1943-04-05

RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface) presented the second report of the standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.
Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: If I am in order I should like to ask the chairman of the committee if a final report is in course of preparation and, if so, when it will be submitted to the house.


Mr. HOWDEN:: The report is being prepared and will be submitted during the course of the next two or three daj'S.



REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved:: That items Nos. 385, 38G, 405 and 406 of the estimates approved and reported upon by the standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government be referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface) moved the first reading of Bill No. 56 (from the senate) to incorporate the Felician Sisters of Winnipeg.
Mr. GRAYDON:: Will the hon. member explain?


John Power Howden: The Felician Sisters is a religious organization formed for the purpose of teaching and doing missionary work, nursing the sick and so on. More recently they have desired to go into hospital management, and are in negotiation for the purchase of a hospital in Manitoba. In order to maintain hospitals they must be incorporated, and the bill is for the purpose of forming a corporate body so that they may proceed with this work.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. QUESTIONS
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



FOREIGN POLICY-CHANNEL OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Referring to the Prime Minister's statement at page 671 of the Hansard of December 5,

Questions
1940, after the governor general ceased to be, on July 1, 1927, "the channel of communication between the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom", how long was the government of Canada without "a channel of communication" between itself and the government of the United Kingdom?
2.	Before July 1, 1927, to what British minister did the governor general report?
3.	When was the first British high commissioner appointed to Canada?
4.	Was he then and is he still "the channel of communication between the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom"?
5.	To what British minister does the high commissioner report?
6.	Did the British government transfer to the British high commissioner in Canada all such duties previously carried on by the governor general, and when?
7.	If so, is there any other change in the relations between the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom?
8.	Is it part of the duties of the British high commissioner in Canada to convey to the Canadian government the answer of the British government to the questions submitted by the Canadian high commissioner in London to the Secretary of State of Dominion Affairs on behalf of the Canadian government?
9.	On the other hand, is it the practice for the Canadian government to submit to the British high commissioner in Canada questions or matters for transmission to the government of the United Kingdom and to be answered to the Canadian high commissioner in London?
10.	With regard to immigration policies, was the matter ever discussed between the Canadian government and the British high commissioner in Canada or between the Canadian high commissioner in London and the Secretary of State for the Dominions or that for the colonies or both?
11.	What are the duties of the British high commissioner in Canada and of the Canadian high commissioner in London and to what minister does each one report?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	At no time.
2.	Before 1925, the Governor General reported to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. From July, 1925, to July 1, 1927, His Excellency reported to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.
3.	In 1928.
4.	The United Kingdom High Commissioner in Ottawa is one channel of communication between the government of the United Kingdom and the government of Canada.
5.	The United Kingdom High Commissioner in Ottawa reports to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.
6.	No.
7.	There are continual changes in the relations between the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom, as is the case in the relations between the government of Canada and any other government.
8.	No.
9.	No.
10.	Immigration questions which concern both governments have, from time to time,, been discussed through the various channels of communication between the governments of the United Kingdom and of Canada.
11.	It is for the government of the United Kingdom to define the duties of the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Canada; he reports to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. The duties of the Canadian High Commissioner in the United Kingdom are defined as follows by section 3 of the acts of parliament of Canada, 2 George VI, chapter 30:
(3) The High Commissioner for Canada in the United Kingdom shall,-(a) act as representative and resident agent of Canada in the United Kingdom, and, in that capacity, execute such powers and perform such duties as are, from time to time, conferred upon and assigned to him by the governor in council; (b) carry out such instructions as he, from time to time, receives from the Secretary of State for External Affairs respecting the general interests of Canada in the United Kingdom; (c) subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraphs, supervise the official activities of the various agencies of the Canadian government in the United Kingdom.



FOREIGN POLICY-CANADIAN HIGH COMMISSIONER IN LONDON

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Referring to the Prime Minister's statement at page 117 of Hansard of September 11, 1939, that "the high commissioner in London is in touch with members of the British government, particularly the Secretary of State for the Dominions", are the representative functions of Major-General Vanier distinct from those of the high commissioner?
2.	If so, (a) what were they at the time of his appointment, and (b) what are they now?
3.	Was the high commissioner in London or Major-General Vanier empowered at any time to get in touch (a) with the Right Hon. Anthony Eden, in his capacity as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and (b) with the ambassador of United States in London and the ambassadors of other countries who are accredited at the London foreign office, and whose governments have not been moved to London since the beginning of the war, while their countries are represented in Canada by legations and consulates-general?
4.	If not, why?
5.	Besides the Secretary of State for the Dominions, who are the members of the British government the Canadian high commissioner has authority to get in touch with?
6.	Is the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the only member of the British cabinet whom neither the Canadian high commissioner in London nor Major-General Vanier ever had authority to get officially in touch with?
Questions

7.	If so, does the Canadian government have in London other official representatives than the Canadian high commissioner and Major-General Vanier?
8.	If so, who are they and what are their duties?
9.	In matters of foreign policy, did ever the Canadian high commissioner in London get directly and officially in touch with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs or did he communicate with the foreign office only through the Secretary of State for the Dominions, since July 1, 1927?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Major-General Vanier has not yet arrived in London. He has been appointed as [DOT]Canadian Minister to the allied governments in the United Kingdom (Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Yugoslavia) and as representative of the Canadian government to consult with the French National Committee in London on all matters of mutual interest relating to the conduct of the war.
3.	The high commissioner in London has authority to get in touch with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and with the ambassador of the United States of America and other ambassadors and ministers of foreign countries accredited to the Court of St. James. Major-General Vanier will represent the government of Canada only in its relations with the allied european governments in the United Kingdom and the French National Committee in London.
4.	Answered by No. 3.	.
5.	The high commissioner in London has the authority as the need may arise to get in touch with any member of the British government.
6. The high commissioner in London maintains official contact with the government of the United Kingdom through the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. As stated, he has authority to get in touch with other members of the government of the United Kingdom as the need may arise. Major-General Vanier will not represent the government of Canada with respect to the government of the United Kingdom.
7. The high commissioner in	London represents the government of Canada with respect to the government of the United Kingdom. Major-General Vanier will represent the government of Canada with respect to the allied european governments in the United Kingdom and the French National Committee. There are no other representatives of the government of Canada in London.
8.	Answered by No. 7.
(Mr. Pouliot.]
9.	The Canadian high commissioner from time to time discusses with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs matters of foreign policy. As stated in No. 6, the formal official channel of communication which he employs is through the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.



TRANSMISSION OF COPIES OF STATUTES TO SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE DOMINIONS

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Was section 6 of the Publication of Statutes Act (R.S.C., 1927, c. 2), in virtue of which the clerk of the parliaments shall deliver to the governor general one copy duly certified of the statutes of Canada passed during every session of parliament "for transmission to one of His Majesty's principal secretaries of state, as required by the British North America Act, 1867" (section 56), ever amended or repealed?
2.	If so, by what statute or statutes?
3.	If not, did the clerk of parliaments comply with that enactment?
4.	If so, on what date after every session since July 1, 1927?
5.	If not, why?
6.	On and after July 1, 1927, did the clerk of the parliaments deliver to the governor general, after every session of parliament, one copy duly certified of the statutes of Canada passed during such sesison, without mentioning that it was "for transmission to one of his majesty's principal secretaries of state, as required by the British North America Act, 1867"?
7.	If so, on what dates each year?
8.	In virtue of what authority?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by the answer to question No. 1.
3.	Yes.
4.	November 4, 1927; December 12, 1928; October 5, 1929; October 16, 1930; December 21, 1931; October 4, 1932; September 14, 1933; December 19, 1934; December 28, 1935; December 9, 1936; October 8, 1937; January 7, 1939; January 15, 1940; May 8, 1941; April 15, 1942. (In each case the bound certified copies of the Statutes of Canada were delivered by the clerk of the parliaments immediately upon receipt by him of the same from the king's printer.)
5.	Answered by the answer to question No. 4.
6.	In delivering bound certified copies of the Statutes of Canada under section 6 of the Publication of Statutes Act (R.S.C. 1927, Chapter 2) the clerk of the parliaments has invariably in his letter accompanying such delivery stated that the said certified bound copy was for transmission to one of His Majesty's principal secretaries of state.

Questions
7. Answered by the answer to question No. 4.
8. Answered by the answer to question No. 6.


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What is the difference, if any, in the sending of a certified and bound copy of the statutes of each session of parliament to the British Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, (a) by the clerk of the parliaments, and (b) by the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs?
2.	In both cases, is it to comply with section 6 of the Publication of Statutes Act of 1925, "for transmission to one of his majesty's principal secretaries of state, as required by the British North America Act, 1867", and with section 56 of the said statute of Westminster?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	It has never been the practice for the clerk of the parliaments to send bound copies of the Statutes of Canada to the British Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. On certain occasions, namely during the years 1927 to 1942 inclusive, they have been sent by the Secretary' of State for External Affairs who, since the arrangement concluded at the imperial conference in 1926, has been the recognized channel of communication between the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom.
2.	The purpose of transmitting the Statutes of Canada in this manner has been to comply with the provisions of the Publication of Statutes Act and of section 56 of the British North America Act.
In 1942, in view of the complete obsolescence of the power of disallowance, and in order to bring the actual practice into conformity with the constitutional position, the transmission from the Secretary of State for External Affairs to tihe Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs was stopped.


Mr. POULIOT:: This is to supplement the question and the answer which has just been given, and upon which I congratulate the Prime Minister and the government. May I ask the Secretary of State when the statutes for the session of 1942 will be published?


Mr. McLARTY:: I shall be glad to make inquiry and advise my hon. friend when they will be published.


Jean-François Pouliot: They are not published yet, are they?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I have no information on that. I have not seen them; but I will inquire.



R.C.A.F. OVERSEAS-PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Mr. CASSELMAN:: When will the full cost of pay and allowances for R.C.A.F. personnel serving overseas in the Royal Air Force squadrons, as announced by the Minister of Finance on February 8, 1943, become effective?


Mr. POWER:: Canada will meet the full cost of pay and allowances of Royal Canadian Air Force personnel serving with, or in conjunction with, the Royal Air Force, as from 1st April, 1943, but it will not be possible for the Royal Canadian Air Force to take over administrative control of the pay and allowances from the Royal Air Force until 1st May, 1943, owing to communication difficulties with the Royal Air Force overseas commands.



STEEL COMPANY OP CANADA LIMITED-LABOUR DISPUTE-ADVERTISIN Q

Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Is the Steel Company of Canada, Limited, permitted to charge the cost of its full-page advertising, dealing with the dispute in the steel industry, which appeared in a large number of the daily newspapers of Canada, on or about February 15, 1943, as a legitimate advertising expense?
2.	Will the above expenditure be allowed as a deduction for taxation purposes, (a) under the Income War Tax Act, (b) under the Excess Profits Tax Act?


Mr. GIBSON:: 1.	Advertising within limits laid down is an allowable deduction in determining taxable income under the Income and Excess Profits Tax Acts.
The particular expenditure referred to appears to have been made in 1943. The claim for deduction will not be made, if made at all, until the filing of the income tax return in 1944, and will then receive consideration.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



LIVE STOCK MARKETED PROM WESTERN FARMS

Mr. CASTLEDEN:: How many (a) milk cows, (b) calves, (c) stockers and feeders, and (d) brood sows, were marketed from the farms of each of the four western provinces, (1) between September 27, 1942, and February 25, 1943, and (2) for the same period 1941 and 1942?
Questions


Mr. GARDINER:: Marketings at Public Stock Yards and on Direct Shipments to Packing Plants
Sept. 27, 1941-Feb. 25, 1942 Sept. 27, 1942-Feb. 25, 1943
Sept. 27, 1941-Feb. 25, 1942 Sept. 27, 1942-Feb. 25, 1943.
Sept. 27, 1941-Feb. 25, 1942 Sept. 27, 1942-Feb. 25, 1943
Sept. 27, 1941-Feb. 25, 1942 Sept. 27, 1942-Feb. 25, 1943
	(a)	(b)	(0	(d)
	Milkers		Stockers	
	and		and	
springers	Calves	feeders	SowsBritish Columbia	1,843	1,486	4171,911	982	602Alberta	121	50,090	21,849	24,69834	25,403	27,985	32,708Saskatchewan	240	27,546	24,710	13,233309	28,134	19,114	17,349Manitoba	453	28,403	17,035	18,739301	29,928	18,609	14,941



UNITED NATIONS MUTUAL AID-ADMINISTRATION STAFF

Mr. GILLIS:: 1.	Is Karl C. Fraser, formerly of Nova Scotia, to be employed by the administration of Canada's billion dollar mutual aid (Canadian lend-lease) programme?
2.	If so, in what capacity?
3.	What are his qualifications for this post?
4.	What salary and other remuneration will he receive?
5.	What will be the chief duties of the officials placed in charge of this programme?
6.	What authority will be given to them in drafting recommendations with regard to applications for lend-lease from our allies?


Mr. HOWE:: This refers to contemplated action. The answer must be that the action to be taken will be made known in due course.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was it not announced in the press?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot say-not officially.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has he
been appointed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.



INTERNMENT OF CANADIANS

Mr. GREEN:: 1.	How many residents of Canada have been interned since the outbreak of the war?
2.	Of this number, how many are in custody at the present time?
3.	How many have been released pursuant to recommendations made by an appellate tribunal?
4.	How many have been released without having taken an appeal?
5.	How were these respective numbers divided by nationality or origin; for example, how many in each case would be commonly known as German, as Italian, as Japanese, etc.?


Mr. RALSTON:: British
including Canadians	Germans	Italians	Japanese	All others (24 races)	Totals78	658	' 561	765	160	2,22236	390	60	648	46	1,18042	159	427	112	740104	74	116	2	296
5. Answered in 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Died-not included in figures 2, 3
and 4	 5	...	i	...	6
Note:	The groupings have been made by racial origin and do not reflect the allegiance
ot the internees, many of whom, shown as of foreign origin, are naturalized British subjects.

Questions



EASTERN RADIO LOCATION STATION

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence for Air, or other government department, undertake the erection of a radio location station at or near an eastern Canadian port during the past twelve months?
2.	If so, what was the type of tower and what was the estimated cost of the structure?
3.	Was the construction undertaken by a construction company? If not, how was construction carried on?
4.	If construction was made by Royal Canadian Air Force personnel, were any of such personnel injured or killed during the operation?
5.	Was any court of inquiry or inquest held? If so, w'hat was the decision of the court of inquiry or the verdict of the inquest?
6.	What happened to the whole structure? Was it finally torn down?
7.	How much public money, if any, was lost as a result of-the whole operation?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	No, the tower which, was supplied by the R.A.F. originally as a radio location tower was erected near Pine Hill college, Halifax, as part of the radio transmission station.
2.	Standard R.A.F., R.D.F. prefabricated, wooden tower which was available and not in use. It was being installed in the new point-to-point service for economy and maximum efficiency.
3.	No. Construction was undertaken by Royal Canadian Air Force personnel.
4.	When the tower collapsed on 28th January, 1943, one airman was killed, three were slightly injured and two were seriously injured. The last two were removed from seriously injured list on 4th February, 1943.
5.	A court of inquiry was held. The findings and recommendations of the court were in substance as follows:
Findings.-The number of guys and the size of rope utilized were not sufficient.
Recommendations-That in future, experienced construction riggers be employed and the erection supervised by a works and buildings officer who has a working knowledge of, or has sufficient experience in, this type of erection.
Note: An inquest was not held into the accident. The coroner was notified and a doctor was sent by him to view the body. The verdict of the doctor was accidental death. In all such accidents in Nova Scotia the coroner is notified and from that point he proceeds according to his own judgment as to necessities of each individual case.
Note 2 (a): This tower was being erected since this height was deemed more suitable for the particular work for which it was intended than the regular telegraph poles. The tower snapped during erection after guys were in place. It is not possible to estimate
the actual tension which was exerted on the guy rope which snapped but the test made on the rope allows for a strain of 1,240 pounds.
(b): It was considered that the tower was quite able to bear the strain ordinarily expected to be borne by an ordinary tower.
6.	It was torn down and the fabricated tower replaced by poles.
7.	The damages to private property-power and telephone lines-are estimated at $300. (a) The tower was provided at no cost to the R.C.A.F. as it was originally intended for erection by the R.A.F. at another point, but owing to abandonment of that particular plan it became available to the R.C.A.F. The erection and construction was carried out by R.C.A.F. labour. Medical services were provided entirely by service hospitals and doctors.



PURCHASE OF ST. SATJVEUR, QUEBEC CITY, PROPERTY

Mr. DORION:: 1.	Has lot number 2343 of the official cadastre of St. Sauveur, in the city of Quebec, been bought by the government?
2.	If so, (a) when, (b) from whom, (c) at what price, (d) for what purpose?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) The deed is dated July 29, 1942.
(b)	The property was purchased from Adalbert Bedard, Quebec city.
(c)	$48,000.
(d)	For the construction of houses in Quebec city by Wartime Housing Limited.



CANADIAN WOOL BOARD LIMITED

Mr. SENN:: 1.	How many pounds of wool were purchased by Canadian Wool Board Limited during each fiscal year since its formation?
2.	How many pounds of wool were imported by Canadian Wool Board Limited in each fiscal year since its formation?
3.	How many pounds of wool purchased by Canadian Wool Board Limited in each fiscal year since its formation, were of domestic production?
4.	Were any profits realized by Canadian Wool Board Limited on wool transactions in each fiscal year since its formation?
5.	If so, in what year and in what amounts?
6.	What disposal is made of such profits, if any?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Canadian Wool Board Limited only commenced operations in April, 1942, and the financial figures for the first fiscal year ending March 31, 1943, are not yet available. According to interim figures for eleven months ended February 28, 1943, the total pounds of

Questions

wool purchased, including those in transit that are paid for but have not arrived amounted to 16,609,452 lbs.
2.	The number of pounds of wool imported by Canadian Wool Board Limited during the period April, 1942, to February 28, 1943, was 2,567,866 lbs.
3.	The number of pounds of wool of domestic production purchased by Canadian Wool Board Limited during the period April, 1942, to February 28, 1943, was 14,041,586 lbs.
4.	No profits have been realized by Canadian Wool Board Limited.
5 and 6. Answered by 4.



BINDER TWINE

Mr. WEIR:: 1.	What amount of binder twine was available for farmers in (a) 1941, (b) 1942?
2.	What amount will be available in 1943?
3.	What steps, if any, have been taken to assure that this amount will be available?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Binder twine available for Canadian farmers was (a) in 1941, 55,012,000 pounds; (b) in 1942, 80,212,000 pounds.
2.	It is estimated that 65,000,000 pounds of binder twine will be available in 1943.
3.	Production of binder twine for 1943 account, together with carryover from 1942, amounted to 41,400,000 pounds at February 28, 1943. Manufacturers are producing to capacity from materials presently available.



ANTI-FASCIST AND JEWISH REFUGEES

Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Did the government invite Great Britain, the United States, or other united nations interested to confer in Ottawa on the possibilities of granting asylum to anti-fascist and Jewish refugees?
2.	Is the proposed conference to be held in Bermuda? If so, why was this location chosen?
3.	Is Canada participating?
4.	If not, why not?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No.
2.	Proposed discussions between officials of the United Kingdom and United States governments are to be held in Bermuda by agreement between the participating governments.
3.	The government of Canada was not asked to take part in these discussions, which are solely between the United Kingdom and United States authorities. As stated on March 29, the government of Canada have asked, however, to be kept informed of the progress of the discussions, and are fully prepared to aid in seeking a cooperative solution to the problem.
4.	Answered by 3.
[Mr. Ilsley.l



RURAL MAIL CARRIERS

Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Have rural mail carriers been instructed that they must assist in salvage work as part of their regular duties?
2.	If so, has the pay of these carriers been increased?
3.	Is the method of granting contracts to rural
mail carriers still prevailing?	.
4.	Do rural mail carriers in Canada receive the same bonus as that given to other civil employees ?
5.	If so, do the payments apply to all?


Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	No. Rural mail contractors in Ontario and Quebec were invited to assist, as a patriotic duty, in the collection of scrap rubber for the war effort.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.
4 and 5. Due to the unforeseen increase in the cost of operation, a bonus of five per cent was granted to all mail contractors whose contracts were awarded on tenders dated on or before the 29th of April, 1941, in accordance with section 66 of the Post Office Act, or whose contracts involving an annual expenditure of less than $200 were made in accordance with section 73 of the Post Office Act at rates determined on or before the 29th of April, 1941, with the proviso that the increase shall only apply to payments made for work performed as from the 1st of August, 1941.



RATIONING OF BEER, WINE AND SPIRITS

Mr. REID:: 1.	Since 16th of December, 1942, when wartime alcoholic beverages order P.C. 11374 was passed, what provincial governments have put rationing of beer, wine and spirits into effect?
2.	At what date did any of the rationing orders put into effect by provincial governments become effective?


Mr. GIBSON:: The national revenue department has no specific information but understands that all provincial governments have put into effect some form of rationing.



CANADIAN FORCES-FLAGS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):
1.	What is the design approved by the Minister of National Defence in 1939, to be flown by the commander of the senior formation of the Canadian active service force?
2.	Is the British flag used by the commander of the Canadian corps in England jointly with that design?
Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	(a) Three maple leaves proper, conjoined on one stem on a white field, (b) The union, in the canton next the staff, (c) Three gold fleur de lis on a blue ground within a circle.

Questions
1S33
2.	The union jack is flown at all flag stations. The flag or pennon which is the subject of this inquiry is used by the commander of the first Canadian army to identify his headquarters. The two flags would not be flown jointly but both might frequently be flown at the same location.



DAIRY PRODUCTS


Mr. PURDY:: Based on figures as at 31st March, 1943, what are the comparable returns to dairy farmers in Nova Scotia who produce dairy butter as against those who dispose of their cream to the creameries?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Farmers in Nova Scotia reporting to the dominion bureau of statistics on prices received from the sale of farm products at the 15th of each month reported receiving an average of 36-9 cents per pound for farm-made butter and 48-7 cents per pound for butterfat including government subsidies at March 15, 1943. In making a comparison of farmers' returns, it is necessary to take into account the fact that when butterfat is churned into butter there is an "over-run" of 22 per cent, that is, one pound of butterfat will make 1-22 pounds of butter. Therefore, the farmer who manufactures the butter on his own farm and sells the dairy butter so made would receive 45-02 cents per pounds for the butterfat used. This figure of 45-02 cents per pound compares with 48-7 cents per pound received from the direct sale of butterfat to the creamery.



&quot;BRITISH EMPIRE&quot; AND &quot;BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS&quot;

Jean-François Pouliot: What is the difference, if any, between the British empire and the British commonwealth of nations?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The answer is that the terms are used interchangeably.



EXPORTS OF METAL

Mr. ROY:: 1.	Did Canada export metals in any form during the years 1941 and 1942?
2.	If so, what metals and what quantities in each year?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Owing to censorship regulations, this information is not available for publication.



LABOUR-MANAGEMENT PRODUCTION COMMITTEES

Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	How many labour-management production committees have been set up in aircraft plants throughout Canada?
2.	Where are these plants located?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Labour-management production committees have been set up in the following aircraft manufacturing plants: Noor-duyn Aviation Limited, Cartierville, Quebec; Federal Aircraft Limited, Montreal, Quebec; Canadian Car & Foundry Co. Ltd., Montreal, Quebec, Amherst, Nova Scotia, Fort William, Ontario, (in process of organization); Canadian Vickers Limited, Cartierville, Quebec; Fairchild Aircraft Limited, Longueuil, Quebec; The de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd, Downsview, Ontario; Victory Aircraft, Limited, Malton, Ontario; Fleet Aircraft, Limited, Fort Erie, Ontario; Boeing Aircraft of Canada, Ltd, Vancouver, B.C.
The following aircraft overhaul and repair plants have also set up labour-management production committees: Clark Ruse Aircraft Limited, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia (set up but not functioning); Central Aircraft Limited, London, Ontario; MacDonald Bros. Aircraft Limited, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Prairie Airways Limited, Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan; Canadian Pacific Air Lines Limited, Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, New Westminster, British Columbia; M & C Aviation Company, Ltd, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan; Aircraft Repair Limited, Edmonton, Alberta.



LABOUR REPRESENTATION ON WAR BOARDS

Mr. BENCE:: 1.	What boards have been set up by the government since the beginning of the war?
2.	On which of these boards is there a representative of labour?
3.	Who are such representatives, what boards are they on and what are their labour affiliations?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I propose to ask that this be made an order for return. I believe a parliamentary return tabled to-day answers completely the first part of the question. I believe the second part, too, is completely answered, although part 3 would not be. I suggest that the question be, allowed to stand until the hon. member has had an opportunity to read the return. It is a fairly lengthy return. Following that we can give such further information as he may require.
Question stands.



ASSOCIATED CREDIT BUREAUS OF CANADA LIMITED- TRACING OF DRAFT EVADERS

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: [DOT] 1. Have any arrangements, final or tentative, been entered into with the Associated Credit Bureaus of Canada Limited, or other credit agencies, publishers of city directories, etc., whereby they or any of them will be utilized in tracing the addresses of draft evaders?
2. If so, with whom?
Questions

3.	What are the arrangements, and what payments if any are to be made for services to be rendered by said company or other agencies ?


Mr. MITCHELL:: A general statement was made on March 15 (see Hansard, page 1235). The only specific arrangement 'has been that covered by order in council P.C. 2278, dated March 22, 1943, with the Hooper-Holmes bureau, Toronto, Ontario (copy appears below). No -payments have been made. Arrangement has just become effective.
Certified to be a true copy of a minute of a meeting of the committee of the privy council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 22nd March, 1943.
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated 19th March, 1943, from the Minister of Labour, representing that the department is obligated to locate the whereabouts of certain individuals to whom the divisional registrars have been unable to deliver first call-up notices for military service;
That it is felt that all possible methods should be used to locate such people;
That the Hooper-Holmes bureau, head office 11 King street west, room 607, Toronto, Ont., which operates a commercial reporting organization from coast to coast, is available to do this work on a fee basis; and
That, instead of their standard rates being charged whether the subject of inspection is located or not, the bureau will agree to charge $2.50 per case for only those which they are able to locate.
The minister, therefore, recommends
(a)	That authority be granted to use the
Hooper-Holmes bureau for the work of tracing people to whom first call-up notices cannot be delivered.	.
(b)	That authority be granted to pay a fee of $2.50 to the Hooper-Holmes bureau for each case where the information provided by the bureau results in the location and identification of the subject of the first call-up notice.
The committee concur in the foregoing recommendation and submit the same for approval.



PURCHASE OF LAND NEAR CONNAUGHT CAMP, OTTAWA

Mr. AYLESWORTH:: 1. Did the Department of National Defence recently purchase some land adjacent to Connaught camp near Ottawa?
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
British Columbia ....
2.	If so, how much did they purchase?
3.	What was the purchase price per acre?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	No. The department has expropriated approximately 775 acres.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Compensation has yet to be awarded by the Exchequer Court of Canada.



BANK OF CANADA-GOLD RESERVES

Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	When the Bank of Canada was first established were the gold reserves of the chartered banks and of the dominion itself, transferred to said bank?
2.	If so, what was the total amount of gold so transferred to the Bank of Canada upon its establishment ?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The gold held by the
chartered banks in Canada in the amount of $37,480,404.46 (valued at $20.67 a fine ounce) was transferred to the Bank of Canada when it commenced operations in 1935.
The gold held by the Dominion of Canada, as security for dominion notes in circulation, in the amount of $69,455,439.44 (valued at $20.67 a fine ounce) was transferred to the Bank of Canada when it commenced operations in 1935.



TRANS-CANADA ROUTE-SUBSIDIES

Mr. ROY:: During the years 1937-38 to 1941-42, both inclusive, what subsidies for the trans-Canada route were granted by the government to each of the provinces?


Humphrey Mitchell: Agreements entered into with the province under relief legislation provided for a 50 per cent contribution by the dominion for certain undertakings which included work on the trans-Canada highway. The following contributions were made during the period 1937-38 to 1941-42 inclusive.
1937-38	1938-39	Total750	00	
750	0012.506 52	.:....	12,506 52253,375	00	
253,375	0055,003 72	214,650 86	269,654 58107,062	06	
107,062	06103,777	68	
103,777	68$532,474 98	$214,650 86	$747,125 84
These projects were approved for dominion contributions on representations made by the respective provinces under relief legislation. No representations were received from provinces other than those listed above for contribution to expenditures on the trans-Canada highway during the period in question.

Questions
18%



SELECTIVE SERVICE-RECORD OP INDUSTRIAL WORKERS

Mr. DORION:: 1.	Has the government, through the medium of the national selective service bureau, a complete record of workers engaged in the different industries of the country?
2.	If so, what is the record for each province of the number of female employees engaged in the different war industries?
3.	If not, how does the government control the manual labour of the country, and what are the precise functions of the national selective service body?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Yes. Various registrations of employees have been made since the outbreak of the war. The latest was a report on employment which was required of all employers as at January 30, 1943. Tabulations for this survey of employment are now being made.
2.	The number of female employees in war industries as at August 1, 1942, is reported according to provinces as follows:
Province	Number
Prince Edward Island	 30
Nova Scotia	 4,400
New Brunswick		 2,100
Quebec	 53,700
Ontario	87,100
Manitoba	 4,100
Saskatchewan	 1,000
Alberta	 1,900
British Columbia	 8,700
Total	 163,000
Revised figures will be available when returns are tabulated referred to in answer to question one.
3.	Statistics regularly and specially prepared are made use of by national selective service


James Layton Ralston: Lieutenant-General	
Major-General	
Brigadier	
* Includes one .prisoner of war.
in performing their functions. The functions of the national selective service organization are twofold, namely:	(a) The making of
recommendations by the national selective service advisory committee for consideration by the war committee of the cabinet as to the best use to be made of the manpower of the nation under the prevailing war conditions and of regulations to achieve the desired results. The advisory committee is composed of representatives of (a) employers, (b) employees, (c) agriculture, (d) the following government departments: 1. Labour, 2. National Defence,.
3.	Munitions and Supply, 4. Mines and Resources, 5. Wartime Prices and Trade Board..
The advisory committee is under the chairmanship of the deputy minister of labour and director of national selective service.
3.	(b) The application, in the most effective manner of the regulations in the various parliamentary acts and orders in council covering the selection of man-power of the nation.
(a)	between mobilization and civilian needs.
(b)	the further selection of those assigned to civilian needs amongst the various civilian requirements, including the production of war equipment and munitions and supplies, and defence projects.
The national selective service regulations presently in effect are covered generally by orders in council P. C. 10924 respecting mobilization and P.C.246 respecting civilian.



CANADIAN ARMY-SENIOR OFFICERS

Mr. SENN:: In the Canadian army, (a) overseas, and (b) in Canada and western hemisphere zones, how many officers hold the rank of, (i) Lieut.-General, (ii) Major-General, (iii) Brigadier?
On Strength
Seconded for duty
On duty with	with other depart-
Canadian army	ments or agencies
Over-	In Canada	From Can.	From Can.seas	and western	army-	army inhemisphere	overseas	Canada3	1	-	8	18	i	347* *	61	-	6.Lieutenant-General	Major-General	Brigadier	*	
Honorary Brigadier-General
Retired-On reserve
Overseas
nil
nil
nil
nil
of officers (inactive!
In Canada and western hemisphere 2 11 2 7
1836	COMMONS
Questions as Orders for Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CORMAN:: What are the ceiling prices with respect to fruit and vegetable containers, including baskets, hampers, etc., and can such containers be manufactured and sold without loss?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Return tabled.


CANADIAN FORCES-PERSONS IN SERVICES, AND NUMBER OF FAMILIES BY PROVINCES
Mr. DORION:: 1.	What is, in each province, the number of people (male and female) engaged in the three services of the national defence?
2.	What is, in each province, the number of families according to 1941 census?


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-NEW TEMPORARY BUILDING
Mr. BREITHAUPT:: 1.	What is the estimated cost of the new temporary building to be erected for the wartime prices and trade board in the city of Ottawa for (a) cost of real estate, (b) cost of building, (c) cost of furnishings?
2.	Is the building to be equipped with a sprinkler system and what is the estimated cost of fire insurance protection?
3.	What will be the cancellation cost to the government of leases on other buildings now occupied by the various branches of the wartime prices and trade board?
4.	Does the saving in rentals and the centralisation of offices justify the expense involved in the erection of a new building?
5.	Will there be any reduction in staff due to the centralization and consolidation of all *Ottawa departments of the wartime prices and trade board, in one building?


HARRISON HOT SPRINGS HOTEL PROPERTY, BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Has the government purchased the Harrison Hot Springs hotel in British Columbia?
2.	If so, when, from whom, and at what price?


James Layton Ralston: I ask that this question be made an order for return, now tabled. The question involves three departments, and in connection with it there is a long order in council which has to be tabled as part of the answer.
Return tabled.


WARTIME HOUSING LIMITED
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 
LUNENBURG, N.S., PORT DOCTORS
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Who is the port doctor at Lunenburg, Nova Scotia?
2.	What salary, fees or other payments has he received during the years 1941 and 1942 in connection with (a) merchant, fishing, and coasting ships; (b) naval ships?
3.	What salary, fees or other payments has Dr. 6. A. Barss, Rose Bay, Nova Scotia, received during the years 1941 and 1942 in connection with (a) merchant, fishing, and coasting ships; (b) naval ships?
4.	What salary, fees or other payments were paid to other medical doctors at Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, during the years 1941 and 1942 in connection with (a) merchant, fishing, and coasting ships; (b) naval ships?


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-EMPLOYEES IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: 1.	Are any of the following persons now or have they at any time been employed by the wartime prices and trade board or by any government agency: George H. Barbour, John P. Gordon, T. Gordon Ives, P. W. Turner, Ewen Nicholson, Bruce Wonnaeott, Guy Scott, James Walker, Arthur Henry and Donald Stewart, all of Prince Edward Island?
2.	If so, what are their salaries and allowances, or allowances in lieu of salaries, in each case?
3.	Have any persons in Prince Edward Island been appointed in connection with air raid precaution operations by any federal authority?
4.	If so, who are such officials and what pay, if any, are they receiving?
5.	Are Morton Dew, R. S. McBeth, II. H. Cox and W. H. Poole acting as officials in connection with air raid precautions in the province of Prince Edward Island?
6.	If so, what are their salaries, if any, and if they are not in receipt of salaries, are any allowances for travel or other remuneration being paid to any one or more of them?
7.	Are Hon. H. L. Palmer and J. P. Hooper, of Prince Edward Island', employed in any capacity by the National Selective Service Department?
8.	If so, what are their salaries or per diem allowances in each case, if any, or what other remuneration, if any, do either of these men receive ?


SUBSIDIES TO AGRICULTURE
Joseph Sasseville Roy: What subsidies bearing on agriculture were granted by the dominion government during the fiscal years 1937-38 to 1941-42, both inclusive, to governments, individuals, companies and societies _ in each province, directly or through the media of federal organizations?

Motions I or Papers


EXPORTS TO AUSTRALIA
Mr. ROY:: 1.	During the fiscal year 1942-43, did Canada export any products direct to Australia or to any other country?
2.	If so, were these exports, wholly, or in part, made under authority of the act George VI, chap. 8, 1942, intituled: "The War Appropriation (United Kingdom Financing) Act, 1942"?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. KNOWLES:: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged since the beginning of the present war, between the Department of Labour, or any official thereof, including the national war labour board, or any official thereof, or any other department of the government or official thereof, and the Department of Labour of each of the provinces of Canada, or any official thereof, the regional war labour boards, or officials thereof, or any other department or official of the several provincial governments, relating to the status of provincial and dominion minimum wage rates and regulations under order in council P.C. 8253, of October 24,
1941,	as amended by several subsequent orders, including order in council P.C. 5963, of July 10,
1942,	and any subsequent amendments, and also to any proposed amendments designed to alter the above status.


Humphrey Mitchell: Subject to the usual reservations with regard1 to privileged documents.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does that reservation with respect to correspondence apply both ways, or only to correspondence which originates with the provinces? I hope it applies only to the latter.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend probably knows more about the correspondence than I do. I do not think I can answer his question.
Mr. COLDWEI.L: This is a matter which affects the privileges of the house and it is one which should be settled. Surely correspondence directed to the provinces should come under the purview of this house and be tabled when requested. There should be no question, about the tabling of communications going from the department. While we ought to treat the provinces with courtesy and give them every consideration, I think it is going too far to suggest that communications from the provinces to the dominion are privileged. By and by we may find that the municipalities have privileged correspondence. We should be making a mistake to let this pass unchallenged.


Gordon Graydon: May I say just a word with respect to the question raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar? The matter came up in the house previously and some member of the government indicated that some of the provincial governments were perhaps a little sensitive in connection with correspondence between the dominion government and themselves. In looking up the precedents I can find no indication of government policy in the past which is in accordance with that which has now been announced. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said, we ought to have this point decided. There is not much justification for calling a document privileged which passes between the dominion government and a provincial government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe I was the one who spoke about some of the provinces being sensitive in the matter, and laid a little emphasis on the courtesy of letting the provinces know that the correspondence had been requested. I did- not wish to do other than simply have the provinces given an opportunity of knowing that the correspondence had been asked for and that the government intended to return it unless there was objection. I agree that apart from the matter of courtesy, there is no substantial reason, but I still think that the matter of indicating in the first instance to the provinces that correspondence has been requested is a wise course to follow.


Gordon Graydon: What would be the position with respect to privileged communications should a province object?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That would depend upon the nature of the objection raised. It might be an objection which would appeal to the mover of the motion. If he were satisfied, I presume he would not press for the correspondence. If the objection were regarded as important, the government would have to decide.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In previous years this sort of correspondence was brought down as a matter of course. It never was suggested that there was any privilege attaching to correspondence between the provinces and the dominion with respect to any public matter. It is subject to the order of this house. This house can vote it down, but whoever votes it down takes the responsibility. The whole tendency is to restrict and restrict, and the public will not stand for it.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I understood the Prime Minister to say that this is a matter of
Motions jor Papers

courtesy, that if the province objects, the mover of the motion will be told of the objection and may then indicate whether in view of the objection he wishes to have the papers laid on the table. Is that the position?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I have already said, the emphasis would be upon the nature of the objection. Something might happen to make it other than in the public interest to disclose certain information at a particular time. I can conceive of correspondence between some provinces and the dominion which has taken place since the war and which it would not be wise to have brought down. This for example would apply to communications referring to the location of defences, munition plants and the like. It would depend entirely on the nature of the objection. I assure the house that there is no idea to narrow or water down any correspondence that should be tabled.


Major James William Coldwell: What does the Minister of Labour mean by "subject to the usual reservations"?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have just stated them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think he meant anything.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Prime Minister answer my question? Does this reservation apply to letters originating with the dominion government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not unless there was objection raised by the provinces, in which event the objection would be passed on to my hon. friend if he were the one who had raised the point.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. NICHOLSON:: For a copy of plans and specifications of the proposed permanent houses to be constructed by Wartime Housing Limited at Sarnia, Ontario.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The plans and specifications in question were prepared for the purpose of calling for tenders for the construction of these houses. I believe the position is that tenders are being called for or are about to be called for. When the contract has been awarded, I shall be glad to bring down the plans.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps the hon. member wants to tender.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I cannot see any wisdom in following a policy of this sort. If these plans

and specifications could give any comfort to the enemy, if Japan or Germany could use them, then I would consider the matter. But when these plans and specifications are in the hands of certain contractors, the members of this house should have the privilege of examining them. I cannot see any reason for delay in bringing them down.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the government charge a fee for these plans?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, there is a deposit required. If my hon. friend will pay the deposit, he can apply.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Shall the motion stand or be dropped?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The motion can pass with the reservation I mentioned, that is, that the plans and specifications will not be brought down until after the contract has been signed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the statement made by John Grierson of the wartime information board which appeared in the press of Saturday last was made with the consent, approval and authority of the Prime Minister? I should also like to inquire why such an important announcement was not made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The statement given to the press by Mr. Grierson was made without any knowledge on my part until I read it myself. I have no doubt that the general manager of the wartime information board purposefully refrained from asking my opinion with reference to it inasmuch as he no doubt desired to preserve the independence of the board in the matter of expressing its views and opinion on its work. I have interfered with the board as little as I possibly could. As I read the statement or rather the reply on the part of the general manager to certain comments which appeared in the press and which were based on information brought down in a return to this parliament, I suggest to my hon. friend that it would appear the general manager felt that he should protect the position of the board in the matter.


Gordon Graydon: The head of the wartime information board is Doctor MacKenzie-its

Labour Conditions
chairman, I understand. When an important statement such as this is to be made, why-should it not be made, if not by the Prime Minister, then by the chairman of the board? When the board was set up, it was placed directly under the Prime Minister and he is the responsible minister. Many times in the house the question has come up of important statements and announcements being made to the public by the heads of boards or by those connected with boards rather than by the responsible minister. Protests have been made a good many times against this practice and I think ought to be made again. We must preserve so far as we can the sovereignty of this house and of parliament. On an important question such as this it seems to me the Prime Minister should have given consideration to making a statement himself, because there are statements in that announcement which we should have liked to ask the Prime Minister to clarify.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Had the statement been one of policy I certainly would have felt that I should be the one to make it in this house. But as I read the statement it is simply a reply to certain comments which have appeared in the press based on information which had been brought down in a return to this house, and it was merely giving the position of the board in this matter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why should not the minister give it? Does the Prime Minister approve the last paragraph of the statement, which reads:
The next period-
That is, the next period of the board's activities.
*-will demonstrate how we can develop the work already initiated, without being crushed by the happy pluralism of political experiment so fantastic as the Canadian nation. After all, there is nothing quite like it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The statement
is a little involved, but as one looks into it it seems to be harmless.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There will be repercussions.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour arising out of a statement by C. H. Millard, national director of the United Steel Workers of America, C.I.O., in connection with the national war labour
board's decision in the settlement of the strikes at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, and at Sydney and Trenton, Nova Scotia. His statement was to the effect that the decision to settle the strike had been arrived at as a result of certain terms made between the strikers' representatives and Mr. Arthur Mac-Namara, deputy minister of labour. Did Mr. MacNamara agree to or have authority to agree to terms of settlement different from the memorandum of settlement attached to the order in council which confirmed the settlement of the strike?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have not read the newspaper dispatch referred to by my hon. friend, and at the moment I have no comment to make.


John George Diefenbaker: Did he have any authority to make such a statement?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know. I have not read it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I think that point should be cleared up. I was the one who gave the statement of the terms of settlement and the only one who had authority to give it as from the government. The statement given out by myself was the statement of the government, and I do not believe that there was any undertaking or agreement by Mr. MacNamara or anyone else contrary to the statement I myself jnade.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister undertook to answer the question I asked with regard to Mr, MacNamara, the deputy minister of labour, but he did not answer one part of it, namely, whether Mr. MacNamara had any authority to agree to terms other than those which were embodied in the memorandum of settlement attached to the order in council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought that by saying I was the only one who had the authority I was at least implying that Mr. MacNamara had none-and he certainly had not-to make any terms other than those.the government itself had determined upon. Nor do I believe that he did make or suggest any other terms.


MONTREAL TRAMWAYS STRIKE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I desire to put a question to the Minister of Labour, of which I have given notice, with reference to the Montreal Tramways strike and the controversy between the American Federation of Labour and the C.I.O. I would ask
Labour Conditions

the minister to say when a strike is an illegal strike. Is it when the Department of Labour says it is an illegal strike because it is in violation of the prohibition contained in section 57 of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act? Or is it that a strike is only illegal when there is a conviction? There is a law against murder in this country. A man may be arrested for murder but he is not a murderer until he is convicted. That is an extreme illustration.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Murder is illegal.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All the
lawyers in the government may laugh, but the theory of the British law is that a man is innocent until he has been proven guilty.


James Layton Ralston: According to my hon. friend the implication would be that a man is not a thief until he is caught.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is' getting into an academic discussion, but I submit that in law a man is not a thief until he is convicted of a theft. He may be in fact a thief, but I am talking of the legal aspect. I would ask the Minister of Labour to clarify the point with reference to the Montreal Tramways strike. Was it an illegal strike? Did it come within the provisions of section 57? If it did why is some action not being taken?


Mr. REID:: Better hire a good lawyer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not
have to. I am here myself.
Hon, HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour): I am frank to admit that I have not the legal dexterity of some of my learned friends in the house. Being a layman I have to deal with facts as they are.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was the
strike legal or illegal?


Humphrey Mitchell: If I saw a man shoot
another man, I would say he was a murderer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He might have provocation. Did that ever occur to the minister? Do not be too dogmatic about these things.


Humphrey Mitchell: Is my hon. friend talking to me?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
talking to you. I am telling you, too.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have had something
to do with the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act since the last war

I will go that far. In my experience with labour whenever

there was a strike which in my judgment was illegal I have always warned the people involved in the strike of that fact.


Mr. HOMUTH:: And have they agreed?


Humphrey Mitchell: In this case I felt when the strike was declared that it fell within the provisions of section 57 of the act. As a labour man I have often had to advise my people that a strike would be illegal. I believe that the advice I gave in the Montreal Tramways strike was the correct advice, not only for the management but for the two unions as well. I am convinced that had they taken my advice there need never have been a strike. I still hold the opinion that since the war broke out there has been no other strike more unnecessary than this one. I have been accused in certain quarters of saying things that I should not have said about that strike, but I do not think it falls to the lot of the Minister of Labour to give leadership to the rank and file of the labour organizations. That shouldi be given by the labour leaders themselves.


Jean-François Pouliot: The former leader of the opposition has no more leadership.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You never had much.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have taken this position: the language I used, rightly or wrongly, *was the same language that I would have used in Hamilton when I was secretary of the trades and labour council there; and I do not think it was any stronger than that used by Sir Stafford Cripps, if he is quoted correctly in this mornings Montreal Gazette:
Speaking at the end of a two-day tour of airplane plants, he said:
"I know there are grievances, differences and disputes, but none of these to-day justify a strike in the factories any more than they would justify mutiny in a ship or at the front."
I do think this, that in relation to this strike everything humanly possible was done to compose the differences. The chief objective of the Department of Labour was to get those people back to work, and we were successful. I do not know whether I should go any farther, having said that, I had better sit down.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister propose to take any' action under section 61 of the act, which provides a penalty for inciting to lockout or strike?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know whether my hon. friend is suggesting that action should be taken.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am asking the minister.

Business oj the House


Humphrey Mitchell: I have not given that aspect of it any consideration.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, all right; take it into consideration.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Labour to a telegram which I received from Mr. Elphege Beaudoin, president of local 790 of the provincial federation of labour. It reads as follows:
Liguori Lacombe, M.P.,
Ottawa.
As a result of an illegal strike my own members are unable to go back to work. Those who want to work are forced to pay one dollar to the Canadian Brotherhood. Three of my men were beaten this morning. We are loyal citizens who have always respected the laws of the country and we have a right to expect protection from government authorities. It is enough that we were robbed of our authority as a party to illegal contract without having to pay a penalty in order to be able to return to work. In the name of justice I demand immediate action from the government. If we are unable to get justice in this case blood might be shed in the streets between the workers members of the A.F. of L. and the Canadian Brotherhood who perpetrated this illegal strike.
Elphege Beaudoin, President.
Local 790, President of the Provincial Federation of Labour.
Like my friend the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) I offer immediately my services to the Minister of Labour to replace Mr. Goldenberg, to go to Montreal with the hon. member for Temiscouata in order to settle the strike.


Humphrey Mitchell: I looked into the facts behind this telegram and there is no substantiation for them, so that we shall not need the services of my hon. friend.


FUNDY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY-DISPUTE WITH CARPENTERS' UNION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement as to the refusal of the Fundy Construction Company, Windsor, Nova Scotia, to treat with representatives of the carpenters union and other workers with respect to labour difficulties. This is of particular importance, because it has to do with an emergency military embarkation camp where the construction programme is reported already behind schedule. The government has a special responsibility in these government projects; it is of further importance in this instance, because the premier of Nova Scotia's private company is the contractor.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of this question. The strike in question ended this morning and the men returned to work. It arose over the discharge of a carpenter on the job, and it was agreed that the dispute would be arbitrated by a committee composed of one representative of the employer, one representative of the men, and Mr. Pettigrove, who is a conciliation officer of the Department of Labour.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What about the labour relations of this company, anyway?


Thomas Vien: Order.


CANADIAN FORCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence for Air? When the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) made a statement to the effect that spring leave would be granted to soldiers to work, he said that he was unable to state whether farm leave would apply also to men in the air force. As I see that the minister is in his seat; perhaps he can inform us.


Charles Gavan Power: It does.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: Many of the farmer members are concerned about spring seeding operations at home, and many members of the house will be called upon to assist in the victory loan campaign starting April 26. Is the Prime Minister in a position now to say when we shall adjourn for Easter? It is impossible for members to make reservations on short notice.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am hoping that we shall be able to adjourn at the end of next week, on Friday, the 16th.



DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	[DOT]
Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, I
Canada's War Position

should like to ask a question of the honourable the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) or, in his absence, of the acting Minister of Justice.
Before his department banned the meeting which was to take place yesterday at Longueuil in favour of the release of Mr. Camillien Houde, had the minister or his officials received the text of the speeches that were to be delivered at that meeting, or did they know, at least, what the speakers were going to say?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The question had better stand as a notice; the Minister of Justice is not in his seat at the moment.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, before the house resolves itself into committee of ways and means, I wish to speak very briefly on something which I could not have discussed on the orders of the day, because I wanted to say more than would be proper then.
The house has been in session for nine weeks. Within a short time we shall be returning to our constituencies. So far there has been no opportunity for a clear statement in this house of the war position. Instead of making statements in the budget debate and in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the ministers of defence and other departments have been waiting for the war appropriation bill1 to come down; and since the house has been delayed in reaching that order of business it seems to me that before the house adjourns for the Easter recess some opportunity should be given us to understand what the situation really is. We realize that there are certain matters that cannot well be disclosed publicly in this chamber-not because the people of Canada, should not be made aware of everything that is being done or left undone, but because there are certain matters that might give aid and comfort to the enemy or information which would enable him to go forward with plans to meet what we propose to do. But the House of Commons is entitled to a clear statement at the earliest possible day, certainly before the Easter recess. We as private members should impress upon the government that even in war time this parliament is responsible to the people, and that

the government, or the cabinet, is not the master but the creature of this House of Commons and ought at all times to be subject to its will.
I have been alarmed1 during the last four or five years at the extent to which parliament has in some respects taken on the form of the totalitarian states in that from time to time we have become merely a sounding board for the making of statements and pronouncements, when we were favoured with such. At this point I wish to refer to the making of statements of policy, involving important decisions of which this house should be apprised and which it should if it deems fit, approve, on the orders of the day thus preventing any possibility of discussion of those important statements in this chamber. The house is losing the control of the executive arm of the government which ought properly to be ours. It is time that hon. members took the opportunity to remind the government that the sovereign governing power in this country after all is parliament, not the cabinet or the government of the day. The time has surely come when we as a house are entitled to know more than we do know about the war effort of this country, the commitments that have been made in many phases of our war effort, and other matters closely related to the conduct of the war.
For example I am anxious to know whether we are a partner in this war, or whether we are being relegated to the position of allowing the major powers, if I may so express it, to take the decisions, inform the government of Canada of them and then perchance invite us to conference after the decisions have really been taken and the policy decided upon. I have in mind Casablanca. I have not yet seen the answer given this afternoon to a question I placed on the order paper regarding the Bermuda conference. I am anxious to know whether we are called in in the initial stages, or whether the decisions are usually taken by other nations allied with us, after which, the policy having been more or less decided, we shall be called into conference.
If some of the matters which we have in mind may not be discussed in open session, then an opportunity must be provided to discuss them in a closed session of this house. We want to know what the situation is regarding our armed forces, what the likelihood is for reinforcements and so on during the coming summer months. How adequate are the defences of this country, and1 to what extent are we now relying upon our allies for its defence? To what extent, for example, are we looking after not only our

Canada's War Position
own coastline but the coastline of Labrador and Newfoundland? To what extent are the army, the navy and the air force of the United1 States looking after the vital approaches to this country instead of our own forces?
Also in such a session we should be given a clear understanding of the needs in the realm of exports. There is a good deal of criticism in eastern Canada regarding the piles of equipment to be seen along the railway tracks. People are asking whether this equipment is obsolete, or why it has not been exported. If the government made a statement on the Atlantic situation it would help a great deal in enabling the people to understand the reasons for the piling up of supplies along the railway tracks. There is no secret about it; anyone who takes a trip from Ottawa to Windsor can see literally acres of supplies along the sidings in some of the cities along the way. We ought to be told- also what the food situation is, and what is expected of us. We are being rationed, which is all to the good; and I believe the shortage of food supplies in this country is not serious for Canadians. But to what extent must we make a greater effort to see to it that supplies of food are available for shipment overseas? What is the situation in Great Britain and North Africa and other places regarding food?
Are our ports sufficiently protected? We have never had a clear statement in this house as to that. What about the submarine menace? How is the St. Lawrence to be protected this year? Is the protection to be any better than it was in the previous year? What is the situation on the Pacific coast? To what extent is the Hudson Bay route likely to be used, and how is it protected? Those of us who come from the prairies realize now as perhaps we did not in previous years the accessibility of the prairie region to the Hudson Bay district. What is going on in northwest Canada? We hear about a northwest Pacific organization to develop that country, but we in this house know nothing about these things. A short time ago the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) suggested' that a question put on the order paper by one of my colleagues should be withdrawn, and it was withdrawn because of the intimation that to give the information would not be in the public interest. But subsequently I received from New York a newspaper, the Herald-Telegraph I think it was, from which it is clear that not only the questions that my hon. friend was asking were answered, but that the whole
story of the development in that region was being told in the public press of the United States.
We should get to know what is going on in our country. While the Prime Minister very properly pointed out the other day in connection with the air services that the certain privileges granted1 would be withdrawn at the end of the war, nevertheless we have to bear in mind that it may not be possible to withdraw some of these privileges because something of a vested interest may be established. This parliament as the guardian of the property of the people of Canada ought to know what is taking place. I suppose some of us who try to follow them closely have an inkling as to what is going on, but I feel safe in saying that few members of the house are fully informed as to the situation in the Pacific area, in the Labrador and Hudson bay areas, in the Athabaska region where oil exists, and all across the north country. The house cannot allow itself to be faced with a series of accomplished1 facts, a series of commitments. The other day for the first time we were informed of the great electric power development at Shipshaw, the development of the aluminum plant and so on near Arvida. How many of us in this house knew anything about it until we saw it discussed first of all in the public press and later confirmed by interviews with the ministers? Yet these are the resources of the people of Canada; their alienation will influence the course of events in Canada not only during this war but for generations to come. We are derelict in our duty if we fail to investigate, not after something is done but before it is done, because we are placed here as the trustees of the people and the administrators, if you will, of the common property of this nation.
I suggest therefore that before this house adjourns all the information possible should be given publicly; and if there are matters that cannot be disclosed in public because of the value they would be to the enemy, then a closed session of this house should be held. On Friday the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made a statement which in a measure met with our approval. We were glad to learn that the matter of air transport had been given so much consideration and that certain protection had been given to the Canadian people in connection with transcontinental, international and external air transport. But in my opinion this is not sufficient. We are going to see valuable routes established to the east of the Rocky mountains, and particularly along the outskirts of
Canada's War Position

the Rocky mountains, with the opening up of the great north country. It seems to me we should not allow any vested interests to grow up in connection with projects of this description, particularly in regard to aviation; for after all when we come right down to brass tacks what are we doing? We are providing meteorological services; we are providing airfields, lights, radio, and beacons; then we are going to allow a private corporation to obtain a vested interest in this route. To my mind this is analogous to calling upon our Canadian National Railways to 'lay the railway lines, provide the stations, and then allowing a private corporation to operate their trains over those lines, for which the people of Canada must pay.
We should inquire into some of these matters at the earliest possible opportunity. Perhaps many of the topics to which I have referred can be discussed publicly on various of the estimates, but I want the government and the house to consider which of these subjects, particularly those related to defence, cannot be discussed openly, and before we go back to our constituencies we should be given information regarding many of these matters.
Let me add that before we have a secret or private session of this house it should be well organized. Last year the members of the opposition groups, and perhaps also the government supporters, were asked to submit topics which they thought would be suitable for discussion. Well, we did that, and in their statements the ministers covered those topics fairly well. But in addition to having the ministers answer questions which may be asked in advance by members of this house, an opportunity should be given for further questions to be asked at such a session. We might agree among ourselves that when we meet for a day in secret session we forego the privilege of forty minute speeches and limit the discussion as nearly as possible to short, five or ten minute speeches, if we have to speak, or in the main to questions. In that way we might get the information we desired, but if a private session is held and we have a number of long statements by the ministers, followed by forty minute speeches by two or three members of the house, most hon, members who may have questions to ask will beN denied the privilege of asking them.
I thought I should raise this matter on going into committee of ways and means, because we are perhaps less than two weeks away from the Easter adjournment. We wish to go home to our constituencies, and we shall be asked questions about some of the problems I have mentioned. The sovereign power within this

country ought to be given information upon which members can base answers to the questions that will be asked, provided always-and I am quite sure we can all be relied upon to do this-that we do not divulge matters which in war time ought not to be divulged.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I was unaware that there was to be any debate such as this to-day. I shall be very brief, because we have business before the house at the moment of a practical character that must take precedence over anything that might be regarded as theoretical. I do wish to say, however, that as members of parliament, representing the Canadian people, we must not allow this house to drift into the position of a semi-peacetime parliamentary assembly. After all, this war has reached a stage which I think most of us regard as extremely serious. Speaking in a personal capacity only, I view with considerable approval the suggestions advanced by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) in regard to the matter of a secret session. I think the country would welcome some move by the government to take into its confidence the representatives of the people. Frankly I am alarmed at the feeling throughout Canada that we in this House of Commons are not paying enough attention to the war but are paying too much attention to other things. I should not care to cast the responsibility for this upon any single person in the house, or upon the government or any of the groups, but I believe the people wish that as a parliament we devote our attention first of all to the winning of this war. That is the first thing to be done. No matter what procedure we may adopt in this house from time to time, which to us may seem reasonable and proper, we must also impress upon the people the fact that in this House of Commons the first and major concern of those who sit as the representatives of the people is the winning of the war. More than that, if I may say so, the government should take the peoples' representatives more fully into their confidence. I think that is long overdue and it is something which would be most acceptable to the people generally.
It would be particularly appropriate now, I think, that the government acquaint members of parliament as far as possible with the whole international position. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar omitted to mention a couple of matters which came to my mind as he was speaking. Members of this house should be given some idea of the progress of the battle of the Atlantic. They should be given

Canada's War Position
more complete information with respect to Canada's foreign policy, because for too many people in Canada that matter has not been sufficiently clarified. I am mentioning these points because I have hesitated to hold up the house with motions on going into supply or ways and means. I do wish to caution my hon. friends to the left that one of the biggest jobs we can do at the moment is pay attention to the budget resolutions, and the practical means of giving the government the supply it requires in connection with the war effort.
For that reason I wish to apologize for the brevity of my remarks in this matter, but also to give my approval to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that the people's representatives should be taken more fully into the confidence of the government. May I also say to the government, however, that at the moment our main job is to get on with the business now before the house, so that there shall not be an extended debate, as has been originated this afternoon.
Right Hon. AV. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):	Mr. Speaker, may I say
at once the government has no desire whatsoever to withhold information of importance to the people of Canada, or their representatives in this house. But the business of parliament cannot be carried on without following some procedure which will make it an orderly and expeditious procedure.
In the early part of the session my hon. friend made much the same speech as he has made this afternoon, about the desirability of the house being more fully informed on different matters, and as to our having a secret session in order that information might be given in greater detail. I replied to him at the time, and I give him the same reasons this afternoon. That was on February 26, and Hansard at .pages 732-33 records the discussion as follows:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):	Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Now that the address in reply to the speech from the throne has been adopted, will he suggest an early date when this house can meet in closed session to discuss matters relating to Canada's part in the war?
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to oblige the house. It is entirely a matter of what is likely best to fulfil the wishes of hon. members and best to further public business. The plan on which the government was proceeding was to bring down as soon as possible our financial measures in toto. The estimates are already down. A resolution with respect to the war appropriation has just been advanced a stage from government notices of motion, and will hereafter appear under orders of the day. There
is also now upon the order paper a resolution respecting the making of war supplies available for the united nations. In this way we have sought to give the house a complete picture of the sums which the government will ask to have appropriated. A request has been made that wre should establish the standing and select committees as rapidly as possible. Until all the committees are set up and until the house has had the preliminary statements -with regard to total expenditures, with the sort of breakdown that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has asked for, so that hon. members may be able to study the details, I do not think we should interrupt the proceedings in order to hold a secret session. If the situation were so pressing that a secret session to discuss other matters would be regarded as more important than proceeding with the government's financial measures for the war, in the manner I have indicated, I would say that ive -would fix a day for a secret sesison forthwith; but if there is no situation that is being embarrassed by not having a secret session at once I think the house would be in a better position to discuss in secret session matters pertaining to the war after it has had before it a complete picture of the financial situation. It is a matter of balancing. I should be glad to talk it over with my hon. friend and other leaders, if they so desire, and see if we cannot perhaps agree on a time that would be best.
On the following page of Hansard, this further reference was made to the business of the house:
Fifteen committees have already been appointed. There remain the five of which notices are already on the order paper, one of [DOT]which was under discussion yesterday and will continue to be discussed to-day. So that between now and Tuesday evening the first order of business will be the discussion of the setting-up of these different committees. The Minister of Finance proposes to proceed on Wednesday with the motion respecting the war appropriation for the ensuing year, and would like to have the house continue with discussion on that measure unless there are some other matters that it may be necessary to take up in the interval. The minister hopes to be able to make headway with the war appropriation discussion from the time that he proceeds with the resolution in the house.
That indicates the plan under which the government proceeded to bring the important measures before the house at as early a day as possible, so as to permit of the fullest possible discussion by hon. members.
Then, following what was said on that occasion I had a conference with my hon. friends, the leader of the opposition, the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the leader of the Social Credit party, at which time we all agreed upon a certain programme which, I may say, has been followed literally from that day to the present. The fact that we have not made as rapid headway with the measures to be placed before the house has not been the fault of the government. As my hon. friend is rvell aware-and I am not complaining-there have been some

Canadas War Position
amendments. I wish to make the position of the government perfectly clear in that matter. There have been amendments moved on going into supply and ways and means. There has been extended debate on the budget and other subjects. Those discussions have taken up a great deal of our time, and because of that we have not reached certain of these other measures.
May I point out that in connection with the appointment of special committtees a week of the time of the house was taken up in the discussion of reconstruction and social security. As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) has just said, I emphasized before that and have since repeated time and again that I thought we were taking up far too much time in the discussion of some measures which were really of a domestic nature, and possibly too much time in the discussion of post-war matters, rather than giving our time, as we should be giving it, in the fullest way, to the discussion of measures such as, the war appropriation bill, and others related immediately to the prosecution of the war.
I am not complaining about the time the house has taken up in discussing some of these matters. I know they were matters of importance. But the reason we have not thus far been able on other matters to give to hon. members of the house some of the information they would like to have is not that we have been planning to withhold it, or that we have been arranging the business of the house so that it might be withheld or delayed. We have made such progress as has been possible in view of the fact that other subjects have come up for discussion.
The leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) has said that the government has a responsibility to the people, and that it is not the master but rather the creature of the house. It is because, as leader of the government, I regarded myself as the creature rather than the master of the house, that I sought to get into touch with my fellow creatures who are leading the other parties, in an effort to come to some agreement on the order of business to be followed. I am happy to say we came to an agreement, and I think the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar would be the first to admit that we have followed the order of business set down at that time.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has succeeded this year in bringing down the budget at an earlier date than it has been brought down in any other year, not only in this parliament, but, I believe, earlier than in almost any session of any other parliament.

The one measure above all others with respect to which the people of Canada were most anxious to get full details was the budget. The business of the government was so far advanced1 that the Minister of Finance was in a position to bring down his budget almost as soon as the debate in reply to the speech from the throne was completed.
Then, the debate on the budget has taken a long time. Had' we withheld the presentation of the budget until after the Easter recess, some of the measures to which my hon. friend has now referred would have been proceeded with. But, as the Minister of Finance has made abundantly clear, there are some commitments which will have to be met within a certain time. In order that those commitments may be met he must get his financial resolutions through the house.
May I say in conclusion that the real reason some of the matters referred) to this afternoon have not been dealt with is that everything cannot be done at one and the same time. The fullest opportunity will be granted hon. members to discuss all measures. When the war appropriation bill is introduced it will undoubtedly be discussed) at great length. But I cannot see any advantage to be gained by seeking to enter into a debate of one or two days so as to supply in brief compass information which the house will wish to have in detail, and which would require two weeks or possibly longer to discuss at length.
I do not wish in any way to indicate a desire to abridge the rights of any hon. member. On reflection however I think it will be seen that the choice lies between agreeing to a plan and following it to as great an extent as possible, or seeking to deal with matters at random and, on that account, less efficiently.


Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word in support of the request of the hon, member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) for a closed session, if possible before the Easter recess? The leader of the opposition says that the greatest help we can give the government is to pass this supply as quickly as possible.


Gordon Graydon: I did not say that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I take it that that is what he meant.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Ways and means.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: To go on with the committee of ways and means. I must assume he thought that it was not a good idea to hold up the government even for this short

Canada's War Position
discussion. I think we are all agreed that the most pressing business of this session is the winning of the war and the doing of everything that will assist the government in attaining that objective. But there are certain things which we feel ought to be discussed, and discussed as soon as possible. We are not quarrelling with the statement of the Prime Minister about having the business of the house conducted in as orderly and expeditious a manner as possible, nor do we quarrel with what he said about the different items that have come up, particularly the budget. We have no difference of opinion on that point at all.
I want to remind the Prime Minister that earlier in the session he said that every hon. member -would have the opportunity on going into supply of discussing any matter which he thought ought to be discussed. This group has taken advantage of that opportunity only once; only one amendment was moved, and the discussion on it took two days. Time is going by. We are not quarrelling with the past; we are simply asking the government to make some commitments with reference to the time between now and the Easter recess. The Prime Minister has made no statement yet about that.
The chances are that there will be a spring offensive. There is a strong likelihood of Canadian troops being in action within weeks or months, and it seems to me that an opportunity should be given, to the defence ministers in particular, to make statements to the house in a closed session. I have been reading the British Hansard for last session and I am amazed at the information which is conveyed to that house in public session. Questions are asked about how a certain tank is performing, whether a mounting has been changed, whether a certain gun has been found satisfactory, if not, what is wrong with it, what is wrong with certain cars, whj'- is their performance not better, and so on. Frank statements are made by the minister. Such a procedure here would strenghten the confidence of the public and of the members of the house. There should be a frank discussion and we should have the opportunity of hearing from the ministers what is being done. Financial measures are important, but to my mind nothing is as important as the lives of young Canadians, many of whom will be going into action within the next few weeks or months. Statements should be made by the defence ministers as to what preparations have been made, what equipment has been put out, what are the arrangements for command, and, above all, what plans have been made for coordination between the services. In many quarters
in this country and in Great Britain there is a feeling of apprehension about the extent of the coordination among the various arms of the service. A statement by the Minister of National Defence as to the facilities that have been set up for coordination of the services would enable hon. members to go back to their constituencies and remove any misapprehension they may have. They could tell their constituents that because of the statements they had heard they now feel that everything that can be done is being done and will be done to make it possible for the Canadian forces to make a maximum contribution to the winning of the war with a minimum of loss.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was not seeking to criticize the government for not having held a secret session. What he was seeking to do was to point out that time was going by very rapidly. It is unfortunate that in the course of this short discussion the Prime Minister has not said whether or not a day will be set aside before the Easter recess. He should make that statement, if not to-day, certainly in the course of the next few days, in order that members may be able to take back to their constituencies something of the assurance and confidence which would come from the kind of discussion we could have in this house.


Mr. NEILL:: I suggest that we stop playing politics and go on with the business of the house.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a word because both the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) have mentioned the defence ministers. The Prime Minister has already indicated the order which was arranged for the conduct of the business of the house. I do not think there has been any deviation from that except what was necessitated by the amendment to the motion to go into supply. That, of course, could be anticipated and it was part of the procedure. I second what the Prime Minister has said, that if there has been any delay in the making of statements by the ministers representing the defence services, it has been due to the fact that we have not got on with the order of business as fast as I think most of us felt it should have been got on -with.
I came back after having been absent from the house for a little while expecting that I should be called upon to make a statement within at least a week after I came back. I am still here. I did not expect to make a statement in connection with war appropriations in
Canada's War Position

the debate on the speech from the throne or in the debate on the budget. I expected just what my hon. friends have suggested, namely, that when I made a statement it should be under conditions where questions could be asked on the statement and I would be in a position to answer questions. It is of no use for me to make a statement in the debate on the address and the budget and then repeat it when the war appropriation bill is brought down. My colleagues, the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) and the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) are in the same position.
We expected that as soon as the budget was completed the further supplementary estimates would be taken up. That has been done. We expected that then the budget resolutions would be taken up; we are going to do that this afternoon. I think it is worth while for the house to know the arrangements arrived at as a result of the meeting held in the Prime Minister's office. Here they are.
On the motion to refer the resolution with respect to the war appropriation bill to the committee the Minister of Finance is to table break-downs for all departments which participate in the funds provided1 by the war appropriation bill, that is, navy, army, air, finance, munitions and supply, labour, war services and agriculture. That would cover every one of the departments which have to do with the various matters mentioned by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. Their estimates would, be placed' on the table and the house would be prepared for a discussion in committee. The ministers would give the fullest information possible.
When the bill is in committee each department is to be. taken up in turn, the order in which they are to be taken up to be settled between the ministers concerned, and the committee to be advised reasonably in advance. That is to say, it may be agreed between the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, the Minister of National Defence for Air and myself that air comes first or navy or army, as the case may be, but the committee will be advised1.
Each minister as his department is taken up is to make a statement regarding the activities of his department. After the statement is made, the estimates or the appropriations of that particular department will be broken down into objects of expenditure, similar to what is done with the estimates we have in peace time. Then the committee can make the fullest inquiry into the matters which have been referred to in the statement,
[Mr. Ralston.1
or into matters such as those referred to by my hon. friend. There may be some matters, and he has mentioned very few, which would have to be discussed1 in private. I should think we shall be able to give statements which will reasonably satisfy the committee and the public and which can be discussed in public session.
It was agreed between those who met in that conference that every endeavour would be made to complete the consideration of one department before going on with another, although there may be times when it may be necessary or convenient to suspend consideration of one department and take up another temporarily. It was also agreed that every endeavour would be made to stick to the item before the committee rather than conduct a roving commission into all activities of departments. We would not be jumping from pay and allowances, for instance, to equipment, but would stick to one subject until we were through with it.
Speaking for myself, that is the arrangement on which I am prepared to go, and just as soon as we can. I do not expect that we shall be through quickly with the discussion on the war appropriation because that is a most important matter, the most important matter of all, if I may say so with all due respect to the financial legislation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On a question of mechanics, Mr. Speaker, the minister said that we would exhaust one department before going into another. I anticipate that the minister will make a full and complete statement at the opening, as has been the custom heretofore. Will all members be given an opportunity to read, analyse and digest that statement before opening cross-examination?


James Layton Ralston: If hon. members so desire.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We cannot discuss it intelligently unless we are given a little time.


James Layton Ralston: Hon. members generally have enough questions to ask to keep us going for the first day, and then they could take the statement home and come back loaded with more questions for the next day. I will make a statement at the opening, and I am sure that every reasonable opportunity will be given to hon. members to examine the statement.
Mr. Speaker, that is the arrangement we made, and that is the course we propose to follow. I do not propose to withhold anything which I can reasonably be justified in making public, and we will proceed just as fast as

Canada's War Position
possible. I had expected that the budget resolutions would be through this week and that we would have next week to begin at least on the war appropriation bill.


John George Diefenbaker: It is seldom that I am altogether in agreement with the course being followed by the government, but in this matter the course being followed is the one agreed upon. I wish to make this perfectly clear. Speaking for myself alone, I think that instead of having a secret session of the house the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) should from time to time place before the house and the country a statement on the war and Canada's position, making a report similar to that given to the House of Commons in Great Britain by Mr. Churchill. Reports have been given by the Prime Minister from time to time but not as regularly as I think should be the case. To-day we betray no secret in saying that conditions are difficult, indeed terrible, on the Atlantic. The people of Canada do not realize just how serious the conditions are. The mass of war materials that is being produced and piled up, great as it is, can assist the empire at this time only if it finds its way over to the battlefields.
We approach another victory loan campaign which will be an outstanding success if the people know the facts. I feel that all over Canada to-day there is altogether too much apathy, too much of a feeling that the war has been won. What the people of Canada need is a speech from the Prime Minister in which he will give them as nearly as he can within the limits of censorship a true picture of the situation in which we find ourselves to-day. I do not want to play politics, and I say that in all sincerity. It is all very well for us to look at the post-war period. But if parliament, which is one of the custodians of the future of this country and of this empire has half its mind devoted to the war and half to the post-war, we have insufficient of its collective intellect devoted to either. Half of our minds to-day cannot be devoted to helping in the winning of the war and the other half to consideration of the ballot box. Speaking for myself again, I believe-and I think all hon. members are of the same opinion-that the Prime Minister should tell the people of Canada in order to arouse them from their lethargy, the position in which Canada, the empire and the world stand to-day. I do not want to go into a secret session where the information I receive must remain with me. I wish to know, as a citizen of Canada and as a member of this house, what the prospects are, what we are doing toward winning the war,
and whether the mobilization of man-power for service in Canada will aid in winning the war overseas. I wish to know whether the vast amounts of munitions that are being produced in this country are being sent overseas, and generally what we as members can do to assist the government at this time. It is not the government we are assisting by our cooperation; it is all of the people of Canada. It is Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has said succinctly and clearly exactly what it was in my own mind to say, and I shall not repeat any part of what he has said.
The membership of this house will, I think, give me the credit for having advocated as the first and foremost and always the fundamental duty of this parliament the winning of the war. I believe in that with all my heart. When the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) rose this afternoon, he must have been aware of what the arrangement was between the three leaders with respect to the conduct of the business of this house, and I am just wondering in my own mind whether behind his motion was not the idea of getting into the public print with an eye on the ballot box.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The hon. member is once more attributing motives to me which frequently he has in his own mind, and I object. I am quite well aware of the understanding that was arrived at and-


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbuiy):: He is now making a speech, Mr. Speaker. Let us have the point of order settled first.


Major James William Coldwell: I believe I have the right to point out wherein the hon. member is imputing motives to me. He is not stating my motives correctly, I was simply saying that because of the nearness of the Easter recess I felt that before we left we should have some knowledge of what the war now involved for Canada, That was my only purpose, and I resent the hon. gentleman's remarks. I would suggest that he has set an example in this house to most of us how to play politics in the petty sense.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who is
imputing motives now? I have not imputed any motive to the hon. gentleman. I just expressed my thoughts. I wondered' whether his eye was not more on the ballot box than it was on winning the war; and I will put myself in the judgment of the membership of this house as to the attitude since 1938 of
Canada's War Position

these hon. gentlemen, and especially of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar toward the winning of the war.
Having said that, I have one more point to mention before I sit down. Perhaps I should wait for Your Honour to rule on the point of order before I proceed.


Thomas Vien: I think all parties agree
that the hon. gentleman should continue.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On the
question of a secret session, as I cast my eyes over the two or three secret sessions we have had in this chamber, I wonder what was said within the four walls of this room which could not have been said publicly.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not
recall a single secret that could not have been divulged.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Layton Ralston: Oh, yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, well,
there -was something said of that nature along certain lines. But all these things which are said confidentially in this house are said openly in the British House of Commons.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then if
what I say be so, and I cannot remember all the multitude of detail which was discussed here, I will say this: What is the good of it if we have not a record of it and we cannot use it outside? It is not sufficient to inform me; that merely satisfied my curiosity. I have not yet been convinced that secret sessions are of any great value in informing the Canadian people as to where we stand in respect of this war. Suppose in- a discussion which may take place before we come to the war appropriation bill, I should demand of the minister what are the plans for the invasion of Europe; could I expect a public reply?


James Layton Ralston: Or in a secret session,
either.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or in a
secret session. Why, that is the vital thing; it is what we are more concerned about than anything else. I would not even ask that question, and if I asked it I would not expect it to be answered. Therefore let us get on with the work of parliament. I commend my friend the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Thomas Vien: I have the honour to
inform the house that I have received the following communication:
.	Ottawa, April 5, 1943.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. Sir Lyman Poore Duff, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber to-day, Monday the 5th April, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



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

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Special War Revenue Act and to provide:
1. That the excise tax on each letter transmitted by post be increased from one to two cents.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Before we proceed, I think we are entitled to an explanation from the Postmaster General or the Minister of Finance, or perhaps both of them, as to the necessity for the increase in the Post Office Department ; and he should put on the record the figures relating to the income and outgo of the department which make it necessary to increase the postage tolls. It is, I think, strange that the grandson of the Postmaster General who was the father of penny postage in Canada should find himself now in the position of abandoning the great principle of penny postage in this country and of raising the postage to the very high rate of four cents.


Mr. MARTIN:: There is a war on.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Somebody says, "There is a war on". Well, there is such a thing as taxation to the saturation point. I am open to conviction as to the necessity of this increased impost. I have always thought that, in a great public utility like the Post Office Department, the cheaper you make the service the more the public will use it, and that the two will balance. I should like to know if this theory is sound or unsound. I think a four cent postage rate will have the effect of less users of the postal facilities with respect to certain classes of our community, and I hold the view that the increase of this

Special War Revenue Act
tax at this time of high income taxes on corporations and big business firms, and of the excess profits taxes will have the effect of the government paying this tax itself.
Take a company which is in the excess profits tax class, where all its profits over a certain level go to the government as excess profits. Such a company will not care whether the tax is two cents, four cents or ten cents; it will go to the crown, and the very purpose the government has in mind will be defeated. An hon. member has referred to war risk insurance. In this class of insurance, if my memory is correct, forty per cent only of the premium is charged to expense, and the rest has to be absorbed by the company out of its earnings. The same principle applies here. By the way, I might tell the Minister of Finance that I find a great many people in this country are refusing to take up war risk insurance because they regard the rates as being too high. Companies in which I am interested have considered the matter and have deferred from time to time the placing of war risk insurance. This, Mr. Chairman, is just in passing; I do not intend to dwell upon it long. As the danger of invasion becomes remote, so the desire for war risk insurance recedes into the distance. I do not know what was the inception of this demand, but to-day, it seems to me, the whole thing could pretty well be scrapped except in the odd case where certain communities may still have a fear of invasion and destruction.
However, that is not the point I wish to make. I tell the minister that the increased cent in this tax will come from the large corporations, the large business houses, that the cost will come out of the excess profits tax, and that the net income received will be very small. At least, that is the theory on which I am proceeding. I should like to hear the defence of the government in respect to raising the tax. I assume they will say, the increased cost of operating the department. However, I do not know what it will be; we were not told. As I recollect there was just a brief statement in the budget that the rates would be raised, and that was followed by a supplementary statement from the Minister of Finance referring to certain other people. What consideration is the department giving to raising rates on other classes of matter? There are other classes besides first-class matter. What consideration has the government given to raising those rates?
Then the Post Office Department is subsidizing Trans-Canada Air Lines; past experience has shown that the subsidy has been generous, to say the least. The rates at which
mail is being carried by Trans-Canada for this government are on a basis not comparable with rates in the United States. I think the consensus is that the subventions from the Post Office, the public treasury, to Trans-Canada Air Lines are higher than in any other part of the world. They ought to be reduced. We discussed that matter in the railway committee the other day. I am not going into that now. The Postmaster General's illustrious progenitor established penny postage in this country. That will not be his only claim to fame, but it will be one of the chief claims. It was a great achievement. But now we have the sad spectacle of his grandson increasing the postage rates in this country.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The amendment of which I gave notice some weeks ago had better be moved-.
That resolution No. I of the resolutions to amend the Special War Revenue Act be amended to insert the words "and post card" after the words "on each letter" in the first line thereof.


James Layton Ralston: I so move.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This means that the extra cent is an excise tax, not postage?


Mr. MULOCK:: That is correct. The
postage has not been raised. But my colleague the Minister of Finance has required extra money for the war expenditure. It was estimated that something upwards of $8,000,000 could be raised by an additional one cent on letters and post cards. It was not that the Post Office Department required more money for operating. In fact our surplus as shown in the report has increased substantially in the last few years, from some 83,250 to upward of 84,500,000, with every indication that it will be still higher, although the final figures for the fiscal year are not yet in.
In regard to Trans-Canada Air Lines, the rate is still high, but it has been reduced again this year. Originally it was sixty cents; now it is down to 42-08 cents a mile, I think it is. It has been reduced steadily as the volume of air mail increased. There have been very large increases in air mail. Several years ago it cost the Post Office Department in assistance to the Trans-Canada Air Lines upwards of 8100,000 a month. I am glad to say that during the last year with a thirty per cent allowance for duplication, namely, transfers from one plane to another, and making allowance for mail originating in outside points, for example, United States or Newfoundland, we can show a profit for air operation last year of 8321,000, which is a difference of SI,250,000 to $1,500,000 a year. And the indications are that as far as air mail is concerned those profits will increase.
Special War Revenue Act

The larger part of that profit was made during the last three months of the calendar year, and for January and February the earnings are up greatly over last year, the volume of air mail also being up. So that we are not trying to get additional revenue except for the purpose of assisting the Minister of Finance in financing the war.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Then, instead of the government raising the rates, would it not be in order to leave the rates on. letters as they are but that an excise stamp of one cent be required in addition to the postage? In that way the Post Office Department would have a defence against the charge of advancing the postal rates.


William Pate Mulock: It is unfortunate, but we have to take some of the blame, if any blame should attach to the necessity for raising the money necessary to conduct a war for our very existence. So far as I am concerned I am willing to assume my share. I think the suggestion as to an excise stamp would be wasteful, because it would mean more work. We have post offices all over this country, but in many small places there is no convenient spot where one can go to buy a revenue stamp. My hon. friend will realize what it would mean in the small places and the back concessions in the way of inconvenience to the people. Our postmasters are selling stamps anyway; there is no use in setting up a duplicate system and paying someone in each area to sell revenue stamps. The expense would probably eat up all the income.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The post offices could just as well sell a revenue stamp as a postage stamp. If I were the .minister I would try to defend my department by keeping postal rates where they are. The department shows a surplus. Then, why have that department, which I believe is the only revenue department we have to-day, charged with increasing postal rates? As far as cost goes it would not amount to anything; these revenue stam.ps could1 be .printed at very little extra cost, and the minister's staff could handle the two just as easily as one.


William Pate Mulock: Not just as easily. The whole matter was discussed, and it was thought this was the most convenient way for the public.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All the money goes into one common pool, does it not?


William Pate Mulock: Yes, but the postmasters throughout the country and officials of the

department handle it. Someone would be paid a commission on the sale, or it would be included in their regular salaries and bonuses and charges.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why
should they not do this extra work for nothing?


William Pate Mulock: That question is under
consideration at the moment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suggest
that as a patriotic gesture the postmasters should sell these stamps for nothing. I know a good many of the postmasters have limited incomes, but they all have more than they' did during the depression; most of them are doing quite well now. The discussion seems to indicate that this is a tax, pure and simple, to help out the revenues of the country. What about the point I raised1, that in the final analysis it will defeat its purpose because the big users of the postal services are the large companies, most if not all of whom are within the excess profits tax class and therefore will pay nothing extra. I think that is the true position. Just how much that will amount to I do not know, but I should think it would assume very large proportions. The Postmaster General has suggested that it is hoped $8,000,000 will be raised by this method. How much of that will come from the excess profits tax or the war income taxes paid by these very large companies?


Mr. MAYBANIC:: Before the minister
answers that question I should like to ask another one, which sort of joins with it. As I heard the leader of the opposition-


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, not
the leader of the opposition.


Ralph Maybank: Well, the quondam
leader of the opposition. It occurred to me that perhaps the minister might be able to indicate to the committee the amount or the proportion or the percentage of the money coming to the Post Office Department which comes through the sale of stamps to ordinary individuals and businesses that do not have large quantities of mail matter, as compared with the large companies which the hon. member mentioned. Is there any division which the minister could give us. I have often wondered just what share of the revenues of the post office comes from John Doe and Richard Roe, and how much from the very large business concerns mentioned by the hon. member for York-Sunbury. In a sense that is the same question asked by the hon. member, put in a different way.

Special War Revenue Act


William Pate Mulock: The hon. member for
York-Sunbury mentioned payments to postmasters. He understands, I am. sure, that they are paid on the basis of the earnings of the previous year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A commission.; that is the small offices.	-


William Pate Mulock: Yes, on last year's business. I think it is true that the postmasters are receiving better remuneration on the whole than previously, though, mind you, there are some points where for one reason or another there has been a drop in business. There are nob very many of those; on the whole what the hon. member says is substantially correct. But I would also remind him that these postmasters are doing a great deal of work they did not do previously, and in many instances they are doing it to help the war effort.


Richard Burpee Hanson: For which they are not paid.


William Pate Mulock: Yes; they are doing it in order to help out, and I wish to mention that in order to keep the record clear and so that no false impression may get abroad in this connection. They deserve credit for a great deal of the work they have been doing, work they volunteered to do because they desired to help. As far as the financial end of it goes, I will leave that to my colleague the Minister of Finance.


Ralph Maybank: I should like to add just a word to what was said by the Postmaster General in reference to causing the postmasters to do some additional work for nothing. As a matter of fact I am rather surprised at the proposal that was advanced. It is all very well, sitting here in this house, at a moment's notice to take up the time of some other person in the country, with no return. It is all very well to take all the postmasters and say, "Oh, don't pay them for this work. Have them do this work for nothing." In the first place the hon. gentleman suggested that these stamps might be sold in a different way, that there might be a different sort of stamp. In reply to the suggestion that this would involve extra work he answered, "Oh, well, that is all right; have the postmasters do it for nothing." I submit that is an entirely wrong way to proceed and an entirely wrong principle to adopt. I think as a matter of fact people like the hon. member are just a little too ready to ask some other person to do something for nothing. I believe that if the postmasters do a job they are entitled to be paid for it, just as any other person is entitled to be paid for what he does. I am quite sure that if we were passing a law here which required
people to consult lawyers, the hon. gentleman would join with me in opposing any suggestion by a third party that the lawyers should do the work for nothing, and the same thing applies to postmasters. When a man does something he should be paid for it; he is worthy of his hire.


Gordon Graydon: If I may just add a word in connection with the question of postmasters, I think the experience of most hon. members coming from rural districts is that postmasters, as a class, cannot be said to be overpaid. As a matter of fact I have a great deal of sympathy for the average rural postmaster, who in many instances is barely able to eke out an existence. He, together with the rural mail carrier, has a very difficult time to cany on. I am quite sure the remarks of my desk-mate and colleague, the hon. member for York-Sunbury, would not normally be interpreted as anything more than taking part in the discussion of a matter of this kind in an attempt to find the ways and means which will best deal with the situation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think that puts it on the right basis.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps the minister will just keep quiet until I have finished. I would just add that I hope the Postmaster General will not ask the postmasters of Canada to do, without some further remuneration, anything more than they are doing now. There are many other people who could much better afford to do something for the war effort-


James Lorimer Ilsley: Name some of them, please; just one.


Gordon Graydon: The Minister of Finance; that was whom I had in mind, and I am glad the minister gave me the opportunity. I do feel that as far as the rural people are concerned-


Ralph Maybank: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Gordon Graydon: No, I will not. In respect of postmasters generally in Canada, I wish to repeat that the minister should be very careful before giving them extra work to do, without some extra remuneration.


William Pate Mulock: I thought I had made it clear that in many instances these postmasters, through their organizations, had volunteered to assist in the war effort-and to do this work without any additional expense. I do not want anyone to get the impression that we are trying to load the postmasters down with all sorts of extra work without extra pay. They do get a commission on unemployment insurance stamps, but they are doing
Special War Revenue Act

a great deal of extra work in connection, with the war, work they have volunteered to carry on.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
exactly what I had in mind, though of course the politically-minded hon. member for Winnipeg South-Centre sought to place upon what I said an interpretation that I had not in mind at all.
Will the minister just tell us what commissions are paid on the stamps sold through the post offices? Let me say at once that on the great majority of the postage stamps sold in this country no commission is paid. They are sold through the big city offices, and at a minimum. The practice of giving commissions to rural postmasters is to help them eke out their salaries. I should think it is an unsatisfactory practice, and one which would lead to a certain amount of evasion. If a man is performing a service as postmaster he ought to be paid a decent wage for his services, irrespective of the revenues collected by his office. To-day in the smaller offices they receive salaries. But no one could live on $100-and I can remember when it was $35. Then, in addition they receive commissions from the sale of stamps. We might be surprised if we were to learn how high that commission percentage is. Although the volume is not large, the percentage is very high.
Usually this work is done purely as a sideline. No one could accept the job as the work of a lifetime, or as a full-time job, in a small community. In the larger communities the postmaster is paid a salary, and I believe that salary is gauged by the revenue from the office. The amount of commission does not mean so much to him. As a rule these postmasters are paid a certain stipend, out of which they pay their help. That is a situation which, in my opinion, ought to be reviewed. What control has the Postmaster General over the pay a postmaster gives his help? I know of one instance where the poor assistant does nearly all the work and gets a pitifully low salary. Surely that is not a satisfactory situation. I have in mind one particular example in which the postmaster in a small town receives $3,200. He has an assistant, and I venture to say that the assistant puts in more hours of work than the postmaster, but is paid only $800 a year. I do not see how a man could live on it. However, that is the bargain between the postmaster and his assistant, and I do not suppose the Post Office Department has anything to say about it.
Will the minister tell the committee what commissions are paid on the sale of postage

stamps? How much of this extra cent does he anticipate will be taken up in commissions? I do not think the proportion will be very large, because the great bulk of stamp sales is to the big commercial houses, where no commissions are paid, the expenses coming out of operating expenses. This is an instance where a tax is pulled out of the hands of one tax-gatherer and placed into the hands of another tax-gatherer.


William Pate Mulock: I think the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) will agree that the latter part of his observations, with respect to the payment of employees in post offices, might better be dealt with when the estimates for the Post Office Department are before the committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes; I was just pointing out the iniquity of it.


William Pate Mulock: So far as percentages are concerned, I may inform the committee that on amounts up to $1,000 they receive seventy per cent; thirty per cent in excess of $1,000 and up to $10,000; and in excess of $10,000 up to $20,000 they receive twenty per cent, plus commissions on money orders and postal notes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That means in a small post office that seven-tenths of this increase of a cent will go in commissions.


William Pate Mulock: No; that is not correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I do not understand what the minister has said.


William Pate Mulock: The hon. member asked what the present rate was. Previously he had asked whether the postmasters would receive increased commissions. He had made the suggestion that the postmaster should not receive anything on the extra cent.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not make that suggestion. I suggested that the postmasters might do it as a patriotic gesture. I asked the minister if he had given consideration to it, and he said they were already considering it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I should think everyone would try to associate himself with that suggestion; it is a very good one.


Mr.   LIANSON@York-Sunbury: It has
some merit, of course; it would not have come out of my brain, if it had not merit.


James Lorimer Ilsley: One of the most amusing incidents I can remember has been 'the display of nervous anxiety and haste with which the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), the leader of the opposition, rushed in to try to place the matter before the committee

Special War Revenue Act
before the information went out that his seat-mate was going to ask postmasters to do the work for nothing. As a matter of fact I do not think there is much more work, if any. I am certainly in favour of treating postmasters justly, but I would expect that very careful consideration would be given to any proposal to increase their remuneration by virtue of their larger tax revenue.
The postmasters are divided into two groups, the first of which consists of civil servants paid by parliamentary appropriation. This group covers the most important post offices, and about seventy-five per cent of the total postal revenue comes from it. They do not derive commissions from the sale of stamps.
The second group consists of so-called revenue post offices, the postmasters receiving commissions from the sale of stamps, on a graduated basis. As the Postmaster General has said, if stamp sales are 81,000 or less the commission is seventy per cent. To the extent that stamp sales exceed $1,000 and do not exceed $10,000, the commission is thirty per cent; and on sales of stamps in excess of $10,000 the commission rate is twenty per cent. It is clear that a very small percentage of total stamp sales bear the seventy per cent commission rate.
But the amount paid a postmaster in 1943 is not based upon 1943 sales. It is based upon the sales in 1942. What they will receive in 1944 for their 1943 sales remains to be decided. That is under consideration by the Post Office Department. If they consult me about it, I shall bring forward the suggestion of the hon. member for York-Sunbury, if he has not backed away from it.


Olof Hanson: I do not care who is the father of it. Let us approach the matter realistically,- and not try to make political capital out of it. The fact remains that in any of the post offices with revenues of $1,000 or less, seventy per cent of the increase, if given effect to in 1944 on the basis of 1943 revenue, will go to the postmaster. And very little of it, as a result, will go to the winning of the war. That is statement No. 1.
In post offices where the revenue exceeds $1,000 and does not exceed $10,000, seventy per cent of the first thousand goes to the postmaster, and thirty per cent, or nearly a third, of the excess. In those cases nearly a third of the total accumulated from this one cent will not go to the winning of the war. That is not good enough. This is a war tax. Let us do something to work it
out so that it will go to the winning of the war, and not into somebody's pocket.
We have heard the statement many times that we are not to make profits out of this war. Here in a small way, and covering a multitude of small transactions, the government can give effect to that principle. I am standing by that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I agree with that.


Mr. FAIR:: I should like to make a suggestion to the Postmaster General and to the Minister of Finance, because it seems he has to give consent before suggestions of this kind can be accepted. My suggestion is that all our men and women in uniform overseas be given the franking privilege. Those who are overseas are making great sacrifices for the rest of us On this side of the water, and it would be a proper gesture on our part to extend the franking privilege to them. I am not referring to letters alone. I am referring also to parcels that are sent overseas. I understand that it costs, on an average, $5 to send one of these parcels, and to many of the families of the men and women receiving them $5 is a large amount. I understand that the actual cost of sending a parcel over is around $1.30, and I suggest that the Minister of. Finance look for some other source of revenue and institute free franking privileges for mail overseas.


Mr. PERLEY:: I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. I do not think postmasters in the villages and smaller towns are overpaid, especially when we consider the increase in the cost of living. I know of several cases where postmasters have taken a loss. They must pay the rent of their premises and also the wages of any help they need.


Mr. HAZEN:: They get no cost-of-living
bonus.


Ernest Edward Perley: Their cost of living has
gone up and they get no bonus. I know of four or five postmasters in my district who are rendering a wonderful service. They have headed up the different loan and salvage campaigns. The postmaster in my town headed up a campaign which collected two carloads of old tires. When he was doing that work he had to hire help for the post office. The same postmaster has headed up the last two victory loan campaigns, and I am sure he will do the same thing again. I wish to make a plea on behalf of these men and ask that they not be put to any extra expense. This is the life business of many of these men. The postmaster in my town has held this position since

Special War Revenue Act

he returned from the last war. He has a war disability, but he is doing a wonderful job. He is making this his life work. These men are certainly not overpaid. I was about to suggest something along the line of that suggested by the hon. member for Battle Creek (Mr. Fair), that some reduction be made in the cost of sending letters to men overseas. I do not think it is quite fair that these letters should have to pay this extra cost.


William Pate Mulock: The hon. member is referring to what letters?


Ernest Edward Perley: Letters going to men overseas.


Mr. MacINNIS:: As the minister has pointed out, everything that has been said so far might better be said on the post office estimates. The main thing we have to deal with now is whether or not this is a proper war tax. If we believe it is, then we should pass it, and everyone should be willing to pay his share of the tax. There is one thing I like about the Minister of Finance-it is not the only one-he has the courage to stick to an unpopular thing when he once sees it is necessary. I only hope that on this occasion his courage is contagious. The hon. member for York-Sunbury is not in his seat at the moment, and I am wondering whether he is not the same member who a few moments ago waxed so eloquent over the statement made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and said, "Let us get on with the war." Whenever two cents are being discussed, the hon. member for York-Sunbury will be found haggling about them, where they are going and what they are going to do. As far as I am concerned I am willing to pay my share of the increased postage and my share of any other tax, without complaining in any way.


Mr. McIVOR:: I have had considerable experience with the smaller post offices, and I agree with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle in what he says about the service they are giving. I tried to have the salaries of some postmistresses and postmasters increased, and I did not fail in every case. I have often wondered how they were able to keep up their homes on such small salaries. I have found that many people using these smaller post offices buy their stamps in the city. That is not fair. I think the Postmaster General should try to find some way by which the local post offices get the benefit of the commission on the sale of stamps.


Mr. McCANN:: As I understand it, the purpose of this amendment is to secure more revenue for the national treasury; it is not to

afford an opportunity to discuss whether postmasters are receiving enough salary. It does not take any more effort on behalf of a postmaster to sell a four-cent stamp than it does to sell a two-cent stamp, and he receives a little more revenue. The suggestion has been made, and I think it is a good one, that the new stamp should indicate that the increase is not an increase in postage rates but is an excise tax in addition to the postage for the purpose of getting more revenue. I think the four-cent stamp could be so designed to indicate that the postage is three cents, and the excise, one cent. That would indicate to the general public that an excise tax of one cent was being collected for war purposes. They would not be likely to think that the post office was going behind as a result of its war activities and that it was necessary to increase the rate 25 per cent. I suggest that the Postmaster General give this his consideration.


William Pate Mulock: I would point out that the postage is two cents and that the tax will now be two cents. The new stamp will bear the portrait of his majesty in uniform and will be available about April 15.


Mr. JACKMAN:: The hon. member for
York-Sunbury raised) the question as to how much of this additional revenue would be new revenue, and how much might be chargeable as an expense on various companies that paid either forty per cent or eighty per cent of their income as taxation. That was followed up by a question by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre asking if the Post Office Department knew' how' much of the mail emanated from private individuals and how much from business organizations. Can the minister throw any light on these two points?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is no accurate estimate of the proportion of the mail that is business mail. A very substantial proportion is non-business mail. The best estimates would run from one-third to one-half for non-business mail. With regard to the business mail the postage is deductible as a business expense. The businesses would be either those operating at a loss or those operating at a profit and paying forty per cent on their profits in combined income and excess profits taxes, or paying what amounts to eighty per cent; that is, one hundred per cent with twenty per cent returnable. I have spoken of businesses that were corporations. There are different rates for those that are not corporations. There is also a different rate for small businesses, a thirty per cent rate.

Special War Revenue Act
1S57


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Have you figured out
how much is net gain?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, we have not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You have figured the gross?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. There is an estimate
here of $8,000,000, but it is only an estimate; it may be $9,000,000 or something like that. We are making some allowance for some diminution in letter sending, but are not making any allowance for diminution of income and excess profits taxes. We had the same difficulty when we imposed other excise taxes. The tax on soft drinks, for example, may result in a company leaving the price to the consumer the same and paying the tax on a very much smaller profit, unless some steps are taken. I do not know what steps have been taken with regard to soft drinks, but I think steps were taken to offset that eventuality. The possibility is always there, that an excise tax will be assumed by the person on whom the tax is imposed to the prejudice of the income tax revenue. Undoubtedly the income tax revenue will suffer to some extent. With some companies, thirty per cent of the postage will come out in income taxes, with others, forty per cent; with others, fifty per cent, and nothing in the case of some companies. With regard to unincorporated proprietors I do not know what the percentage would be. It may be fifteen per cent. We just have to realize that there will be some diminution of income tax revenues.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister expects he will get a net of $5,000,000; would that be a fair estimate? While I am on my feet, I understand that the hon. member for Vancouver East read me a lecture a few moments ago. He has gone from the chamber. He shoots and runs. I am not in the habit of shooting and running. He said that I was concerned about winning the war, which I am, and I think very much more than, he is. Then he said I get into a discussion of a two-cent item with respect to the war effort.
If this opposition does not take an intelligent interest in the discussion of these budget resolutions I wonder who in this house will. Will it be the hon. member for Vancouver East? Will it be any member of his group? How much help have they given to elucidating some of the perplexing problems that have arisen in budget resolutions in days gone by? I have conceived it my duty within the limit of my capability to try to get to the public the
elucidation of some of these resolutions. I find it difficult to understand many of them. We are coming to one of the resolutions that I have not yet been able to fathom, and I have had the assistance of officers from the income tax department. How much light shall we get from the hon. member for Vancouver East on that point? He is much more concerned about making a political point against a political opponent than he is about the war or anything else.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: In regard to the airmail rate, which will now be seven cents as against six cents, while many of us have sympathy for a certain number of users of the mail, people whose incomes are very low, who will have to pay four instead of three cents, I believe that those who are accustomed to use airmail and are now paying six cents can well afford to-pay not merely seven cents but ten cents. I would ask the minister how much the one-cent increase in the airmail rate will mean in revenue, and from that we can figure out what an increase of four cents to a ten-cent rate would have made. Just what reasons entered into the minister's consideration in raising the airmail rate from six to seven cents? The figures indicate that the poundage of airmail carried in this country has been growing by leaps and bounds. The companies which use airmail can well afford to spend ten cents in place of the proposed rate of seven cents, and those who use the mail for personal reasons can well afford to pay an extra four cents instead of the extra one cent proposed.


William Pate Mulock: I do not agree with the hon. member's attitude in regard to a further increase in the price of airmail. The Post Office Department has to pay the money to operate the Trans-Canada Air Lines, so far as the postal operation is concerned, and we want it to be a paying and not a losing proposition. I am speaking for myself and, I believe, for the officials of the department. We have got it out of the red. We were losing about $1,300,000 a year, and now we are operating at $321,000 profit. I think we can stand the one-cent increase, but if the increase were more than that I should not like to say how much the volume would decrease. We have to pay on a per-mile basis regardless of whether the planes carry one pound, one hundred pounds or seven hundred pounds. Our idea is to get those planes carrying the maximum amount of mail they are able to carry. If they carry the maximum we make money. If not, it costs the post office and the taxpayers of this country money. I cannot agree with the hon. member.
185S
Special War Revenue Act

I think it would be bad business to increase the rate further and it would mean a drop in /olume. I know the hon. member's attitude in regard to airmail. If I am correct he suggested at one time that we should give consideration to cutting off the service west of Winnipeg during the war.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The minister is quite
WTong. I am simply asking for the considerations that entered into his mind in determining on this increase, whether it should be one cent, three cents, ten cents or anything else. I want to know the facts on which the resolution is based.
On the other point, I never suggested that airmail service from Winnipeg to the west should be discontinued. What I did say at one time, and I still say it, is that when Great Britain was fighting the nazi aeroplanes and there were insufficient bombers available, our Trans-Canada Air Lines here saw fit to expand its air services, and I saw advertisements on every mail truck in the country advocating that people use the airmail because it was faster; endeavouring to increase the load, to use more gasoline and to use more aeroplanes when they were very badly needed overseas. At the present time the situation has, I think, somewhat ameliorated. Nevertheless this committee is entitled to know what considerations entered into the minister's mind when he advocates a seven-cent rate as against ten cents.


William Pate Mulock: The resolution is to increase by one cent the tax on letters. Letters, whether they go by surface, by rail or by air, are still letters, and the one cent goes on them. I do not see any reason why there should be a discrimination against airmail.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The minister has to raise the revenue if he can.


William Pate Mulock: Airmail is a profitable undertaking; it is increasingly profitable every year. The reason why I object is that I think, if my hon. friend's suggestion were followed, it would not be a profitable undertaking; I think it would probably be a losing undertaking, because there would be too large a differential between the price of sending a letter by air and that of sending it by train.


Mr. GREEN:: There is one other feature with regard to airmail which should not be overlooked. This dominion is several thousand miles wide, and nothing has done more to make the coastal areas of Canada feel that they are part of Canada than the airmail and the air service. I fear I must disagree with the hon. member for Rosedale. It may

not mean much in getting mail from Toronto _ to Ottawa, but certainly it has meant wonderful things for the people of the Pacific coast, particularly the business people, to be able to get their mail back and forth overnight. It would be very unfortunate if this tax were made higher than one cent. I think the Postmaster General is quite right in his view that it should remain at one cent.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I find
myself in agreement with the hon. member for Vancouver South. But is not this the principle?	I do not know whether it ' is
applicable; I am in an inquiring mood at the moment. When you give a service which is a better service-and an airmail in certain situations is a better sendee than the regular mail service-is it not therefore worth more to the user of the service?
I am not in the position of the hon. member for Vancouver South. An airmail service would not help me to communicate with my constituency; it would mean a delay, because the mail would have to go to Moncton and around a long circuit, so that I never employ it for my own personal use between here and Fredericton. The airmail does not benefit us at all. But is it a sound .principle that because you have a better, a more expeditious service, you are entitled to ask more?
Is that the principle on which this excess is based; or is it on what the traffic will bear?
I do not know. Of course I realize this is an excise tax. I must say I did not have that clearly in my mind when I rose to speak this afternoon. Since it is an excise . tax it does not bear much relation to the question of the transportation of the mail. But there is a principle there to which I have referred which may have some bearing.


William Pate Mulock: The question of airmail rates is one in respect of which our department has kept in touch with the United States postal department, and they with us. Their rate was six cents; our rate has been six cents; and in 1931, I believe, when the tax was changed the one cent was absorbed at that time in the airmail but not in the others. You remember you put the one cent revenue tax on, I think probably on account of the desire to keep the airmail stamps of the same value on each side of the line.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is one reason.


William Pate Mulock: That is one reason. The second reason is that, I think, over a period of time-not in war time, but as things straighten away-the cost of airmail will

The Royal Assent
definitely be reduced. It all depends upon the matter of income. If the hon. member for York-Sunbury will help to convince the hon. member for Rosedale of the importance of increasing the volume of airmail, we should be able to get that done when the war is over.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Trans-
Canada Air Lines base their charges on the principle of mileage, do they not?


William Pate Mulock: We pay the Trans-Canada Air Lines on the basis of the miles flown.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a more exact way of putting it. You pay the Trans-Canada Air Lines on the basis of miles flown, whether the planes carry one letter or a million letters. They do not do that in the United States, do they? Is it not on the basis of weight?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Both. All kinds of ways.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the standard basis on which air carriers are paid in the United States?


William Pate Mulock: In this country we are allowed 1,200 pounds on a plane.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the maximum?


William Pate Mulock: Yes, up to 1,200 pounds. In the United States their rate is different. It is based on distance and weight.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the airmail rate all over Canada six cents on ordinary letters?


William Pate Mulock: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It will be seven cents?


William Pate Mulock: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have a recollection that I recently sent some mail to Hudson Hope. I was informed that it would be taken by air as far as Fort St. John, and I think I added extra postage for it to be taken on to Hudson Hope. I suppose the difference was accounted for by the mail having to be carried out by stage?


William Pate Mulock: If my hon. friend will give me particulars I will look into the matter and let him know. Perhaps he is mistaken about that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the old rate of six cents for airmail, was one cent of that for excise tax?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will give my understanding;
if I am wrong I shall be corrected. My understanding is that, of the six cents, two cents is postage; three cents, service charge, and one cent, excise tax. That makes up the six cents.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is on the six-cents basis?


William Pate Mulock: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That means that on airmail the carrying charge will be only five cents, and two cents will be excise tax?


William Pate Mulock: Yes.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Would the minister let us know how much one cent increase in the airmail rate means in the total revenue?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Seventy-five to one hundred thousand dollars.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I do not suppose that the matter of postage enters into the cost-of-living index. This increase in the postage rate all through the scale is virtually a sales tax on a service, namely, the postal service. I understand from the remarks of the minister on the budget that he does not believe in the principle of an increase in the sales tax. But is this not carrying out the contrary view, that this is simply an increase in sales tax on an essential service? If it entered into the cost-of-living index, I assume the minister would not have been an advocate of the increase in the postal rate.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know. I do not think it enters into the cost-of-living index; I am not sure. Whether I would have been investigating it if it had, I do not know. But it would have affected it very little.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson. Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate.
And having returned.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name royal assent to the following bills:
An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st of March, 1944.
An act for granting to His Majesty aid for national defence and security.
Special War Revenue Act
[Stage Direction]
An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st of March, 1943.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed in committee of ways and means, Mr. Bradett-e in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr.   BOSS@Souris: Before recess we were dealing with some matters affecting the Postmaster General. Does this extra cent affect air mail sent overseas to the troops? I received a return from his department which stated that last October thirty per cent of the air mail overseas was sent by boat. I believe during December, 1942, about thirty-four per cent of the Christmas air mail went by boat. I wonder if, at ten cents a letter, he can say how much money would have been paid by the senders of that mail.
In view of the fact that mail from soldiers comes to this country postage free, will the government consider allowing mail going to the soldiers overseas to travel postage free? If so, can the minister give us an estimate of how much revenue would be lost by the government if this were permitted? After all, the troops overseas certainly like to receive mail, and if mail were sent free from this side it might mean as much to them as the sending of mail free to this country.


William Pate Mulock: The one cent does not apply to air mail going overseas to the troops.
In regard to the other questions asked by the hon. member, I believe he will agree that they are matters which might more properly be discussed under post office estimates. If the hon. member would agree, I would be prepared to have them discussed at that time at some length, and on that occasion I could give the fullest information.


James Arthur Ross: What about the last question?


William Pate Mulock: The hon. member mentioned the percentage of air mail going overseas. I wish to make it clear that that does not apply to airgraphs. To my knowledge there have been no airgraphs sent by surface; they have all gone by air. There have been conditions in the Atlantic, which the hon. member will understand, which caused diffi-

culties in connection with the heavy mails at the Christmas season. People who tried to get their mail overseas ahead of time mailed some time in advance, with the result that there was an accumulation. It was thought it would be delayed for months and months if we tried gradually to work out the surplus that had accumulated. The only way was to move it quickly. The Postmaster General of Great Britain made that statement when I was over there. As a matter of fact we discussed the matter together. They had the same problem about that time, with the result that they had to ship several tons of mail by surface to Canada. Those are things which, although unfortunate, cannot be helped.
May I assure the hon. member that officials of the department are doing everything possible to move the mails, and especially air mail. We have asked the public not to use ordinary air mail to England, under the 30-cent rate, until further notice, because only a very small proportion of it can be handled at the present time. The service is practically suspended.


James Arthur Ross: Can the minister say how much revenue would be lost if mail were sent overseas to the troops free of postage?


William Pate Mulock: I should not like to give that at the present time, but I shall get the information for the hon. member. My figures are not sufficiently extensive to give an accurate answer.


James Arthur Ross: Has the government given this matter serious consideration?


William Pate Mulock: Yes; it has been and is being given consideration. So far, however, in view of the demands of war and the need for finances it has not been felt possible to do so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just one further question, and I shall have finished with this item. This afternoon I referred to the fact that this tax is a tax on first-class matter only. The government needs the money, and that is the reason for the tax. It must have general revenues to carry on the war. What consideration has been given to the placing of a tax on other classes of matter?


William Pate Mulock: Consideration was given to the placing of taxes on other classes of matter. But, in respect of third-class matter, for instance, the Postmaster General does not have a monopoly in the handling of it in the same way as he has a monopoly in respect of first-class matter. If the rates were raised beyond certain levels people could operate

Special War Revenue Act
agencies for delivery in competition with the Post Office Department. This is not thought to be desirable. We have gone into the whole matter with the Minister of Finance and officials of his department, and it was considered inadvisable to make a change, because if the rates were raised it might involve a loss of business, and the setting up of a duplication of services.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That seems to be sound. Will the additional cent on drop letters, bringing the rate to three cents, not have the effect of diminishing the service in a given area-say a city of 10,000? It can be done much cheaper than 3 cents by hand delivery. Has consideration been given to this matter?


William Pate Mulock: Yes; it was considered. I believe I have heard the hon. member say on many occasions that there is a limit beyond which we cannot go in taxation. In some areas there will be a drop in volume. It will be very difficult to estimate how much is due to the increase in postage, because off-setting that drop there is still an increase in ordinary business. It is hard to tell whether the ordinary business increase will be greater than the drop in the volume. In some places it will not be felt. It will affect the volume to only a very limited extent; at least, that is the feeling of the department. In any event when the postage is raised the volume is cut down to some extent, although I do not think anyone can say exactly how much. The best they can do is to make an estimate based on past results. However, the conditions of this war are rather different. There seems to be considerably more money changing hands and flowing throughout the great body of the people. For that reason it is hard to say whether this diminution of business will be as great as it was when postage was increased in the past.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose
it is a matter of speculation.


William Pate Mulock: Absolutely.


James Arthur Ross: Will the open letters
which were one cent be two cents under the new schedule?


William Pate Mulock: If an open letter contains
printed matter, the rate will be one cent for two ounces; if it contains correspondence, the rate will be four cents, whether the letter is open or not.


James Arthur Ross: Where a circular typewritten letter is sent out at present under the one-cent rate, will it be two cents under the new schedule?


William Pate Mulock: No; it will be one cent
for two ounces.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: A
penalty is imposed if the proper postage is not put on a letter. Would it not be wise not to impose this penalty, say for a month? Some people do not understand that additional postage should be put on.


William Pate Mulock: The only result would be that the act would not come into effect as of April 1; it would come into effect as of May 1, as far as any practical application is concerned. If people knew that there was to be no penalty attached, they might possibly continue to use the old rate of postage for the month.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
know of one firm that had to pay $1.70 this morning for letters that came in without the proper postage attached. There will be other people in the same position, and I was just wondering if that could not be settled.
Amendment agreed1 to.
Resolution as amended' agreed to.
2.	That the excise tax on cigarettes be increased from one cent to two cents for each five cigarettes or fraction of five cigarettes contained in any package of cigarettes manufactured or imported into Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As one who does not
smoke cigarettes, perhaps I can put in a word for the soldier who smokes. I understand that until recently the soldier could buy in the canteen twenty-five cigarettes for thirty cents, whereas the public had to pay thirty cents for twenty-two cigarettes. With the new tax the soldier will receive twenty-five cigarettes for thirty-five cents, while the public will receive twenty-two cigarettes for thirty-five cents. In view of the limited return received by the soldier, I was wondering if the government would not forgo this tax increase on cigarettes sold in canteens to soldiers.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It would be difficult to administer without abuse.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I suppose the soldier
might buy for somebody else. However, the soldier receives so little for what he does that it does not seem very much to ask that he be granted the privilege of buying cigarettes at the same price as he paid previously. I presume there is a good deal of revenue received under the present price. I have not the figures at hand', but I am informed that in Newfoundland the situation is much more favourable for the soldier, and that it is still more favourable in the United States. It looks to
Special War Revenue Act

me as though the Canadian soldier is being more or less penalized. After all, the government will receive only a little extra revenue through this increased tax on cigarettes sold to soldiers at the canteen. I think it would be better to go without this revenue because, if that were done, it would certainly leave a much better taste in the soldier's mouth.


James Lorimer Ilsley: To do what the hon. gentleman suggests would be to assert a principle which we have not in our taxation system, that is, that goods sold to members of the forces in Canada should pay no tax.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is a differential now.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not in tax, in price. The forces in Canada get the benefit of the wholesale price. I think the hon. gentleman's figures are correct, although I cannot confirm them. We have not adopted the principle of exempting the members of the forces in Canada from taxes generally.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The
British did long ago. Even in ordinary times you could buy cigarettes on board a British war vessel practically free of taxes, and the same principle applied to ships under British registry. I think the United States government has adopted the same principle with respect to members of their armed forces; I understand they collect very little in taxes on cigarettes.


Colin William George Gibson: The same applies to Canadian troops overseas. For instance, our soldiers in Newfoundland are able to buy cigarettes which have paid no tax in Canada. The same applies to our navy and our troops in England. Cigarettes and tobacco can be sent to these men on which no tax is paid in this countiy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why is a distinction made between the volunteer undergoing his basic training in Canada and the man overseas?


Colin William George Gibson: When goods are exported a refund of the tax can be claimed. That regulation applies not only to tobacco and cigarettes sent to the troops; it applies to all tobacco and cigarettes exported.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
3.	That the excise tax on manufactured tobacco be increased from one to two cents per ounce actual weight or fraction thereof on manufactured tobacco of all descriptions, except cigars or cigarettes, manufactured or imported into Canada.
Gordon Graydon: How is the excise tax on manufactured tobacco collected and what revenue does the minister expect to get from the new tax?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The revenue from the tax on manufactured tobacco is estimated at about $14,500,000 for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1943, and it is estimated that the revenue this year from the increase will amount to about $6,500,000.


Gordon Graydon: Does the same principle that applies to cigarettes being sent overseas to our armed forces apply as well to tobaccos?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
4.	That there shall be imposed, levied and collected an excise tax of one-half cent per ounce actual weight or fraction thereof on Canadian raw leaf tobacco when sold for consumption in Canada.
Resolution agreed to.
5.	That the excise tax on cigarette paper be increased from six cents for each one hundred leaves or fraction thereof to eight cents.
Gordon Graydon: What was the revenue last year from this tax, and what revenue does the minister expect from this increase this year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: On cigarette paper and cigarette paper tubes, taking them both together-


Gordon Graydon: That is including resolutions 5 and 6?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1943, the revenue from both was about $4,800,000. The expected revenue from the increased tax on cigarette papers and tubes is about $2,000,000.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
6.	That the excise tax on cigarette paper tubes be increased from twelve cents for each one hundred cigarette paper tubes or fraction thereof to fourteen cents.
Harry Rutherford Jackman: How is the tax collected on raw tobacco that is used for the manufacture of cigarettes, pipe tobacco and cigars? At what point do you actually do the collecting? The reason why I ask is that one of the large companies had, I understand, to resort to public financing in order to pay the tax. Has there been any complaint in regard to that aspect of levying the tax?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The manufacturer buys the stamps and puts them on the packages of cigarettes or tobacco before he sells them. That practice has always existed. It means, as the hon. gentleman suggests, that a lot of

Special War Revenue Act
money is tied up, and the higher the tax the more money is tied up. There has been a great deal of complaint about that. We expect to afford some relief in the bill.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The bill will afford some relief?


James Lorimer Ilsley: We expect it to. The amounts that have to be obtained and be kept idle, tied up, are so great that the increase in the tax is becoming a hardship.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: How much time elapses between the time the company buys the stamps and the time it actually retrieves the tax from the public?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Around a month is the
average.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is proposed to be done for such companies?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The tax is to be treated in the same way as the sales tax. The sales taxpayer has until the end of the following month in which to pay the tax. I am not just clear what part of the amount of this is going to apply to, because it has been so long since these resolutions were prepared. There are, I believe, two kinds of taxes. I shall have to straighten out my information on that because it has been a long time since I looked into it. But the increase this year and perhaps the increase last year will be treated as a sales tax rather than as money that has to be paid for stamps in advance.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On prim ciple, why should there be any difference? The manufacturer or whoever it is who buys the stamps to-day is in the position of having to lay out capital, real money, to buy the stamps, and the government gets the money immediately. The manufacturer takes all the risk of destruction and loss, and he cannot recoup himself until he actually sells the product. Even then he takes some chance on credit sales, if there be any such. He bears the whole load. In the case of the sales tax the manufacturer or whoever it is from whom the department collects does not have to put up any real money until the end of the month in which he makes the sale. Then he is accountable for the sales tax. That seems to be an equitable principle. If you are to give the manufacturer relief on these last two increases why should he not have relief on the whole thing and not be called upon to do other than if it were a sales tax? That seems to me the fair thing to do. Then he would not have to invest and keep idle capital on which he gets no return.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The increase of this year and the increase of last year were taxes. The former imposts were duties.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A distinction without a difference.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is a great difference between duties and taxes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have heard the Prime Minister argue that all duties were taxes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: From the point of view of administration the difference is this. I am talking now, not about customs duties at all, but about excise duties and excise taxes. Excise duties must be paid before the goods are disposed of.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is just the law.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The excise man has existed for centuries. He is an historic figure.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A pretty harsh man, too, as a rule in history.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The excise man is standing right there, and he does not take the lock off or let the goods out until the crown gets the duty. That is an excise duty. Business and industry is accustomed to that, and rightly so. But we have now got ourselves into the position that these imposts, with the increases, are pretty high. We will regard them as duties up to a certain level, but beyond that we are going to regard them as a tax. There is one beautiful thing about duties. You have no bad debts. You cannot have, because you do not let the liquor loose until you get the money.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The
crown does not have any bad debts in either case.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, yes, it does. We are in the courts trying to collect sales tax and have a pretty good collection record. The crown has to struggle just like anybody else to collect the taxes.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: After all these taxes go on, what will be the total tax on 100 cigarettes?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Ten dollars a thousand, which would be a dollar a hundred.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That is, all the taxes added together?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is sales tax in addition.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Is that a dollar a hundred, altogether?

Special War Revenue Act


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not including the sales tax.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is eight per cent.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That is just a cent apiece?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Mr. STIRLING:: Would the minister explain how he expects to collect the excise tax on raw leaf. Apparently it is a new impost.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, it is not.


Grote Stirling: It is not spoken of as an increase.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is new to this act, because this is a case where we must not get the duty too large; we must place ourselves in a position to allow the manufacturers to finance. It is new to this act, but it is not a new tax. It is half a cent an ounce as against a cent an ounce for the manufactured tobacco. The practice to date has been this, that stamps are sold to what are called packers; they put the stamps on the raw leaf-" hands," they call them

and that stamp must be affixed before the tobacco is sold to the person who uses the raw leaf tobacco.


Grote Stirling: I am thinking of those smokers who go into a store and buy a "hand" for themselves and break it up and smoke it. Do they escape?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is stamped before the
storekeeper buys it from the packer.


Grote Stirling: Oh, it is put on there.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
7.	That the excise tax on the price of admission to certain places of entertainment be increased from twenty to twenty-five per cent.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I have had a number of representations from the sixteen picture show operators in my riding. I know very well that the government has to have money. Last year strong representations were made by motion-picture operators; and I have been wondering, in view of the statement made at that time that the increased tax would force a number of picture shows out of business, whether the government has any record of how many have ceased operation since this time last year.
What I have heard and observed convinces me that the picture shows are doing splendid work, in the middle of a very serious war, to maintain the morale of the people. I know of no other agency more effective for this purpose. On Saturday afternoons large numbers of children with their mothers go to see the

shows, and seemingly it strengthens these women to carry on the work they are doing while their husbands are away in the army. The question is, whether this increased tax on picture shows will do more harm than good.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not increased. The
increase is not on motion-picture shows; it is on night clubs, places of entertainment other than motion-picture shows.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course it is not so stated in the resolution, but the bill will be limited to night clubs?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That puts quite a different complexion on the matter.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There is nothing in the
resolution pertaining to "other than."


Richard Burpee Hanson: It says
"certain places of entertainment," but they are not enumerated.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think I made it clear in
the budget speech.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I had forgotten that. Will the minister give us the reference in the speech?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is at page 861 of Hansard, at the top of the second column:
The amount of expenditures by the public in night clubs and similar places of entertainment seems to me to warrant an increase in the tax on such expenditures and I shall recommend that the rate be raised from 20 per cent to 25 per cent.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will
vote for it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member for
Davenport asked what the effect of the twenty per cent tax on moving-picture establishments had been. I do not think it has had an adverse effect at all. There are some small places in Canada where theatre owners appear to be having a hard time, but my opinion is that it is due almost wholly to causes other than the tax. It is due to the fact that gasoline restrictions make it a little more difficult for people to drive in from the country, or that most of the young men have enlisted and gone away or have gone to work in the war plants. At the same time, every year before the budget we do get representations in favour of a reduction of the tax on motion-picture theatres. I recall clearly the tremendous pressure which was exerted at the time this tax was put on and the. predictions of ruin and disaster which were voiced by those who made these representations. I do not think

Special War Revenue Act
I was ever subjected to more intense pressure than I was by the delegation which urged that the twenty per cent tax on admissions to motion pictures would1 ruin theatres all over the country, and an attempt was made to persuade me to lower that tax from twenty per cent to five per cent. The delegation was accompanied by able counsel, and the members of the delegation were themselves gentlemen of great ability, great persuasiveness and great determination. I am very glad that after a couple of days of this stimulating atmosphere I still was able to say it would remain at twenty per cent.


Gordon Graydon: You met them head-on.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. And needless to say
the predictions of lessened attendance did not materialize. Even in the province of Quebec, which unlike Ontario has a very large provincial tax, perhaps fifteen per cent, making a total, if I am correct in that figure, of something like thirty-five per cent, admissions have gone up considerably since we put the tax on.


Thomas Reid: They are all making money.


James Lorimer Ilsley: In Ontario I am sure the
increase in attendance would be much greater. Sometimes when I receive delegations now who predict ruin for themselves as a result of some taxation proposal, I take heart from my experience with those who made representations on behalf of the motion-picture industry. I have had other experiences of the same kind in the last two or three years.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: How has the actual
revenue from this tax compared with what was anticipated?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is, I think, a little higher. I believe we anticipated $8,000,000 from the amusement tax and, if my memory is right, it amounts to about $8,500,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose this is not considered a necessary of life by the wartime prices and trade board?


Thomas Reid: I hope the minister pays no
attention to the plea of the motion-picture people. Everyone of them is making money.


Mr. TUSTIN:: I am not surprised at the
remarks of the hon. member for New Westminster, because he said in the house the other day that he did not realize that there was a twenty per cent tax on motion-picture theatres.


Thomas Reid: The hon. member was not
sure of it himself.


George James Tustin: I was very sure of it; I
said so at the time. I was glad a minute ago to hear the minister say he knew a number of small theatres were having a hard time. He will remember last year when this tax was before the committee I made an appeal that some of the small theatres should be given some concession. Of course he did not listen to it. In the meantime quite a number of small theatres in this country have gone out of business. I did not particularly object to the tax in the larger centres where there is a great deal of war work and great numbers of soldiers are stationed, but there are many small centres in Ontario where there is no war work, where no soldiers are stationed, and theatres in such places are under a great handicap. I do not know of any small theatre to-day in centres of this kind that is making any money. I suggest to the minister again that he should give some consideration to theatres in these small places, where there is only one in the town. It is the only place of recreation that a great many people have and, as he said himself, the difficulty has increased now that gasoline cannot be obtained for cars. The theatre is, therefore, left to depend entirely upon the population of the small town.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it only the night clubs that are to be included?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: What does the minister
mean by "similar places of entertainment" to a night club?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is a definition in the act, a very carefully drawn definition:
"Place of entertainment" means any place
1.	Where liquor, beer or wine is sold or provided, if facilities for dancing are provided for the patrons, or
2.	Where liquor, beer or wine is sold or provided, if entertainment by one or more paid performers is provided for the patrons, or
3.	Where facilities for dancing and entertainment by one or more paid performers is provided for the patrons, whether or not such place is enclosed or is in a building or other structure; but a place shall be deemed not to be a place of entertainment at any time when neither facilities for dancing nor entertainment as aforesaid by one or more paid performers are provided for the patrons.


Gordon Graydon: I would not know that
of course, but I wanted to find out, because there seem to be so many others in the chamber who knew. I am surprised that I was almost alone.
1866
Special War Revenue Act


John George Diefenbaker: Does the wartime
prices and trade board impose a ceiling on charges made by places of entertainment? Has it any authority to do so or is it doing so?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The maximum prices order
provides a universal price ceiling, with power to the wartime prices and trade board to make exceptions. No exception has been made in regard to places of entertainment.


John George Diefenbaker: Has any exception been made in connection with hockey rinks during play-offs?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know about that.
The main places of entertainment in this country are the motion-picture theatres, and they are certainly subject to the price ceiling. Not only that, but they are in the cost-of-living index.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Do the
motion-picture theatres absorb any part of this entertainment tax?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; it was imposed before
the price ceiling was imposed1, and they were not obliged to absorb any part of it; they were not expected to. It was expected to be a tax on patrons, collected by the motion-picture theatre.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
8.	That sections (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of section 1 of schedule II of this act be repealed and the following substituted therefor:
1. Cigars:-
(a) Valued at not more than forty dollars per thousand, per thousand, six dollars and twenty-five cents.
Gordon Graydon: I wish to bring to the
attention of the minister a letter which I received from a person I have not known but who is very much interested in the subject of five-cent cigars. He says:
A few weeks ago the wartime prices board issued a list of authorized selling prices on cigars which would absorb the recent increase in taxation.
I am one of the great army who smoke nickel cigars. The increased tax on these is $5 per one thousand, the increase in selling price is $10 per one thousand or one cent each.
Then he intimates that he has been in touch by letter with the Minister of Finance. He says:
I wrote Mr. Ilsley entering a vigorous protest on being compelled to pay $5 to the tobacco interests at the same time that I paid $5 to the federal treasury and suggesting that the increased tax be fixed at $10 per thousand so that the treasury would secure all the money I would have to pay.
I also objected to the smoker of nickel cigars being compelled to pay a much higher per cent

of tax on his smoke than the big fellow who could afford to smoke fifteen cent or twenty-five cent cigars.
I really think this matter should be followed up. I have no objection to a tax on cigars, in fact I think if we smokers are foolish enough to smoke the darn things we should be made to pay for our foolishness. But I also believe that whatever amount we have to pay should accrue to the federal treasury rather than to the benefit of the wealthy tobacco interests.
Perhaps the minister would like to clarify this point.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What he is advocating there is a SVi-cent cigar, and it is not a practicable proposal.


Gordon Graydon: If there is no more going into the treasury than he has indicated, then he would like to buy two cigars for eleven cents, which apparently he cannot do since the one cent would seem to go to the tobacco people.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know much about the sale of cigars, but I think you would have to have the price of a cigar in an even number of cents. At any rate that was the view taken by the tobacco administrator and the wartime prices and trade board. It is true that in this case the price has gone up by more than the tax, but they were losing on those cigars; at least that is what they said, and I think it was pretty generally understood.


Gordon Graydon: You did not resist them as well as you did the motion-picture people.


James Lorimer Ilsley: They did not come to see me, but I think it is true that they were losing money on their cigar business. This puts a cent on five-cent cigars, even though the tax would not be that much.


Gordon Graydon: It is only half a cent.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right. It does that, and that is justified, because people handling cigars have been losing money. I do not mean the wealthy tobacco interest about whom my hon. friend's correspondent writes, but there are a great many retailers and small dealers handling cigars who were not able to make any money by doing so.


Olof Hanson: I think that is right.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Then do these small retailers purchase the cigars at the same price from the tobacco people to-day, or are the tobacco people charging an increased price?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There has been a distribution between the manufacturer, the wholesaler and the retailer.

Excise Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of the half cent?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: Then it does not go entirely to the little fellow, after all.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. The point I was making was that it diid: not go entirely to the tobacco interests mentioned by the gentleman who wrote the letter. I should point out that there are also a large number of small cigar manufacturers.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
(b) valued at more than forty dollars per thousand and not more than one hundred and ten dollars per thousand, per thousand, thirteen dollars and fifty cents.
Gordon Graydon: Could the minister give us any idea of the number of cigars consumed in Canada? Perhaps it would be sufficient if he gave the revenue, if he cannot readily lay his hand on the number.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have the revenue but not the number.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it not the history of the cigar trade that with the increased consumption of cigarettes the consumption of cigars has gone down steadily?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am told that it has been more or less stationary for the last four or five years.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Up to that time it had been going down?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, I think so. The revenue from cigars is very small. In the fiscal year ended March 31, 1943, the revenue was about $1,100,000, but it is estimated that this increase will give an additional revenue of $2,000,000.


Gordon Graydon: That will be $3,000,000 altogether?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) agreed to.
Resolution agreed to.
9.	That any enactment founded on paragraph one of these resolutions shall come into force on the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and forty-three.
Resolution agreed to.
10.	That any enactment founded on paragraphs two to eight, inclusive, of these resolutions shall come into force on the third day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-three.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
excise act, 1934
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the schedule to the Excise Act, 1934, and to provide:-
1. That the duty of excise on spirits distilled in Canada be increased from nine dollars to eleven dollars per proof gallon, provided that duty paid spirits owned by any distiller at the close of business on the second day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-three shall be subject to the following additional duty of excise on every gallon of the strength of proof two dollars and so in proportion for any greater or less strength than the strength of proof and for any less quantity than a gallon.
Jean-François Pouliot: I should like to make a few brief observations with regard to the regulations that have been passed under order in council P.C. 11374 of December 16, 1942. It took me a very long time to secure a copy of this order in council, though I tried to get it through the publicatons office. Finally I was fortunate enough to obtain a stencilled copy. At the present time it is rather hard for the average citizen to raise his elbow high enough to get any spirits, which of course are quite expensive now. I have no complaint to make in regard to the tax that has been placed upon such beverages. I congratulate the government upon having completely cancelled the fortified wines, which were quite an impossible beverage, but since spirits are now the privilege of the few, the wealthy, I wonder why there should be such restrictions on beer as are set out in this order.
Since we are now discussing alcohol, I think this is the proper time to say a few words about the beer problem, inasmuch as beer drinking may bring revenue to the government without injuring the health of the people. On this matter opinions may differ. But from the constitutional point of view I admit that all government policies should be first announced in the House of Commons, not over the radio. We are the ones who ought to know. We must be made acquainted in the first place with government policies, because members of parliament are the buffers for all legislation, and especially that which does not originate in this house.
I was greatly surprised to learn from a radio broadcast that certain restrictions were to be made, although I agreed with a few of them. I have no objection to the high tax on spirits.
1S68
Excise Act

I have no objection to the prohibition in respect of fortified wines. But I am aware there is a great deal of dissatisfaction among the people in connection with the way in which the beer problem has been dealt with. We hear the complaint that members of parliament were given no opportunity to express to the government the views of their constituents before action was taken. This is a matter which may be considered from several angles. When the government wants to know the feelings of the country at large with respect to any problem, it is very easy to ask members of parliament to give their opinions. If some acrimonious discussion is feared by the government, it is always easy to have the matter discussed among party members in caucus, or even to write to the members or to get in touch with them in some other way.
My first complaint-and I have several grievances-is that the matter was announced over the radio, and not in the House of Commons. Members of parliament had no opportunity to make any observations on the matter. One may complain about the evils of intemperance. I would not go so far as to say that a man who drinks beer or even one who drinks strong liquor is intemperate. It is not the fact of taking an occasional glas3 of beer or drop of whisky which makes a man a drunkard. There are some who hold the view that if a man holds a glass of beer, a cocktail, or some other liquor in his hand he is a drunkard. Hon. members will remember the story of the old gentleman of ninety-three years of age who was asked, while attending a dinner, the secret of his good health. He said, "I never take a drink, and I do not smoke." Next to that old gentleman sat another one a year older. The second old gentleman looked just as alert as the first one, and when asked the secret of his old age he said, "I take my bottle of whisky every day, and I smoke a lot of cigars." That is a true story, and it proves that opinions vary.
We have heard a good deal about the sovereignty and the rights of parliament. This parliament has not to swallow beer or whisky, or anything of that kind, but it has to swallow a policy made at the request of a minority. We heard last year that the majority shall rule. That is my opinion, provided a question is put clearly and in a straightforward manner. I have already stated the view that if the plebiscite had been held under different circumstances, and if the question with respect to conscription for overseas service had been put fairly to the Canadian people, in the words, "Are you for or against conscription for overseas?" the answer would have been entirely different. We must look to the future. But if
[Mr. Pouliot.)
we are to speak about the opinion of the majority, then the majority must not be fooled, and they should be asked the question, "Are you for or against the restrictions on beer?" That is the question which should be put to the Canadian people? If the majority of our fellow countrymen express themselves as being in favour of repealing the restrictions, then let the government repeal those restrictions. But if on the other hand the majority of the Canadian people are in favour of maintaining those restrictions, then I am sure the hon. member for Springfield and myself will not speak about beer any more in the house. We will take it for granted that the majority of the people in Canada are against it, and we will speak no more about it.
We know that the humble working man, the humble labourer who works hard all day in a munitions factory or on a farm wants to relax when he reaches home at night. What does he find? He finds it is impossible to buy any liquor at the store, because it has been drunk by those who receive pensions, or who live on the fat of land during the day, with the result that there is nothing left for the working man. He has no means to buy a flask of whisky costing S6 or $7. He has no means to buy gin-and, by the way, there are two kinds of gin he should not buy, because it will make him sick. He says, "Well, they are taxing my cigars. I am ready to pay that tax. They are taxing my beer-and not only do they tax it, but they restrict it. At least I can have a cigar when I want one. But they make me thirsty, and sometimes I like a glass of beer afterwards."
Then there is the question of quotas and the date from which the restriction has been imposed. The broadcast of the Prime Minister took place on December 16 last and the restrictions applied to the twelve month period ending October 31, 1942. The beer to be consumed was to be 10 per cent less for the next year, but the beer consumed between November 1 and December 16 was deducted from the quota. The liquor laws as administered by the liquor boards of the various provinces vary considerably, but I think they will meet on one ground. The quota in each province is supposed to be 10 per cent less than the consumption of the previous period.
Another matter must be considered. The number of men in the different camps have been increased, but the quota will be based on the consumption during the previous period. For instance, there may have been 5,000 men in a camp during the first period, and this number may be increased to eight, nine or ten thousand. The result will be that the restriction will be twice as severe as is intended

Excise Act
by the order in council. It will be still greater because a month and a half have been taken off the period.
In my humble opinion every civilian should be ready to make all the sacrifices that are necessary for the winning of the war, but why ask the Canadian people to make sacrifices that are not necessary? There is no need to make the people miserable. How does this restriction on beer help the war effort? It makes labour discontented; it makes the soldier discontented; it makes the civilian who is working during the day and cannot get his glass of beer discontented. I cannot conceive how a regulation like that will help the war effort.
Opinions differ. I have great respect for those who hold views contrary to my own. I do not approve excess in drinking, but I contend that the poor man should not be made to do without his glass of beer when the rich man is able to have a glass of imported Scotch whiskey or any other expensive beverage that he desires. What harm is there to the war effort to use malt and the other ingredients needed to manufacture beer? I cannot see any harm in this, provided that the regulations of the different provinces are applied, provided that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police constables do their work conscientiously, and provided that our temperance laws are well applied.
I cannot believe that our Canadian citizens were all bad up to December 16 and that a general purification took place on that day when there was to be less beer available. I do not think they were better citizens and more patriotic after that date. I do not want to be hypocritical. I have been a witness of the smuggling of bad liquor that took place during prohibition days when the Scott act was hardly applied and this country was being deluged with smuggled whiskey of a low quality. I should not like to see a repetition of those days, and I know the parents of grown boys and girls would not like to see them return.
If these restrictions are not modified the people will be greatly dissatisfied. I do not preach dissatisfaction, but I tell the government that from what I hear in the stores and on the streets everywhere, the people are dissatisfied. It is a bad thing not to keep up the morale of the people during war. They are ready to do anything the government asks them to do, but they feel they are entitled to a little relaxation. During one of my elections a friend, who believed in prohibition, was making some speeches for me. It was cold and raining and when he was driving
back, and his friend said to him, "Why don't you have a hot punch?" He said, "Oh, no, I never touch it; I would die first." His friend said, "You are not well; you have a bad cold; try it." They stopped, and they had a hot drink made up with a little ginger in it. The fellow took it, and the next morning he was cured of his cold. He said, "Well, I do not know if I am so sure about the success of prohibition when one has a cold." When you, Mr. Chairman, are hoarse or have a frog in your throat the best way to cure it is to take rum and honey. I have already tried it on some of my colleagues at election time. That liquor was just used as a cure and was very successful. Therefore, sir, we urge moderation. I hope that the government will understand that. I would bet that in his heart the Minister of Finance agrees with me, although I am not so sure he will say so. But he understands human problems. I do not ask him to give a definite answer now, but I should like him to think over the matter and discuss it again with his colleagues, and then I hope he will give a satisfactory answer before the budget discussion ends. I will ask him once more not to make the government unpleasant to the people, so that the war effort should not be affected by the restrictions on beer.


Mr. TURNER:: Mr. Chairman, I want to
endorse all that the previous speaker (Mr. Pouliot) has just said about beer. I can understand why he is reelected to this house time after time. It is because he always has the courage to rise in his place and say what he thinks. In my opinion he is a 21-jewel man. I would suggest to the government that if they are considering establishing a federal bureau of investigation here similar to the one in the United States, then the hon. member for Temiscouata is the man to put in charge of that bureau.
I have already spoken in this house on the deplorable and chaotic beer situation in Canada to-day, and in view of the support I have received of my views from all over the country I regret that I did not, when making that speech, ask for an adjournment of the house in order to open up a full discussion on this disgraceful and unnecessary beer situation. I say it is unnecessary, Mr. Chairman, because our elevators and granaries are bursting with grain and1 we have had our greatest snowfall this winter, some 8i feet here in Ottawa, to supply unlimited water, and these are two of the main ingredients used in the manufacture of beer. To strengthen my argument further for the immediate removal of the
Excise Act

beer restrictions, I wish, to read a letter that I have received from the general manager of a large coal company in Alberta, the Alexo Coal Company, Limited. It is as follows:
Alexo, P.O. Alta., March 24, 1943.
Mr. John Turner, M.P.,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
We have read with considerable interest and much appreciation the speech you have made in the house on the 18th instant, with reference to the deplorable situation which has developed as a result of the severe curtailment of beer supplies.
We would say that, as a result of the present restrictions with regard to beer, very considerable discontent and unrest is developing amongst the coal miners.	These men have been
accustomed to their glass of beer when coming off shift and as they are now called upon to work long hours, six days a week, under arduous conditions they greatly resent being deprived of their beer. In this camp, despite vigorous rationing of our beer quota, our monthly supply has been exhausted since the 20th of this month and for the balance of the month there will he no beer for the miners. We have a considerable number more men working here this year than last and as our monthly quota, as you probably know, is based on a percentage of last year's consumption, there is just not enough beer to go around.
We trust that in view of the great need for continuous and expanded output of coal from the mines, and which can only be secured by having contented miners, your efforts to induce the government to reconsider their present policy of restricted beer supplies may be crowned with success.
With best wishes and our appreciation of your efforts, we are,
Yours very truly,
Alexo Coal Company,
General Manager.
That letter, sir, might well have been read when the house postponed its regular schedule business to discuss the fuel shortage, because in reality it kills two birds with one stone.
In again pleading with the government to rescind, before it is too late, that part of order in council P.C. 11374 which was mentioned by the previous speaker, in so far as it affects beer, I will say here and now that if that is not done I can see nothing but trouble ahead. There will be delays, possible strikes, discontent and unrest, as is indicated in the letter I have just read from a coal company manager. These troubles will continue to develop and the result will be a complete setback in all branches of our war effort. Make no mistake about that.
Further, the transferring of large numbers of troops to other centres-I could give a good illustration of that if I wanted to-thereby again cutting down the supply of beer already

rationed on a 1941-1942 basis will cause a condition that was certainly not contemplated or heretofore expected in Canada.
Again let me say that the cut in beer does not apply equally to all provinces. It cannot, because no two provinces had the same beer regulations and control before this order in council wTas put into effect.
As evidence of the movement of population from one area to another, all we have to remember is that Manitoba and Saskatchewan are to lose seven seats in this house as a result of that movement. What is happening with respect to the unfairness of the beer supply? Let me give an instance. As reported at present, a person is allowed only twelve pints of beer a month in British Columbia. Other provinces receive much more. To me that is next door to total prohibition. If it is not, then I am Henry Kaiser the shipbuilder.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, as the Lenten season will soon be over and thousands of our good Canadian people have denied themselves of their personal privileges for the period of forty days, and also forty nights, and because immediately following that we face the intense heat period, the hot and dry summer months, I again urge upon the government to remove forthwith the restrictions from beer in order that the population will remain somewhere near normal and that all labourers and workers may give of their best efforts in the winning of this war.
I repeat what I said in my speech on the budget, and what our own Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and Mr. Churchill and members on all sides of this house have stated with just pride-our war effort is magnificent. That is our record for almost four years of war, is it not? Well, we did it on beer, did we not? Let us go on to the victorious end. Keep on playing the game you are winning at. That is a sound principle which is acknowledged the world over.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I had not planned to speak on this controversial question raised' by two hon. members this evening. Since, however, the government has received some criticism, I think something should be said in defence of the very important announcement made by the Prime Minister last December. While I have discussed this subject on a number of occasions I have never hoped that I would be able to get members like the hon. member for Springfield to approach it from the same point of view that I do, but I think a great many people will agree that we cannot hope to defeat the axis powers by increasing our consumption of intoxicating liquors at the

Excise Act
alarming rate that has prevailed during the last two years. Hon. members might be interested .in knowing something of the methods followed by one of our partners in the present conflict. I refer to Russia. In an article entitled1 "Religious Liberty in the Totalitarian States", written by Reverend James Barr, M.P., he says:
Notwithstanding Soviet Russia's departure from the absolute prohibition of vodka, she continues seriously to attack the drink problem. It is the rule of the league of communist youth (comosols) that they shall not drink, smoke, nor take drugs. Young people agitate against the drunken festivals in the villages. Posters everywhere declare that alcohol is the enemy of the state. The advertising of alcoholic liquors is absolutely forbidden, and even in shops where vodka is sold, an injunction is sometimes displayed, "Vodka is sold here, but you are advised not to buy." Radio talks are given, urging abstinence. In the cinemas special films appeal to workers not to drink. The central art commission has official instructions to revise theatre and cinema productions with a view to the inclusion of anti-alcohol propaganda.
That is the sort of approach we should have to this question. Instead of permitting manufacturers and distributors to spend large sums in encouraging young people to drink, we should be taking public funds to place before the people the scientific facts regarding the injurious effects of excessive use of alcoholic liquor. Instead of that, however, we have one of our dollar-a-year men, who has been holding down several responsible positions, the owner of the New World. For some time he was in the United States as vice-chairman of the British purchasing commission, with very responsible duties to attend to. He was placed in the position of deciding how our shipping would be used. When I discussed the question a year ago I pointed out that over fifty miles of box cars of beer had been shipped under the supervision of Mr. E. P. Taylor; and the financial statement which he has presented to his shareholders would indicate that his company had a very substantial share of this business. But the most recent estimates I have available indicate that it would take over three hundred miles of box cars to carry the beer which has gone from Canada to Egypt and the Middle East.
The Ottawa Journal of Friday, February 12, carried quite a long editorial replying to an article which appeared in the Christian Century, published in Chicago, written by the Rev. E. M. Howse, minister of Westminster United Church, Winnipeg. In this article, which had a very wide circulation in the United States, Dr. Howse wrote:
The Canadian people who have seen the stranded freight cars have learned with amazement that while these have been waiting, other freight cars loaded with liquor have been rushing by with blanket priorities to tie up shipping space for 18,000 miles around the seaway to Suez. The cars that wait come from Canada's vaunted plants of war production. The cars that go gaily by (hundreds of them) come from central Canadian breweries. . . . These breweries are directed by men of potent influence in the Canadian government.
The editorial comment says:
Now if Mr. Howse had been at pains about the truth, anxious not to smear his own land in another country, he could have learned easily that his "stranded" munitions on railway sidings have nothing to do with beer-have, in fact, little to do with ships. Learned that certain surpluses of Canadian war production are held in Canada under a definite Canadian and British military policy. Mr. Howse would not have been permitted to publish the reasons for that policy, but his personal awareness of them would at least have saved him from accusations desperately misleading.
I submit that if the statement made by Mr. Howse was misleading and not in accordance with the facts, action should be taken under the defence of Canada regulations, because the article has received wide publicity in the United States, and our neighbours across the line are curious to know why shipping space for such a large volume of beer can be found when great quantities of other materials, which apparently could be used to good advantage in other parts of the world, are left stranded. The editorial continues:
Asks Mr. Howse: Why not beer from England, from Africa, from the United States, from the breweries of Cairo? The obvious answer is that there are some 5,000,000 British, Canadian and American soldiers to be supplied with beer, and that with Canadian beer shipments but a fraction of their needs, all the other breweries are busy, too.
If there are 5,000,000 British, Canadian and American soldiers in the middle east, a great many people will want to ask some questions regarding the conduct of the middle east campaign. Canadians have a right to know why such a large, volume of beer is shipped across the Atlantic when the shipping situation is so critical. Granted that men who are in action in the desert have the right to refreshment; I think the decision as to how much they should have should not be made by one who is interested in the brewing business.
Mr. Taylor, like the hon. member for Springfield, is a very patriotic citizen. The order which was brought down on March 22 contains a letter which Mr. Taylor wrote to the Prime Minister following his broadcast. Mr. Taylor said:
Some fourteen years ago I was required to make a decision as to whether or not I would
1S72
Excise Act

become permanently engaged in the brewing business. At that time, of course, I had before me the spectacle of the ravages prohibition had caused in north America. I found that the industry in the province of Ontario had, to a large extent, fallen into the hands of undesirable people who had been attracted to it by the large profits which went with law evasion. I finally decided that the repeal of prohibition was inevitable, that I could do a constructive job in the industry in Ontario and help eliminate the undesirable elements. This has now for the most part been accomplished.
However, after I listened to your December 16 broadcast to the nation on the subject of temperance and a total war effort, and since pondering over the text, I am filled with forebodings and believe that the constructive progress of the last decade is in danger of being completely wiped out.
Before I give you my comments, I would like to make three points perfectly clear:
1.	Although I have a very substantial stake in the brewing industry, I would be quite prepared to make any sacrifice which could be shown to be a contribution to the successful prosecution of the war.
2.	The recent cuts you announced on production will make no difference to the profits of this company available for distribution to the shareholders. The effect on our business will simply mean that we will pay one million dollars less in excess profits taxes.
If the order is to result in this one firm paying one million dollars less in excess profits tax, I think the Prime Minister's announcement was in the best interest of the state, because it will inevitably mean a decrease in the consumption.
3.	The brewing industry is the greatest foe of intemperance and the abuse of liquor laws because we know that our whole future depends on the support of public opinion which we can only have if the nation is temperate.
Here is an idealistic man, a crusader in the real sense of the word, who a number of years ago went into this business to write a new chapter in Canadian history.
In the light of the above, I must respectfully tell you that I believe the whole tenor of your broadcast was unfortunate in so far as it suggested to the mass of the Canadian people that they were drinking too much and thus adversely affecting the efforts of the armed services and munition workers. I do feel that if you had addressed your remarks to the relatively few who are intemperate, your message would have done more good. In other nations the moderate use of alcoholic beverages-particularly beer- has been given credit for making an important contribution to the war effort.
It has been proved over and over again that restrictions on the production and sale of alcoholic beverages inevitably produces more intemperance and law evasion. The only cure is education, coupled with the strict supervision of the people engaged in the retail sale. This last, of course, is a matter for the local authorities.
I am very much afraid, Mr. Prime Minister, that the cure you have prescribed for the
IMr. Nicholson.]
nation is going to prove very much worse than the disease and that much of the progress towards temperance which we have made in the last decade, since we abandoned prohibition, will be lost as a result of your action.
In the matter of banning advertising for the period of the war, I must most respectfully suggest that you did not give the real reason in your broadcast. Was it not because you were being pestered by the prohibition element and were anxious to placate them? I cannot believe that you would be so unfair as to ban advertising of one legally produced article because it is in short supply and not ban advertising of other products such as sugar, gasoline, tea, coffee, etc. which are also rationed and in short supply. By your action in this regard you have in effect told the public that you consider that the brewers and distillers of this country are engaged in an undesirable business and therefore you are not going to accord them the same treatment which other commodities receive, and which they are accorded in all other English speaking democracies. I do hope you will reconsider this aspect of your pronouncement and amend it so that we may again become self-respecting members of society.
Your speech leaves me in an unfortunate quandry. One hesitates to take issue publicly with the Prime Minister in a time of war. At the same time I feel so completely that you

who through your manifold duties and great responsibilities have little time for first hand investigation-have been very badly advised. You will realize that I have responsibilities to my shareholders and the public and I cannot maintain my self-respect if, completely disagreeing as I do, I accept your analysis and treatment of the matter in silence. Will you give me the opportunity to discuss this matter with you at an early date. It would be my expectation that I could demonstrate to you that it would be in the national interest to make some statement which would correct certain implications of your speech and leave the door open in the future for some readjustment if time proves that the country's war effort and morale will suffer from the restriction now in force.
E. P. Taylor,
President.
The Prime Minister quite rightly pointed out that the decision was not his; that it was the considered policy of the cabinet, and1 that no useful purpose would be served by an interview. The fact that the president of one of the brewing companies wrote in that vein would indicate that the government policy as announced last December was generally in the right direction. I should like to see steps taken, in addition to prohibiting advertising, for an educational programme sponsored by the federal government with a view to placing the facts before our people, as I suggested earlier.
One more word about Mr. Taylor. In this morning's mail I received a letter-I presume a similar one went to all members of parliament-from the Anglo-Canadian publishers, publishers of this magazine which has its head office in Toronto, called1 the New World. In

Excise Act
Ontario for some time it lias been illegal to publish liquor advertisements in magazines or newspapers. Mr. Taylor apparently has ambitions in the newspaper field. This paper has its editorial and advertising office in Toronto, at 100 Adelaide street west but its printing is done in Montreal in order to evade the Ontario regulations. This magazine is found on thousands of newsstands across the country. This letter says:,
The official record of the battle of Egypt prepared for the British war office has been published exclusively in Canada by the publishers of New World Illustrated.
An initial printing of 100,000 copies has been made available to the public on bookstands throughout the country; but believing that leading public men in Canada would like to preserve a permanent record of this heroic battle I am sending you, under separate cover, this specially printed edition for your library, with my compliments.
Yours truly,
Anglo Canadian Publishers Limited.
1 object to a story as- important as that of the battle of Egypt being given exclusively by a publication which apparently has been placed on the market for the key purpose of keeping liquor advertisements before the public. If hon. members look through this magazine they will see very costly and attractive advertising which has been carried. I think wartime information or some other government agency should have made the story of the battle of Egypt available to other agencies across the country that surely have as much right to a scoop of this kind as the publishers of the New World.
Therefore I hope that the administration will not take too seriously the opinions expressed by the hon. member for Temiscouata or the hon. member for Springfield, but rather will carry out a policy to provide that less beer and other intoxicating liquors are consumed by the Canadian people as we make our contribution to the defeat of the forces of fascism the world over.


John Mouat Turner: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Is he in favour of beer by the glass for the working people?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am not an authority on the subject. I have not used beer myself, and I hesitate to prescribe conduct for the hon. member or anyone else. I do not wish to force my views on other people, but I do say that it is in the interests of the people of this country to carry on an educational programme-


John Mouat Turner: I am in favour of that.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -that will reduce the consumption of alcoholic beverages.


John Mouat Turner: That does not answer my question. Is the hon. member in favour of beer by the glass for the working man? That is all I want to know.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have not any opinion as to how beer should be sold, whether by the glass or by the bottle.


John Mouat Turner: Supposing it is sold in any way, even in a keg?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am anxious that the working people of Canada shall have the best possible homes and clothing and food and that they shall not have to read magazines that are printed in Quebec in order to evade the laws of Ontario, sold on Ontario newsstands by concerns that are primarily concerned about increasing the consumption of beer.


John Mouat Turner: I still want an answer to my question. Is the hon. member in favour of beer sold by the glass, bottle or keg to the working people?


The CHAIRMAN:: Such a question is for the hon. member to answer or not as he pleases.


Thomas Reid: The statement made by the hon. member for Springfield this evening, namely, that British Columbia has been discriminated against, is something which I believe the minister should answer. I am not saying what should be done, but the matter has aroused a great deal of adverse feeling in British Columbia, that one province has been singled out for a greater curtailment than other provinces. The people of British Columbia think they are just as temperate as the people of any other province. They are asking why this treatment should be meted out to them. If the statement is not correct, they are entitled to some information from the minister.
Another matter that is disturbing to the people of British Columbia is the statement made on good authority that some leak occurred in Ottawa, with the result that certain interests in British Columbia bought thousands of dollars' worth of liquor and spirits and beer which is now in the hands of these men who are selling it to the public at exorbitant prices. Such statements arouse a great deal of antagonism.


Colin William George Gibson: There has been no discrimination between the provinces. Each province is treated on exactly the same basis; that is, the amount of alcoholic beverages authorized for each province is in proportion to the amount that was used in that province during the year ended October 31, 1942. Each province gets its quota on that basis, so that there can be no discrimination in rationing alcoholic beverages in that way.
Excise Act


Jean-François Pouliot: I fully agree with one point mentioned1 by the hon. member for Mackenzie; that is, in connection with the publication of the magazine New World. I remember that this magazine was supposed to have its head office in Toronto; that it was printed in Montreal because in Quebec there were no restrictions on liquor advertisements, and1 then it was sold in Toronto and other cities of Ontario, with all that liquor advertising. There are some manufacturers of liquor who have branches in the United States. They are able to publish very fine advertisements in United States papers and periodicals which are permitted entry into Canada. If we are to have prohibition; if there is to be no advertising in Canadian papers and! periodicals by manufacturers of liquor or by brewers, let us not have these United States publications come into our country carrying advertisements which are prohibited in our own papers. I find that unjust. I do not see why we should let those papers in, which are just as much an inducement to drink whiskey, wine or beer, when our own papers have not the same right to publish such advertisements. That is something I cannot understand. In all fairness either these advertisements should be permitted in our papers, or the entry of these United States papers should be prohibited. I submit that to the minister on the ground of fairness. I do not see why a manufacturer should not have the right to publish an advertisement1 for liquor in a Canadian periodical of any description when he has that right in the United States, and when advertisements published in the United States are permitted to come into this country. There is the same inducement to people to buy that liquor. I hope the minister will see to this. If he really wants to be drastic we will support him, provided there is no back-door; but if he is too drastic people will become discontented who are now willing to do all they can for the war effort, but who need a certain appreciation on the part of the government, even if they have to pay for it.


Angus MacInnis: The question asked by the hon. member for Springfield of the hon. member for Mackenzie is usually supposed to be a poser that will stop anyone who advocates proper restrictions on the consumption of liquor. The question goes something like this: Would you take away the poor man's beer? I never hear any of these people asking: Are you in favour of the working man having champagne? I am not particularly concerned with taking away or letting the working man have his beer if he wants it. I have lived with 
working people all my life, and I have never yet seen a working man suffer from lack of beer or whisky or that kind of stuff. I have seen a working man suffer from lack of food, from lack of clothing, from lack of proper education, or from lack of a decent home in which to live. As a matter of fact a working man suffers, not because his beer is taken away but because he is a working man, because he has no access to the means of life except by selling his labour to somebody else. There is only one way in which to put the working man on a level with all the rest of the community, namely, by raising him from the position of a working man to the position of a citizen who has the -right of access to the good things that the community produces, because he is a citizen and because he renders a service to the country. I am in favour of the poor man having everything he should have or, if you like, everything the rich man can have because he is rich; but I am not in favour of giving him "his beer" just because beer is a cheap drink. I should like to see him asking for the things all the "best people" have, and then I am satisfied that he will get beer along with all other good things.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
2. That the duty of excise on Canadian brandy be increased from seven dollars to nine dollars per proof gallon, provided that duty paid Canadian brandy owned by any distiller at the close of business on the second day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-three, shall be subject to the following additional duty of excise on every gallon of the strength of proof two dollars and so in proportion for any greater or less strength than the strength of proof and for any less quantity than a gallon.
Mr. McIVOR; I will not take this opportunity to give an address for or against this question. I think my past record will indicate my attitude, but I think the minister or the ministers have been very patient and very generous with the distillers. I do not think liquor has been taxed any more than other commodities have been taxed, and in my view the people who have been really hard hit have not said very much about their taxes. Look at your filling stations, your automobile people, your commercial travellers, and so on. I have yet to hear a commercial traveller raise a howl because he has been hard hit. But I should like to say that we shall have to have some scientific education in the use of liquor if we are to get very far, and we should not always speak from places where no one can hit us back; I do not think that is courageous. Here anyone can hit us back. I do not mind saying that we should take a leaf out of

Customs Tariff
Russia's book. When, a young couple go to get married in Russia they are sent to three inspectors, one of whom is a scientific lecturer on the use of alcohol. If that young man goes to get a drink he will be sent back to the lecturer, and he will get an earful and will be taught that the use of intoxicating liquor constitutes sabotage against the nation. I think if we had less rancour on both sides of this question and more sincerity we would get somewhere. I would not care if you had prohibition across the length and breadth of Canada, or if you had a new economic system throughout the country. Before you can change a man's head you have to change his heart; there is no other cure for the use of liquor. I speak of what I know, because I have seen men who were able to stop using liquor without going to the United States for a cure.
I have only this word to add, that I think the ministers have shown remarkable patience. I do not think we need say very much about this matter, because the tax is not out of the way, and it is only fair that liquor should be taxed like any other luxury commodity. I think the ministers are to be commended1 for what they have done, and I will back them to the finish.
Jean-François Pouliot: I have just one word to say about Russia, which the hon. member for Fort William has mentioned as an example. Did he read the recent issue of Life magazine in which there were pictures of a reception given by Maxim Litvinoff in Washington, at which liquor was overflowing? Also with regard to Russia, did he see the number of illustrations in the Montreal Standard, where the bottle of vodka was shown? Everyone at that reception had a glass in his hand, with the exception of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King); the host, the Russian minister; and two ministers of the government, namely, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bertrand) and the Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock). The others were either in the action of drinking or eating. A member of the defence department has a spoon in his hand ready to take up all that was on a plate of caviar-and that is food, not a drink. That has something to do with what my hon. friend has just said about Russia, both in Washington and in Ottawa.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
3. That any enactment founded upon the foregoing resolution shall come into force on the third day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-three.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.

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

[Stage Direction]
1. Resolved, That schedule A to the customs tariff, being chapter forty-four of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, as amended, is further amended by striking thereout tariff items 105a, 156, 156a, 197c, 232, 355, 440i, 563, the several enumerations of goods respectively and the several rates of duties of customs, if any, set opposite each of the said items, and by inserting the following items, enumerations and rates in said schedule A:-
Customs tariff-105a. Lemon, orange, grapefruit and citron rinds, fresh, frozen, dried, sulphured or in brine:	British preferential
tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Gordon Graydon: With regard to certain items in the schedule, the present rates given for the British preferential tariff, the intermediate and the general tariffs indicate two rates. In one case it is British preferential tariff, free and 15 per cent; intermediate tariff, free and 25 per cent; general tariff, free and 25 per cent. The suggested rates indicate a free rate all the way through. Would the minister indicate what change is entailed?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The wording of item 105a covering, lemon, orange, grapefruit and citron rinds, sulphured or in brine, is being amended to read:
Lemon, orange, grapefruit and citron rinds, fresh, frozen, dried, sulphured or in brine.
The words "fresh, frozen, dried," are being added.
Mr. GRAYDON; They were not in the original item.


James Lorimer Ilsley: In pre-war days most of the lemon, orange, grapefruit and citron rinds imported were sulphured or in brine. These came principally from Italy, Greece, Spain and Africa. The original source of supply for orange peel has been the British West Indies, but during the last few years British West Indian oranges have been reserved for the United Kingdom. Lemon, orange, grapefruit and citron rinds are now being imported from the United States in a frozen condition, and are dutiable under tariff item 711, and at the United States trade agreement rate of twenty per cent.
It is contended that the peel should be accorded the same tariff treatment as the fresh fruit. Lemons and oranges are admitted duty-free, and grapefruit are subject to a rate of one half cent a pound. The argument is advanced1 that as peel sulphured
Customs Tariff

or in brine has been admitted duty-free from all countries for a number of years, there is no logical reason why peel fresh, frozen or dried should not be accorded the same tariff treatment. It is to be noted that dried orange peel has been admitted duty-free under item 204, the item covering barks, flower, berries, and fruits, in crude state.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It is contended that the rinds should come in duty-free, according to the minister. By whom is it so contended?


James Lorimer Ilsley: By the importers.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Why is the minister acceding to the request of the importers? As I understand the whole history of tariff policy in this country, it would seem to indicate that the party of which the minister is a member supports a tariff for revenue. Surely there never was a time when w'e needed revenue more than we do at present. The minister is doing away with the rate, meaning that the material will now come in free of duty. Surely the people who use this material are in as good a position to pay for it now as they have been heretofore. What is the reason for doing away with this revenue, when we need it so badly?


James Lorimer Ilsley: These are raw materials.
One does not maintain a duty on everything simply because it gives revenue. There must be a certain sense of propriety in connection with the imposition of customs duties, even for revenue purposes. This is simply an equalizing of the treatment of various raw materials for products such as marmalade, and bakery products. I am not just sure about the facts in connection with priceceiling implications, but I believe there are such implications, too.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Do I understand it is
quite impossible to get rind from the British West Indies, or other British dependencies?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; that is correct.


Gordon Graydon: Has the minister the
figures respecting importations of items in this group?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. Imports of lemon,
orange, grapefruit and citron rinds, sulphured or in brine, during the calendar year 1942 were valued at $18,199. Of that amount Jamaica supplied $15,841 and British South Africa $2,347, goods to the value of $11 coming from the United States. Imports of frozen peel are not separately recorded, but it is known that one importer in Vancouver imported five carloads between August 28,

1942, and January 5, 1943, and that this same importer has six carloads on order. Imports are probably in the neighbourhood of 500,000 pounds annually. Frozen peel is worth a little over two cents a pound. The price of frozen peel has advanced since September, 1941.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-156. Ethyl alcohol, or the substance commonly known as alcohol, hydrated oxide of ethyl or spirits of wine, n.o.p.; gin of all kinds, n.o.p.; rum; whisky and all spirituous or alcoholic liquors, n.o.p.; amyl alcohol or fusel oil, or any substance known as potato spirits or potato oil; methyl alcohol, wood alcohol, wood naphtha, pyroxylic spirit or any substance known as wood spirit or methylated spirits, absinthe, arrack or palm spirit, brandy, including artificial brandy and imitations of brandy, n.o.p.; cordials and liqueurs of all kinds, n.o.p.; mescal, pulque, rum shrub, schiedam and other schnapps; tafia, angostura and similar alcoholic bitters or beverages; and wines, n.o.p., containing more than forty per cent of proof spirit, per gallon of the strength of proof: British preferential tariff, $5; intermediate tariff, $10; general tariff, $10.
Provided, (1) that when the goods specified in Item 156 are of greater or less strength than the strength of proof, the measurement thereof and the amount of duty payable thereon shall be increased or decreased in proportion for any greater or less strength than the strength of proof.
Provided. (2) that bottles and flasks and packages of gin, rum, whisky and brandy of all kinds, and imitations thereof, shall be held to contain the following quantities (subject to the provisions for addition or deduction in respect of the degree of strength) viz.: -
Bottles, flasks and packages, containing not more than three-fourths of a gallon per dozen, as three-fourths of a gallon per dozen.
Bottles, flasks and packages, containing more than three-fourths, of a gallon but not more than one gallon per dozen, as one gallon per dozen.
Bottles, flasks and packages, containing more than one gallon but not more than one and one-half gallon per dozen, as one and one-half gallon per dozen.
Bottles, flasks and packages, containing more than one and one-half gallon but not more than two gallons per dozen, as two gallons per dozen.
Bottles, flasks and packages, containing more than two gallons but not more than two and four-fifths gallons per dozen, as two and four-fifths gallons per dozen.
Bottles, flasks and packages, containing more than two and four-fifths gallons but not more than three gallons per dozen, as three gallons per dozen.
Bottles, flasks and packages, containing more than three gallons but not more than three and one-fifth gallons per dozen, as three and one-fifth gallons per dozen.
Provided, (3) that bottles or phials of liquors for special purposes, such as samples not for sale to the trade, may be entered for duty according to actual measurement, under regulations prescribed by the minister.

Customs Tariff
Gordon Graydon: According to the schedule given it would appear that there is no change in the present rate as compared with the rate which has been in existence heretofore. Would the minister indicate just what is happening?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is a change in the item, not in the rates, and a very important change it is. Since 1890 the various items covering spirits have contained a proviso that no reduction or allowance shall be made in the measurement of quantity for duty purposes of imported spirits below the strength of fifteen per cent under proof. This proviso is now deleted, and duty will henceforth be assessed on the actual strength of proof. Item 156a, covering rum, has been amalgamated with 156, the item covering spirituous liquors generally. The tariff rates attached to both items have been the same for a number of years.	Prior to
March 2 the customs import duty on whisky or other spirits was levied on the assumed strength of fifteen per cent under proof, Sikes hydrometer.	A case of twelve computed
quarts of whisky contains two imperial gallons, or 1-70 proof gallons, when duty is computed on the basis of fifteen per cent under proof. Imported whisky is about twenty-five per cent under proof, and the quantity on which customs duty is payable under the amended item 156 would be 1-50 proof gallons, a reduction of -20 of a gallon per case. Under the wartime alcoholic beverages order, 1942, which is P.C. 11374, dated December 16, 1942, no person shall sell, offer to sell, supply or deliver any spirits of any alcoholic strength greater than seventy per centum proof spirits, which is thirty per centum under proof.
When it is illegal to sell spirits of a strength greater than thirty per cent under proof, the same prohibition would apply to the importation of spirits and it therefore becomes highly artificial to impose a duty on the water content. To continue the provision that a duty shall be levied as if it were only fifteen per cent under proof when it must be thirty per cent under proof, is getting one's law far away from one's facts. Therefore, the law is being amended so that the duty will be levied on the actual strength of the liquor. The reason for the fifteen per cent provision seems to have been to assist in ascertaining the actual strength; there was considerable trouble in ascertaining what the actual proof strength of the liquor was. The debates at the time have been examined, and there does not seem to have been much discussion on this curious provision. The Minister of Finance took the ground that we would call it all fifteen per cent under proof. I presume the duty was pretty low at the time, and therefore it did not make much difference. The officials just were not
going to the trouble to find out what the real strength was; they were going to call it fifteen per cent under proof.


Gordon Graydon: The minister refers to fifteen per cent under proof. As a matter of personal curiosity I should like to know what is meant by that phraseology in the act.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The definition of proof spirits is found in the interpretation section of the customs tariff.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps hon. members would like to know what it really means.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is going into the matter pretty deeply. In the interpretation section of the customs tariff it is given as follows:
"proof", "proof spirit" or "proof spirits", means any spirit having the strength of proof by Sikes' hydrometer, that is, spirit which at the temperature of fifty-one degrees fahrenheit weighs exactly twelve-thirteenths of the weight of an equal measure of distilled water at the same temperature.


Gordon Graydon: I would rather the minister had left out the definition. I think I understood it much better before he started to explain.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I must say I do not know what that means, but I know that certain spirits are over proof and are potent, while others are under proof and are not so potent. There is a certain standard of potency which is known as proof, and the definition is to be found in the customs tariff and the Excise Act.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-197c.	(i) Cigarette paper,
ungummed, in rolls: British preferential tariff, ten per cent; intermediate tariff 22£ per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
(ii) Cigarette paper, ungummed, in sheets containing not less than thirty-two square inches: British preferential tariff, 10 per cent; intermediate tariff, 151 per cent; general tariff, 25 per cent.
Gordon Graydon: Are we importing much cigarette paper, ungummed, in rolls?


James Lorimer Ilsley: 
Mr. COLD WELL:: There is a substantial tax on cigarette papers already. I am not objecting to this because I think tobacco, cigarettes and luxuries of that sort should be taxed, particularly during times like this. In
Customs Tariff

view of the relatively small amount collected by the department I am wondering why this schedule is maintained. This is not so much a revenue tax as a protective tax. Is it the intention to protect the manufacturer of Canadian cigarette paper?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is to correct an anomaly. It has no tariff objective or any protectionist objective.


Major James William Coldwell: There is really no
change.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is a slight change.


Major James William Coldwell: What is it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The present rate for the
second classification, cigarette paper, ungummed, in sheets, is twenty-two and a half per cent for the intermediate, and it is to be fifteen and three-quarters per cent. It is to equalize the treatment * of something with which it competes.


Major James William Coldwell: I was referring to the
ungummed, in rolls, which is ten, twenty-two and a half and twenty-five per cent.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is the same.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Are we making any
cigarette paper in Canada at the present time?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Any substantial amount?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; large quantities are
made in Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: This enters into the
manufactured cigarettes as well as roll-your-own?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Have many representations been made by manufacturers of cigarette papers in Canada against the lowering of the tariff in 197c (ii) ? Were they manufactured in Canada prior to the war? I understood that most of the cigarette paper was imported from France.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is an equalization;
that is all. As I understand it, that twenty-two and one-half per cent which applies to category (i) is subject to a discount of thirty per cent, which makes it equivalent to the fifteen and three-quarters per cent in category (ii).


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-232.	Glue and gelatine,
n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 174 per cent and 2 cents per pound; intermediate tariff, 25 per cent and 5 cents per pound; general tariff, 25 per cent and 5 cents per pound.
Major James William Coldwell: What is the object of
this? Is it to effect some reconciliation?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Item 232 formerly read:
Glue, liquid, powdered or sheet, and gelatine, n.o.p.
The words "liquid, powdered or sheet" are being deleted to facilitate administration. Sometimes glue is imported in the form of slabs one and one-half feet square and from two to three inches in thickness. Such slabs could hardly be classified as sheet glue. Glue is also imported in barrels. Although the glue may have been in the form of liquid when it was placed1 in the barrels it is a solid mass when it reaches this country. In the condition as imported it could hardly be classified as "liquid" glue. So that the words "liquid, powdered1 or sheet" are taken out.


Major James William Coldwell: Is there not a shortage
of glue and gelatine in this country at the present time? If so, why keep this tariff on, particularly since gelatine is used in the manufacture of certain food products and in other everyday items used in the home? If we have a shortage I see no reason for keeping the tariff on at the present time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: P.C. 5015, passed on June
15, 1942, exempted imports of animal glue, powdered or sheet from the customs duty of 174 per cent and two cents per pound under the British preferential tariff, and twenty-five per cent and five cents per pound under the intermediate tariff, during the period May 1, 1942, to December 31, 1942. The provisions of this order in council were extended until June 30, 1943, by P.C. 11791 passed on December 31, 1942. The duty comes on again July 1, 1943, unless the order is further extended.


Major James William Coldwell: If it was found advisable to suspend this customs duty last year and to continue the suspension to June 30 of this year, why not take the item out of the tariff schedules altogether, because gelatine enters into so many different articles, particularly food products? It seems to me that item 232 simply continues in the tariff an item which in effect has ceased to exist because it has been wiped out by order in council; and having wiped it out by order in council, why not wipe it out permanently by legislation now that parliament is sitting, and have done with it? Gelatine enters into so many articles of use in the home, including food products, and since the item was set aside by order in council last year I suggest that it be left out altogether, particularly because the government pledged itself years ago to remove customs duties on articles of food

Custojns Tariff
and the necessaries of life and of industry. Here is an opportunity to get rid of a very small item; still, it is an item.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It would be using the war
period as an opportunity to make a somewhat important change in the tariff. There are three factories in Canada now working day and night manufacturing this item, and if the financial critic of the opposition were here I would let him answer my hon. friend.


Major James William Coldwell: He is not responsible
for the item.


James Lorimer Ilsley: He would not be in favour
of legislative elimination of the item, and for very good reasons. I do not say it would be wrong at all, but to wipe out the item would be making an important tariff change which would affect Canadian interests. I have not been doing very much during the war in the way of making permanent tariff changes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Glue is not, I understand, an article of food.


Major James William Coldwell: I said gelatine was.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Glue is made in this
country. May I ask the minister if the particular kind of glue referred to in this item is made in Canada?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And those manufacturing glue and providing employment in this country are satisfied that the item should be reduced?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. Under present conditions the important thing is to get what is needed.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister has not the intention of wiping out the item permanently, for which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar argued?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not doing anything one way or the other about it. We have been acting under order in council. The item may be taken out some time; I do not know; but this is not the time.


Gordon Graydon: The minister has spoken of orders in council having been utilized for the purpose of altering tariff schedules. Would the minister enlighten the committee as to the extent to which the tariff schedules have either been raised or lowered by order in council? Evidently there are cases where the tariff legislation passed by parliament has been altered from time to time by order in council. Has there been any extensive use of this practice, or is it done only in isolated cases?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Fairly extensive. There have been many changes by order in council, but no duties can be imposed by order in council. There have been many removals.


Grote Stirling: And reductions?


James Lorimer Ilsley: And reductions by order in council.


Gordon Graydon: But no duties have been imposed by order in council?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, they cannot be. At least I believe they cannot be. I think there is some question as to what powers the government has under the War Measures Act, but I do not think it can impose duties.


Major James William Coldwell: The government could not raise taxes by order in council. Is that not the understanding?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is the opinion most commonly held.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-355. Nickel, and alloys containing sixty per cent by weight or more of nickel, n.o.p., viz.:	ingots, blocks and shot;
shapes or sections, billets, bars and rods, rolled, extruded, or drawn (not including nickel processed for use as anodes); strip, sheet and plate (polished or not); seamless tube:	British
preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff; general tariff, free.
John Ritchie MacNicol: As I understand it,
Canada possesses ninety per cent or more of the world's known resources of nickel. Do we import nickel ingots and other materials of that kind? I thought we were exporters of all that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The present item is being widened in scope to provide for advances and developments that have taken place in the production and use of nickel and its alloys since the item was established in the tariff a number of years ago. The former item read:
Customs tariff-355. Nickel in ingots or blocks, n.o.p.; nickel bars and rods, not including bars or rods depolarized or otherwise processed for use as anodes; and nickel in strips, sheets or plates.
The amended wording reads:
Customs tariff-355. Nickel, and alloys containing sixty per cent by weight or more of nickel, n.o.p., viz.: ingots, blocks and shot; shapes or sections, billets, bars and rods, rolled, extruded, or drawn (not including nickel processed for use as anodes); strip, sheet and plate (polished or not); seamless tube.
Substantially the whole of the nickel imported into Canada either in the pure form or as alloys is produced from Canadian ores. There is no rolling mill in Canada capable
Customs Tariff

of producing nickel rolled shapes. In view of the extremely limited consumption of the Canadian market it is unlikely that any such mill will be established in the foreseeable future.
The object of the former and revised item covering nickel in various forms is to enable the duty free reimportation of nickel that has been processed in the United States, thereby encouraging the production of primary nickel and at the same time placing the Canadian manufacturer on an equal basis with the United States manufacturer.
It is to be noted that the former item and the new item both provide for nickel in ingots or blocks, but "shot" has been added to the classification, because this is one form in which pure nickel is produced, and is in fact more generally used than ingots or blocks.
It is also to be noted that the former item provides for nickel bars and rods, while the new item provides for shapes or sections, billets, bars and rods, rolled, extruded or drawn. The forms covered by the new items have been somewhat extended to include all modern rolling mill products of the material in question.
Both the former and new item provide for strip, sheet and plate.
Seamless tube is included in the proposed item. No seamless tube of high nickel alloys has ever been produced in Canada.
The new item specifies that nickel and alloys must contain 60 per cent by weight or more of nickel. This qualification is inserted to facilitate administration. The scope of the new item as far as nickel content is concerned is in fact broader than the scope of the former item.
Certain combinations of nickel with other metals, such as "K" monel, "KR" monel, 'Z" nickel and a nickel alloy known as 'Inconel", will now be definitely covered by ;he new item. These forms were formerly, in most instances, dutiable under tariff item 711 at the United States trade agreement rate of twenty per cent.
It is estimated that annual imports in norma] times of nickel forms, not admissible under tariff item 355, amounted in value to about 8100,000. In the calendar year 1942, imports under tariff item 355 amounted to 881,316 pounds, valued at SS04.224.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I thank the minister for his statement. I am not opposing the item in any way but just seeking a little information. As I understand it, the nickel after it is mined at Sudbury is sent to Port Colborne, on lake Erie, and there it is made, or at least I thought it had been made, into pig nickel
fMr. Ilsley.]
or nickel ingots; but apparently it is not; perhaps it is made just into nickel matte; and then r.hese ingots, perhaps, or the nickel matte is sent over to the United States; there it is transformed into ingots containing only sixty per cent nickel and these ingots are sent back to Canada for further processing. Is that a correct explanation?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know very much about it, but I think that is substantially correct. I was trying to find out the form in which it left Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I think it is matte.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Would nickel in pigs be a lower form than nickel in ingots? The hon. gentleman would know more about that than I. Does it leave in pigs?


John Ritchie MacNicol: No. Matte, is it not?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Concentrated ore.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, exactly. We in Ontario thought the plant erected at Port Colborne was a step in the right direction for the processing of various lines of nickel products in Canada, but evidently it has not got any further than a once-remove from the raw ore as it is mined in Sudbury. That nickel matte goes to the United States and, according to this item, comes back free so that we can process it here into other items.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-440i. The following articles and materials when imported for use only in the manufacture, maintenance or repair of automatic gas buoys and automatic gas beacons, or automatic electric buoys and automatic electric beacons, for the government of Canada, for marine signal purposes or for export, under regulations prescribed by the minister, viz.: flanged and dished steel heads made from boiler plate, over five feet in diameter; acetylene gas lanterns and parts thereof; electric flashing lights and parts thereof: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-563. Bolting cloth of any textile fibre, not made up, imported for use only for bolting or sifting materials: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
John Ritchie MacNicol: This is something I know nothing about. Are any of the lines of textile fibres referred to here produced in Canada?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. This is bolting cloth, and bolting cloth is used principally in flour mills and starch factories. It is not made in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Customs Tariff
James Lorimer Ilsley: There is an amendment to item 696a. It is an unimportant matter.


Colin William George Gibson: That schedule A to the customs tariff, as amended by resolution No. 1 of March 2, 1943, be further amended by striking thereout tariff item 696a and by inserting in lieu thereof the following item, enumerations and rates of duty:
696a. Moving picture films, sound or silent, separate sound film track, slides and slide films, positive or negative; sound disks, records and transcriptions; when certified by the Government or by a recognized representative authority of the Government of the country of production as being of an international educational character; subject to such regulations as the minister may prescribe: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The former item read:
Educational moving picture films of all widths, silent or sound, positive or negative, and sound disks or records designed for use with such films, when certified by the minister as entitled to exemption from customs duty under the convention for facilitating the international circulation of films of an educational character; subject to such regulations as the minister may prescribe.
Under the former item importation was restricted to films entitled to entry under the convention for facilitating the international circulation of films of an educational character. Under the new item films, et cetera are admitted duty free when they are certified by a government or by a recognized representative authority of the government of the country of production as being of an international educational character. The item is also being widened to cover sound film track, slides and slide films when used in conjunction with educational moving-picture films. I am informed that the national film board and an organization known as the national film society requested this amendment. The Department of National Revenue would like to have this done for administrative purposes.


Gordon Graydon: What are the administrative reasons?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The convention is out of existence now. Under the former item importation was restricted to films entitled to entry under the convention for facilitating the international circulation of films of an educational character. Under the new item films, etcetera, are admitted duty free when they are certified by a government or by a ' recognized representative authority of the government of the country of production as being of an international educational character.
The convention for facilitating the international circulation of films of an international character was signed at Geneva on October 11, 1933. That is what is out of existence. There is no certifying authority.


Gordon Graydon: That is the administrative
reason?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Then the government does not fully accept the word of another government as to the educational value of a film?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is subject to such regulation as the Minister of National Revenue may prescribe. He may accept the certificate of a recognized representative authority of the country of production. If he gives a certificate that the films are of an international educational character the minister may let them in. But he may prescribe regulations.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Are they examined before they are distributed in this country?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The Department of National Revenue inspects them to see whether they are educational before it lets them in.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do the provincial motion-picture censorship boards not inspect them before they are allowed to be distributed in the provinces?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That has to do with their showing in the province. That is a different matter.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The federal government might let a film in, but a provincial government might keep it out?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Might not let it be shown in that province.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
James Lorimer Ilsley: There is another atnendment. The motion is:
That schedule A to the customs tariff, as amended by resolution No. 1 of March 2, 1943, be further amended by striking thereout tariff item 704 and by inserting in lieu thereof the following item, enumerations and rates of duty.
This is a long item, but it covers a very small matter.


Gordon Graydon: May I interrupt the minister? This item may or may not be of great importance. It is very difficult to assess the importance to be attached to any of these items. But the minister in a previous resolution in connection with the budget was good enough at an earlier date to bring down the amendment in the matter affecting the one-cent postage. I should have liked if the minister had given us a little more opportunity at least to read over the amendment before we are asked to pass it. I cannot at the moment see anything that would be specially
Customs Tariff

difficult in this instance; on the other hand I think we ought to have an opportunity of going over it and seeing what it is about.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I agree. If these were not very small matters we would not try to do it this way. But unless I am making some mistake about these it is very important.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I will not support any amendment that I have no chance to read.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Then we better move that the committee rise. I will move this amendment and put it on the record and let the hon. member for Davenport read it. It has to do with letting some bequests from abroad in free of duty. It will not upset the economy very much. It reads:
704. Apparel, wearing and other personal and household effects, not merchandise, of British subjects dying abroad, but domiciled in Canada; books, pictures, family plate or furniture, personal effects and heirlooms left by bequest to any resident of Canada, or acquired by any resident of Canada as a result of the death of any person resident abroad, or as a gift in anticipation of the death of any such person; all such goods or articles when given as a free gift by anyone resident abroad to a resident of Canada; the minister to be the sole judge as to whether any goods or any article imported is to be classified as entitled to the benefit of this item or not: British preferential tariff, free; intermediate tariff, free; general tariff, free.
The former item has been widened in scope by the addition of all the words after the word "bequest" in the fifth line thereof. During the past few years several cases have occurred in which gifts of personal effects, including pictures, books and furniture, have been given by a member of a family residing abroad to relatives in Canada. This has become more frequent of late, owing to people moving into smaller quarters or giving up winter homes in the southern states. While free entry can be permitted in the case of bequests, this does not apply to gifts made in contemplation of death or under the circumstances outlined above.
During the calendar year 1942 imports under item 704 were valued at S123,085, of which $110,000 worth came from the United States, and $11,000 worth from the United Kingdom. There were a few imports from Jamaica, Newfoundland, Australia and New Zealand. It is estimated that the widening of the scope of this item will result in about ten per cent increase in imports.
Progress reported.



SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 58, to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 59, to amend the Excise Act, 1934.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Tuesday, April 6, 1943