Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:

Ottawa, June 7. 1956

Sir:

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 7th June, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.

I have the honour to be, sir,

Your obedient servant,

J. F. Delaute,

Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative).

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief statement on the tariff negotiations which have recently been successfully completed in Geneva. A detailed statement of these results was tabled in the house at eleven o'clock this morning, the time which was agreed to in advance with the other countries. For the convenience of hon. members I would suggest that that statement be printed as an appendix to Hansard.

I am happy to say that Canada has concluded new agreements at this conference with the United States and with 12 of our other trading partners in both Europe and Latin America. These agreements were signed on May 23 in Geneva on behalf of Canada by Mr. L. D. Wilgress, Canadian ambassador to NATO, who was also the chairman of the Canadian delegation. The new tariff

rates agreed to at this conference will not come into effect until the end of June at the earliest.

The new GATT agreements represent a further addition to the significant and substantial progress already achieved in previous GATT conferences in the reduction of tariff barriers throughout the world. The benefits obtained by Canada in these latest negotiations will lead to useful, practical gains for Canadian exporters of a wide range of products and in many markets. In addition to the concessions obtained directly by Canada, we will also benefit from all the concessions resulting from negotiations between the other participants, and this is one of the great advantages of a multilateral negotiation under GATT.

These new agreements will further strengthen the basis of confidence and cooperation so essential in world trade. It is appropriate at this time to reaffirm Canada's view of the usefulness of GATT as a framework for the conduct of trade and for the development of common trading policies. In this connection, the establishment of the organization for trade co-operation to administer GATT on a continuing basis would render the agreement more effective and would have a most encouraging influence on international relations.

The Canadian government has consistently supported this proposed organization and is prepared to take steps to provide for Canadian participation at the appropriate time. The United Kingdom has already indicated its acceptance, and it is our hope that all the members of GATT, and particularly the other leading trading countries whose support is essential, will similarly find it possible to join in its establishment.

The agreement concluded between Canada and the United States is one of the major agreements resulting from this conference. The concessions that could be made by the United States were limited by United States legislation to maximum tariff reductions of 15 per cent, spread over the next two years. Also, there were a number of items, particularly in the agricultural and fisheries field, on which the United States was not prepared to negotiate at this time. Within these limitations, however, we have concluded an agreement which should be most satisfactory to both countries. The fact that United States concessions would be implemented in three stages was, of course, taken fully into account by our negotiators in determining the nature of the concessions Canada could justifiably grant. Canada has obtained maximum concessions on a large number of products, including various chemicals, certain metals,

some agricultural items and a number of manufactured products and machinery. I am sure the house will welcome this agreement as a further step in our joint efforts to reduce trade barriers between Canada and the United States.

Canada has traditional and important trade relations with Europe and Latin America. It is our earnest desire and intention to continue to strengthen these close relations and to work with the countries of these areas in expanding our trade in both directions. As part of this general policy, Canada has concluded new agreements with Austria, the Benelux countries, Denmark, Western Germany, Italy, Norway and Sweden. Canadian exporters will obtain useful benefits from the concessions granted by these countries, many of which have made significant progress in the removal of import restrictions. Canada has also made agreements with Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Haiti, which are open dollar markets for Canadian goods. I am confident that these various agreements will serve to emphasize the importance of our trade with the countries of these areas and will stimulate even closer connections between us.

In multilateral negotiations which involve reductions in most-favoured-nation tariffs, it is customary for both Canada and the United Kingdom to alter certain of the tariff preferences accorded to the other. Most of the reductions in margins of preference of interest to Canadian exporters in the United Kingdom are relatively minor. There were, of course, opportunities for informal exchanges of views on matters of common interest between Canada and the United Kingdom as the negotiations progressed.

To conclude, I would stress that Canada as a major trading nation has a vital interest in the expansion of world trade in an atmosphere of confidence and co-operation between countries. By entering into these latest negotiations under the auspices of GATT, the major trading countries have given renewed evidence of their intention to pursue the constructive policies that have been developed and strengthened through common effort.

As to the concessions granted by Canada, my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) will wish to make some comments.

Mr. Speaker:

The minister referred to a statement which he said should be published as an appendix to Hansard.

Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):

Yes.

Mr. Speaker:

Is there unanimous consent for that purpose?

GATT-Tariff Revisions

Agreed.

(For text of detailed statement see appendix, pages 4834-41.)

Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, the tariff concessions made by Canada at this last tariff conference at Geneva, to which my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has referred, cover 180 items or sub-items in our customs tariff. Of these, 115 are reductions in the present most-favoured-nation rates of duty and 55 are undertakings not to raise existing rates of duty. For five items Canada undertook not to raise duties above certain specified rates higher than those actually in effect, but which in all five cases are lower than the rates previously agreed to under GATT. The remaining five items are reductions in the British preferential tariff, made unilaterally by Canada concurrent with reductions in the most-favoured-nation tariff.

Canada's concessions are set out in schedule V to the sixth protocol of supplementary concessions, and I should like to table copies of that schedule in English and French. This schedule consists of two parts, part I covering the most-favoured-nation tariff, and part II covering the British preferential tariff. The Canadian concessions will not come into effect immediately, but will be implemented at appropriate times having regard to the time at which other countries put their concessions into effect. I should make clear too that the Canadian concessions to each country will be brought into effect in one step.

Canada's total imports during the calendar year 1955 from all countries under the 115 items or sub-items on which the mostfavoured-nation tariff was reduced at Geneva amounted to $91 million. Canada's total imports during 1955 from all countries under the 60 items which were bound but not reduced amounted to $88 million.

The reductions in the most-favoured-nation tariff cover a wide range of products such as: textile machinery, orange juice, lettuce, newsprint, shelled oysters, shrimps, spectacle frames, cigars, sawmill machinery, adding machines, cash registers, road building machines, electrical precision apparatus, such as is used in oil refineries and chemical works, cameras and tobacco pipes.

Since GATT negotiations relate to the most-favoured-nation tariff there was no occasion to negotiate reductions of rates of duty under the British preferential tariff. Of course, some margins of preference in the Canadian tariff as well as in the tariffs of other commonwealth countries were reduced

House of Commons

in the course of negotiations with non-commonwealth countries. Of the items in which Canada reduced margins of preference those which covered the largest volume of trade were orange juice, electrical precision apparatus and textile machinery. The great bulk of Canadian imports of these products in 1955 were from non-commonwealth sources.

Part II of schedule V, which I am also tabling, contains five items. As I have mentioned, these provide for unilateral reductions by Canada in preferential rates of duty on certain goods on which the most-favourednation rate is also being reduced.

Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):

Mr. Speaker, it is naturally difficult to resume the debate. I said nothing today when the heart of parliament went out to the beloved wife of the member for Vancouver-Burrard. I shall say no more than this, that his life was an example of one who carried on whatever the consequences and he would have expected this house to follow the course of his own life.

Sir, yesterday afternoon the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) suggested that this motion, having been launched during the debate on the pipe line, should now be withdrawn. I am authorized to say that, in so far as Her Majesty's loyal opposition is concerned, that view cannot be accepted. As the days go by and we look over the things that took place, the unexplained change of ruling on June 1 becomes even more unexplainable. The need for this motion has not been erased by the termination of the pipe-line debate. That debate has gone the way of history. The prerogatives of parliament are abiding and must remain unimpaired. It is interesting that on an occasion such as this we should reread the pages of history. In 1628-on March 22 of that year-the Speaker had failed to listen to the demands of the members of the House of Commons to be heard on questions of privilege. Then suddenly the atmosphere changed. The king needed supplies.

Immediately every opportunity was given for the members of the house to speak. One Sir Robert Phelips-and I have his speech here- said this:

This day's debate makes me call to mind the custom of the Romans, who had a solemn feast once a year for their slaves, at which time they had liberty without exception to speak what they would, whereby to ease their afflicted minds; which being finished, they severally returned to their former servitude.

Those were spectacular words but what he meant was this. The rights of parliament cannot be impaired for the temporary advantage of anyone, including the crown. As I see it, Mr. Speaker, the members of this house cannot stand idly by when their privileges and their rights are jettisoned, if only temporarily, at the will of a determined majority. You, Mr. Speaker, have read the duties and the responsibilities of a Speaker. No one summarized them better or epitomized them to a finer extent than did Mr. Speaker Lowther who, following his termination of office, wrote a book entitled "A Speaker's Commentaries" in which he set forth in a very few lines the duties and responsibilities of the Speaker:

The Speaker must decline to submit motions which infringe the rules; he must decide whether a motion is one of privilege or not; . . .

Then a little later:

The granting or withholding of the closure is another source of considerable anxiety to the occupant of the chair. Have the opposition had a full opportunity of stating their case? Have they made the best of their opportunity? Is there anything more which could be said usefully? Has the subject received its full quota of time in view of the total amount of time available for discussion? These and similar problems present themselves to the Speaker and must be solved in his own mind before he can accept a motion that "the question be now put". It is obvious that no hard and fast rule can be laid down on these matters, and that in each case the Speaker must use his best judgment and discretion.

And finally:

. . . he-

The Speaker.

-is the guardian of the privileges of the house as well as those of its members.

Mr. Carrick:

May I ask my hon. friend

a question?

Mr. Diefenbaker:

I am trying to conduct this debate on a plane that is not controversial. If my hon. friend has observations to make, let him make them later.

Mr. Carrick:

May I-

Mr. Speaker:

Order.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

You, Mr. Speaker, then did lay claim to our ancient and our undoubted rights and privileges, especially that

of freedom of speech in debate. In the United Kingdom Mr. Speaker, when he achieves his high office-and I quote-

. . . rigorously cuts off his party affiliations. He declares his honourable intention of being the impartial servant of the house as a whole, and in particular that he will do his best to safeguard the rights of minorities.

A moment ago in connection with closure I mentioned that the responsibility for the putting of the closure remains with the Speaker.