company indicates they are manufacturing under some form of licence a formula which is essentially a United States formula. The complaint that was heard in British Columbia was that no suitable formula was available in Canada.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I gathered most of the complaint was that the form of trout feeds produced in Canada had proven to be un-
28902-5-146
Customs Tariff
palatable to the trout and that the manufacturers, at least one of whom resides on the west coast, are now trying to produce some more tasty package for the Canadian trout. If they can do that to the satisfaction of the trout and the people of British Columbia, then no doubt their own product will be acceptable in place of the imported product.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: This is the first reference I have heard to the matter of a tasty feed. However, I have been informed that a demonstration has been conducted by one of the trout raisers in the constituency of my friend from Fraser Valley, who also has raised this question with the minister. Whether it was a matter of palatability or not, I do not know, but I understand that two demonstration tanks of young trout were kept, one of which was fed an imported formula and the other some local formula, and whether or not it was because the trout did not like the formula, apparently the difference in growth rate was rather remarkable. I think that is perhaps an important consideration.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I can assure the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, and I am sure all hon. members who are interested in fishing will agree with me, that one of our main objectives must be to produce a proper form of feed or a feed that will be acceptable to these trout and will make them grow larger and larger.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If I may just conclude, I wish to thank the minister for his helpfulness. I was going to say that if by the time we are considering this matter in committee next year this form of agriculture did not appear to be all that was desired, I may be seeking the assistance of the hon. member for Acadia in this particular cause.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I shudder to think that may happen, but I am grateful for the warning.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have been very quiet in this debate but I have a couple of questions to ask the minister. With reference to item 597d, musical instruments, I see an addition is practice chanters. How does he classify practice chanters as musical instruments, and what organizations made representations in this respect?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am glad to have an opportunity to give this explanation. As most hon. members know and will agree, the bagpipe is a long established and well loved musical instrument without which many Canadians would find it difficult to get along. Without what is known as a practice chanter it would be impossible to train new generations of bagpipers, and so those who feel it is important that a new generation of people grow up who will be proficient in playing

Customs Tariff
the bagpipes, felt if bagpipes themselves should come in duty free then it was only right and proper that the importation of practice chanters should be similarly facilitated.
The representations that were made to the department came from various people, and I think it is fair to say most of them were of Scottish origin.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The discussion is getting ahead of the Chair. I should point out that we are still on item 9i.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-180e. Plans and drawings, related specifications, any substitute therefor, reproductions of the foregoing except reproductions of Canadian originals, for the manufacture, assembly, erection, installation, operation or maintenance of machines, test sets, engines, apparatus, appliances, plant equipment, and parts thereof: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, free.
William Heward Grafftey: Maybe the minister would like to explain why under the old tariff we see, "free, free free" and then the various percentages underneath. Can we have any clarification relating to that?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Items 180e and 180f implement the wording and rates of duty recommended by the tariff board in its report on reference No. 128, which covered engineers and architects plans, drawings and blueprints. They replace the former items 180e and 180f. The items were referred to the board for study following a recommendation by the House of Commons standing committee on estimates that they be reviewed. The board's report was tabled in the house on April 12, 1962.
Under item 180e plans of machines and plant equipment will continue to enter Canada free of duty. In addition plans of appliances and apparatus which were formerly dutiable will become free of duty under the new wording of this item.
Item 180f provides for plans for structures. Formerly architects plans for structures were dutiable at 12J per cent British preference and 20 per cent m.f.n., while engineers plans for certain structures were free of duty. The board recommended that, in general, plans for structures be dutiable at the same rates whether prepared by engineers or architects. There is no change in the British preference and most favoured nation rates on maps and charts under this item.


William Heward Grafftey: I am just having a little difficulty scanning this item. Is there any change in the wording of these items as opposed to the rates?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: There are some changes in the wording, yes.


William Heward Grafftey: Are they indicated by italics in the changes before us here? Normally I can distinguish changes in an item when I see the italics, but I did not notice these items before.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This whole wording was recommended by the tariff board.


William Heward Grafftey: The whole item is new then?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Well, reworded.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-180f. Plans and drawings, related specifications, any substitute therefor, reproductions of the foregoing, n.o.p.; maps and charts, n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 121 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 20 per cent; general tariff 27J per cent.
Mr.   Scoll@: I notice the general tariff has been increased by 5 per cent in this case. Is there some reason for it?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, the general tariff has no real significance. I am not too clear why it has been increased except that was the recommendation of the board.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 188, 206b, 208x, and 220b agreed to.
Customs tariff-237a. Deuterium oxide or heavy water; uranium in the form of pigs, ingots, billets or bars:	British preferential tariff, free; most
favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, 25 per cent. On and after July 1, 1964; British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, 15 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Robert Norman Thompson: I notice deuterium oxide will continue free until July 1 next year. Is that because it is expected that heavy water will be manufactured in Canada in sufficient quantities by that time?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: There are plans to manufacture it in Canada. If they have not been implemented by that time, then this item would be reviewed.


Robert Norman Thompson: Then carrying on with that item, why is uranium placed in that same position? Are we not producing uranium far in excess of our present needs?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: We are big exporters of uranium, as everyone knows, and its production in Canada is sufficient. There is not any concern about importation, and I suppose for that reason it is put in those words.


Robert Norman Thompson: Why would you be imposing a duty on it in the future when there is not one now?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think the suggestion was that by doing it this way we would have an opportunity to review the situation a year

from now. If there has not been any change then presumably the same rates of duty would apply.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 296g agreed to.
Customs tariff-399a. Pipes or tubes of iron or steel, commonly known as "oil-country goods", being casing or tubing, fittings, couplings, thread protectors and nipples therefor; sucker rods, pony rods, polished rods and couplings therefor; seismograph drilling bits, in sizes three and one half inches to four and three quarter inches inclusive; all of the foregoing for use in connection with natural gas or oil wells: British preferential tariff, 5 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 10 per cent; general tariff, 20 per cent.
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I notice there are additional items here of thread protectors and nipples. Are there no companies in Canada that produce these items, and from what countries are they normally now imported?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, the words in italics have been added to this item to eliminate a tariff anomaly. Thread protectors and nipples attached to imported oil or gas well casing or tubing are dutiable at the same rate as the casing or tubing, namely, 10 per cent most favoured nation. However if the protectors and nipples were imported separately by Canadian manufacturers of casing or tubing they were dutiable at 22J per cent.
The addition of the words "thread protectors and nipples" to item 399a means that the Canadian manufacturers can import these articles at the 10 per cent rate.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: From where are they imported?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mostly from the United States.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Are there any companies
making these items in Canada at present?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Chairman.


James Ernest Pascoe: I was wondering in connection with the potash exploration in Saskatchewan, would their solution mining of potash come under this item, whereby they send down water and bring up potash?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It would not come under this item, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure under which item it would come, but I shall be glad to make inquiries and let the hon. member know.


James Ernest Pascoe: I wish the minister would, Mr. Chairman; it is very important.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 431h, 440m, 440n, 455, 462d, 462i, 469 and 478 agreed to.
28902-5-146J
Customs Tariff
Customs tariff-570a (2). Carpeting, rugs, mats and matting of paper; stair pads: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; most favoured nation tariff, 22J per cent; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, with regard to this item I was wondering whether the minister could give us a word of explanation as to the reason for these particular changes.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, the only change in this item is the deletion of the words "carpet lining". Carpet lining is an obsolete term and no longer has any meaning in the trade. Dropping these words from the item will not affect the coverage of the item in any way.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with item 570a. I notice there is a change here under the general tariff from, formerly, 25 per cent to 30 per cent now, and I was wondering whether the minister could give us some explanation of the 5 per cent increase.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It is of no immediate significance, Mr. Chairman, except that it is apparently customary in these schedules, where it can be arranged, for the general tariff to be double whatever the rate is for the British preferential tariff. But it has no material significance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-597d. Musical instruments, namely: autoharps, clavichords, harpsichords, harps; bass viols, violas, violins, violoncellos; strings for the foregoing; recorders, xylophones; bassoons, clarinets, English horns, fifes, flutes, oboes, piccolos, saxophones, practice chanters; parts of the foregoing: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, 30 per cent.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have a question to ask the Minister of Finance on this item. I do not know whether it is intentional or whether he is practising racial discrimination in this regard. I see he has exempted many instruments from customs duty, including English horns, but he has not mentioned French horns.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. member that no slight was intended. I will ask the officials of the department to go into this question very seriously and see whether the situation cannot be rectified next time the matter is before the house.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a few very general questions on this item. First, can I assume that the item relates mostly to instruments and parts of instruments of a class or kind not made in Canada? Second, will this item result in a substantial lessening of operation costs for our nation's major symphony orchestras and musical groups throughout the country?

Customs Tariff


Walter Lockhart Gordon: On the first point, Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is quite correct; these various instruments are not made in Canada. On the second point, the only change is in connection with practice chanters, and this will be a great boon to the Scotsmen or would-be Scotsmen of Canada in the future.


William Heward Grafftey: There is just a rewording to cover practice chanters?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is all.
(Translation) :


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question.
I note that two categories of musical instruments, the stringed instruments and the wind, are duty free under this item, but no brass is hientioned anywhere. Is there a special reason for that?
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I understand there is another item covering those.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have another question for the Minister of Finance.
I note that ail the stringed instruments are mentioned except the contrabass. Is there also a special reason for that?
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The basses seem to have escaped the immediate knowledge of my officials, but we will be glad to look into it.


William Heward Grafftey: I trust the minister will excuse my asking this question, Mr. Chairman, but I understand there has been a rewording of the item by the addition of "practice chanters". Do the tariff changes relate to just parts of the foregoing, or parts of the foregoing and the instruments themselves? It should be clear to me, but it is not. Do the tariff changes relate to parts of the foregoing and the instruments also?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is correct. But if I may, I should like to correct the answer I gave the hon. member for Lapointe. I think if he looks at this item again he will see that basses are included.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I would like briefly to take advantage of this opportunity of congratulating the minister upon including the item covering practice chanters. Those of us who live in communities which have a Scottish background, where there are many pipe bands coming along, will extend a vote of thanks to him. Of course, those who are not of that extraction might not enjoy it quite as much as those of us who are, and I include the minister in the latter category. I thank him for making this provision. The
[Mr. Grafftey.l
only comment I have on this particular section is that I think it is perhaps unfortunate that chanters are included with an instrument which is sometimes referred to as the ill-tempered clavichord; but apart from that I think everything that has been done in this connection is just fine.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-696 (1). Philosophical and scientific apparatus (and ancillary equipment thereto), utensils, instruments, and preparations, including boxes and bottles containing the same; maps, charts, photographic reproductions and other pictorial illustrations; video tape recordings; stencils and cards, specially designed for the preparation of library index cards; casts as models; animals as research or experimental subjects; living plants, seeds, cuttings, buds, scions, tubers, bulbs and root-stock; mechanical equipment of a class or kind not made in Canada; parts of the foregoing. All articles in this item, when for the use and by order of any society or institution incorporated or established solely for religious, philosophical, educational, scientific or literary purposes, or for the encouragement of the fine arts, or for the use and by order of any public hospital, college, academy, school, or seminary of learning in Canada, and not for sale or for rental, under such regulations as the minister may prescribe: British preferential tariff, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, free.
(Translation):
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi):: With regard to item 696, Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the minister that until now I agreed with him on several points, but this time I am not so sure.
In item 696, mention is made of "philosophical apparatus". The fact is I have never heard it said that there existed such a wonderful invention as a philosophical apparatus, which is referred to in the tariff item now before us. Consequently, if there really were such an invention, which could bring more wisdom to the hon. members who are in office at the present time, I would be in favour of letting that apparatus come into Canada duty free.
(Text):


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question on this particular item. With regard to living plants, seeds, cuttings, buds, scions, tubers, bulbs and root-stock, will those items all come under the regulations of the Department of Agriculture in connection with this type of thing coming into Canada?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes.
(Translation):


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Chairman, so that the
house may know what this is all about, I would ask the Minister of Finance to define the expression "philosophical apparatus", including boxes and bottles containing the same.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, we really should have an explanation about that.

(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: 1 can understand that there may be some little misunderstanding with this old-fashioned language. I think the reference to scientific apparatus is more apt than the reference to philosophical apparatus.


James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Chairman, at the end of this item it says "under such regulations as the minister may prescribe". Does that mean that these regulations will be changed at the whim of the minister, or are they definitely set down?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This is an item which has been in the tariff for a long time. There are no regulations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-703b	(1). Goods valued at not
more than twenty five dollars included in the baggage accompanying residents of Canada returning from abroad after an absence from Canada of not less than 48 hours and acquired by them for personal or household use or as souvenirs or gifts, but not bought on commission or as an accommodation for other persons or for sale, under such regulations as the minister may prescribe, British preferential, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, free.
A resident of Canada shall not be entitled to the exemption herein granted within a period of four months from the date of the last exemption allowed, nor shall the exemption be allowed on alcoholic beverages in excess of one quart, or on tobacco in excess of 50 cigars, 200 cigarettes and two pounds of manufactured tobacco.
(2) In addition to the exemption provided for in part (1) of this item, a resident of Canada returning from a point beyond the continental limits of North America after an absence from Canada of not less than fourteen days may elect to avail himself of the following special exemption:
Goods valued at not more than $75 (not including alcoholic beverages, cigars, cigarettes or manufactured tobacco), acquired in overseas countries by residents of Canada during an absence from Canada of not less than 14 days and acquired by them for personal or household use or as souvenirs or gifts, but not bought on commission or as an accommodation for other persons or for sale, under such regulations as the minister may prescribe, British preferential, free; most favoured nation tariff, free; general tariff, free.
All goods admitted under the foregoing special exemption shall be declared by the resident at the time of his return to Canada, and any person who has availed himself of the special exemption is not entitled to any further exemption under item 703b within a period of 12 months from the date the last special exemption was allowed.
Goods entitled to entry under this tariff item shall be exempt from all imports, notwithstanding the provisions of this act or any other act.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see statutory provision being made for the changes in the tourist exemptions. This is part of a program encouraged by the former administration to take the greatest advantage of the tourist industry. For a long time there was a failure to appreciate the economic significance of this important industry. I know my hon. friend the Minister of National
Customs Tariff
Revenue has always taken a keen interest in this subject but there is still some scepticism concerning the importance to the Canadian economy of this industry, particularly in relation to its impact on the exchange situation. I wonder whether the minister has any projections as to the possible impact this will have on the exchange situation in the ensuing year?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Perhaps the hon. member was not in the house when I gave this information in introducing this resolution. I included a fair amount of detail. If he would like me to repeat it I will but he will find it all in Hansard.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: If the minister gave these projected figures I will see them in Hansard tomorrow.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I did give them in some detail.


Bert Raymond Leboe: With regard to the balance of payments position, is the minister not thinking primarily of the United States in connection with these items? I believe the influence of imports from Japan and Germany has had an effect with regard to price.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I referred to the effect on the balance of payments, and our major problem here is with the United States. The big item in the tourist expenditures would be with the United States, although the tourist expenditures in other countries would have some bearing.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Would it not be true that imports of a good many things tourists buy in the United States can now be obtained at lower cost, shall we say, from other places as well, and these imports would affect this matter as much as the $25 limit?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not think so. I think the expenditures which tourists made a few years ago primarily in the United States were substantial. They are not spending their money in the United States to the same extent now. They are spending it in Canada or saving it, I do not know which. To the extent they are spending it in Canada, most of it would be spent, I would suspect, on Canadian manufactured goods, although some would be spent on imported goods too.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolutions 5 to 6 agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: We will now consider the resolution respecting the customs tariff surcharge on imports order.
Resolved,-That it is expedient to introduce a measure in the following terms:
1. The order of His Excellency the governor in council of the 24th day of June, 1962, expressed to

Customs Tariff
be made pursuant to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Customs Tariff and pursuant to section 22 of the Financial Administration Act, shall be deemed for all purposes to have had the same force and effect as if it had been validly made on that day pursuant to an act of the parliament of Canada that authorized the making of that order.
2. All rates of customs duties more favourable than those of the general tariff, and the benefit of any tariff more favourable than the general tariff, expressed to be withdrawn by the order mentioned in section 1, shall be deemed to have been restored on the 1st day of April, 1963, and from and after the 1st day of April, 1963 the rates so restored and any tariff the benefit of which is so restored shall, subject to the provisions of the Customs Tariff, apply as they applied immediately before the 25th day of June, 1962.


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

Walter Lockhart Gordon: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-87, to amend the Customs Tariff,
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When will the said bill be read the second time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Now, by leave.


George Clyde Nowlan: By leave.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: the second reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Gordon moves that I do now leave the chair-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, we would not attempt to go into committee tonight on the bill. Perhaps we should now proceed to the first reading of the other bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be considered in committee of the whole? Next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


FINANCE
Walter Lockhart Gordon: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-88, respecting an order of His Excellency the Governor General in Council entitled the surcharge on imports order, and to restore certain rates of customs duties and tariff benefits expressed to be withdrawn thereby.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a second time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Now, by leave.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder, in the circumstances, whether the house would consider going into committee tonight on the Customs Tariff. Of course, the bill is identical with the resolutions we have just debated. It might be we would dispose of it in the time remaining to us. There really is nothing new to it. Perhaps there would be general consent to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I feel that probably we would like to look at this bill. I know that if it is as suggested by the leader of the house it would pass in no time at all tomorrow.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: We have made very good progress today and I should like to express appreciation to all hon. members for their co-operation, as well as to certain hon. members in particular for some of the most fervent and extraordinary oratory we have heard in this chamber for a long time.
With respect to the bill we have just finished discussing, I think it would be better to leave it, now, until Friday because, notwithstanding what I announced last night, we would like, tomorrow-and I have spoken to the representatives of the parties opposite about this-to go back to the economic council bill and see if we cannot complete it tomorrow afternoon. This would mean a good deal of progress toward the goal which I think we all have in mind. Then we would come back and start afresh on the budget resolutions on Friday, with the resolution on the income tax. On Thursday, of course, we take the resolution on the Canada pension plan bill.


George Clyde Nowlan: Can the leader of the house give us any indication of the order in which we shall deal with the other budget resolutions? I am thinking of the sales tax, for example. I have in mind the convenience of other hon. members. I am not speaking for myself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Subject to consultation with hon. members opposite we would perhaps take a few minutes at the beginning of our time on Friday to finish off the Customs Tariff, if I hear from hon. gentlemen that it
[The Chairman.]

is really a formality. This would give us something to send to the other place. Then we would go on with the income tax resolution on Monday, if we did not finish it on Friday, until it was completed. Immediately thereafter we would take the excise tax or the sales tax-it is the same thing-until it was completed. Then there are, of course, the bills which follow these two.


Gilles Grégoire: Can the Secretary of State tell us why it should be desired to begin the resolution on pensions before the federal-provincial conference has met? I think that matter should be dealt with only after that conference has been held.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. gentleman referring to the Canadian pension plan?


An hon. Member:: Yes.
Business of the House Mr. Pickersgill: There is no thought of proceeding with that measure beyond the stage where hon. members would have had an opportunity to debate the general scheme which the government has in mind. The purpose of this, as outlined in the Prime Minister's letter to the premiers, was to make the scheme public so that there would be something to discuss at the conference. It is precisely so that we would not be in contempt of parliament that we wish to bring this forward at the present time. It would not be proceeded with. It would just be exposed here and hon. members would have an opportunity to say something about it. It would then be available for the conference to discuss.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, July 17, 1963