1933-04-26

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound) presented the first report of the special committee on Bill No. 78, to amend the Pension Act, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table of the house certain orders in council passed pursuant to the relief legislation under the relief act, also the report under the same act.



PETITION

[Stage Direction]
The petition presented on Monday, April 24, by Mr. A. W. Neill (Comox-Alberni), was read to the house by the clerk assistant.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. ROBERGE:: What amount did the government receive in 1932 by way of income tax from individuals, companies, corporations or others, who paid a tax on an income ranging from $10,000 to $500,000?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Individuals, 821,753,463.37; corporations, $35,749,230.32.


SHIPMENTS OP GRAIN
Mr. GAGNON:: How many bushels of (a) wheat; (b) barley; (c) other grains, were shipped from Canadian ports and what quantity from American ports, respectively, in each of the years 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932?


Mr. STEVENS:: Canada's	domestic exports	of barley, oats, rye and wheat to (1) the		United States;
and (2) overseas countries via		(a) Canadian sea or river ports; and (b) the United States,		
during the calendar years 1929,	1930, 1931 and 1932, were as	under: (2) To Overseas countries (a) Via Cana-	Grains	(1) To United States	dian sea or river ports	(b) Via United StatesBarley-	Bushels	Bushels	Bushels1929.. ..	
88,407	6,263,085	10,636,1951930.. ..	
582,362	730,399	1,521,5381931.. ..	
104,250	17,571,853	6,583,6521932.. ..	
1,449	9,862,236	129,058Oats-	1929.. ..	
34,166	7,294,417	352,8931930.. ..	
805,206	1,945,424	14,5841931.. ..	10,190,460	926,5711932.. ..	
25,233	15,370,887	40,954Rye-	1929.. ..	
42	1,691,059	247,2231930.. ..	
63	243,474	1,037,6621931.. ..	
273	1,675,749	1,997,1321932.. ..	
175	7,776,083	1,124,176
Questions as Orders for Returns
(2) To Overseas countries (a) Via Cana-
Grains	(1) To	dian sea or	(b) ViaUnited States river ports United States Wheat____	Bushels	Bushels	Bushels1929	
6,775,964	139,911,263	64,258,3621930	
10,247,752	124,317,527	73,205,0881931	
4,949,770	129,664,293	60,211,5491932	
52,100	194,211,443	33,956,212
Note: During the calendar years 1929 to 1932 a certain amount of Canadian barley, oats and rye exported from Fort William and Port Arthur to overseas countries via the United States was re-routed from United States lake ports for export via Canadian ports chiefly Montreal. It is impossible to segregate the quantity of barley, oats and rye thus re-routed from United States lake ports from United States barley, oats and rye in transit via Canadian ports.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	How many cases have been referred to the Board of Pension Commissioners since the Pension Act amendments, 1930?
2.	How many were at that time awaiting decision by the said board?
3.	How many eases have been decided by the Board of Pension Commissioners since the 1930 amendments (a) in favour of the applicant; (b) against the applicant?
4.	How many cases are now awaiting decision by the Board of Pension Commissioners?


BOARD OF PENSION COMMISSIONERS-COST
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	What has been the total cost since the passing of the Pension Act amendments, 1930 (a.) of the Board of Pension Commissioners; (b) of the pensions tribunals; (c) of the pensions appeal court?
2. What has been the total cost to the treasury of awards made since the Pension Act amendments, 1930 (1) by the Board of Pension Commissioners, and not appealed; (2) by the pensions tribunals, and not appealed; (3) by the pensions appeal court?
3.	What has been the total cost since the passing of the Pension Act amendments, 1930 (a) of all pensions advocates, including staffs and travelling expenses; (b) of all commission counsel, including staffs and travelling expenses; (e) of all medical advisors called in before the pensions tribunals?


PENSIONS TRIBUNALS
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	On what date did the pensions tribunals commence to function?
2.	How many cases have been referred to the pensions tribunals from that date until April 15, 1933?
3.	Of such cases, how many have been decided by the pensions tribunals (a) in favour of the applicant for pension; (b) against the applicant ?

4.	How many of the cases decided by the pensions tribunals have been appealed from (a) by pensions advocates; (b) by commission counsel?
5.	How many cases are now awaiting (1) hearing; (2) decision?


PENSIONS APPEAL COURT
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	On what date did the pensions appeal court commence to function?
2.	How many cases have been appealed to-the pensions appeal court from that date until April 15, 1933?
3.	Of such cases, how many have been, decided by the pensions appeal court (1) in favour of the pension applicant; (2) in favour of commission counsel?
4.	How many cases are now awaiting (a) hearing; (b) decision?


Mr. MacLAREN:: These four returns are tabled herewith.


CANADLAN FARM LOAN BOARD
Mr. GAGNON:: 1.	What is the total amount of money loaned, each year, by the Canadian Farm Loan Board since its inception?
2.	What is the total amount of money loaned, each year, by the board, in each province?
3.	What was the total amount of administrative costs in each province paid, each year, by the Canadian Farm Loan Board, since its inception ?
4.	Were the administrative costs higher in, certain provinces; if so, why?


Mr. RHODES:: Tabled herewith.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. DONNELLY:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and other documents passing between the government, any member of the government or any official thereof, and John I. McFarland, since September 1, 1930, relating to his position and activities as marketing agent for the wheat pools.

Settlers in Rouyn District



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-EMPLOYEES

Mr. YOUNG:: For a copy of all contractual agreements now in effect between the Canadian National Railways and its employees; also for the rates of salary and wages paid to the various classes of employees of the railways from the years 1916 to 1932.


Mr. MANION:: Of course it must be understood that the government has not this information. I am quite willing to let the motion pass subject to our being able to obtain the information from the management of the railways.



E. J. S. VERGE

Mr. MARCIL:: For a copy of all documents bearing on the charges made against E. J. S. Verge, returning officer of Bonaventure county.



RADIO BROADCASTING ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. GRAY (West Lambton):: I
should like to ask the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) if it is the intention of the government to introduce during this session amendments to the Radio Broadcasting Act.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: The matter is under consideration.



SOLDIER SETTLERS-SASKATCHEWAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon). I have received information from northern Saskatchewan to the effect that certain soldier settlers cannot procure seed or feed oats. Last year the seed apparently was received too late and there was no crop. This year the same situation will occur if something is not done. I understand that the men concerned have appealed to the municipality, to the soldier settlement board, to the Canadian Legion, and as well to the minister. May I ask whether the minister will be good enough to investigate these cases immediately and to take remedial action on behalf of these men who are in dire need of seed and feed oats.
Wesley Ashton Gordon: So far as I am aware, no communication has been addressed to the director of soldier settlement in connection with the matter to which the hon. gentleman refers. I do not know whether my hon. friend is willing to let me have the names of the soldier settlers who complain, but it would facilitate investigation of the matter if I had them.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Yes; I shall be willing
to give the name I have here.


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: Is the federal government giving anything in the way of feed or seed oats to the people on the prairies? I did not know that was being done.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The federal government in the past has loaned money to the provinces for that purpose and I believe in some instances seed has been supplied to soldier settlers, although I may be wrong in that regard. The director of soldier settlement has advised me that there are very few cases where soldier settlers are in need of seed. I will inquire further into the matter to see to what extent, if any, seed has been supplied to soldier settlers. Generally speaking, where it became apparent that the settler, not under soldier settlement, was unable to supply the seed himself and the province could not supply it, a loan has been made, as indicated and discussed in this house, to the province for the purpose of providing seed in certain areas.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Mr. JEAN -FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct to the attention of the government a matter of great importance. I have just received the following telegram, collect, from Rouyn.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. POULIOT:: When the house learns why the telegram has been sent collect I do not think anyone will laugh. Everyone recalls an article written by the correspondent of the Toronto Globe, who made the statement that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) showed great incredulity when I cited some cases of distress in the colonization district. The following telegram comes from the district of Rouyn:
3.40 p.m., April 25, 1933.
Jean-Frangois Pouliot,
Ottawa.
N'avons plus rien a manger.
"We have nothing more to eat."
Je vous demande d'interpeller le gouverne-ment pour nous.
"I ask you to make representations to the government on our behalf."
Sinon il y aura des mortalites.
"Otherwise people will die."
Settlers in Rouyn District

Lettre suit.
"Letter follows."
Agissez avant qu'il soit trop tard.
"Act before it is too late."
(Signd) Marcel Essiambre.
I have not yet received that letter. Now, when an aviator is lost or not heard from the government is ready to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to find him, and I do not see why this or any other government should not be prepared to come at once to the rescue of these people. Surely it should not be a matter of corresponding with this one or that one. As I say, when an aviator is lost in the fog or at sea, this government dispatches searching parties to rescue him. I have been laughed at because I have brought to the attention of the house certain cases of distress in this country, settlers who were left far away in the wilderness without any means of sustaining themselves. In connection with the situation I am now discussing I have some letters which I will give to the house. I regret that I have not the translation ready but I will give the letters in French and ask the Minister of Labour to be good enough to instruct the chief translator to submit a translation to him as early as possible. I would ask him to get the translation as soon as it is printed on Monday next. Here is the first letter I have:
Les Etroits, April 19, 1933. Mr. Jean-Frangois Pouliot,
Member for Temiscouata.
Dear Sir,-
I am writing to you a few lines to inform you how things are managed here. We are at the point of starvation. I am appealing to you for funds to purchase food. As to direct assistance, it was impossible to obtain any during the whole winter. I was paid $12 for work done, and $14 was allotted to the whole of my family. You may judge for yourself what hardships we endured throughout the winter.
For Heaven's sake, are you not able to get us $75 to do our seeding. I depend on you for a livelihood.
Another letter I received from the parish of St. Louis du Ha! Ha!, county of Temiscouata; reads as follows:
St. Louis du Ha! Ha!
February 25, 1933.
Mr. Jean-Frangois Pouliot.
Sir,-
_ I am appealing to you, to-day, to grant us, for God's sake a small contribution. Like every one here, I am in great distress. I had purchased a horse for $195, and I had almost completed my payments, being only $5 short; however, the man who sold me the horse would not wait any longer, he came to get his horse. T cannot find the money to pay a first instal-

ment on another. I am disheartened, not having earned any money this winter. I worked for a Mr. Couturier and I was only paid in goods. My wife, who is in poor health, is greatly discouraged. I wonder what will be the end.
A horse is indispensible on a farm, and during these hard years my farm has not given sufficient returns to enable me to save. I still owe $500 on the farm and I am doing my best to keep it out of liquidation. Last autumn I ploughed quite a large patch of land, sufficient to sow all I required in order to live without too much hardship; however, not having any horses, I shall be unable to sow what I ploughed.
If you could send me a small amount or make me a small loan, at not too high a rate of interest, 1 would be very grateful to you. You are aware that things have changed, to-day, the Liberals have nothing to do with the Conservative administration. Had I belonged to the same party as the man who sold me the horse, perhaps, he would have been lenient towards me. I beg of you, for God's sake, to kindly grant or advance me a small amount, for a few years, on a promissory note, at not too high a rate of interest.
I have no means of purchasing a horse. Times are hard, especially for farmers whose lands are not yet paid in full. I am aware that I shall not forfeit my farm providing I meet the interest on what is owed. I am very grateful to an old relative who is kind enough to help me.
Kindly, sir, accede, if possible, to my request, my wife and myself would be very grateful to you, and, should it meet with your wishes, we should be glad to have you pay us a visit next time you come to St. Louis. Thanking you in anticipation, etc., etc.
The following is another letter, sir.
Biencourt, April 3, 1933. Mr. Jean-Frangois Pouliot.
Sir,-
You will pardon me if I take the liberty of writing to you. I should appreciate a few suggestions from you and, at the same time, I wish to inform you how we fared throughout the winter in our dear parish of Biencourt. I have been residing here since October 13, 1931. I came to settle here as I could not earn a livelihood in my own parish. I therefore undertook farming in earnest, as new settlers we did fairly well, so far as clearing the land and	doing	other odd jobs,	especiallyas no forest	fires	had devastated	the	land.
However, our crop was practically nil, except for a little straw.
We were, therefore, not in the best of circumstances to	begin	the winter; the	first	dayswe cut 38 cords of	pulpwood at $3	per	cord.
I was able to set aside 50 cents per cord, the balance having been seized for an old debt. The company carted away the wood at the rate of 90 cents per cord; however, I was unable to draw the balance of my money. I wish to inquire whether this is practicable. That is all the money I was able to draw-with the exception of $40 which I earned last autumn-[DOT] to provide for a family of ten during the whole winter. These are certainly hard times, no potatoes or other food, except bread and meat obtained through hunting. Had the latter not

Settlers in Rouyn District
been so plentiful, we would have been forced to feed on grass.
There still remains the question of clothes. Many of these are badly worn, especially boots.
Would you, therefore, kindly inform me what steps should be taken to recover what is coming to me. We have heard that the government's timber-cut was not seizable, etc.
He continues:
I did not remain inactive, I ploughed 7 acres for the spring which, however, I shall be unable to sow. I have neither seed grain nor money. We could have sown more last spring, but we *were unable to obtain more than three bags of seed grain and then we had to undertake three trips, at 10 miles distance, to obtain them. I am preparing 10 more acres for next spring. I have begun to build a barn, 36 feet by 40 feet, all the work was done with an axe; I also have some shingles which I, myself, made with a drawing-knife. I wish to follow the good example set by my old father.
I trust that it will not give you too much trouble to answer my letter at your earliest convenience.
An lion. MEMBER: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: When people are suffering there should not be jokes made about their misery. I regret I have to do what I am doing but I do it because people are suffering. If these people were being looked after in accordance with the famous Gordon plan, I would not have received any of these letters. I might tell my hon. friend that I stopped at a house in his county. There were three men out of work and they told me they were being forced to live upon bread and molasses. One of the men was an able carpenter and he had to fill in his time by fishing. Another man was a good mason and he had to go wild duck hunting. The third man could not get any work at all. Those are the conditions which existed in one home in the constituency of my hon. friend. I have always tried to be courteous to him but I feel that jokes should not be made about the misery of these people. My hon. friend claims that these conditions do not exist but I will not waste the time of the house any more. Let him remain quiet in his seat while others defend the poor people who are suffering.
Les Etroits, April 7, 1933. Mr. J. F. I'ouliot,
Ottawa.
Mr. Pouliot,-
I have been very unfortunate these days. I had a team of good horses to work my land; both died within a month. . . .


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: I hear an ass bray. Mr. Speaker, in case you may call me to order, I *do not say that I see one, I say that I hear
one. I would ask you, sir, to request the sergeant at arms to escort him from the chamber.
I regret the disturbance from the other side of the house but I may tell my hon. friends that they will not prevent me from saying all that I have to say. I am not saying this for the benefit of either the government or the Liberal party, I am speaking on behalf of the poor people who have to suffer. My hon. friends opposite may want to cheer at the misery and trouhle of these people, but do they think that they can live on onions all year?


Mr. GOTT:: Onions are food; the hon.
member needs something for the brain.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend uses them for his brain, it proves they are no good.


Eccles James Gott: The hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) should use some of them.


Jean-François Pouliot: The letter continues:
I have been very unfortunate these days. I had a team of good horses to work my land; both died within a month; as you are aware, one is not master of his destiny. I find it impossible to purchase a horse this spring to carry on my seeding.
I have not earned anything within the last two years. We had to practise thrift in order to live on the small returns which this land brings.
I have been married ten years and have eight children. I have received no assistance and found it impossible to leave the house and take up unemployment work. Each time unemployment work started, it was impossible for me to go and work, my wife was ill, moreover, the work was being done at a distance from my house-it was therefore impossible to leave the house. I never received any bonus for clearing my land because I happened to be on a patented lot.
I am, therefore, obliged to beg of you some little assistance to purchase a horse; perhaps, some of your friends will subscribe. I am one of your electors and so are all my relations, as you are aware.
I wish to thank you for the information given in connection with the road fence.
St. Emile-d'Auclair,
March 26, 1933.
Mr. J. F. Pouliot,
Mr. Pouliot,-
Just a few lines to inquire how the Unemployment Act affects the settlers of Auclair. I settled on my lot last October and have not received any assistance, while some folks who have been here for a year, have received $32 per family, and the boys $20; others received assistance to build themselves a camp. Must one hail from the city to be given assistance? I am a farmer's son having lived in the country and always tilled the land, I would,
Settlers in Rouyn District

therefore, like to be encouraged as others, because if things do not improve, there will be great distress; we, from the county of Temiscouata, have not been treated as fairly as the people from Lac-Noir or elsewhere.
Please, inquire from Messrs	
of St. Hubert, who are aware of this fact.
Packington, March 29, 1933.
Mr. J. F. Pouliot,
Member for Temiscouata,
House of Commons.
Dear Sir,-
1 wish to apprise you of our condition. We are men from your county and have come to the conclusion that you have the courage and backbone to espouse our cause. Do everything possible to obtain a little food for us, at least for our children. We are ready to take our oath on what we shall disclose to you. We are entirely devoid of food, clothes and implements.
Our horses have died of hunger and it will not be long before some of us meet the same fate. We were forced to sell oUr live stock at ridiculous prices, they had cost us very dear. How do you expect us to work when we are practically naked, without clothes, food or implements? Yet, if we do not work we will be looked upon as lazy and good for nothing.
Last spring we resorted to oxen so as to harrow the land; however, we had to sacrifice them. If you cannot obtain any help from the government, could you not possibly raise a subscription among the members or ministers.
For Heaven sake, Mr. Pouliot, do try and arrange matters so that an inquiry may be held on the spot.
It is impossible to describe our situation, such as it is; however, please endeavour to collect a few cents to buy bread for our little children and wives. We settled here in 1931.
Your humble servants, poor unfortunate settlers of Packington, county of Temiscouata.
The following is a letter from St. Benoit de Packington:
Mr. J. F. Pouliot, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-
I am a poor settler, of 1931, in distress; however, I am not the only one. The colonization agent contends that I am the person who carries on all correspondence and criticizes the government's policy.
It is the first letter which I have received from this gentleman.
I am very sorry-I am simply doing this to prevent myself from starving to death. I have just been informed that I shall be given no further assistance, because I have requested an inquiry at home. I have clear proofs. As you will note, it is impossible for us to complain and make known our condition, because, if we do so, assistance is cut off. I bore no ill-feeling against anybody when I took such a step, I simply did so, to give bread to my family; we are nine at the table.

Would you be so kind as to advise me, for I am disheartened. I read in La Presse of Montreal of March 21, 1933, that you have espoused the cause of the poor unfortunate settlers. May I congratulate you, my comrades associate themselves with me in sincerely congratulating you.
May I, sir, inform you, that all these marks of appreciation bestowed upon me by these poor people in distress amply repays me for all the insults, aspersions and jeers that may have or may be later levelled at me by members who sit on your right, sir.
What you state in La Presse is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. What we request of you, again, is to obtain an inquiry at domicile, at Packington, county of Temiscouata, ranges eighth and ninth, south of the church. While waiting for that inquiry, we are wondering what we shall do to keep ourselves from starving to death. Have no hesitation in reading, in the house, the two letters forwarded to you, and have them also published in the newspapers.
Send us a person, with a Bible, to hold the inquiry at domicile, one who may request an oath from us but not one to hold the inquiry at the priest's house-it is not in the latter place that one sees the distress of mothers and their children.
In this connection, I think the man exaggerates, for most of the people who devote their time to settlers are absolutely impartial and I wish to give credit to the parish priests of Canada, who carry on such admirable work in promoting colonization. Furthermore, my complaints were not directed against any member of the clergy, as such, but I denounced the erroneous reports of certain provincial government officials.
Another letter is as follows:
Isle-Verte, April 5, 1933. Mr. Jean-Frangois Pouliot,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-
After passing many restless nights, I decided' to write to you. The other day in reading over the newspapers, I saw that the latter endeavoured to convey that you were mistaken instating that settlers had undergone hardships. Do not allow yourself to be nonplussed. N. . . D. . . has just told my husband, in my presence,, that had he not assisted his brother-in-law- who owns a lot-and his family, they would have starved to death; when food was placed before the children, they burst into tears with their mother. They had been living for three weeks on Swedish turnips.
It is not much better than onions.
The son of M. . . D. . , recently married, after three months' residence on his lot, some people came to call on him from l'lsle-Verte. When they were about to leave the house, his young

Settlers in Rouyn District
wife got into the carriage, saying:	"I am
going back home, before I starve to death-notwithstanding the plea of her husband begging her to stay with him. That is a fact.
These, sir, are a few of the letters which I have received, a few samples only. I could quote others, I simply wished, however, to put these facts before the house, in order to prove that when I denounced certain abuses, under my responsibility as member of parliament, I deserved a better treatment than the insults, aspersions and jeers of members opposite; moreover, I should have been able to depend on their closest, constant and sincerest co-operation.
May I before closing my remarks, quote a letter of an eminent member of the clergy- he uses the third personal pronoun in writing to me:
He thanks you for your information. It is evident that we lack direction and organization, that splendid examples of devotion to duty are entirely lost by being isolated, that considerable sums of money are wasted, that colonization is carried on in regions which are not ready for settlers, that the settler himself is not taken care of in the present crisis and that this is a great national, social and religious misfortune.
Another eminent member of the clergy wrote to me on March 29, 1933, on the same date as the settler from St. Benoit-de-Packing-ton wrote to me to inform me of his distress.
The struggle wears one down, but it ends by helping one out. Be courageous!
This testimonial amply compensates me for the insults, aspersions and jeers coming from the opposite side, when the members who look after the patronage, who are influential with the government, should themselves be the ones to act and relieve the distress of these poor settlers.
The following is a letter which I received from a dignitary of the church, a pioneer of colonization, it is dated April 2, 1933.
Your reply to one of the heads of the back to the land movement would call for more than a passing remark.
I only wish to dwell, for the present on the following: "The preparation both for the future and present of all schemes, as well as all measures must be based on experience and good common sense." Few possess experience in matters of colonization. As to good common sense everybody claims it.
Will the gathering around a table, of those who are interested in settling Canadians in this country, to discuss thoroughly the problem of back to the land, etc., solve the problem?
Likely so.
But around the table, one must not only group missionary agents of colonization and a few other known authorities, whatever may be their knowledge and moral authority. The colonization problem although a social and national one, is also a political problem.
Among the voluminous correspondence received, sir, I have but two more letters to submit to the house.
A number of members may think or imagine that I am not in earnest when discussing the subject, but, I wish to point out to them that it is a crime to allow people of our race to die of hunger.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Text):	Hurrah!


Jean-François Pouliot: I see those yellow creatures, members of the Ku KIux Klan, jeering at me because I am espousing the cause of my French Canadian patriots. I take this opportunity, sir, to state that I cannot understand how members of my race can thus fraternize with members who belong to the Ku Klux Klan, and then go to their province and take part in patriotic demonstrations. I find it very strange, indeed, that in Quebec, there are some who jeer, to-day, at those who endeavour to side with the humble people, those lacking protection and in distress.
I received a letter from a patriot, who belongs to a religious order.
Your letter reached me here where we are holding lent retreats. Allow me to congratulate you on your denunciation of the shocking inertia of our province and your idea of pooling all schemes and bringing together all experts so as to build up some system. Evidently there will still remain to win over the great minister, who obstructs the way and delights in doing so.
We must begin by freeing in every part of the province, the land, the soil, the millions of acres where one can lead and help the thousands and thousands of young men who are merely waiting for something to turn up. For those who look upon money as the first and final expedient of politics, the method of building a country, in a Jean Talon style, engulfing fortunes before producing any results, would be a faux pas bound to bring on failure. Only the pressure of public opinion, the fear of disorders and a general hue and cry can compel one who takes an interest in the fate of the upper classes, but none in that of the humble people, to bestir himself a little.
You enjoy free speech on the floor of the house, people watch for every word of your open and clear cut statements, you are independent, you possess individuality and you are a good patriot, why do you not bell the cat?
I wish to bell the cows, so that it may be heard!
And "Le Droit" commenting on certain statements made in the house, ended an article as follows, quoting my statement:
God forbid, stated the member for Temis-couata, if the sacred character of the priest is attacked in the house, I shall be the first to defend it, as I have already proved it. Whoever is acquainted with Mr. Pouliot will not be astonished at such language.
Settlers in Rouyn District

This article appeared in "Le Droit" on April 7, 1933.
These include all the documents which I intended to submit to the house. The file is far from being complete as I have piles of similar letters which I could consign to Hansard. However, I have quoted enough of them to open the eyes of those who are voluntarily blind, to open the ears of those who are voluntarily deaf, to impress upon members of Quebec, members who are broadminded and free from prejudices, upon English speaking members as well as those speaking French, upon Protestant as well as Catholic members, that the time has come to cease diverting public funds 'towards the west, without providing for Quebec's quota. The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) succeeded in getting a great deal of information in connection with the government's policy which consisted in granting the western provinces an enormous share of the country's revenue. A large portion of the deficit announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) comes from the advances made to the west. I therefore would request all members who are broad-minded, free from prejudice and parochial ideas, who wish to see the Canadian race survive, first, to bear in mind that the French Canadians of Quebec are entitled to a place under the sun, that Quebec, one of the two provinces Which are responsible for more than two-thirds of the government's revenue, is entitled to have its quota when it is a question of relieving the humble, those who lack protection and are in distress.
I did not criticize the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) to-day as sharply as he would have deserved if, really, the Gordon scheme, to which he gave his name, was to become the salvation plank of colonization in this country. I wish to especially draw the attention of the Minister of Labour on the statement I have just made and I shall again repeat to him before closing my remarks:
I would ask the Minister of Labour to be fair enough to read the letters which I have just put on Hansard and to take cognizance of them and to see that these people who are suffering the pangs of hunger receive relief at once. I do not wish him to answer me that I must take the matter up with the provincial government. I appeal now as a representative of the people to this high court of justice, the supreme court of justice in this country. I want my people and the Canadian people generally to be treated fairly. I am sure that the minister who is a generous and big-hearted man will see to it that these people are relieved without any further delay. '


Mr. BAKER:: Did the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) ever stop to calculate the cost to the country of the scene he has just put on, when all that was really necessary, as he well knows, was to go to the minister's office, present his letters and explain the case? He would then have received just as much consideration as he will by all this waste of the country's money.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will answer my hon. friend in two words. The greatest waste of money since the beginning of the session was the adjournment of the house and the Senate' in order that the Prime Minister might go to England. Parliament had to be adjourned for two months because the right hon. gentleman wanted to go abroad, probably for his own business.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: If I have taken up the time of the house it has been to arouse public opinion in order that justice may be done in this case as soon as possible.


Richard Langton Baker: That has nothing to do with the question you brought up to-day.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend asked me a question and I have answered it better than the Postmaster General answers questions.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: Perhaps the hon. gentleman was within his rights in reading all these letters to-day. I do not think he was, but I did not choose to challenge his doing so because he speaks so seldom in the house that it would hardly have been fair.


Jean-François Pouliot: It was my maiden speech.


George Halsey Perley: But I wish to say that the letters he has read should have gone to the provincial government. He knows perfectly well that this government does not deal directly with individual cases of unemployment or with municipalities, but only through the provincial government. I ask my hon. friend to think what the position of this house would be if every one of us were to read all the letters we receive about unemployment. We all get them and if we were to follow my hon. friend's example we would be doing nothing else from one week's end to another but reading letters such as he has read to-day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee of ways and means, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am going to ask my colleague to move that a new item be inserted in the tariff to be numbered 700a. It arises for the follownig reason. A convention relating to international exhibitions was held in Paris in 1928, following which a convention was approved of by both houses of parliament, and one of the undertakings was that there should be a uniform practice with respect to giving free entry, under certain conditions, to exhibits for the purpose of international exhibitions.


George Halsey Perley: I beg to move that the following item, enumeration and rates of duties, be included in the list of items indicated in resolution No. 2, of March 21, 1933, as for insertion in schedule A of the customs tariff:
_ 700a. Goods imported temporarily and forming part of foreign exhibits in every exhibition to which the international convention relating to international exhibitions, signed on behalf of Canada, on the 22nd day of November, 1928,
applies, and under regulations prescribed by the minister: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Provided a bond shall be first given in accordance with regulations prescribed by the minister as a sufficient guarantee for payment of customs duties and all other duties and taxes applicable to the goods exhibited which are not re-exported within the period fixed after the close of the exhibition.


Mr. HOWARD:: Does the word "international" appear there?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


Charles Benjamin Howard: So the item does not apply to ordinary exhibitions?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Last night I promised to give some additional information sought for by different members. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough wished figures for for 1929, 1930 and 1931 respecting the industries engaged in the knitted goods business. I find that the figures are as follows:
Number of	Capital	Number of	Salaries and	Cost of	Gross valueYear	est'mnts	invested	employees	wages paid	materials	of products1929. .	. . 159	$65,000,000	19,048	$16,000,000	$30,000,000	$60,000,0001930. .	. . 158	64,000,000	18,165	15,000,000	25,000,000	53,000.0001931. .	. . 161	57,000,000	17,698	14,000,000	22,000,000	48,000,000
I have some information concerning volume and values for three successive years for which the hon. member for Weyburn asked. The reply is contained in three full pages of closely typed material. Considerable time would be required to read this material into Hansard, and if the hon. member would be satisfied I should be happy to let him have the file. If at a later stage he wishes to refer to any item in detail he would be at liberty to do so.


DRAWBACKS
[Stage Direction]
3.	Resolved,-That schedule B to the customs tariff, being chapter forty-four of the revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, be amended by inserting therein the following item, enumeration and rates of drawback of customs duties:-
Customs tariff-1063. Materials, including all parts, subject to drawback when used in the manufacture of engines for use exclusively in the equipment of aircraft-payable as drawback, 60 per cent.
Mr. NEILL:: I understand we have not
finished resolution No. 1; several items stood for consideration.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes; certain items are
standing. We will deal subsequently with any such item when it is reached.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
4.	Resolved,-That schedule C to the customs tariff, being chapter forty-four of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927. be amended by deleting therefrom item 1215 and by inserting in said schedule C the following items:
[Stage Direction]
1215. Used or second hand automobiles and motor vehicles of all kinds, manufactured prior to the calendar year in which importation into Canada is sought to be made:
Provided, that this item does not affect in any manner automobiles and motor vehicles,-
(a)	Imported under tariff items 702, 705a, 706, 707 or 708, or under tourists' or travellers' vehicle permits;
(b)	Imported by a bona fide settler on a first arrival but not entitled to entry free of duty under tariff item 705a;
(c)	Bona fide purchased on or before the first day of June, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-one, by consumers for their own use and not for resale;
(d)	Forfeited or confiscated for any offence under the customs laws, or the laws of any province of Canada;
(e)	Left by bequest.
1210. Used or second hand aeroplanes and aircraft of all kinds:
Provided, that this item does not affect in any manner aeroplanes and aircraft,-
(a)	Imported under tariff items 707 or 708, or engaged solely in international traffic, or brought in by non-resident tourists for temporary use under permit issued by the Department of National Revenue;
[Stage Direction]
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
(b)	Bona fide purchased on or before the twenty-second day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-three, by consumers for their own use and not for resale;
(e) Forfeited or confiscated for any offence under the customs laws, the air regulations or the laws of any province of Canada;
(d) Imported by the Department of National Defence for military purposes.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton); Have these goods not been enumerated before for these purposes? What is the change?
Mr. RHODES; Item No. 1215 is an old
one, but we are changing it to meet certain hardships which have arisen in case of bona fide settlers entering the country with motor *cars which they own, but had not owned for a period of six months. In some cases those motor cars might have been owned for five months and a half, or some other period, as the case might be. As a matter of fact my attention was directed to one instance where a motor car happened to be owned by a bona fide settler one day less than the required six months.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton); There is a
prohibition against second hand cars?
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes. This provision widens the item to permit a bona fide settler to bring in his own car.


Mr. EULER:: Does it reduce the period of six months?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, it makes for elasticity. Then, item No. 1216 prohibits the entry of second hand aeroplanes.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
5.	Resolved,-That any enactment founded upon resolutions 2, 3 and 4 of the foregoing resolutions to amend the customs tariff or schedules thereto, shall be deemed to have come into force on the twenty-second day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-three, and to have applied to all goods mentioned in the foregoing resolutions imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on and after that date, and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that date.
Edward James Young: I note that under resolution No. 5 any enactment founded upon resolutions 2, 3 and 4 amending the Customs Tariff shall be deemed to come into force on March 22. At what hour of the day?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Immediately after midnight of March 21.


Edward James Young: The budget speech was
delivered on March 21. If this provision did not take effect until midnight of the same day,

there would be some eight hours in which people having certain information would have time to act upon it. Is it customary to give that much leeway?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is quite possible that certain instances might arise, particularly on the western coast, where information could be used to the detriment of the public interest. The budget was brought down this year in conformity with the practice which has obtained in previous years, but, having regard to the objection which the hon. member has quite properly raised, I may say that probably a different practice will have to be adopted in subsequent years, so that no condition can arise such as the hon. member has in mind.


Mr. BROWN:: Is it not so that tariff rates have come into effect as soon as a budget is delivered?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, because hitherto the practice has been that budget speeches have been delivered only after customs houses have been closed. However that does not meet all cases, especially in matters of taxation. In the past collectors of customs have been notified by wire the minute the budget has been released, and in such circumstances they have taken customs entries subject to correction, in the light of the terms as set out in the budget. Safeguard has been provided in that respect. But perhaps something may be said in favour of some other course being taken, especially in regard to taxation proposals which in part might be evaded. On subsequent occasions it might be desirable that the budget be delivered in the evening rather than in the afternoon.


Albert Joseph Brown: A serious condition has arisen in regard to one particular item.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, I am prepared quite frankly to admit that. I have no doubt the hon. member is referring to sugar. I take no exception to his statement.


William Daum Euler: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to re-open discussion on a resolution which has been passed, but I should like the minister to clear up what may be a misconception in my mind with regard to the importation of settlers' effects, with particular reference to automobiles. Under the former legislation an automobile had to be owned for six months in the country from which the settler came before it could be imported as settlers' effects. Is the time now shorter?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The law as it stood was to the effect that entry was totally prohibited unless a motor car had been in the possession

of a settler for six months. Under those circumstances a settler who may have owned a motor car for six months less one day, under the regulations could not enter it. The amendment now provides that all bona fide settlers in possession of motor cars which have been owned for lesser periods may bring them in, subject of course to paying the duty applicable to second hand machines.


William Daum Euler: What is that lesser period? Is it three or four months? Or two days less than six months. There must be some definiteness about it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No date is named.
Obviously if a term of three months were named we would be presented with a similar difficulty. The test is the bona fides of the possession on the part of the settler. Each case would have to be decided upon its merits. Obviously if a settler purchased a motor car one day before entering this country, the transaction would be open to question. However, if it had been in his possession three or four months, or in some cases, two or three weeks, it might be allowed in.


William Daum Euler: I realize that in speaking to this resolution I am out of order, but I assure the minister that he will be confronted with difficulties in this connection. It is perfectly obvious that a settler coming to Canada, who is familiar with our law, in order to evade it might purchase an automobile two or three weeks before entering. There is certainly no definiteness in the resolution.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: His experience in the
administration of departmental affairs will have caused the hon. member to realize the dangers and difficulties that have to be met in connection with any law. I think he should also admit this practical truism, that you cannot frame any general law which cannot be evaded in part or in certain instances. The law as it stood, however, was too rigid, and this amendment is sought merely for the purpose of avoiding injustice to bona fide settlers who desire to come to this country in possession of a second hand motor car.


William Daum Euler: You may have a good deal of difficulty in administering it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That may be so, but this amendment was really introduced upon compassionate grounds, to avoid imposing any hardship. It appears here because of representations made to me by the Department of National Revenue.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Just to clear up the matter, may I ask the minister a question? If the individual entering Canada has 53719-272
26, 1933	4307
Ways and Means-Customs Tariff
not had the car in his possession for six months he cannot secure free entry. Is that so? If he acquires the car within the six month period he must pay the regular duty, as I understand it?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As the law stood, unless
the car had been in his possession for six months he could not bring it in at all.


Albert Joseph Brown: I think the position taken
by the minister is the only proper one in the circumstances. The difficulty would arise no matter what period was mentioned; there would always be the possibility of someone falling short by one day.


The CHAIRMAN:: I think this discussion is out of order, and I want to remind the committee that there are two items standing.


Charles A. Stewart: The minister was not permitted to answer my question.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Let the
minister clarify it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think there was a misunderstanding, and I believe if we are out of order we should give unanimous consent to proceed.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: But items 366b and
568 were not passed.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I thought we were dealing with this item.


Charles A. Stewart: This is the point about which I should like to be clear. If the individual entering Canada as a settler is in possession of a car which he has had for a longer period than six months the car will come in duty free. If he has not been in possession of the car for six months he can still bring in the car by paying the ordinary duty on second hand cars.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, if it is decided that
he is a bona fide settler. My hon. friend is quite right.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I believe the minister is taking the right stand in this matter. I know that a few years ago I had many complaints from settlers coming to western Canada from the United States, who suffered particular hardship under the law as it formerly stood. I believe the change the minister has decided upon is the right thing to do, in regard to bona fide settlers coming to western Canada the law should be elastic so that there may be no hardship imposed. This amendment will help the settlers.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
430S
Excise Act

[Stage Direction]
Resolved,-That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Act, chapter sixty of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, and to provide:-
1.	(i) That section one hundred and forty-nine of the said act, as amended by chapter eight of the statutes of 1932, be amended by providing that the rate of excise duties set out by the second paragraphs (a); (b) and
(c)	of the said section be fixed at two dollars and fifty cents per gallon of the strength of proof on spirits used in the manufacture of patent and proprietary medicines, extracts, essences, perfumed spirits, and pharmaceutical preparations manufactured in bond, instead of $2.40, $2.42 or $2.43 as set out in the said paragraph;
(ii) That said section one hundred and forty-nine be further amended by adding thereto the following subsection as subsection two thereof:-
(2) There shall be imposed, levied and collected on all spirits distilled from the juices of native fruits for use exclusively by registered wine manufacturers under prescribed regulations, a special excise duty as follows:-
On every gallon of the strength of proof by Sykes' hydrometer, one dollar and so in proportion for any greater or less strength than the strength of proof and for any less quantity than a gallon, and the said duty shall be payable by the registered wine manufacturer at the time such spirits are taken out of warehouse.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have an amendment to offer to this resolution, which will have the effect of reduciing the duty from $2.50 to $1.50 per gallon. It will be recalled that formerly the duty was 75 cents. In the budget we increased the rate to $2.50, but it is felt that this rate is too high, and we are now asking that it be reduced to $1.50. The Minister of National Revenue will sponsor this motion.


Mr. POWER:: It would seem that in the original resolution as introduced in the budget the rate was fixed at $2.50 instead of $2.40, $2.42 or $2.43, as was the case previously. 13 that correct?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Those are the rates which have obtained for a considerable period of time; they have reference to spirits used in pharmaceutical preparations, and there is no change in that regard. The change proposed was in regard to the duty upon spirits used in the manufacture of perfumes; that was raised from 75 cents a gallon to $2.50 a gallon, but as I have already explained that rate is now regarded as excessive, and this amendment which will be moved by my colleague reduces the duty to $1.50 per gallon.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: May I ask if this is the result of the negotiations and representations carried on by the pharmaceutical association and the medical society?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think it would be fair to answer yes to that question. The matter was very carefully canvassed in view of the representations which were made, and we were convinced that the proposed rate was too high.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In order to get this clear may I ask what the figures $2.40, $2.42 and $2.43 have reference to? I would construe this resolution to mean that the rate of duty is to be $2.50 instead of $2.40, $2.42 and $2.43, and I think that is what was in the mind of my hon. friend from Quebec South.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton South):: The amendment is as follows:
That paragraph one of the resolution to amend the Excise Act, introduced on March 21, 1933, be amended as follows:
1.	By striking out the words "perfumed spirits" in line six of sub-paragraph (i);
2.	By adding the following as sub-paragraph (iii) of said paragraph one:
"(iii) There shall be imposed, levied and collected on all spirits used in bond for the manufacture of perfume, an excise duty as follows:-
On every gallon of the strength of proof by Sykes' hydrometer, one dollar and fifty cents and so in proportion for any greater or less strength than the strength of proof and for any less quantity than a gallon, and the said duty shall be payable by the bonded manufacturer in accordance with regulations prescribed."


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I was partly in error in
answer to my hon, friend from Quebec South. The position now will be that instead of the rates which heretofore have obtained of $2.40, $2.42, and $2.43, the sum of $2.50 will be charged.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph 2:
2.	That subsection two of section one hundred and fifty of the said act be amended by repealing paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) thereof and substituting therefor the following:-
On every gallon of the strength of proof by Sykes' hydrometer, two dollars and fifty cents, and so in proportion for any greater or less strength than the strength of proof and for any less quantity than one gallon.
Thereby increasing to a flat rate of twro dollars and fifty cents the duties already imposed at $2.40, $2.42 and $2.43 as the case may be on spirits used by licensed druggists in the manufacture of preparation of medicines, etc.
Edmond Baird Ryckman: There is a typographical error in the last line, "manufacture of preparation"; it should be "manufacture or preparation."

Special War Revenue Act


Charles Gavan Power: Will it not be necessary to
have an amendment here to cover perfume spirits?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am advised that the
druggists do not use perfume spirits.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
3.	That any enactment founded on the foregoing paragraphs of this resolution shall be deemed to have come into effect on the twenty-second day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-three, and to have applied to all goods taken out of warehouse for consumption on and after that date.
Paragraph agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On paragraph 1:
Resolved,-That it is expedient to amend The Special War	Revenue	Act,	chapter	onehundred and seventy-nine of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, as amended by chapter fifty of the statutes of 1928, chapter fifty-seven of the statutes of 1929, chapter forty-three of the statutes of 1930,	chapter	fifty-four of	the
statutes of 1931, and chapter fifty-four of the statutes of 1932, and to provide:- _
1.	That section	four of	the	said act	beamended to provide that notes of a bank in circulation in any British colony or possession other than Canada, under	the	authority	of
section sixty-two of the Bank Act and in respect of which taxation is levied and payable by or under the laws of such colony or possession, shall be exempt from the taxation required to be made under sections three and four of the said act, provided that if the tax imposed by or under such laws is less than the tax imposed under section three of the said act the amount of such exemption shall not exceed the amount required to be paid by or under the laws of such colony or possession in respect of such notes.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This means that currency
issued by the banks for special use in the West Indies will not be subject to the tax. The Canadian banks have a special circulation which they use in certain parts of the West Indies and there they are called upon to pay a substantial bank tax. Under the law as it stands they would therefore be required to pay a double tax, one in Canada as well as one in the West Indies. This relieves them of the tax here.


Edward James Young: Do the bank reports require that they shall show what circulation they have in the West Indies?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They are required to show their total circulation, but whether the circulation in the West Indies is segregated I do not know offhand.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On paragraph 2:
2.	That the provisions exempting from the stamp tax cheques, receipts to banks, money orders, travellers' cheques and post office money orders, where such instruments are for an amount not exceeding $5 be repealed, except in the case of cheques issued by butter or cheese factories to producers of milk or cream.
Mr. ELLIOTT:: What is the idea of making an exception of cheques issued by butter or cheese factories to producers of milk or cream?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I understand that the practice of a number of butter and cheese factories, particularly in the west, is to issue a number of small documents for very small amounts daily or at all events weekly. These individual amounts are so small that a tax would be excessive, and therefore that particular class of cheque is exempt.


Albert Joseph Brown: In view of the representations made from this side two years ago I hope that no argument will prevail on the minister to make any change now.


John Campbell Elliott: The paragraph states that the provisions exempting from the stamp tax cheques, receipts to banks, money orders, travellers' cheques and post office money orders, where such instruments are for an amount not exceeding $5, shall be repealed. So far as they are concerned the present provisions are repealed when the amount does not exceed $5, except in the case of cheques issued by butter or cheese factories to producers of milk or cream.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes; they are not subjec! to the tax if the amount is $5 or under.


Charles Benjamin Howard: How much revenue does the minister expect to receive as a result of this change?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sorry it is impossible to give an accurate answer because they use post office stamps and we have no means of checking, but I am told that the amount will be fairly substantial.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I have no fault to find
with the previous resolution, but it will be noted that it exempts the banks from taxation upon their circulation outside of Canada. In the very next resolution the minister proposes to increase revenue by taxing the small cheques which are generally issued by the poorer people.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend presents a
contrast which is not quite as evident as the two resolutions might lead one to believe. There would be no question of exempting the
Special War Revenue Act

banks from taxation upon their circulation if it were not for the fact that the West Indian possessions have instituted a very heavy tax upon the circulation of currency. It would be very unfair to subject the banks to double taxation. In connection with the tax on cheques, I think we always should have taxed cheques. However, two years ago the house in its wisdom decided to exempt cheques below five dollars. We have come to a point where we have to seek every reasonable opportunity for revenue, and that is why we are taxing cheques below five dollars.


Charles Benjamin Howard: That may be quite true, but it does not change the position I take. It may be that the banks would be unfairly treated by having to pay double taxation, but, on the other hand, it would bring in revenue. I have no objection to this exemption but the fact remains that in the very next resolution a tax is placed upon the smaller cheques.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We have increased the
taxes paid by the banks very substantially in this very budget.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Don't you think you
should?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I suppose the banks should be taxed all that they reasonably can stand but my hon. friend will realize that they have had to reduce their dividends because their earnings have fallen off.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Is the double taxation on the bank any more unfair than an individual having to pay an income tax to the federal government and then having to pay another one to the provincial government? In some provinces they tax all wages.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is a different taxing
authority. As a matter of international comity the principle has been recognized for a considerable time that an income tax payer in one country will be granted an allowance for the tax he has paid upon the portion of income taxed in another country. That principle applies as between Canada and the United States and between Canada and Great Britain.


Charles Gavan Power: There may be double taxation in this case because the man will be rpaying a tax on his monthly pay cheque and then paying income tax ait the end of the :year.


William Daum Euler: I am glad to hear the Minister of Finance express disapproval of double taxation. I quite agree with his statement ithat provincial or municipal and federal in-,
come taxes are separate things. Perhaps there is not much to be said about them except that these different authorities ought to iget together and decide upon having just one income tax. However, I think the minister is quite wrong when he gives the impression that this government and previous governments have not imposed double taxes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I never said that.


William Daum Euler: I shall not discuss this
matter now because iit will come up when we deal with the income tax. I think there is only one thing to recommend the statement by the minister that all cheques should be taxed and that is that it presents an easy way of getting money. Ordinarily taxes are collected for some service rendered, but this tax does not come under that heading.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is revenue.


William Daum Euler: It is revenue, and nothing
else. As a matter of fact this is a tax upon the poor fellow who has to pay the money. The man who is getting the money should be taxed. The minister may claim that this tax is necessary in order to obtain money but I consider it one of the most vicious forms of taxation. It is not only a nuisance tax but it is an unjust tax because nothing is given for it.


Mr. REID:: As the cheques paid to dairymen are exempted from this taxation, I appeal to the minister to exempt also the cheques paid to poultrymen. In many provinces those who keep chickens are just simply keeping a few hens, so to speak, but in the province of British Columbia chicken-raising is a highly commercialized industry. The economic condition of the poultryman in that province is even more severe than that of the dairyman. A poultryman will receive perhaps eight small cheques per month, probably totalling not more than $20. The eggs are lifted once a day or twice a week, when a receipt is given accompanied by a small interim cheque for S2 or $3. When the eggs are candled, the cheque in final payment is sent to the poultryman. The poultryman receives a greater number of small cheques than the dairyman, and I appeal to the minister to exempt these cheques from the tax.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have every sympathy with the poultryman but we are not prepared to make further exception, although they may be worthy of consideration.


Thomas Reid: Why the dairymen?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Because of a peculiar
practice which has obtained in the payment of

Special War Revenue Act
their accounts. Perhaps it might be better not to have any exception, but that is another matter. Once we begin to make further exceptions, the door will be opened and we will never be able to get it closed. The object we had in mind in imposing this tax was the obtaining of additional revenue. I am sure that if the poultrymen of British Columbia exercise the same mental adroitness as the hon. member for New Westminster, they will be able to devise a method which will permit them to carry on their business without paying too much in this form of taxation.


Thomas Reid: When you single out a certain
class and give them exemptions, it is only natural that others in like circumstances will object. I have received many complaints from poultrymen and organizations. If every cheque was taxed I doubt if these complaints would have been made. I think a fuller explanation is required as to why the dairymen have been exempted while the poultry-men, who receive so many small cheques, should have to pay this tax.


Charles Marcil: I would like to call the attention of the minister to the fact that in Quebec we have a large number of farmers' cooperative banks, called caisses populaires, that are run by the farmers themselves. Though I am glad to know the dairymen are exempt from the payment of tax on these small cheques, I would like to call the minister's attention to these caisses populaires, farmers' cooperative banks. Are they also to be obliged to put a stamp on each cheque, because they deal in very small amounts? These are not regular banks.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The case presented by the hon. member for Bonaventure had not previously been brought to my attention. Offhand I would be inclined to think those cheques would not be subject to tax. I think the tax applies only to cheques on banks; I do not think under the Bank Act those are classed as banks, but I will look into the matter because it is entirely new to me.


Charles Marcil: I thank the minister for his answer. These banks, of course, operate under a provincial charter. They are not banks in the ordinary sense of the word; they are farmers' cooperative savings banks, caisses populaires. They are very well known; they exist in all parts of my province and are patronized solely by farmers, I think they should be exempt.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
3.	That section seventy of the said act. as enacted by chapter fifty-four of the statutes of 1931, be amended by providing that the stamp tax on postal notes shall be at the rate of three cents.
Paragraph agreed to.
4.	That section fifty-eight of the said act, as enacted by chapter forty-three of the statutes of 1930, be amended by adding thereto and making liable to the excise tax on sale, transfer or assignment of stocks, bonds, etc., the following:
[Stage Direction]
Any participating interest in the operations or profits of any association, company, or corporation, represented by certificates, documents, or other instruments of title capable of being sold, transferred or assigned, including mineral deeds, oil royalties, and fixed investment trust shares issued by a trustee and representing equitable ownership in deposited securities.
Paragraph agreed to.
5.	That section seventy-six of the said act be amended by providing that when matches are put up in packages containing less than twenty-one matches each the tax shall be payable at the rate of three-twentieths of one cent per package instead of at the rate of three-sixteenths of one cent.
Charles Marcil: Does this apply to domestic as well as to imported matches?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, it applies to all
matches. Of course the committee understands that this is a special provision for the small paper folders of matches, the vest pocket match. It is making the tax comparable to the content match tax on the box matches.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
6.	That part X of the said act be amended by adding thereto the following as section 77(a):-
77(a). Except as hereinafter provided, every manufacturer and every importer of cigarette papers in packets shall affix to every packet ol cigarette papers manufactured by him or imported into Canada, an adhesive or other stamp of the value of 2 cents for each 100 leaves or fraction of 100 leaves contained in such packet.
2.	Except as hereinafter provided, every manufacturer and every importer of cigarette paper tubes shall affix to every package of cigarette paper tubes manufactured by him or imported by him into Canada, an adhesive or other stamp of the value of 5 cents for each 50 cigarette paper tubes or fraction of 50 cigarette paper tubes contained in such package.
3.	No manufacturer or importer shall sell or import cigarette papers or cigarette paper tubes unless they are in packets or packages.
4.	It shall not be necessary to affix an adhesive or other stamp to packets of cigarette papers or packages of cigarette paper tubes manufactured in Canada for export out of Canada when they are manufactured and exported under regulations made under the provisions of this act.
Special War Revenue Act
[Stage Direction]
5.	When cigarette papers in packets oi cigarette paper tubes in packages are imported into Canada, the adhesive or other stamp shall be affixed to the packets or packages while they are in the custody of the proper customs officers.
6.	The provisions of this section shall not apply to cigarette papers or cigarette paper tubes sold to, or manufactured by, or imported by, a manufacturer licensed to manufacture cigarettes, who employs such cigarette papers or cigarette paper tubes in the manufacture of cigarettes subject to the provisions of the Excise Act.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have an amendment to move to this resolution:
That paragraph 6 of the resolution to amend the Special War Revenue Act, introduced on March 21, 1933, be amended by striking out of the fourth line of subsection 2 of proposed section 77a the figure "5" and substituting therefor the figure "4," and by striking out of the fourth and fifth lines of said subsection 2 the figure "50" and substituting therefor the figure "100" in both places.
In a few words, the amendment means that the tax instead of five cents for each fifty cigarette paper tubes will be four cents for 100 cigarette paper tubes. That is to say, the leaves will foe taxed at the rate of twenty cents per 1,000 and the tubes at the rate of forty cents per 1,000.


Charles Gavan Power: Is that an increase or a decrease?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: A decrease.


Charles Gavan Power: From the originally proposed tax?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Will that permit the industry in Montreal, which closed its doors after the change, to open again?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am not disposed to take exception to the manner in which my hon. friend put his question. The industry in Montreal may have closed its doors after the tax was imposed; whether that is due to the tax itself or not is open to debate, but it was felt that perhaps the rate as originally imposed was too high and I think it was. Certainly, the relative tax as between the leaves and the tubes was not properly balanced. Now we have them in the exact proportion that they ought to have, as I understand the matter, and in the same relative proportion that obtains in the United States, that is to say, twice as much upon the tube as upon the sheet. This will mean that the man who "rolls his own" will pay a small tax, but nothing comparable to the amount of tax which is paid upon the manufactured cigarette.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Under the proposed legislation before the amendment was made, is the Minister of Finance cognizant of the change this actually brought about? I say this for this reason: the other night the hon. member for Compton, speaking in the house, stated that he was satisfied with this budget because those who were best able to pay would be taxed. I take strong exception to that statement. I do not happen to be a smoker of cigarettes, but I know what has happened. A little while ago this government reduced the excise tax on package cigarettes by five cents. The price of cigarettes in the package dropped five cents; in other words, it dropped from twenty-five cents to twenty cents a package. But after all a package of cigarettes on a pound basis is a pretty expensive smoke. Consequently, the poorer people, those who cannot afford to purchase cigarettes in packages, have two methods open to them. One is "roll your own," and the other is possibly the least known, the using of tubes. You may buy tubes in two qualities. For ten cents you could buy 500 tubes manufactured in Montreal or you might purchase a better grade at fifteen cents for 500 tubes. After this tax was imposed, the price of tubes increased to 50 cents for 500 tubes and for the better class 60 cents for 500 tubes, and as a matter of fact the company stopped operating.
I am pleased at the proposed reduction but it is a pretty hard way to apply a tax when you reduce the taxes, which will favour possibly only two immense trusts in Canada and you tax the man who wants to economize or who cannot afford to smoke cigarettes in any other way, that is, the man who buys his cigarette- paper and "rolls his own," or the man who buys 500 tubes, sits down at home and puts his tobacco into them in order that he may afford to smoke cigarettes the same as the other fellow.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The lowering of the tax upon manufactured cigarettes did not take effect for the purpose of benefit which might accrue to the large cigarette manufacturing establishments. My hon. friend may not have been in the house at the time, but if he will look up the records he will find that a very distinguished predecessor of mine imposed very heavy taxation on cigarettes and it was demonstrated to him within a very short period of time that the larger tax brought far less return than had the lower one.


Charles Benjamin Howard: As in every case.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Not necessarily. A tax may be too low, that is dealing with it purely from a revenue viewpoint, but there comes a point

Special War Revenue Act
beyond which you will get less revenue than you will at the lower figure. It was our belief that we had taxed cigarettes to the point where we were getting a lower yield. It is too soon yet to know and we are operating in times which are not normal, so we cannot measure by normal standards what the yield is, but it is our belief that under the lower cigarette duty we shall get a higher yield to the treasury than obtained under the higher rate.
Coming to the question of the unfairness of taxing the man who "rolls his own," even after these taxes are imposed he will be able to have his cigarettes for just a trifle over one-half of the cost of them to the man who purchases the manufactured cigarettes. There is nothing comparable in the amount of return to the treasury as between the tax imposed upon the man who "rolls his own" and the man who buys his cigarettes. This principle has been recognized as fair. It would be manifestly unfair that the cigarette which pays a large return to the treasury should be diminished in its use because of permission to the smoker who rolls his own to purchase without the payment of a tax. In the United States they have resorted to this form of taxation. It is hardly necessary for me to say to my hon. friend that our only reason for imposing this tax is the need for revenue. We are certainly not imposing it, nor have we imposed any others, because we expect thereby to add to our popularity as a government.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I am exceedingly pleased
with the explanation which the minister has given. Following up that same line of argument the Finance minister will find that following the two or three budgets preceding this one, not only was the revenue diminished but it dropped practically to nothing due to the extremely high tariffs imposed by those budgets. The Minister of Finance admits that that is the case and that if you reduce the tax to the large concerns it will lessen the cost of cigarettes, and naturally increase the revenue. The Finance minister must admit that one of the reasons for the decreased general revenue is that the tariffs have been carried too high. I admit that that is not the only reason because business has been falling off and there has been a lessening of purchasing power. I am not objecting to this particular tax from the revenue standpoint, but I do not think you should put so heavy a tax on the poor man. The Finance minister admits by bringing in this amendment that the tax was too high in the first place. He has reduced it a little, which I approve of, but I do not think he should tax the fellow who is
willing to do his own cigarette manufacturing to help himself along. When the five cent excise tax was removed from the package of cigarettes the consumption of cigarettes increased for a little while and all the newspapers of the country broadcast what a wonderful thing had been done in that way in increasing the consumption of cigarettes; but if you will look at the papers for the last two or three weeks you will see that the consumption of cigarettes has decreased enormously and possibly the results have not been what the minister expected. Now on top of that you impose this immense tax on the home-made cigarette. I object to the tax because it is taxing the wrong people. It is following exactly the opposite policy enunciated in speeches made on the other side of the house that this budget was taxing those best able to pay.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: To the earlier remark of
my hon. friend I take no exception, but he must remember this, that there may be two objects in mind with respect to tariffs; one may be revenue, the other protection, or a combination of both, which is an entirely different matter from the question of raising revenue qua revenue. My hon. friend speaks, and I do not find fault with him for doing so, on behalf of the poor man who rolls his own, but even after this tax is imposed the man who rolls his own will pay $3.40 per thousand less to the treasury than the man who buys manufactured cigarettes, so he still has a very wide margin as compared with the man who buys the manufactured cigarette and who will have to pay one cent apiece.


Charles Benjamin Howard: For that I am truly thankful, and I am sorry the minister did not go further. The figures which he quoted on a previous item go to show that excessive taxation or high protection cause not only a loss of revenue but an enormous decrease in employment. I shall not read the figures which the minister gave, but that is very important. My objection is not from the revenue standpoint because I realize that we have to have revenue, but I object to taxing the man who is least able to pay.


Charles Marcil: I am sorry I was not here when the minister gave his explanation regarding stamps on cheques. I presume that the method now followed whereby one is able to use a postage stamp on a cheque will be continued.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


Charles Marcil: Has any separate account been kept of the postage stamps used in that
Special War Revenue Act

way for excise purposes? The postal service is of universal use, and we are all interested in getting as cheap postage as possible, and if the revenues of the Post Office Department are increased by the use of postage stamps on cheques, it would be a good thing for us to know just what amount that represents.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is no possibility of
making a return of that.


Albert Joseph Brown: Could not the banks do it?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the banks could be
called upon to go through the mass of accounting, looking over millions of cheques, it could be done, but the task would be enormous. That of course raises the whole question. I say quite frankly to the committee that if I were imposing that tax as a new tax I would certainly insist upon a specific revenue stamp being used, and the postage stamp not being used, largely for the purpose of earmarking the amount and volume and incidence of the tax. But it is quite another thing when the public have become accustomed for a number of years to the use of a postage stamp. They would regard it as a real grievance now if such a change were to be made, and for this reason it was felt that it would be unwise to make it. There is no possible means of our knowing just what the proportion is, but of course to the extent that postage stamps are used, to that extent the revenue of the post office is augmented.


John Campbell Elliott: I wonder if the minister
could tell the committee what the estimate of the department is of the revenue to be derived from the stamp tax on cheques of five dollars and under.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We have not an exact
estimate, and one of the reasons why it is difficult to find out exactly is because of the very condition referred to by my hon. friend from Bonaventure, that a proportion of the stamps used are postage stamps.


John Campbell Elliott: Following up what my hon. friend from Bonaventure has said, I think it is important that the government should know how much money they get in from that tax. I am not objecting to the tax, although I had hoped that the government would not find it necessary to continue it, but I do think that at the end of the year we should be able to know how much has been derived from it so that we can judge whether or not the nuisance that is created by it is compensated for by the revenue derived. I would like to know from the minister whether that could be checked so that when we come back next year we shall be able to see how much IMr. Mareil.]
the tax has brought in. It may have an important bearing on the question whether the tax should be continued.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sorry I have not
segregated figures of the estimates of the department relating to that tax. The figure given to me as the yield of the tax from stamps on cheques, drafts, promissory notes and stock transfers-for the same stamp is used for all purposes-is $2,000,000.


John Campbell Elliott: The minister has no idea as to the proportions-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have not the faintest.


Charles Marcil: The excise department must know exactly the number of stamps they have issued. By deducting that number from the total amount used we would know approximately the number of post office stamps used. If he could ascertain exactly what part of the revenue could be credited to the Post Office Department, the house would be in a better position to appreciate the situation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is unfortunate we are not using a specific stamp for this purpose. If we idid we would ibe able to tell to the>
exact cent the amount of revenue received.


Charles A. Stewart: I hope this bombardment will not induce the minister to issue excise stamps. It is very handy to be able to affix a postage stamp to a small document. If we must affix stamps, for heaven's sake let us use postage stamps, rather than have to go here and there looking for excise stamps. Even if we cannot trace the exact revenue to each department, my hope is that we will be allowed to use postage stamps.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Assdniboia):: The minister has proposed an amendment to subsection 2. I -was wondering if the two cents per hundred on cigarette papers is actually an increase, or is it practically the same as it has been before?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is entirely a new provision.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph 6 as amended agreed to.
7.	That subsection two of section eighty-six of the said act be amended by adding thereto the following proviso:
Provided that if a licenced wholesaler sells goods to another licenced wholesaler at a price less than the value upon which the tax is to be computed under paragraph (c) of the last preceding subsection, the vendor shall forthwith become liable to pay the tax upon the difference between such value and his sale price.
Paragraph agreed to.

Special War Revenue Act
8.	That schedule I to the said act be amended by adding thereto the following articles and imposing thereon an excise tax at the rate set opposite the respective article:
(i)	Articles, materials or preparations of whatever composition or in whatever form, commonly or commercially known as toilet articles, preparations or cosmetics which are intended for use or application for toilet purposes, or for use in connection with the care of the human body, including the hair, nails, eyes, teeth or any other part or parts thereof, whether for cleansing, deodorizing, beautifying, preserving or restoring, and to include toilet soaps, antiseptics, bleaches, depilatories, perfumes, scents and similar preparations, 10 per cent.
(ii)	Tires of rubber, including inner tubes, for automotive vehicles of all kinds including trailers or other wheeled attachments used in connection with any of the said vehicles, 5 per cent.
Charles Gavan Power: Does that include all soaps?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have an amendment to move.


Charles Benjamin Howard: It is a tax on cleanliness.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I move:
That paragraph 8 of the resolution to amend the Special War Revenue Act be amended as follows:
1.	By striking out the words "toilet soaps in line 7 of subparagraph (i) and substituting therefor the words "shaving soaps and shaving creams";
2.	By adding the following paragraph:
"Toilet soaps not to include shaving soaps
or shaving creams, 5 per cent."
This amendment means that we will reduce the tax on toilet soaps.


Charles Gavan Power: Yesterday the minister gave us a lecture on the efficiency of a new shaving machine which he had introduced to the country. Now he will not let us use shaving soap.


Charles A. Stewart: Do it
without soap.


Charles Gavan Power: I am afraid the minister is
not consistent.


John Campbell Elliott: Is the measure intended
to discourage shaving?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope shaving soaps will
be used in increasingly large quantities, because as they are used so shall the revenue be.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have an amendment to
subsection (ii) of paragraph 8, the effect of which will be to put the tax upon a poundage rather than a percentage basis. It is felt that that is a fairer method of estimating the tax. It will be less subject to evasions, and will apply with greater equality. The method proposed is that used in the United States. By experience they have found it preferable to have the tax upon the poundage rather than upon the percentage basis. The only difference is that the tax we propose is smaller than that obtaining in the United States. I move in amendment:
That paragraph 8 of the resolution to amend the Special War Revenue Act, introduced on March 21, 1933, be amended by striking out subparagraph (ii) thereof, and that paragraph 9 of the said resolution be amended by adding thereto the following as subparagraph (v) thereof:-
" (v) Tires in whole or in part of rubber for automotive vehicles of all kinds, including trailers or other wheeled attachments used in connection with any of the said vehicles, per pound, 2 cents.
Inner tubes for use in any such tires, per pound, 3 cents."
The respective rates obtaining in the United States are 2i cents and 4 cents. We propose a 3 cent tax on inner tubes, whereas that in the United States is 4 cents.


William Daum Euler: Are these specific rates proportionate to the ad valorem rate of five per cent which is being displaced?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is as near the five per
cent yield as it is posssible to make it, upon the poundage basis.


Charles A. Stewart: Is the minister sure the change will not increase the tax on the cheaper grades of tires? I am afraid the higher priced tubes and tires will receive the advantage.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I understand the determining faotor in the United States was that with the tax placed upon an ad valorem basis certain individuals and companies tend to minimize the sizes of their invoices.


William Daum Euler: That is a very nice way of putting it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, that is a nice way of describing that which in effect is a deliberate attempt in certain quarters to avoid paying a full tax.


Charles Gavan Power: Rubber dealers may have
an elastic conscience.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The advantage cannot be
taken when the poundage basis is used. For purposes of revenue collection we are not placed in the hands of unscrupulous corporations or companies. I am not suggesting that any company has been unscrupulous but I say there have been opportunities to evade the tax.
Special War Revenue Act


William Daum Euler: You do not want too much elasticity in connection with taxes on rubber tires.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am told the average
weight of a Chevrolet tube is three pounds, the tax would therefore be 9 cents.


Charles Gavan Power: What is the weight of a Chevrolet tire-the casing?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The casing weighs 20
pounds, so the tax would be 40 cents.


Charles Gavan Power: And how about a larger car, a Packard?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 'I have the complete classification here if you wish me to read it.


Charles Gavan Power: Never mind; I withdraw the question.


Alan Webster Neill: I did not catch the words of the minister. Is he sure this will not apply to bicycle tires? I thought I heard the words "wheeled vehicles."


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, I think the word "automotive" is the governing word.


Alan Webster Neill: The amendment has not been read yet.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is moved by Mr. Manion that paragraph 8 of the resolution to amend the Special War Revenue Act, introduced on March 21, 1933, be amended by striking out subparagraph (ii) thereof, and that paragraph 9 of the said resolution be amended by adding thereto the following as sdbparagraph (v) thereof:
(v) Tires in whole or in part of rubber for automotive vehicles of all kinds, including trailers or other wheeled attachments used in connection with any of the said vehicles, per pound, 2 cents.
Inner tubes for use in any such tires, per pound, 3 cents.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
9.	That schedule II to the said act be amended by adding thereto the following articles and imposing thereon an excise tax at the rate set opposite the respective article:-
(i)	Sugar, as enumerated in customs tariff item No. 134, 2 cents per pound.
(ii)	Unfermented wort (sweet wort), 25 cents per gallon.
(iii)	Malt syrup, or malt syrup powder, extracts of malt, fluid or not, or any other malt product intended for the brewing of beer, 50 cents per pound.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is an amendment to be moved to this paragraph, and I think perhaps it will facilitate discussion if it is pre-tMr. Rhodes.]
sented at once, so that the item may be considered in the light of the amendment. The amendment will read as follows:
1.	By striking out subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) and substituting therefor the following:-
"(i) Materials enumerated in customs tariff items 134, 135, 135a, 135b, 139 (except glucose and grape sugar), 140 (except molasses); invert sugar and syrup, two cents per pound;
(ii)	Glucose and grape sugar, one cent per pound;
(iii)	Unfermented wort (sweet wort) suitable for the brewing of beer, ten cents per gallon;
(iv)	Malt syrup, or malt syrup powder, extracts of malt, fluid or not, or any other malt product suitable for the brewing of beer, twenty cents per pound."
2.	That any enactment founded on the provisions of subparagraph (i) (except with reference to materials enumerated in customs tariff item 134) and of subparagraph (ii) shall be deemed to have come into force on the 26th day of April, 1933, and to have applied to all goods imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on and after that date, and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that date.


Charles Marcil: May I ask if maple sugar will be taxed?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Is granulated sugar, the
kind used ordinarily, still taxed at the rate of 2 cents per pound?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, the tax is maintained at 2 cents per pound.


Charles Benjamin Howard: And that tax is to take
effect as from to-day?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, that tax came in on
the 21st day of March.


John Campbell Elliott: Do I understand that the rate under 9 (i) is not changed from 2 cents per pound?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We are taxing glucose now.


John Campbell Elliott: But sugar is left as it
was?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: Will the minister tell us
what was the idea of leaving that tax of 2 cents and reducing the tax from 50 cents to 20 cents per pound on malt syrup, malt syrup powder, extract of malt or other malt products suitable for the brewing of beer?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That has no relation to
sugar; I do not quite understand my hon. friend's question. Malt syrup sold, and I think still sells, at 20 cents a pound. The tax brought down in the budget was 50 cents per pound, which increased the price to the

Special War Revenue Act
point where it was excessively burdensome to those who had been accustomed to the use of malt syrup; in fact the assertion was made that it was prohibitive. There is a school of thought which believes that it would be a good thing if this tax were made prohibitive; I have had many representations of that character. On the other hand there is a school of thought which believes that because it has not been taxed hitherto it should continue to be tax free. We have steered what I hope will be a reasonably fair middle course between those two extreme points of view.
I may say that I received several deputations representing all shades of business and social activity having association with the manufacture and use of the ingredients which go into home brew.


William Daum Euler: Were the brewers among
them?


Charles Gavan Power: Were the consumers listened to?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, from the earnestness
with which many of the representations were made to me I took it that the gentlemen making them were reverential consumers. I may point out that in the opinion of the officials of the excise department two pounds of malt syrup would make four gallons of beer.


Mr. MITCHELL:: They do not know what they are talking about.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Perhaps my hon. friend
will be patient for a moment. Those who are iu business manufacturing and selling these products told me that this amount would make a rather thin beer, but they did say that you could safely figure on three and a half gallons from two pounds of malt syrup. Naturally they were pleading for their cause, so I thought that by splitting the difference between the two points of view I would come to a fairly accurate result. But taking the figure as given to me by those who manufacture and sell the ingredients for home brew, this is how it works out. A gallon of home brew beer will cost 22-9 cents after all costs are paid, ingredients and tax; whereas to-day the brewer pays to the federal treasury alone 26 cents per gallon. In other words, the man who makes home brew and pays the tax proposed in the amendment will be actually getting his beer per gallon at a cost to him of 3 1/10 cents less per gallon than the brewer pays in taxation to the dominion treasury alone.


Edward James Young: Is that to encourage home
industry?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I know my hon. friend's
levity, but we must bear this in mind, that there are hundreds of thousands, I am safe in saying, certainly between one and two hundred thousand people in Canada who have been in the habit of making home brew.


An hon. MEMBER:: Two hundred thousand in Ontario alone.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am glad to see that I
am under rather than over the mark. Through the years this has become an established practice and naturally to such people this tax will come as more or less a burden. But in these pressing times, when the treasury is in dire need of every penny it can reasonably secure in the form of taxation, it is felt to be only fair that inasmuch as the beer manufacturer pays an extremely heavy tax, a relatively modest tax should be paid by the consumer of home brew.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The first item in this schedule has been amended, but so far as granulated white sugar is concerned the tax still stands at 2 cents per pound. I want to protest in the strongest words I can use against this tax of 2 cents per pound on granulated white sugar, a commodity which perhaps is in greater demand than most any other product in Canada. At least, it has a wider distribution than any other product I know of. The tax is an enormous one, but that is not the most serious aspect of the situation; there is something else to which I wish to direct the attention of the committee, because I cannot believe that the Minister of Finance can have no knowledge at all of what I am going to disclose to-day on the floor of this house.
I was in this house a few years ago when from this side, by hon. gentlemen now opposite, an attack was made against a personal friend of mine, a minister of the crown in the Mackenzie King government, and a man who was probably as well loved as any minister has ever been in Quebec. I refer to the matter of the customs scandal and the attack made against the late Hon. George Boivin. I sat through that session and heard a two hour speech in which that gentleman was attacked, but the situation then was of minor importance compared to that which exists to-day in connection with the imposition of this sugar tax. I do not want to suggest, so far as this government is concerned, that there have been any leaks from cabinet council, because the proceedings in council are sacred. I would not suggest that any information leaked out from the cabinet so that people outside were able to discover that the tax would be imposed. But I will say that the sugar refiner-
Special War Revenue Act

ies in Canada, thirty days previous to the bringing down of the budget, were stocked with sugar; their storage houses were filled and other places were filled to overflowing with bags of granulated sugar, which was being absorbed very slowly by the consuming public because of the low purchasing power. Shortly before the budget was brought down, quite suddenly this sugar started to leave the refineries and warehouses, finding its way into the hands of wholesalers throughout the length and breadth of Canada, so much so that one concern in Montreal is rumoured to have taken 70,000 bags on which in twenty minutes it made a profit of 1140,000. You can go to every city of Canada, to the wholesalers and the wholesale grocery men of the country, and you will find that these wholesalers were tipped off, and that carloads of sugar had been shipped to them prior to the budget.


An hon. MEMBER:: Trainloads.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I will go further than that. The day before the budget was delivered, in the city of Montreal alone, on St. Paul street, they could not get motor trucks enough to take the sugar out of the refineries and so they hired taxicabs to haul away the commodity from the refineries to the wholesalers.
Now, when we are feeding, in my constituency, 4,000 people; when we find conditions there such as we have never known in the history of Canada; when one had come to the conclusion that owing to extraordinary overcapitalization and frenzied finance in this country our financial concerns should at least have come to their senses, one does think that the ordinary citizens of Canada, the ordinary manufacturers and the common people should have been given a chance to get on their feet again and at any rate to get three meals a day before this new profiteering should occur. But right at this moment we find one concern making a net profit in twenty minutes of over $100,000. I am not finding fault so much with the profit, but I am pointing out that this tax was put on to bring revenues into the treasury of Canada, and the poor people and the masses of this country the day after the budget came down paid $2.50 per bag more; yet the money did not find its way into the coffers of th* government but into the pockets of a few.


Mr. COTNAM:: Will the hon. gentleman
permit a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.
(Mr. Howard.]


Charles Benjamin Howard: I am discussing this item.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Will the hon. gentleman
name the refinery that made a profit of


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Sit down.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I will sit down when I
am ready. He won't answer the question.


Charles Benjamin Howard: This matter is most
serious, Mr. Chairman. The newspapers of Canada the next day stated that over $5,000,000 would go into the pockets of a few people instead of finding its way into the treasury of the country. As a matter of fact, the taxpayers are paying $2.75 a bag more to-day, and they are taking this money from sources which are practically depleted. But they must have white sugar and so they have to pay the price. But that money is not going into the treasury of Canada. I think it would be well for the government to make the tax retroactive over a period of thirty days, but there is a better suggestion I would offer. I think it is due to the people of this country that the names of those who took this sugar out of the warehouses in the manner I have described should be published in the newspapers so that the people of Canada would know who they were. Possibly in that way we could find out how the information leaked out that this government was going to place a tax of 2 cents a pound on sugar. They are taking it from the poor people and putting it into the hands of those who after all are most responsible for the crisis we are now facing. I claim that this is a worse situation than that of keeping a poor fellow out of gaol after the warrant for arrest has-been issued; it is worse than asking that sentence be suspended temporarily. The government should inform this house before the close of this session as to just exactly what happened in connection with sugar and why the information got out. I do not like to impute wrong motives to people but let me say this-


An hon. MEMBER:: No?


Charles Benjamin Howard: No, I d<3 not; I want to-be fair.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is your reputation !


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Hon. members should address the chair.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I know of one company
in Montreal who are in the habit of buying sugar in 200 bag lots. As soon as one par-

Special War Revenue Act
ticular lot is disposed of they buy another batch. It happened that two days before the budget came down they placed their regular order for 200 bags of sugar. Although the refinery knew quantities of sugar were in their warehouse; they said that they could not fill the order until after a certain date, mentioning the date the budget was delivered in this house. That order for 200 bags of sugar was turned down because the refineries were oversold. Those of us who are acquainted with merchandising know that when prices are falling it is impossible to get people to buy, but once they begin to advance it is extraordinary how people will step in and buy. I do not want to make charges which cannot be substantiated but the fact remains that when this tax was placed upon sugar the natural result was that the price started to advance. It not only advanced the amount of the tax, but it went up an extra half cent per pound to cover the increased capital outlay Let us take another industry as an example. This is the way business has been done for years in the flour industry.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I do not think flour
would be covered by this item.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Forget about it.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I was just demonstrating
my point.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.
Mr. HOWARD [DOT] I will continue with sugar. When the price of sugar drops, the travellers go all over the country but find they cannot place an order. Then they go around and say that sugar is going to advance a quarter of a cent per pound and they are able to take order after order. I would not like to say that this was a scheme to clean out the stocks of sugar and put them in the hands of the consumer but when the revenues of this country have been robbed of hundreds of thousands of dollars, I think it is the duty of the Minister of Finance either to make the tax retroactive for thirty days or investigate this matter most fully. This investigation should not be carried on by a commission-we have had plenty of commissions-it should be conducted by the members of this house or the members of this government. We should be informed exactly as to what happened in connection with this tax. When the people who can ill afford to pay a tax have to pay a tax on sugar, they want to be able to feel sure that the money goes into the coffers of the government.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I do not
know that I can complain at the castigation that the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) has given to certain interests in this country who were no doubt able to reap a profit as a result of the tax imposed upon sugar. Even in the case of the very best intentioned individual, a situation might arise where he would have in his possession a commodity upon which a tax had been imposed.
As far as the question of a leak is concerned, I may say that I have been at pains to make as careful an inquiry as I possibly could. I have yet to find the faintest shade, shadow or scintilla of evidence that there was anything in the nature of a leak. My hon. friend smiles, but let me give him my side of the story. Let me say to him, to any hon. member of this committee or to any person in this country, that I will welcome any information which will be kept in the utmost confidence which will put me upon the trail of any evidence to show that there was a leak with respect to the tax upon sugar. If hon. members will recall the press notices they will remember that for days prior to the budget there were all kinds of speculation as to this, that, and the other tax. Sugar was mentioned in the press several days before the government had decided to put a tax upon that commodity. I canvassed this matter within myself, if I may use that expression, for days and days and I broached it only to the officials of the department whose integrity and honour are beyond question. The matter was not mentioned even to my colleagues until a very short time before the date of the budget and the question of the rate was not determined until a few hours before the budget. I refuse to believe that there was a leak. There is no doubt there was shrewd guessing because the country realized that we were sorely put to it to secure additional revenue in an endeavour to balance our budget upon current account. The best evidence of this that I can give to the committee is a transaction which came to my notice. At the same time the press was forecasting a tax upon sugar, it forecast a tax upon tea and coffee.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nobody loaded up
with those.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend is entirely
mistaken. I have positive evidence of one firm in the city of Winnipeg that borrowed $18,000 from the bank in order to take tea and coffee out of bond in the belief that they would be able to reap the same benefit as did those
Special War Revenue Act

who had sugar in their possession. But they lost. There are dozens and dozens of cases like that throughout the country. My hon. friend shakes his head, but I know whereof I speak.


An hon. MEMBER:: They did not lose anything.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They did lose. They did
not reap their expectations and they lost to the extent of the carrying charges and the interest on the $18,000 borrowed from the bank. They also have tea and coffee upon their hands which they cannot dispose of. They are actually a substantial sum of money out of pocket. I make reference to this in order to show that the same practice obtained with respect to tea and coffee.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Not to the same extent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member may
know all about it but perhaps he will give me the right of expressing my view. I hope that is not too much to expect. I have discussed this matter with officials in other countries and it has been the subject of discussion in Great Britain for years. That is as to wrhether a method could be devised which could prevent forestalling, and with all their shrewdness, ingenuity and experience as administrators, the people of the mother country have had to admit that there is no way whereby they can prevent this.
Let me say to the hon. member for Sherbrooke and the committee that there were many business men of integrity who had no idea of loading up with sugar for the purpose of evading the payment of a tax or of making a profit. My hon. friend smiles. I am not suggesting that there were not many who did so load up, but there were in this country honest men, good intentioned citizens who did not. I make that statement merely to lead up to this: I know of my experience in this city of housewives who, having read in the press that there was going to be a tax on sugar, went down to their grocers and ordered in lots of 100, 200 and as high as 300 pounds in individual cases of which I am aware. That being so, I have, I think, every right fairly to assume that if that obtained in Ottawa, it obtained throughout Canada and as a result of that, the multiplicity of those orders made for a market stimulation in orders upon the wholesaler and by him in turn upon the sugar refiner, so that that was a contributing factor, although I do not intend to assert to how large an extent it applied.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Will my hon. friend
permit a question?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am speaking without
notes and I would like first to express one or two ideas. If my hon. friend does not mind, I would be glad if he would submit his question later.
Another factor which must be borne in mind is a fact which can be verified by access to the records. The hon. member for Sherbrooke says that when the price is going down, people do not buy, but when it is going up, they do. If my hon. friend will look at the records, he will find that there was an increase of ten cents a hundred pounds in the price of raw sugar just a few hours before the budget was delivered. That increase -had the same effect my hon. friend said it would have; when raw sugar went up, people immediately rushed to buy the granulated. That is the invariable practice in the sugar business and it so chanced that that is exactly what happened; my word need not be taken for it; the records will dislcose it to have been the case. But let me say this to my hon. friend and to the committee; if any method can be devised which will enable the government to put into the treasury money which ought properly to go there, I would welcome suggestions along that line.
The hon. member has spoken of the amount of loss. If we bear in mind the situation of which I spoke, of the stimulation in the purchase of sugar by the acceleration of orders through the retailers and wholesalers, owing to the attitude of the housewife alone, and the accumulation of those various factors, after very careful investigation and computation on the part of the Department of National Revenue, the estimate which they make is that the net loss of revenue to the treasury is ten per cent. In other words, if the yield from the sugar tax were to be $20,000,000, which is a larger figure than was anticipated, the net loss to the treasury would be $2,000,000. But my hon. friend must also bear this in mind; if a method could be devised which would enable the treasury to go out and secure that two cents per pound tax, some day-and I hope soon-the sugar tax will come off. When it does, the treasury must be prepared to hand two cents to everybody in the country who has a pound of sugar in his possession. There is no question that when the tax comes off, those who still continue in the business will make their contribution to the extent of their stocks on hand; that is the invariable experience. It is true there is never an exact balance, but

Special War Revenue Act
there is no doubt that there will be a compensating feature through the situation when the tax comes off.
The government, in imposing this tax, was under no illusion that it was going to add to its popularity.


Mr. FACTOR:: Why did you do it?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Because we had a full sense of appreciation of our duty to the people of this country including the very people who complain about the two cent tax. If the credit of Canada were impaired as a result of the negligence of the government in properly administering the finances of the country, the cost to the people ultimately would be far greater than two cents a pound on sugar.


Samuel Factor: Why place the tax on the poor fellow all the time?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The tax was imposed, as the committee well knows, solely because of the dire necessity for revenue. It may be a new experience to certain people in this country that a revenue tax of this character should be imposed, but it is not new in other countries. In the mother country for many years they have had similar taxes on many commodities, and the people have paid them, perhaps grudgingly in many instances, knowing the treasury had to have the revenue. But it must be borne in mind that even with the price of sugar as it is to-day and with the tax added, the householder can purchase sugar at a far lower price than the average which has ruled over the last twenty years.


An hon. MEMBER:: But these are times of depression.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I quite appreciate that; we all realize it, and I might counter by sayinng that if it were not for the conditions in which we live, we would not be imposing a sugar tax. We are living in an unusual period in the world's history and we must resort in some instances to unusual methods to attempt to cope with conditions. It is sad that at a period when the government has to tax most, the people are least in a position to pay. That is one of the very regrettable features; nobody deplores this more than I do, but we would be doing a disservice to the people if we did not protect the financial credit of the country through taxation.


Thomas Reid: But we should not protect the profiteers.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I agree with my hon. friend, and if there were any method by which we could get at the profiteers, I would be the first to say that we should do so.


Air. MUNN:: At what time did the tax become effective on granulated sugar?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: At midnight on March 21.


Albert Edward Munn: Will the minister take the
case-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Will my hon. friend wait a moment until after I have made the few remarks which I am making without notes?


Albert Edward Munn: I beg pardon; I thought the minister had finished.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If I may make a personal reference, I am suffering with a rather severe headache to-day and I am trying to make just what few remarks I have to make. After that, I shall not object to any questions.
The average price of sugar over the period of the last twenty years is 9-2 cents per pound.


Mr. DUFF:: Wholesale or retail?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is the retail price. That is the average over the whole of each year for the whole of the twenty years. The best evidence of the accuracy of these figures, which I may say are compiled by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, is found in the fact that the highest price quoted for sugar is 19-7 in 1920. That was the average for that year, but as a matter of fact it is within the knowledge of hon. members present that sugar that year at one period was as high as twentydrve cents per pound, in fact, in one case I think it went up to twenty-six cents. It might be interesting to have these figures before the committee:
Retail Price of Sugar
(Averaged by months for the whole of Canada)
Year-
1913		
1914		
1915		
1910	
1917		
1918		
1919		
1920		
1921		
1922		
1923		
1924		
1925		
1926		
1927		
1928		
1929		
1930		
1931		
1932		
1933		
* (First three months.)
Cents per pound
5.9
6.4
7.9 9.0
10.0
11.2
12.3
19.7
11.4
8.7
11.7 10.9
8.5
7.8
8.3
7.9
7.3 6.8 6.2
5.9 5.7*
Special War Revenue Act


William Duff: What is the price now?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am unable to give my hon. friend an accurate answer, but three or four days ago I observed in a paper published in the constituency of my hon. friend from Hants-Kings, the WTindsor Tribune, that in Newport in that county sugar was selling at ten pounds for 65 cents, and I observed that A. J. Frieman, of Ottawa, in their advertisement of April 21, were offering sugar at ten pounds for 65 cents. I am free to admit that that is probably a leader price. Let us assume that the price is 7 cents.


William Duff: In New York you can buy ten pounds for 40 cents.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am not suggesting that that may not be so, but I am not dealing with New York but with Canada, and with the price in Canada to-day as compared with the last twenty years. So even with the tax added, the price of sugar to-day is much less than the average prevailing price for the last twenty years. Having that in mind and having regard to the conditions, I do say that the tax ought not to be regarded as unduly burdensome. I have spoken at greater length than I had intended, and I hope hon. gentlemen will forgive me for not having answered any questions which they wished to put to me while I was on my feet, but to the best of my ability I shall endeavour to answer them as they submit them now.


Frederick George Sanderson: The minister cited the fact that householders had purchased sugar on the assumption perhaps that there would be a tax on sugar. We are not complaining about the householders. They were not going to sell sugar and make a profit out of it; it was for their own use in their own household. What we criticize is the fact that in some way or other information got out to certain people, and they purchased sugar before the tax came into effect, and reaped large profits.
My hon. friend from Sherbrooke has spoken of Montreal. There is a rumour

I do not know whether it is correct or not-which the Minister of Finance may have heard, and at least when it reaches his ears he should investigate it, that one brokerage firm in the city of Toronto by some means or other got information which they said was absolutely authentic, and on that information they went to their bankers and the result was

that they purchased, not carloads, but trainloads of sugar, and it is reported that their profit was as much as $2,000,000. When I say brokerage firm, I do not mean grocery brokerage but the old-fashioned kind of brokers who used to make money when stocks were being bought and sold. I do not know whether this rumour is correct or not. Nevertheless, even if their profit was $100 instead of $2,000,000, if it was obtained through getting inside information and they purchased to avoid paying the government the tax that was due, the -matter should be investigated, ahd if it is true these people should be prosecuted. There is no comparison between the broker or gambler or speculator who buys sugar and sells it and the householder who buys a few pounds of sugar for use in her own home. I say in all seriousness, and I believe the minister is serious over this and would be glad to get any information he can in regard to it, that he should search diligently to find the source of the leak. For the good of the tax-payers of this country the minister should not let this question rest with this debate, but he should get busy and get his officials busy and try to get some authentic information. I think he will find that the rumours in some degree are correct.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend must not think that when I made reference to the individual householder I was for one moment suggesting that there was anything wrong in what that householder did, nor was I complaining in the slightest degree. If my hon. friend had followed me he would have realized that I -merely referred to that incident for one purpose and one purpose only. I said that the multiplication of these cases would account for a substantial part of the accelerated movement of sugar prior to the imposition of the tax, and I think that is a fair assumption. I am not complaining of that at all, nor do I complain at the castigation which my hon. friend would give anybody who would profiteer under those conditions at the expense of the people of this country and of the treasury. I have not heard of the incident referred to by my hon. friend. I welcome any information that could be given to me. I may say to him that the officials of the Department of National Revenue have made a check-up in every refinery in Canada and there is absolutely no evidence upon the records of business that any such transaction did take place or could have taken place because the sales were

Special War Revenue Act
all made to the usual customers and the usual dealers who are purchasers of sugar, and unless one of these had become a party to a transaction of that character there could be no truth in the statement. Certainly there could be no truth in the statement so far as the magnitude of the transaction mentioned by my hon. friend is concerned. I hope that my hon. friend will not for one moment think that we want to fold our arms peacefully and say that this incident is closed-not at all.
I am very sincerely desirous, naturally as Minister of Finance, apart from any other consideration, because of the loss to the treasury that the treasury should be recouped to the last farthing if possible. But a pious desire to do so and a method of doing so without doing injustice is another thing. You cannot follow a pound of sugar very well after it has left-
Mr. SANDEiRSON:	The minister might
follow a trainload.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The figures which I gave before to the committee are accurate. They are the result of an actual computation made from the books of the refineries themselves, that the maximum amount that could have been lost to the treasury is $2,000,000.


William Duff: That would be one million bags.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so, but my hon. friend from South Perth referred to a firm of brokers in Toronto who are said to have purchased trainloads of sugar. There was an acceleration of sugar purchases throughout the whole dominion, but there was not enough sugar loose in the land for trainloads to be put up under those conditions. I repeat that hon. gentlemen owe it as a duty to themselves, to their constituents and the country-rumour and suspicion and that sort of thing is worthless-but if they can get any evidence, which I very much doubt that there was anything in the nature of a leak I shall be glad to get it.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I appreciate that the Minister of Finance wants to get all the revenue he can, and that is the reason I put the facts before the committee as I did this afternoon. There are two ways in which it could be done. First of all, I think the minister will admit that if a person had been .buying sugar from the refinery as he needed it in carload lots, and then all of a sudden pur-53719-273
chased ten cars at one time there must have been something extraordinarily wrong. Those things do not just happen. There are two ways of meeting the difficulty. I have already suggested that the provision should be made retroactive for thirty days from the date of the budget. In that way the minister would not be inflicting any hardship on anybody. The householder or consumer who has purchased a bag of sugar has paid $6.50 or $6.75 a bag for it. The only person making any money is the man who either was tipped off or took exceptionally large quantities of sugar for resale. The reason I suggest the change is that it would be in the interests of the country, and provide revenue.
We have been discussing an item to-day in regard to cigarette papers and tubes, and surely the item in regard to sugar should not be allowed to stand as it is. When the banks of the United States found that through people withdrawing gold they had practically no gold left in their vaults, the President issued a statement to the effect that unless the gold were put back into the banks within a week's time he would publish the names of the people who had taken it out. What happened? The gold came back mighty quickly. Why not use this publicity method.
There are many ways of meeting the difficulty this item presents. If the treasury of Canada can get back $2,000,000 from people who had no right to make excess profits in these times, then .that would be the wise thing to do, and would be a good deal better than just imposing the tax for which provision is made. I have nothing to say concerning the minister's suggestion, except that according to his figures the average price of sugar was 9-2 cents per pound, while to-day it is only 6-75. Any person in Canada will admit that 6-75 cents is much .more to-day than 9-2 was at an earlier period. We must consider present purchasing power.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope the hon. member for Sherbrooke will not object to a question. He has stated that the tax should be made retroactive for thirty days. From whom would he collect that tax?


Charles Benjamin Howard: From the wholesalers who purchased the sugar. The refinery in Canada which takes sugar cane from the south or sugar beets from our fields and converts it into sugar does not sell that sugar to the householder or to the consumer. That is not done. That sugar goes through the regular

Special War Revenue Act

channels of business into the hands of the wholesalers and from the wholesalers to retailers then to the consumer.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member has suggested that for a period of thirty days prior to March 21, he would impose a tax of 2 cents a pound upon all sugar sold by wholesalers. Is that correct?


Charles Benjamin Howard: I did not say that.


An hon. MEMBER:: You did.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: What did you say?


Charles Benjamin Howard: I shall repeat it. Either the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Revenue upon looking into the books of refineries could tell exactly who bought the sugar. They could go back six months and find out how much sugar each firm took in that time. When he finds that the wholesaler has purchased not twice or three times the regular monthly quantity, but that he has purchased from ten to twenty times that quantity, he should ask that wholesaler to pay a tax on the increased quantity of sugar. As I have suggested it was bought because of information received, or for some other reason.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I understood the hon.
member to state very distinctly that he would collect from the wholesalers.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Yes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: A minute later he said he did not mean to make the wholesaler pay.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I did not say that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am not trying to quibble. I am merely trying to pursue the hon. member's line of thought. He has said he would make the tax retroactive for a period of thirty days.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Yes, and then you would not have to investigate.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: And the hon. member
would make up the money from sugar which had been sold prior to March 21?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend said that.
He has directed his remarks to the excess more recently; he did not mention that angle of the matter at first. However let us deal with the excess. How will the hon. member establish a definition for the term "normal purchase." They could not do it in England -but of course we are much brighter here!

Certainly we have not had the same amount of experience. Who will determine what is a normal purchase on the part of a wholesaler?


An hon. MEMBER:: Monthly average
stock.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: What about the case in
point in regard to accumulations by householders who have accelerated their orders from local grocers. My hon. friend smiles, but I remind him there is nothing to smile about.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I agree it is a very serious matter.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Why does the hon. member smile, if he feels that way? I assure you I do not feel like smiling. The sugar tax is a very serious business; it is not nearly as sweet as it sounds. But if this happened -and I have no doubt it has happened-that there has been an accumulation of orders in local groceries, because the housewives anticipated the tax-the hon. member from South Perth shakes his head. From my personal contact with certain householders in Ottawa I know there was that anticipation.


Frederick George Sanderson: We are not concerned with that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I know we are not. My
hon. friend is too bright to allow his mind to be clouded with the thought that I am criticizing the householder. I am not doing that. I am referring to an accumulation of orders, and am not saying that it was not a perfectly proper procedure for the housewife to take. But those orders banked up. If the local grocer's stock is depleted he calls up the wholesaler, and if those orders are multiplied there is sure to be an accumulation. The wholesaler would sell it in the ordinary course of business. The hon. member for Sherbrooke would turn around and make the poor unfortunate wholesaler pay two cents a pound on sugar which he had sold in good faith to the local grocer, and on sales which were brought about by accelerated orders.
I do not believe there is any one commodity in Canada which through a period of years has uniformly yielded such a small profit as has sugar.
The CHAIRMAN; It is six o'clock.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I believe I should be
given an opportunity to say a word in answer. If the minister misunderstood me I am sorry;
I thought I had made myself clear. I will

Questions
leave it to the Department of National Revenue to make collections. But I repeat that if we went into the refineries and ascertained the amounts wholesalers were in the habit of purchasing, we would find out that wholesalers in the habit of purchasing 200 bags per month actually purchased -ten times that quantity. If those facts were ascertained the excess could very easily be determined.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member used the word "if." I say to him investigations disclose there was nothing approaching ten times as much bought by any company or individual in Canada.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I will take the risk on
that.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, April 27, 1933