1948-06-03

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MeCUAIG:
1.	What was the total cost of federal seed and relief in Saskatchewan, 1914-1933 inclusive?
2.	What are .the main districts in Saskatchewan against which this relief is outstanding?
3.	How many of such original recipients still own the land in Saskatchewan against which this relief .was filed?
. 4. How much principal (a) has been repaid; (b) has been cancelled; (c) is outstanding at this date?
5.	How much interest (a) has been repaid; (b) has been cancelled; (c) is outstanding at this date?
6.	When Were the last official notices to pay up sent to the recipients of this seed and relief?
7.	What is the cost to the federal treasury of keeping open this account for seed relief since 1945?
Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	Total amount advanced in the years 19141923 inclusive, $10,132,640.43.
2.	Information not available by districts.
3.	We do not have record of the registered owners of the encumbered properties in this department. To find out how many of the original debtors still own the land, it would be necessary to enquire from the registrars of the various land registration districts of Saskatchewan.
4.	As at March 31, 1943-(a) $8,417,887.08; (b) $283,750.07; (c) $1,431,003.28.
5.	As at March 31, 1943-(a) $1,432,900.20; (b) $484,985.94; (c) $1,652,009.45.
6.	The practice of sending annual statements of seed grain indebtedness was discontinued in 1930 due to the depression and has not been resumed.
7.	The cost of seed grain collections since 1945 is estimated as follows:
1945-46 		.... $7,000
1946-47 		.... 7,000
1947-48 		.... 8,000
Total .. ..	.... $22,000
About half the work in seed grain collections concerns Saskatchewan and the estimated expense for Saskatchewan would be one-half the above total, or $11,000 since 1945.


COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the government taken any steps requesting Britain and the other dominions to hold an empire conference in London, on trade, defence and migration within the empire?
2.	If so, what has been the result?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


OIL, POTASH AND URANIUM-SURVEYS IN THE PRAIRIE PROVINCES
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Are any surveys to be undertaken during the present summer under the direction of the department of mines and natural resources in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta for the purpose of locating oil, potash and uranium?
2.	If so, how many parties will 'be sent out?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1 and 2. The following geological parties will be sent out in the field: Alberta, five; Saskatchewan, two; Manitoba, five.
These parties will be engaged in general geological mapping in areas favourable to the search for oil and other minerals.
The potash in Saskatchewan occurs at depths of 3,500 to 7,000 feet and can be located only by exploratory' drilling. An officer of the department keeps posted on the situation.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. GAGNON:: X. Have any telegraph lines formerly owned by the government or the Canadian National Railways, in the county of Chicoutimi, been sold or transferred to Jules Brillant, or someone else?
2.	If so, for what amount?
3.	What was the cost of construction of the said lines?
4.	Why did the government dispose of such lines?
4738

Flood Relief in British Columbia


ESKIMOS
Mr. BENIDICKSON:: 1.	What was done last year to improve the health of Eskimos in Canada?
2.	What is the Eskimo population of Canada?
3.	Is it increasing?


FLOOD CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I received this morning the following telegram from- the Prime Minister of Great Britain, the Right Hon. C. R. Attlee:
On behalf of my colleagues and myself I should like to express to you the deep regret with which we have heard of serious floods in British Columbia and our sympathy with those who have been rendered homeless.
In reply to that message I sent the follow-acknowledgment :
I thank you warmly for the expression of sympathy from your colleagues and yourself for those rendered homeless by the disastrous floods in British Columbia. Immediately on its receipt I communicated your message to the Premier of British Columbia. The sympathy of the United Kingdom government will be deeply appreciated by all the people of Canada, and especially by those of the stricken area.
Referring to the flood conditions in the Fraser valley, I have this morning 'been in further communication with the premier of the province, Mr. Byron Johnson, concerning the floods in the Fraser valley, and I should like to make a statement to the house with reference to where the matter stands as between our two governments at the present time.
It is clear that the damage has already reached such proportions that federal assistance will be necessary, not only for relief, but also for rehabilitating and restoring the devastated areas. To help in allaying anxiety in the minds of thousands of Canadians who are homeless and who have lost so much in this terrible disaster, I have, with the approval of my colleagues, informed the premier that the federal government is prepared to assist the province financially, not only in meeting the expenditures required for immediate relief, but also in meeting the cost of rehabilitation and restoration. The two governments are continuing to co-ordinate, in the most effective manner, the services of provincial and federal departments, and are in consultation on the extent of the financial needs, their equitable apportionment, and the supervision of expenditures.

I might say our government has in mind, and I have suggested to the premier of British Columbia, the appointment of a representative of our government at Victoria and the appointment by the government of British Columbia of a representative of their government, the two to become members of a commission that might be called the Fraser valley relief and rehabilitation commission, to have general supervision over the entire situation, and be able to deal with questions as they may arise from hour to hour, as well as from day to day.
I am not in a position as yet to say who will be named; I think, however, it is well that hon. members and the people of British Columbia should know that the two governments have felt that what I have mentioned would be the most effective manner of having the two governments work together in connection with matters which have already arisen or may develop from now on.


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I thought hon. members might be interested to learn something of the exact situation in the Fraser valley as reported to me by the area commander.
The report would indicate that along the Fraser river delta the general situation has deteriorated slightly in one or two sectors, but on the whole the situation is reasonably favourable.
To the north along the Fraser river, Lillooet was reported to be isolated, and in the interior the threat along the Columbia river continued with flooding in the low-lying sections in the Trail area.
All personnel are extremely tired, as they have been working hard for very long hours; but morale and discipline are excellent. The control organization is functioning well, with excellent liaison at all levels.
Ten officers and two hundred other ranks of the Princess Patricia Canadian light infantry are being flown in from Calgary as reinforcements, one hundred today, with the remainder tomorrow. This personnel will be deployed in the Chilliwack area on the south bank, on arrival.
There was little change in the over-all army manpower figures, with a total of 1,482 actively participating, as follows: Active force 590; reserve force 892. Large numbers of civilian personnel continue to assist, with approximately 1,000 being employed under army sector commanders. Fifty-eight set battery situation now appears to be satisfactory. Additional quantities of D8 twisted cable are being dispatched today via air.

Inquiries oj the Ministry
The disaster wireless net is working well. A small amount of commercial traffic is now being carried by army circuits between Calgary and Victoria. A line system is being laid along the dikes to improve communications. Four radio cars are now operating, working into the B.C. Telephone Company net.
The area commander in a signal has this to say:
Sector commanders are working very hard and their organization and planning is first-class. Most civilians are co-operating very well and appear to be glad that there is a unified control. We have our troubles, of course, but that is to be understood. Brigadier Murphy is in charge of the manpower and material section and Brigadier Rockingham is in charge of the liaison section. Both these sections I set up yesterday and both are functioning well.
"The navy is here," as Mr. Churchill would say, and is doing a magnificent job. I am filled with admiration for the way in which the air force is meeting every demand. My relations with the respective commanders are most amicable.



COMBINES ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Justice? Can he say what action the federal government intends to take, either by itself or in conjunction with the attorneys general of the provinces, in respect to the disclosures contained in Mr. McGregor's report on optical goods?


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice):: The report is being studied with a view to determining whether a prosecution is proper in the circumstances or not. The report has been sent by the commissioner to the attorneys general of the provinces, and if the usual course is followed, and I assume it will be, the attorney general of the province or provinces in which most of the activities took place will be asked whether he intends to prosecute or would prefer that the dominion assume responsibility for the prosecution. The dominion government will decide upon its course in the light of the reply that it gets.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: If I may ask a supplementary question, what is the justification for the minister publishing a report such as this, which condemns before the bar of public opinion companies and individuals who may subsequently be found to be not guilty, as were those similarly condemned, namely the dental corporations, in an action taken recently by the department?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The principle of publication of the reports of the commissioner has always 5849-301J
been contained in the Combines Investigation-Act, and the course now being followed is the. course which has always been followed in the past. It is open to argument whether the report should be secret. That point has been debated in- the house in previous years, as many years ago, I think, as thirty or forty, and it has been decided that the public is entitled to know what the commissioner has ascertained. The commissioner is expected to foe careful, and I think is careful, not to make , his report into a brief for the prosecution. He is expected to publish the facts and his conclusions on the fact's. I doubt whether the results of the prosecutions that have taken place indicate that, anybody has- been greatly prejudiced by the publication of his report.



WESTERN CANADIAN MOTOR TRUCK EXPRESS TARIFFS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, immediately following the issuance of March 30, 1948, of Order No. 70425 of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific express services increased to 75 cents the minima provided in motor truck competitive express tariffs in western Canada.
The government has received numerous representations in respect of the shipment of eggs which were formerly carried at a minimum of 35 cents. Upon directing this matter to the attention of the railways, it was ascertained that the railways have likewise received many representations and that the question of adjustment of this minimum was under active investigation. I am pleased to be able to announce that as a result of their studies, the railways have come to the conclusion that a downward revision in the minimum applicable to eggs is warranted and that the western Canadian motor truck competitive express tariffs will be revised to provide a minimum for eggs of 50 cents in place of the minimum of 75 cents at present in use.
Tariff revisions effecting this change are to be forwarded to the transport board in the next few days and will become effective on or about the 9th instant.



LABOUR CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
P.E.I. LABOUR ACT-INQUIRY AS TO DISALLOWANCE On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: May I be permitted to direct a question to the Minister of Justice? Has he any statement to make in regard to representations
Inquiries oj the Ministry

made to him for the disallowance of Bill No. 31, known as the P.E.I. Labour Act?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yesterday afternoon a delegation consisting of representatives of the major labour organizations in Canada, the trades and labour congress, the Canadian congress of labour and the railway brotherhoods, presented to myself and certain of my colleagues a petition for disallowance of the legislation in question. They were assured that their petition would be given careful consideration.



WELLAND SHIP CANAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) inquired why tourists are not being allowed to approach the Welland ship canal at close range, and more particularly the flight locks at Thorold, which are considered the centre of attraction along the canal. He stated that he had received many complaints. So have we in the Department of Transport. The officers of the department have given serious consideration to the question of relaxing the canal regulations at this time. Their advice is against it, and in view of the circumstances I feel that I should concur in their view. The position therefore is that tourists for the time being at least, will not be allowed to approach the Welland ship canal at close range.



FOREST FIRES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. RODNEY ADAMSON (York West):: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence, of which unfortunately I have not been able to give him notice. Has any request been made to the government for help through the use of troops or the air force or other personnel to combat the very serious forest fires now raging in Ontario north of Sault Ste. Marie?


Brooke Claxton: No such request has been made.
IMr. Gillis.]



WHEAT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: Last week I asked the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce if the annual report of the wheat board would be referred to the agriculture committee of the house this year as usual. He said that the minister would reply when he returned. Has the minister any information in the matter?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have not had1 a chance to consult the chairman of the committee, but there is no objection to referring the report to the committee. If it is the wish of the committee that the report be considered I shall be glad to refer it, accordingly.



INQUIRY- OF THE MINISTRY- REFERENCE TO BY-ELECTION IN YALE, B.C.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: I have a question to direct to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that our attention has been directed to British Columbia, I wonder whether they do not think that our two parties should rise and sing, "Yale, Yale, the gang's all here!"


Stanley Howard Knowles: Very good.



EXCISE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. J. MoCANN (Minister of National Revenue) moved the second reading of Bill
No. 228, to amend the Excise Act, 1934.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Sections 1 to 23 inclusive agreed to.
On section 24-Regulations.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister whether this bill, which we are putting through rather speedily, involves anything other than administrative changes?


Mr. McCANN:: There are no changes other than administrative ones.

Excise Act


Mr. HACKETT:: Do the regulations which the governor in council is enabled to pass under section 180 include punitive regulations such as incarceration and fine?


James Joseph McCann: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 25-Failure to comply with requirements of act and regulations.
Mr. FULTON:: The penalties under this section have been increased five times. A new requirement is apparently being laid down with which it may take brewers some time to familiarize themselves. Why is it necessary to increase the penalty five times at the same time as this new requirement is introduced?


James Joseph McCann: The reason is that the onus is now on the brewer. There is an additional penalty in that his licence is subject to cancellation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The onus is now placed on him. He has a new requirement to meet, and yet if he makes a slip, whether he does it inadvertently or deliberately-we will say that it is inadvertent in respect of the new requirement-he is subject to a penalty five times as great as it was before. Why is it necessary to increase the penalty? Has there been evasion, or has the department just got nasty-minded and decided we should have a heavier penalty?


James Joseph McCann: I am told the reason is that the malt is now' in the hands of the brewer, and for that reason there is a greater responsibility. Because of that the penalty is higher.


John Thomas Hackett: Is the explanation that the malt was previously in the custody of the department under an excise officer, and it has now been transferred to the brewer, in consequence of which he is liable to greater penalties because if he does not carry out the regulations it constitutes a breach of trust? Is that the answer?


James Joseph McCann: Formerly the brewer
secured his malt from the malt house. The duty was paid at the malt house, so that now there is a greater responsibility upon him.


John Thomas Hackett: The malt house being under departmental regulations and officers of the government.


James Joseph McCann: Yes, that is correct-under excise officers. When it is transferred, a greater responsibility rests upon him, and of course if there is an infraction the penalty is greater.


Mr. MERRITT:: The minister used a
strange remark in answer to the question of the hon. member for Kamloops. He said, ''1 am told" the penalty has been increased.


James Joseph McCann: I was told by the officers.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Am I to understand then that the minister did not exercise his own mind in the decision whether this penalty should be increased or not?


James Joseph McCann: I exercised my own mind, certainly, but one cannot carry in his head all the reasons for the actions which have been taken, and I do not think there is any harm in having one's memory refreshed by the officers. That is why they are here.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: As I understand it, the malt used to be in the malt house under part IV which is being repealed. The minister says the penalty should be increased because now there is additional responsibility upon the brewer. What was the penalty upon the malt house under part IV? Was it $5,000 or $1,000?


James Joseph McCann: The penalties are set out in sections 208, 209, 210, and as far down as 214 of the Excise Act. For example, section 234 of the Excise Act provides:
Every person who, without having a licence under this act, then in force, makes any malt or steeps any grain or leguminous seeds for the purpose of malting, is guilty of an indictable offence, and shall, for the first offence, incur a penalty of one hundred dollars, and for each subsequent offence a penalty of two hundred dollars.
Then section 235 makes this provision:
Every person who becomes liable to a penalty provided for in the last preceding section, shall, in addition thereto, forfeit and pay for the use of His Majesty double the amount of excise duty and licence duty which should have been paid by him under this act.
There are other sections dealing with illegal possession of apparatus, fraudulently putting grain into a cistern, removing malt before account is taken, selling malt unlawfully manufactured-all with the penalties set out.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: It seems strange to me that although the duties of the maltster are now put upon the brewer, all the penalties to which the maltster was subject were in the sum of $100 or $200, and never more than $200. They were all set out seriatim so that for one offence there was never a fine of more than $200. Now we have this one increased from $1,000 to $5,000, and yet the responsibility being assumed was assessed at only $100 before.


James Joseph McCann: Something has to be known of the background of this change. Perhaps

Excise Act
I should have made a statement at the outset to clarify the whole situation. This whole bill is designed as an economy measure. For many years malt has been subject to duty at the point of production-that is, at the malt house. It is proposed now to assess the duty as the malt is received at the brewery. It has been estimated that our present control costs in the neighbourhood of $153,000 a year. It involves not only the cost of maintaining continuous supervision over eight malt houses at present under licence, but the larger item of supervising the operations of forty bonded manufacturers who supply malt syrup to 294 industrial users. By these amendments, that is being done away with and we are putting the tax on the malt when it gets to the breweries. The answer to the hon. member's remarks is that there must be additional penalties for infraction because of the fact that, whereas before it was all supervised, now only that part that goes to the breweries will be supervised. One can easily see that quantities could be bought by brewers through other channels of trade and that they would not be subject to the tax.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This presumably will save a considerable number of personnel as well.


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


Mr. LENNARD:: Will there not be excise officers in the breweries?


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


Frank Exton Lennard: Are they there at the present time?


James Joseph McCann: Yes, but they were in many other places where they will not have to be now.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 26 to 29 inclusive agreed to.
On section 30-Malt.
Percy Ellis Wright: How many pounds of malt can be obtained from a bushel of barley?


James Joseph McCann: The standard is 75 pounds of malt from 100 pounds of cereal.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 31 and 32 agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN:: Shall I report the bill?


James Joseph McCann: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Chairman, I should like to introduce one amendment which will take into account the resolution which was passed yesterday with respect to the Excise Act. That resolution read:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Act to repeal,

effective on and after May 19, 1948, the excise duty on spirits used in the production of vinegar.
The amendment which I will ask my colleague to move will obviate the necessity of opening up the Excise Act again to incorporate in the statute the resolution proposed.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I move that:
1.	Paragraph (c) of the second proviso to the first paragraph of section one of the schedule to the Excise Act, 1934 is repealed.
2.	The third proviso to the first paragraph of section one of the schedule to the Excise Act, 1934 is amended by adding thereto the following paragraph:
"(ii) that spirits used solely in the manufacture of vinegar by a manufacturer of vinegar licensed under this act shall be subject to no duty of excise."


Stanley Howard Knowles: The purpose is simply to give statutory effect to the resolution respecting vinegar, which we passed the other day when in committee of ways and means?


James Joseph McCann: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is it moved as an amendment to Bill No. 228?


James Joseph McCann: As an addition to the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: To add the two clauses read?


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the amendment
carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue) moved the second reading of Bill No. 229, to amend the Customs Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-"Deputy Minister."
John Thomas Hackett: I think it would help if the minister made a statement as to the reasons for the amendments proposed in the bill.


James Joseph McCann: This bill is designed to give effect to undertakings under the general agreement on tariffs and trade adopted at the conclusion of the second session of the preparatory committee of the united nations conference on trade and employment, especially article VII of the said agreement. Article VII defines principles for the determination of

Customs Act
stabilized customs valuations which the signatory countries undertake to accord to importations of goods from each other. The bill revises such sections of the existing law as are repugnant to the agreement, and also removes certain sections which, by reason of changes in conditions, have become obsolete.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2 - Valuation for duty here determined.
Mr. McLURE:: What goods are imported into Canada carrying ad valorem duty? I should also like to know who appraises for ad valorem duty. Are special men called in having regard to the quality or quantity of goods imported?


James Joseph McCann: The officials have not yet arrived, Mr. Chairman, but they will be here in a moment. I cannot offhand give the goods on which there is an ad valorem duty. Appraising is done by the officials of the department who are specially qualified in the particular line of articles of which they make appraisals. For instance, those who are appraising textiles are men who have had experience in that particular line of work and who know the values of textiles. Those who are making an appraisal of machinery, steel, and the like, have had particular training and have become trained in values in those lines.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The minister does not know offhand any articles that are coming in under an ad valorem duty? He cannot name any of them?


Frank Exton Lennard: I might say that the statement just made by the minister is reassuring. Not so many years ago a retired hardware merchant was the expert on textiles.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall section 2 stand?


James Joseph McCann: There is no further question there.


An hon. MEMBER:: Stand.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall clause 2 carry?


An hon. MEMBER:: On division.


William Ross Macdonald: Carried on division.
Section 3.


An hon. MEMBER:: On division.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: The minister said that the officers were on the way here, and that when they arrive an answer can be given to the question which the hon. member is asking. He is asking for the answer to a simple question. Surely the section can be allowed to stand.


William Ross Macdonald: When I asked if section 2 was carried, some hon. members said "carried".


Frank Exton Lennard: And some said "stand".


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the section carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Stand.


William Ross Macdonald: Stand.


James Joseph McCann: Section 2 was carried.


John Thomas Hackett: I am a little bit confused, Mr. Chairman. Has this any relation to the Geneva agreement? If it has, we have not yet discussed the Geneva agreement. In that event, although we are anxious to get on with the business, we should probably await the disposal which the house makes of that other piece of legislation.


James Joseph McCann: I have indicated that the sole purpose of the amendment is to determine a method of standardization of values. It defines principles for the determination of stabilized customs valuations which the signatory countries undertake to accord to importations of goods from each other.


Edmund Davie Fulton: While I realize that this was announced last night as the order of business, I do not think all of us realized exactly what the import of it was. Under this bill we are giving effect to the Geneva trade agreements, particularly to part VII. The banking and commerce committee only two days ago completed its study of the agreements, and they have not yet been before the house for approval. Therefore what we are actually doing here is giving effect to some general provisions which the house has not yet approved. Does the minister not feel that a more logical way of proceeding would be to wait until the Geneva agreements themselves are disposed of by the house, either approved or rejected, and, if they are approved, to introduce a separate bill to give effect to their provisions?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think that is what is intended to be done with regard to matters that are of substance in the Geneva agreements. But incidental to the main provisions of the Geneva agreement there were undertakings by the various countries to standardize their practices with respect to the application of customs duties. My information is that Canadian exporters to the markets of the United States have been much more concerned about the practices of appraisal than about the rates of duty. These practices could be dealt with here by the governor in council and by administrative action in the United States. It was a part of the protocol that they would be
Customs Act

provisionally applied as from January 1, 1948, and they are being applied provisionally as from January 1, 1948. Our information is that there was much less complaint about our customs practices than about the customs practices of some of the countries to which we were exporting. It was felt that when the Customs Act was being amended it would be a good thing to put these things into the act and to endeavour to have continued the practices that have been in effect since January 1, 1948.


John Thomas Hackett: What would Canada's
position 'be if approval were not given by the house to the Geneva agreements? Are the practices to which the minister has referred something which of themselves are beneficial even though we do not adhere to all the clauses of the Geneva agreements? Are they something which of themselves are beneficial to the administration of our customs laws?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is so, Mr. Chairman. Quite independently of the changes in tariff rates agreed to at the Geneva conference, it would be beneficial to trade to have these customs practices in the form provided by the amending legislation. According to my information that creates a greater certainty and enables a prospective exporter or importer to get in advance a more definite idea of what he is going to have to pay than if the practices remained as they were before. Probably my hon. friend has had representations from Canadian exporters as to the difficulties they have run into because of the manner in which the United States tariff was being applied in practice by the customs officials. So it Was felt desirable to take out of our statute anything they might look upon as a pretext for maintaining those practices in their administration.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then, so we may have it on the record, may I ask the minister whether the Americans have yet changed their practices to conform, or have they given us the assurance that they will do it when we do?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: My information is that from January 1, 1948, they have changed their practice, and that they now have a practice which conforms with this new language.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just on the point of the procedure we are following, may I ask a question based upon a government notice of motion standing on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Finance? The wording of that notice asks for the approval of certain tariff treatment, "so that there may be introduced a bill to give effect thereto". Do I understand that this is not the bill referred to in that resolution? fMr. St. Laurent.]


James Joseph McCann: Certainly not.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, this is not that bill. We would think it desirable to have this even if we did not secure approval of the substantial portions of the Geneva agreements. This would be desirable even if we did not have the Geneva agreements, provided we got what we are getting at the present time.


John Thomas Hackett: Some reciprocal treatment?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, reciprocal treatment; and we are getting it at the present time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And it is also quite clear that the changes proposed in the bill now
before us are entirely of an administrative character?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And deal only with the practice and ways of doing things, not with rates?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Not with rates. The matter of rates will not be brought before the house until the house has given approval to the Geneva agreements.


Mr. CHURCH:: In one of the briefs I have received concerning this general agreement on tariffs and trade under UNO I notice one comment I should like to refer to. I am afraid action may be taken by the customs officials under the regulations referred to in section 2 and other sections to eliminate preferential trade. The brief to which I refer was lengthy; I imagine the minister himself received a copy. I should like ito find out what is going to be the result in that connection, because some of these people say it means the end of preferential treatment in relation to the general tariffs agreed to under UNO. Is that so under this bill, or is it not? The brief says it is.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The question of the effect of the Geneva agreements on preferences is not dealt with by this bill. First there will have to be approval by the house of the general agreement, and then the introduction of subsequent legislation. That is not affected by this bill.
Section 2 agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Valuation of imports prejudicially or injuriously affecting Canadian producers.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I notice that the words "not entitled to entry under the British pre-

Customs Act
ferential tariff or any lower tariff" are now being taken out of subsection 1 of section 43. Why are those words being removed?


James Joseph McCann: The note I have says that continuation of the permissive authority for fixation of values for duty already contained in section 43 is intended to provide authority, for use if necessary, if as the result of unforeseen developments a product is being imported in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to domestic producers of like or directly competitive products. This immediate, available authority is necessary to prevent serious injury to an industry which could result, pending remedial tariff action by parliament. The general agreement on tariff and trade provides for suspension of all obligations in these circumstances, and a similar difficult situation might arise in respect to imports from non-signatory countries, warranting other corrective measures. The right to appeal to the tariff board is also continued.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I understand the purport of section 43, of course, but I am asking why the power given the governor in council is being extended beyond what it was in the old section. As I read the old section the governor in council had no power to exercise this discretion with respect to goods entitled to entry under the British preferential tariff or any lower tariff. When the act was originally passed there must have been some reason for excluding articles entitled to entry under the British preferential tariff. WThat has happened to make the considerations which led to this exception no longer applicable?


James Joseph McCann: As it was passed originally the act did not contain that clause. It was added in 1932, and the section is being put in its present form so that there will be no discrimination.


John Thomas Hackett: It was put in when we got the benefit of reciprocity in Canada. We got the benefit of their market, and this was put in at that time.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Then am I to understand that in the Ottawa agreements it was provided that we would not exercise this right with respect to the British preferential tariff?


James Joseph McCann: That is right.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: And we are no longer bound by that agreement?


James Joseph McCann: That is right. My hon. friend is correct in his interpretation.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Then I understand that the countries of the commonwealth have no contractual right to call upon us to maintain the words in this section. Is that correct?


James Joseph McCann: That is correct. They are signatories to the general agreement.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The mere fact that they are signatories to the general agreement surely would not affect this particular section. As I understand it, and the minister may correct me if I am wrong, in 1932 we agreed, as part of the British preferential tariff system, not to exercise this right in respect of goods entitled to entry under the British preferential tariff. Now we are changing that agreement. Is this change being made with the consent of the parties with whom we contracted in respect of this .particular point? _ I am not referring to any general consent inferred from the signature of a general agreement; is there a specific consent with respect to this section?


James Joseph McCann: My officials tell me that we are no longer 'bound by the Ottawa agreements in this respect, and that the idea is to make this non-discriminatory.


John Thomas Hackett: I should like to draw section 5 to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This section seems to make a substantial change in the legislation with regard to the British1 preference. It would appear to be enacting agreements arrived at in Geneva, which as yet have not received the approval of the house. If my question is not too involved I should be happy to have an answer.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The 'hon. member's question is not at all -involved, but I do not know the answer to it. I have not considered this section, nor have I compared it with the original or with the agreement. I do know this much-and this matter has been given consideration-that a -provision is feeing or will be made to avoid applying automatically antidumping duties to merchandise sold to Canada by the United Kingdom at prices inferior to their own domestic prices. Because that^ is not really the kind of dumping against which anti-dumping legislation was aimed.
It is a direct policy of the United Kingdom now to make some commodities difficult for their own people to obtain, and therefore at the same time make them available for export, so as to provide dollars. Under the anti-dumping legislation! they could not have carried that out with respect to Canada. It was felt that it was desirable to have these commodities come to Canada. Therefore the
Customs Act

provision has been or is being made to suspend those anti-dumping clauses, unless by doing so it is shown that a Canadian industry would be injured, and would come within the terms of section 43. I am not in a position to say if it is in part an implementation of that policy which has prompted the striking out of these words.


John Thomas Hackett: Those immediately surrounding me were anxious to help the minister so long as he was dealing with departmental practices which were to be improved. But I fear that this section raises a substantial question of policy which will be debated when the Geneva agreements are before the house. No one knows what may be the outcome of that debate. Certainly with regard to section 5 of the bill, which deals with section 43 of the act, it would seem premature to take any action until the Geneva agreements have been considered by the house.
I suggest that the minister postpone consideration of the bill until the Geneva agreements have been disposed of. I believe members of the committee wish to get along with that part which is not controversial. But certainly the contents of section 5 raise serious doubts in the minds of some, and before disposing of it we need more information than is available at the present time.


John George Diefenbaker: There must be some reason why the minister asks for the deletion in section 43 (1) of the words "not entitled to entry under the British preferential tariff or any lower tariff." It would appear from a reading of the section that regardless of what decision might subsequently be made in connection with the British preference, parliament would now be determining in advance of a decision on that question the matter of the abrogation of the British preference. In other words the governor in council on the report of the minister will be empowered to do something which cannot be done now in respect of goods not entitled to entry under the British preferential tariff or any other tariff. What actually will take place will be this: there will be no necessity at all in the future to bring up the matter of the British preference or its continuance. The house will already have decided, by the deletion of these words, that the governor in council upon the recommendation of the minister will be able to do anything he desires to do under this section, regardless of what the decision of the house might be later on. In other words the governor in council on the recommendation of the minister will be empowered by the house to legislate the country out of the receipt of goods at present coming in under the British preference. This 
simply means that parliament would now decide finally to give to the minister certain powers to remove the application so far as the British preference is concerned, regardless of what parliament may subsequently do.
I suggest that this section be allowed to stand until a decision on the broader question has been made.


James Joseph McCann: If the hon. member will look at section 10 he will see it states that the act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council.


John Thomas Hackett: That does not help.


James Joseph McCann: That date would not be until the Geneva agreement has been considered.


John Thomas Hackett: I suggest that the
remainder of the bill should stand for the present. There may be no objection to it, but if we have to go on at the present time we will be doing so in the dark. Apparently the minister is not in a position to give all the information required; and after the Geneva agreement has been disposed of there may be no objection to the bill at all. I hope the minister will be able to accept this suggestion.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister can have no real objection to accepting it, because if, as he says, he intends not to have this portion of the act proclaimed until the question of the British preference has been determined, there is no urgency about it. The government evidently does not intend to have the proclamation made at this time; therefore there is no necessity for action at this time.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If it were agreeable to have it stand, without fixing any time for which it should stand, I think the minister will be able to satisfy my hon. friends opposite; it would not need to stand until after the other question is disposed of. If it were to stand generally at this time, perhaps that would be satisfactory to my hon. friends, without its being implied that it is to stand until after something else has been done.


Mr. PROBE:: Perhaps we might allow only those clauses to stand which appear to be of a contentious nature. The next one, for instance, is not in that category.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: There is much merit in what is being said as to the necessity of our knowing the meaning of what is proposed.

Customs Act
I think the government should have power with respect to such a proposal as is embodied in section 5, because something such as is envisaged by this section might begin at any time-in the matter of fruits, for example -making it necessary for the government to have the power-


John Thomas Hackett: It has that power now.


John Horne Blackmore: Perhaps I might be allowed to finish what I have to say; I have listened to what other hon. members have had to say. Perhaps the minister can assure us that we can use the power to keep goods out under this section.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If the clause stands, the former clause 43 remains in force and gives the governor in council all the powers that are required, without interfering with the goods entitled to preferential tariff or to lower tariff. So there would be nothing inconvenient to administration in allowing the clause to stand. My only suggestion was that instead of making it a condition that it should stand until something else is done, it should stand generally. Perhaps the chairman would report progress and ask leave to sit again, and the minister may be able to satisfy hon. gentlemen that they are not being deprived of any opportunity to discuss preferences. In that event it would not be necessary to wait until the other discussion has taken place; just let the clause stand generally until it is thought proper to bring it up again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the clause stands, may I ask one question? I understood from what the minister said a moment ago, when he was referring to the export policy of the United Kingdom government, that this government was anxious to facilitate, or at least not to stand in the way of, the desire of the United Kingdom government to limit the domestic use of certain goods in order to make them available for export. I expected therefore to see in the wording of this clause some implementation of that idea which the minister expressed. But as I read it, unless I am utterly confused, it has the very opposite effect; because it would seem to put imports from the United Kingdom in the same category as imports from any other country, and make it possible for the governor in council to place on imports from the United Kingdom, a different value from that placed upon them by the United Kingdom, and would have the effect of prohibiting those imports. In view of the representations that have been made to the government particularly by the textile manufacturers, and in
view of the startling change made last night in the other act, I confess that the wording of this clause gives me some concern.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have tried to make it clear that I was not asserting that this was implementing the policy in question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It looks the very opposite.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: These matters of customs legislation and schedules are complicated, and for my own satisfaction I should like to have an expert explain to me just where this fits into the picture. I was not saying that it did constitute a part of the picture. I should like to have an expert explain to me that it is not doing what my hon. friends fear it is doing, and therefore I think it is advisable that the clause should stand. I would not like hon. gentlemen opposite to feel that they have been taken by surprise and deprived of an opportunity which they stipulated for quite early in the session, to discuss preferences. If we can satisfy my hon. friends that this does not have the effect they fear, we can go on with it, but if it did have that effect it should stand until the discussion has been had. I am not in a position myself to satisfy them this afternoon that it does not have the effect they fear.
Section Stands.
On section 6-Goods exported to Canada through another country.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Reverting back with your permission, Mr. Chairman, to clause 2, I asked what goods are imported into Canada which carry an ad valorem duty and how they are appraised. Are there any free zones in Canada for the importing of goods which carry an ad valorem duty, similar to the zones established in the United States, where in the larger centres they have what are called bonded free zones for dutiable goods? The goods are sold and appraised after they are sold.


James Joseph McCann: We have no free ports.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What goods imported into Canada carry an ad valorem duty?


James Joseph McCann: Most of our customs duties are ad valorem duties, based upon the value of the article. For instance, a 25 per cent ad valorem duty means 25 per cent on the value of the article at the time of entry.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I think very few of our
imports carry ad valorem duties.


Mr. MacNICOL:: There are a number of free ports. Perhaps the minister had in mind Canada alone.
Customs Act


John Oliver Probe: I want to refer to section 48, subsection 1. of the Customs Act, in which the following appears:
If, upon any entry or in connection with any entry, it appears to any dominion customs appraiser that any goods have been erroneously classified or appraised or allowed entry at an erroneous rate or valuation by any appraiser or collector acting as such, or that any of the foregoing provisions of this act respecting the classi-fieation or value at which goods shall be entered for duty have not been complied with, such appraiser may make a fresh appraisal or valuation, and may direct an amended entry and payment of additional duty on such goods, or a refund of a part of the duty paid, as the case requires, subject to review by the deputy minister.
I have read the section as it is proposed to be amended. In line 30 on page 5 of the bill appear as new language the words "rate or valuation". It is in connection with that that I want to ask the minister a number of questions, if I may. Was it the custom previously that an appraisal of valuation could be subjected to an amended appraisal or an amended customs entry, but once the rate of duty which was charged was fixed, that was the duty? Will the minister make a comment on that? The word "rate" was introduced in this bill for a purpose.


James Joseph McCann: It is the duty of the appraiser to determine both the rate and the valuation.


John Oliver Probe: Prior to this bill coming before parliament he had a right to put in an amended entry, and it had to be accepted by the importer with respect to valuation.


James Joseph McCann: That is right.


John Oliver Probe: Assume that he had understated the rate because of any one of the reasons an appraiser may give, on whom was the onus with respect to the error for the rate that was charged at the time customs duty was paid? Who accepted the financial liability?


James Joseph McCann: It is pretty well defined in this section of the act which says:
The true amount of customs duties payable to His Majesty with respect to any goods imported into Canada or exported therefrom shall, from and after the time when such duties should have been paid or accounted for, constitute a debt due and payable to His Majesty, jointly and severally, from the owner of the goods at the time of the importation or exportation thereof, and from the importer or exporter thereof, as the case may be; and such debt may, at any time, be recovered with full costs of suit, in any court of competent jurisdiction, and any goods afterwards imported or exported by said owner shall be subject to a lien for such debt and may be withheld' from delivery by customs until such debt is paid.


John Oliver Probe: The words "erroneous rate" appear in line 30 of the amendment. The word "rate" has been added, but the classification-


James Joseph McCann: That refers to the classification. The goods may come under one tariff item, and then in the light of new information with reference to the type, they are put under another classification which carries a different rate of duty. It was erroneous to place the item under the first classification.


John Oliver Probe: I wrote to the minister about a specific case some weeks ago. An importer received some Christmas goods last November from a British firm. A certain rate of customs duty was assessed him, which he paid. A week later he received an amended customs entry. Undoubtedly there was a Slip-up somewhere in the department, or it would not have happened this way. Apparently the appraiser had overlooked an excise tax item of 30 per cent. He had collected other taxes, but there was one item which he did not collect. In this particular case, since they were Christmas goods, the customs broker had accepted the appraisal and had billed the retailer for the amount of the appraised tax. The goods were sold, or in process of being sold, with the mark-up corresponding to the supposed cost, yet a week later the importer received an amended entry which had the effect of causing him to dig down into his pocket to pay for an error of the department, I think the department would accept it as an error. I have the original document and the amended document here. The original document does not say "subject to amendment", because there W'ould be no need to amend it later. There is no argument about the value. That was agreed upon, but the rate of duty was found to be incorrect, so the tariff number remains constant, It is tariff item No. 23, and the goods remained in that category, but someone made on error. The customs officials have warned this man that he must pay the duty on the rate fixed by this amended entry. It would seem to me that there should be some way in which an error of that kind should not reflect back on the importer.
These goods had not appeared in Canada for years. They were Christmas candies, imported from Great Britain. I can understand the retailer, the customs broker and the customs officials all being a bit rusty on rates, but why should this man be penalized now, after he has sold the goods? It would seem to me that he should have some recourse. Is there recourse in such a case?


James Joseph McCann: The practice is that all entries are subject to a reoheck. In the particular case of which the hon. member speaks there

Customs Act
may have been an error of judgment on the part of the official who classified the items that were imported under a certain tariff item.


John Oliver Probe: No error of classification was found, but the rate of duty was amended.


James Joseph McCann: On a recheck it was found that they were in a different classification, which may have been subject either to a higher or a lower rate. There would be no objection by my hon. friend's friend had it been at a lower rate. Because the goods are classified into a class which has a higher rate, there is objection.


John Oliver Probe: There is no error in classification. Tariff item 23 was recognized to be the proper tariff item, but the rate was amended later and I say it creates an injustice to this importer.


James Joseph McCann: Was this candy?


John Oliver Probe: Yes.


James Joseph McCann: Well, it was the application of the excise tax of thirty per cent. Probably that was omitted.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I wish to ask a question on the basis of this section, which I will read:
Goods bona fide exported to Canada from any country but passing in transit through another shall, upon such terms and conditions as to shipment, documentation, warehousing, transshipment or the like as the governor in. council may prescribe . , .
A moment ago someone said something about free ports and the minister said there were none. There are none in Canada, but there are in other countries.


James Joseph McCann: I was talking about Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: My question has to do with goods coming through free ports. Suppose a shipper ships goods through the free port of New York-New Orleans is another, and so I believe is San Francisco-with instructions that when the goods arrive at the free port some American content shall be added; what is the position in regard to duty? That is one of the purposes of a free port, to enable such additions to be made.
The minister knows that for some years the board of trade of the city of Quebec has been pioneering for the establishment of Quebec as a free port. Personally I think it is a good thing. The intention was that European exporters shipping to South America or to the United States might wish to add a Canadian content and the goods would pass through the free port of Quebec, if we had one, where the addition would be made, and then proceed to their destination in some other country.
Does this clause provide that the goods must come direct from any foreign country to Canada, or may the goods pass through a free port in some other country, where a content is added, and then come on to Canada? How would the matter of customs be adjusted in that case?


James Joseph McCann: Goods exported from some countries to Canada direct are, for duty purposes, of the value that obtains in the country from which they are exported. If they come through the port of New York from France, in transit to Canada from New York, the value for duty purposes is the value in the country from which they were transshipped.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is not the point I am making. Goods shipped from France could be shipped through New York, a free port, and on arrival there they do not pay duty to the United States; but on instructions from France, or perhaps from Canadians importing the goods, some American material may be added to the goods to improve them. How would the duty be arrived at in that case?


James Joseph McCann: In that case the value ^for duty purposes would be the value in New York.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is, the value of the French content plus the American content.


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


Mr. ISNOR:: I am interested in section 6, because I see a danger in it and I am wondering why the change was made in connection with the shipment of goods through other than Canadian ports. This matter is, I believe, of particular interest to members who come from the Atlantic coast as well as to those from the west coast. I will not debate the merits of free zones, but I fear that there may be a danger so far as our Canadian ports are concerned, with this section as it is at present worded. May I read it again:
Goods bona fide exported to Canada from any country but passing in transit through another shall, upon such terms and conditions as to shipment, documentation, warehousing, transhipment or the like as the governor in council may prescribe . . .
There is a great bulk of goods shipped from the far east, wools from Australia and New Zealand, and spices, coffee and rubber from the East Indies. In Saint John and Halifax we have enjoyed a large share of that business, and people on the western coast have had a good deal of business from the far east. Under the section as I read it, these goods could be shipped and landed in United States ports so that all transportation and handling charges
Customs Act

would go to the working gangs, stevedores, longshoremen and so on in that country, and then the goods would be shipped by rail to central Canada. It may be argued that there is a saving in transportation charges, but what we should consider is the effect that such transactions will have on our ports, both east and west. The minister should give some reason why the change was made; otherwise I fear there will be criticism of this section as it stands.


Mr. HAZEN:: I support the senior hon. member for Halifax in what he has said. This clause should be carefully looked into. My recollection is . that, under the British preference, in order to get the advantage of the preferential rates that existed previously- they still apply to some extent-it was necessary to ship the goods through British or Canadian ports. There seems to be a change now in that principle. If you allow goods to come in through foreign ports you will provide work for foreign longshoremen rather than for our own workers and our own home ports, and this is bound to put our own port workers and our own ports at a great disadvantage.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: I support the representations made by the senior hon. member for Halifax and the hon. member for St. John-Albert. For a good many years now, goods shipped into Canada under the British preferential treaty have enjoyed those rates only if they were shipped direct through Canadian ports. If under this bill there is any question about that provision being interfered with or being jeopardized in any way, I would certainly oppose this section. I do not know whether this question was discussed when the resolution went through, but in section 3 of the resolutions we dealt with last night we find reference to many goods such as woven fabrics and cloths and so on, which are allowed to be imported free of duty for a period of thirteen months. Is it obligatory that such goods shall be imported direct into Canada if they are to be duty free? That matter was dealt with last evening, and it is important to our Canadian ports that the advantage which is being provided for in the importation of such goods shall be applicable only if the goods are imported direct.


James Joseph McCann: They must come in direct in order to get the British preference. If they are duty free they still have- to come direct.


Percy Chapman Black: This is not only the British preference but is under the Geneva treaty, as was pointed out last evening. This provision also applies to the United

States and to all countries that signed the Geneva treaty. I want to have assurance from the minister that such importations from Great Britain will be required, in order to avail themselves of the reductions in duty, and of the duty-free provision, to go directly through Canadian ports.


John Thomas Hackett: The British preference was restricted to goods which were manufactured in Britain. There was a great deal of trouble about some goods that came from Britain and that had not been manufactured there, as I recall it. Would it not be better if this clause also stood?


James Joseph McCann: Why?


John Thomas Hackett: All right. Probably the minister can answer the question.


James Joseph McCann: I think he can. I think the information the hon. member for Cumberland wants is contained in this. This is part of the Geneva agreement:
Each contracting party shall accord to products which have been in transit through the territory of any other contracting party treatment no less favourable than that which would have been accorded to such products had they been transported from their place of origin to their destination without going through the territory of such other contracting party. Any contracting party shall, however, be free to maintain its requirements of direct consignment existing on the date of this agreement, in respect of any goods in regard to which such direct consignment is a requisite condition of eligibility for entry of the goods at preferential rates of duty or has relation to the contracting party's prescribed method of valuation for duty purposes.


Douglas King Hazen: May I ask what the number of that article is?


James Joseph McCann: It is clause 6 of article V.


John Thomas Hackett: Of what?


Douglas King Hazen: The Geneva agreement.


John Thomas Hackett: What clause?


James Joseph McCann: Article V, clause 6.


John Thomas Hackett: Of what?


James Joseph McCann: Of the general agreement on tariffs and trade.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: In reply to the hon. member for Cumberland, the minister quoted from the Geneva agreement. We are not considering the Geneva agreement at the present time. That is still in committee. What we want to know is the reason the change was made in the wording of section 6 of the present bill permitting goods to be shipped other than direct to Canadian ports and to enjoy the

benefits which otherwise would accrue to us because of the employment which would be the outcome of handling the goods at Canadian ports, along with the train haul to central Canada.


James Joseph McCann: This has to do entirely with valuation for duty purposes, and with nothing more. It has nothing to do with rates.


Percy Chapman Black: I cannot hear the minister.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: What the minister says is the very point. It is quite all right to say what has been said, as I understood it. I may be stupid, I admit-[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: -but I cannot see the reason for putting those words in there, if it is only for valuation purposes.


Douglas King Hazen: I might point out that according to the explanatory note, as the section formerly read it was discretionary with the governor in council as to whether or not the same rates of duty would be imposed. From that I should judge that the governor in council, if he saw fit to do so, had the right to provide that there be a lower rate of duty if tie goods were shipped through Canadian ports. The explanatory note goes on to say:
It is thought to be in accord with the spirit of the agreement to make the principle statutory . . .
Once you make it statutory, the discretion is gone. As this section formerly read, the governor in council had discretionary power. Now it is proposed to take that power away to make this statutory, and to put our ports at a disadvantage in some cases.


Edmund Davie Fulton: To supplement what the hon. member for St. John-Albert has just said, I wish to say that once again this seems to be acting before we have approved the Geneva agreement, as though taking it for granted that we would approve it. I am wondering whether this is not another section which, on this ground, should be allowed to stand until after the house has either approved or rejected the Geneva agreement itself.


James Joseph McCann: This actually has nothing to do with the Geneva agreement. I referred to it because the hon. member for Cumberland had referred to the Geneva agreement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I direct the minister's attention to the fact-and it was also referred to by the hon. member for St. John-Albert- that in the explanatory notes the reason given for amending this section is that it would be
Customs Act
in accordance with the spirit of the agreement, meaning the Geneva agreement, to make the principle statutory. That is why it is being amended.


Douglas King Hazen: How can the minister say it has nothing to do with it?


John Thomas Hackett: I think we would make more progress if we allowed this section to stand along with section 5.


William Ross Macdonald: Does section 6 stand?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
Section stands.
On section 7-Invoice to show fair market value.


John Ritchie MacNicol: This section reads:
Every invoice delivered pursuant to this act or any regulation shall exhibit, in the currency of the country of export, the fair market value of the goods to which it relates . . .
I was just wondering by what method the value for duty purposes would be arrived at of goods I referred to a few moments ago as arriving at New York, a free port, and, while there in that free port, having United States content added before shipment on to Canada.


James Joseph McCann: I think that is given here:
Where the fair market value of any goods is not ascertainable under subsection one, the value for duty of such goods shall be the nearest ascertainable equivalent of such value.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If and when the time comes that Quebec city obtains a iree port that it has so diligently advocated-


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Or any other section of Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes. I referred to Quebec city because they have been diligently advocating a free port.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: We have been doing that for years.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Suppose some Canadian importer imports goods from any other country outside Canada, but wants certain United States content added, and the exporter ships to a free port. The exporter ships it to the free port of Quebec, we will say, and the United States goods which are to be added to that foreign material are also shipped there, where the adjustment takes place as desired. How would the price for duty purposes be arrived at under those circumstances?


James Joseph McCann: That would depend entirely upon the quantities of each. An article is imported from a foreign country and comes to the port of Quebec, where United States content is added. In order to get at the value
Canada Evidence Act

of the new article, it would be necessary to take into consideration the quantity going into that new article from each of the countries. The value for duty purposes would depend entirely on the value of those quantities.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 8 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 327 to amend the Canada Evidence Act.
He said: This amendment was requested .by the province of Ontario and provides that the husband or wife is a competent and compellable witness for the prosecution against the other spouse in offences against the Juvenile Delinquents Act. I do not know how lengthy a speech the house expects from me on the bill at this stage, but I am prepared to answer questions as to the principles upon which the amendment is based. I answered some questions put to me by a senate committee, where the matter was gone into fairly fully.
The general rule is, of course, that a spouse is not a competent. and compellable witness against the other spouse. The principle underlying this rule is to be found in certain cases. An important case is one decided in 1788, that of Rex v. The Inhabitants of Cliviger, 100 English Reports, 143. This was a prosecution for bigamy. The common law rule is stated in the judgment on page 144 as follows:
Here the evidence of the wife went to charge her husband with bigamy. The broad rule is laid down in Buller's Nisi Prius, 286, where it is said that husbands and wives cannot be witnesses for each other, because their interests are absolutely the same; nor against each other, because it is contrary to the legal policy of marriage ... So in Coke's Littleton, 6b, it is said to have been resolved by judges that a wife cannot be produced against her husband, for it might be the cause of implacable discord and dissension between them and the means of great inconvenience.
Then at page 146 the following pasage is found:
The ground of her incompetency arises from a principle of public policy, which does not permit husbands and wives to give evidence that may tend to criminate each other . . . but the true and best ground of objection is not that of interest, but is founded on the political inconvenience of causing dissension in families between husbands and wives.
I have a number of other citations, I do not think it is necessary to read, unless I am asked for them in committee. I want to point

out, however, that many exceptions to this rule are already provided in the criminal code. The first group of exceptions relate to offences against morality and includes corrupting children. That is section 215 (2). A second group is disorderly conduct or vagrancy, sections 238 and 239. A third group is failure to provide necessaries for wife and children, sections 242 and 244. Abandoning children is another in this group; it is section 245. Another group is offences against conjugal rights, section 354; also abduction, sections 313 to 316. Finally there is the offence of theft as between husband and wife.
Generally it may be said that the exceptions are cases where one spouse is wronged by the other who is the accused, or where the offence is one which threatens the sanctity and security of the family. The common law rule was no doubt intended to preserve and secure the family, but this would not be accomplished by protecting a spouse accused of an offence which tends to destroy the family. It would appear that when the Juvenile Delinquents Act was passed there was an oversight in not amending the Canada Evidence Act to except the newly created offences which were very similar in character to some already excepted from the rule.
Offences against the Juvenile Delinquents Act are these: aiding, causing, abetting, conniving, promoting or contributing to delinquency, or neglecting to do that which would tend to prevent delinquency. In addition, there is the offence of inducing a child to leave a detention home, et cetera, which is section 34. Delinquency means, in effect, violation of the law or viciousness or doing any act resulting in liability to be committed to a reformatory.
That rule is laid down in section 2 (g) of the Juvenile Delinquents Act. So, having in mind the fact that this amendment has been requested by an important attorney general's department, and that the exception seems to be in line with the exceptions already contained in the criminal code, it was decided to bring this bill forward.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister has set out the law on the subject and, personally, having regard to the necessity of enforcing the law, with a view to assuring the protection of children from delinquency, I feel there should be no reason why this particular amendment should not be accepted by the house.
I believe one of the major matters for consideration of parliament at this time is that of juvenile delinquency, and particularly delinquency arising from the commission of sex crimes, which are becoming so general. If in discussing this matter I might be per-

Canada Evidence Act
mitted to refer to that subject, I should be pleased1 indeed; because, after all, it is interlocked with the question of delinquency.
I do not know-although I shall ask the minister in committee-whether consideration has been given to making some provision to cover the case of sex perverts who contribute in such, a degree to delinquency. I realize the difficulty under our constitution whereby penal institutions such as penitentiaries are within the jurisdiction of the federal authority, while other institutions such as jails and hospitals come under provincial authority. I believe, however, that we in parliament should meet this problem. It is one which, in considerably increasing measure affects the moral welfare of the children of this country.
Heretofore, in offences contributing to delinquency the usual method has been simply to punish by imprisonment. But imprisonment does not meet the problem. I have had the experience of meeting some of those who have committed these offences against young children. These accused have not been feebleminded; indeed in some instances they have had more than normal intelligence. They commit these offences from which the children against whom they are committed can never fully recover.
The accused are sent to penal institutions; but the imprisonment, coupled with other punishments such as whipping, does not meet the problem. Sterilization has been tried. A brain operation known as pre-frontal lobotomy has been! tried, and endocrine gland treatment has been tried. None of these has been successful. One method that has been used has been to send these individuals to institutions where psychopathic treatment can be given. I had occasion recently to see some of the work being done in Minnesota. The states of Minnesota and Massachusetts have endeavoured to meet the problem by having these offenders placed in mental institutions from which they cannot be discharged until such time as they are certificated as being free from any further tendency in this direction.
In New York state a thorough investigation of the subject has been made, and it has been found, according to statistics which I have here, that only nine per cent of these offenders are recidivists. In other words, if psychopathic or psychiatric treatment is given them they can be restored to citizenship which ordinarily they would be denied. They are also rendered thereby no longer dangerous while at large, provided that the treatment is continued over a reasonable length of time.
I suggest that in this connection something should be done with a view to bringing the
provinces to a realization of the necessity of action being taken. To send these people to penitentiaries so that they come out at the end of their terms, during which time they have been removed from society, means that they are still subject to the impulse after having served those terms, an impulse which they will tell you is uncontrollable. But if they are placed in an institution where they receive mental treatment and where they are under the charge of those who have given study to the subject, the general run of statistics on the subject-and the matter has been studied only recently-show that only one in eleven repeats.
In order to prevent the recurrence of these offences, I say the minister would be making a worthwhile contribution if some amendment could be brought in whereby, with the consent of the provinces, those who commit such offences would be subject to being gent to provincial hospital1 institutions or to reform institutions where they might receive treatment which might once more render them good citizens, reform them and at the same time protect society.
I realize the difficulties in the problem. As I said a moment ago, I have spoken to some of these men. Two of them I now have in mind were well educated, with mentalities far above the average. Indeed their intelligence quotient was high. After having committed the offence, they have an abiding sense of guilt and regret.
Sending them to penitentiaries has not been the cure. Sterilization and the performing of the operations I mentioned a while ago have been unsuccessful. Mental treatment has proven successful. They should be placed in institutions where they could receive such treatment, and should be kept there until such time as they are no longer a danger to society. If that were done an advance would be made toward the solution of a problem which today is a matter of concern to many of our people.
I believe the suggested amendment to the Canada Evidence Act is necessary. I have seen justice denied because the wife was, while competent, not compellable. However I take the opportunity when discussing this amendment to ask the minister what he has in mind, and also to ascertain from him whether or not, through co-operation with the provinces, provincial curative institutions could be made available to those who commit crimes against morality and thereby contribute to juvenile delinquency.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Canada Evidence Act
[Stage Direction]
On section 1-Wife or husband competent and compellable witness for prosecution.
James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, when the amendments to the criminal code are introduced I will make a statement on the subject of criminal sexual psychopaths. It may not meet my hon. friend's suggestion, but at any rate it will be an attempt to deal with the subject.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman. I did not like to raise this point with the Speaker in the chair, but I would ask the minister to consider it as well, if he will. Sections 33 and 34 of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, to which the amendments will make the Canada Evidence Act apply, provide in part that:
33. (1) Any person, whether the parent or guardian of the child or not, who, knowingly or wilfully,
(b) does any act producing, promoting, or contributing to a child's being a juvenile delinquent or likely to make any child a juvenile delinquent.
-shall be liable to certain penalties on conviction. It is proposed to extend the Canada Evidence Act and to make the husband or wife a competent and compellable witness. The question I wish to ask has to do with the Juvenile Delinquents Act. I have been furnished with a sample of so-called crime comics which, under the guise of "Crime does not pay' appeal to children to read them. They portray crimes of sexual and other violence in picture form. I do not want to develop this point at length, because it is not strictly relevant to the Canada Evidence Act, but I do suggest this. It is difficult to deal with these publications under any form of censorship, although something might be done. I am told that the circulation of these crime comics, even in Kamloops, reaches 15.000 a month. Perhaps proceedings could be had under the criminal code to put a stop to this tendency. It is doing an act producing or contributing to a child's becoming a juvenile delinquent. I am not going to elaborate my idea at the moment, because I have certain questions on the order paper the replies to which I should like to get before I go into the matter, but I would appreciate it if the minister would let me know what he feels about the subject.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman asks me to indicate what I feel about that subject. It is a most difficult thing ito say what is fit for publication and what is not. We receive a continual stream of resolutions asking us to ban salacious magazines and other publications, and there is the same complaint about

these comics, which it is alleged lead children to crime. But it would appear that it is covered now by the Juvenile Delinquents Act, which provides a penalty for any person doing or contributing to a child's becoming a juvenile delinquent. The trouble, of course, would be to get a conviction. The possibility depends largely on the state of public opinion in the community. It is not possible to define with any exactitude decency or a publication that leads to crime. What about an adventure story or a story in which there is any crime at all? It is such an intangible thing. If my hon. friend feels that the publication of certain crime comics contributes to juvenile delinquency I should think he could have a charge laid and see whether he could get a conviction. I do not think any further definition in the law would be practicable. We certainly could not make a list of the publications that lead to crime. I think the law is sufficient already. It is a matter of getting convictions, having in mind the state of public opinion in the various communities.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: I hope that hon. members will not continue this discussion. As the hon. member for Kamloops himself said, it is not relevant to the clause before us.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said, not strictly relevant.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With respect to the amendment before us, I understood the minister to say that it was requested by the attorney general of Ontario. Did any other province make a similar request, and, failing that, has there been any expression of opinion from the other provinces one way or the other?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No other request and no comments.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I have a suggestion to make to the minister when dealing with the compellability of the spouse. I wonder if it would not be advisable to amend the act to make it apply only to a spouse who was married at the time the offence was committed. As it is now, some of (them get married after the event and so avoid punishment for the crime committed. I think my suggestion is worthy of consideration. Courts have been tricked on more than one occasion by the party getting married after the event.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Statistics Act


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 329, to amend the Judges Act, 1946.
He said: Mr. Speaker, some hon. gentlemen may wish a little explanation of this bill. I explained it briefly when it was introduced. At this year's session of the legislature of Ontario they amended their pre-confederation statute relating to their courts for divorce and matrimonial causes, so that the jurisdiction in matters of divorce would not necessarily be confined to one judge, as has always been the case, but would be possessed by such of the judges of the supreme court as are from time to time appointed by the governor general to be judges of the court for divorce and matrimonial causes. At the request of the province of Nova Scotia all the judges have been invested with divorce jurisdiction, instead of one only. The consequence of the change is that there should be no special remuneration to the divorce judge, and this bill deletes the clause in the Judges Act which provides for $500 a year remuneration for the divorce court judge. This bill is introduced with the consent of the government of Nova Scotia.
Mr. BRYCE:: It is not discrimination against Nova Scotia?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Repeal.
Thomas Langton Church: The principle of this bill is that it confers on the supreme court judges of Nova Scotia the power to deal with divorce. That is the only object of the bill.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The bill does not convey any jurisdiction at all; it merely removes the extra pay of one judge.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. J. McILRAITH (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 326, respecting the dominion bureau of
statistics.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May we have a statement?


Mr. McILRAITH:: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to revoke the present Statistics Act and to replace it by a statute which will describe the present functions of the bureau, and the statutory authority under which it operates. The Statistics Act, setting up the bureau of statistics as the central statistical organization of Canada, was enacted originally in 1918. Minor amendments were made in 1919 and again in 1921. The bureau itself has grown considerably. It now has some 1,200 employees. It issues some 434 regular publications besides some special ones. In addition, it deals with special requests amounting to some 500 a month at the present time. There are about 400 separate mailing and subscription lists. As an example of that, I might mention that the "Canadian Statistical Review" has some 3,000 subscribers, and this number is increasing. The "Wheat Review" has some 2,000 subscribers. The "Canada Year Book" and the "Canada Handbook" are known to all hon. members. They have a very high reputation throughout the world. They are indicative of the work that the bureau is doing. It sells some 11,000 year books and 60,000 "Canada Handbooks" annually.
Incidentally, although "Canada 1948" ivas published only a month and a half ago, about half of the 60,000 copies have already been sold. The 1947 year book which was issued last January is now practically out of print. I mention these two examples as evidence of the demand for these publications.
Since 1918 the bureau has won a very high reputation, both nationally and internationally, for its work, and the work envisaged in the 1918 act has, in a very large measure, been implemented. The bureau now includes in its operations all the important statistical fields which are of general interest. The principle of centralization as opposed to departmental collection of statistics and tabulation has been established, and a scheme of co-ordinating departmental administrative statistics with the general statistical scheme of the bureau is in operation. There is also an important measure of co-operation and co-ordination of effort between the provinces and the dominion in many statistical fields.
During the past thirty years there has been an enormous increase in the number and complexity of the economic and social problems with which governments, business, and private individuals have had to deal, and a greatly increased amount of statistical information has been required in order to deal with these
Statistics Act

problems. The need for statistics has grown steadily, not- only on a national but on an international scale.
However, notwithstanding what I have said about the bureau of statistics, the act in its present form is defective in this way. First, it does not mention specifically many of the economic and social fields on which statistical information is now being obtained. Second, it does not contain statutory authority for new collection techniques, such as the technique known as sampling.
The bill is drafted to provide statutory authority for the things now being done, and for the collection of some statistics which are now being collected by consent. It is done in the light of the thirty years' experience since the original act. It furnishes adequate statutory authority for statistical work which is now being done, rather than envisaging any material change in the coverage. In other words, it is bringing the present act up to date rather than setting out on any new- field.
Hon. members will notice, when we come to deal with the bill itself, that many of the sections of the act are unchanged. A great many of the sections are unchanged or changed only with respect to verbal changes or slight additions in wording for clarification or accuracy. Perhaps it *would be better to leave reference to the various sections of the act and the changes in it until they are called in the committee; we can then deal with those points.
The point I wish to make now is that the scheme of this new bill, which is replacing the present act, is rather to provide specific statutory authority for what is now' being done and to bring up to date the definition of the authority of the bureau in those fields in which it operates only with the consent of the persons from whom it collects statistics.


Douglas King Hazen: Mr. Speaker, the bureau of statistics renders a valuable service to this country. Despite the fact that the parliamentary assistant said just now that all statistical fields of general interest are covered by it, I do not quite agree with that statement. The service rendered is by no means complete, and I believe its efficiency can be improved.
I rise to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe)-who, I regret, is not in his place while the bill is being introduced-and the government, to have it improved by instructing the bureau of statistics to keep records of interprovincial trade.
Statistics on interprovincial trade should be kept by the bureau. At the present time such records are not available. If I ask the bureau of statistics for figures showing the trade

between any one province and any other, for example between New Brunswick and British Columbia, or between Alberta and Ontario, or between Saskatchewan and any other province, the information is not available, for records are not kept.
It is important, I submit, that such records be kept if we are to have a true picture of interprovincial business. It is impossible to study intelligently, and to arrive at sound conclusions on, many of the problems which parliament has to deal with, or to obtain the evidence which is required by committees and commissions that are set up from time to time by the government, when records are not kept with regard to interprovincial trade. This information should be readily available.
The request I make, that records and statistics of interprovincial trade be kept, is not original with me, nor is it a new one. It was one of the important recommendations that were made by the commission known as the Duncan commission-


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The royal commission on maritime claims.


Douglas King Hazen: The royal commission on maritime claims, known as the Duncan commission, which was set up in 1926. This commission consisted of Sir Andrew Rae Duncan, as chairman, the Hon. W. B. Wallace, county court judge of Nova Scotia, and Doctor Cyrus Macmillan, who not long ago sat in this house. The secretary of the commission was Mr. F. MacLure Sclanders, F.R.G.S.
When that commission investigated maritime claims it made a report in which there were a number of recommendations, one of which, recommendation No. 39, under the head of "Statistics", asked that statistics on interprovincial trade be kept. I propose to read a portion of that section:
We have had brought before us the lack of any comprehensive measurement of the trade of the maritime provinces with other provinces and with foreign markets. We were ourselves disappointed not to be able to pursue investigations on trade matters along lines which such statistics would have enabled us to do. We found on inquiry at the dominion bureau of statistics that consideration had been given some time ago to this very subject but, mainly through lack of organization in the statistics relating to certain phases of transportation, it was not possible to proceed with the plans that had been formulated.
This is the recommendation.
We strongly urge that these difficulties should be overcome, as they can be, and that on this phase of internal trade a system of statistics should be made regularly available from as early a date as possible.

Statistics Act
I would urge the minister that he give consideration to this recommendation and that, in the interest of this country, in the interest of the various provinces, both on the Atlantic coast and on the Pacific, and in between, records be kept of our interprovincial trade.
A few years ago Mr. Sclanders, who, as I have said, was secretary of the commission, discussed the report with me, and during the course of our conversation he told me that some time before he had met Sir Andrew Rae Duncan-that is to say, some years after the report had been made-and Sir Andrew had told him that he considered this particular recommendation one of the most important in the report.
The recommendation has not been implemented. and I would ask the minister to take steps to have it carried out.
Section 32 of the bill, under the heading "General Statistics", provides that the bureau shall collect, compile, analyse, abstract and publish statistics in relation to all or any of certain matters that are set out, the list starting with population and going on to embrace various subjects. I suggest that there be another clause (n) reading, "Intel-provincial trade".
Possibly under the present clause (m) the governor in council has the right to instruct the bureau of statistics to take steps to make these records of interprovincial trade. I suggest that it would be in the interests of the country if such records were kept and if we included in section 32 of the bill another clause reading "Intel-provincial trade," or words to that effect.
I would appreciate some support in this matter, because I believe that if statistics on trade between the different provinces were kept it would be of great assistance to us in dealing with the many problems we have to face.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with both previous speakers in saying how valuable is the work of the dominion bureau of statistics. I have listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen), and I think he has made a good case for the request he has presented to the house.
With regard to the work of the bureau in general, I was glad that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Mcllraith) took the time to give us a summary of the work that is being done. I was also glad that he indicated the popularity of the useful and valuable publications which the bureau is putting out.
There are, of course, people who sometimes get the notion that the collecting of facts and figures is a waste of money; but I doubt if those people realize the effect that the having of facts and figures has had upon the development of government policy and the improving of social conditions. Hardly a day goes by in this house that members do not quote-and particularly members from the opposition side of the house-figures from the dominion bureau of statistics to tiy to show the government changes in policy or improvements in legislation that they feel are necessary. I am also reminded of the fact that the international labour organization has done a job along this line which has been of great value in helping to improve labour and social standards throughout the world. In other words, this is quite definitely another case where knowledge of the facts is useful. Our dominion bureau of statistics has done a good job.
I am glad to see the government introducing an act to bring the statutory provisions up to date, so that there will be proper provision for the practices and the work that the bureau is already' carrying on. I am glad that they have found the ways and means, without overstepping the statute, to make progress and to do the job they have done for the country thus far.	.
There is just one point about which I should like to say a few words at this time. It relates to figures which the dominion bureau of statistics put out and about which Canadians know the most, namely', their figures in relation to the cost of living. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, this is not a pretext for me to launch out into a speech on the rising cost of living; I intend to stick to the subject of statistics. But it seems to me that it would be advisable now for the bureau to do two things. First of all, I suggest that the norm or the base for arriving at the cost of living index needs to be revised.
As we all know, the present cost of living index is based on what was regarded as a norm or average back in the period 1935 to 1939. But even that norm or average had to be arrived at in a rather arbitrary manner. As I recall it, it was done by taking some 1,400 or 1,500 Canadian families. Those families happened to have incomes varying from $600 up to about $2,800 a year. Taking those actual families scattered from one end of Canada to the other, the bureau found that they had an average income of $1,453.80. Then the bureau simply found out what those 1,400 odd families were actually spending their money on at that time-what they were actually spending that $1,453.80 on, for purposes of living.
Statistics Act

Obviously that can hardly be regarded as a norm or standard for comparison in this postwar period. I suggest that there were at least two things wrong with that figure which was taken for 100 back at that time. On the one hand, that figure of $1,453.80 represented an amount per year which was higher than the average wage level at the time. It is also to be pointed out that even that amount at that time-not to mention its gross inadequacy today-would not buy what the Department of National Health and Welfare would regard as an adequate standard of living. There have been changes since then, and our ideas as to what is a normal standard of living have changed. In order to get something that is correct statistically, I suggest that the bureau should now devise a new basis for measuring the cost of living index.
The other suggestion I should like to make is this. I feel that the bureau should find a way in which to give the cost of living index not only in percentages but also-in fact preferably-in dollars and cents. Averages are deceptive and percentages are deceptive; but people understand dollars and cents. I quote as a good example the Labour Gazette, which publishes wage statistics from time to time. When those statistics are given, they are given in both ways, both in percentages, in terms of an index figure, and in actual dollars and cents. I think that information as to the cost of living furnished by the bureau to our people in terms of dollars and cents would be much more useful than it is at the present time merely in terms of a rather unreal index figure. I realize that if it were in dollars and cents, which would make it a little bit more understandable to our people, it might at times be more useful or more embarrassing, depending upon from which side of the house the figures are used. But that really does not matter. The purpose of getting statistics is to be able to use the knowledge we have about life in this country in order to improve it in every possible way.
One speaks as a layman when he talks about these things and realizes that the scientific people who are engaged in this business may have comments to make one way or the other. But I am sure it would improve the usefulness of the information the bureau give us about the cost of living if they were to do these two things: first of all, bring it up to date in terms of 1948 standards, or, shall I say, 1948 ideals as to our standard of living; and, second, find some way of giving the country a cost of living index not only in terms of percentages, but also in terms of dollars and cents. I just wished to make those suggestions, but at the

same time I desired to join with others in saying that we are indeed grateful for the work that is done and the service that is rendered to this country by the dominion bureau of statistics.
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax): I wish to deal with the general principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker; but first I want to join with those who have already paid tribute to the valuable work being done by the officials of the dominion bureau of statistics. As a businessman, more than once I have felt a little bit sore and vexed to think I had to fill out certain forms, particularly during the busy war period. But the more often I filled out those forms, and in turn received information from the bureau, the greater was my appreciation of the real value of my figures to them and of their figures to me. It was enlightening to me to be able to follow the trend of business in other sections of the country, to make a comparison of my business with those in other centres, and to follow the general trend of the various lines. I believe we should be very grateful that as head of this department we have a man with the ability of Mr. Marshall.
I am not going to deal with any particular sections; but, as I understand it, the general principle of this bill is to provide for the gathering of information which will be helpful to all parts of the country; the organizing of a system of co-ordinated social and economic statistics pertaining to the whole of Canada and to each of the provinces therof, and so on. That is the general principle. You can break it down into figures giving information with respect to certain things, such as the cost of living, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles); figures relating to trends, as well as the census and other duties enumerated and outlined in section 32. I am dealing with the information the bureau will give us to indicate the economic condition of one section of the country in comparison with that of the others.
Just to explain my position, generally we look upon Canada as divided into five sections. You could take the maritime provinces as one section, Quebec as the next, then Ontario, then the three prairie provinces and finally British Columbia. If you were to analyse those five sections I believe you would find a great centralization, not only of population but of industry, in the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec. If you look back to confederation and study the reason for the maritimes joining, remembering that it was for the purpose of developing trade in the maritime provinces and of assisting the other

Statistics Act
provinces, you will find that, instead of assisting us, it has not only pushed the population into the central portion of our country but developed that portion far beyond what may have been thought possible by those residing in Ontario and Quebec at that ime. To a very great extent our wealth is centred in those provinces. Look at the population. Of the 11,506,655 people in Canada, some 33 per vent are in Ontario and 29 per cent in Quebec, or a total of 62 per cent of our population in those two provinces. Then, if we look at the income we find that the income of those provinces far exceeds that of any other section of Canada. The per capita income in Ontario is $647, as compared with $385 in the mari-times. The income of the maritimes represents only seven per cent of our per capita wealth, as compared with 41 per cent in Ontario and 25 per cent in Quebec, or a total of 66 per cent in these two provinces.
I mention these figures to bring home a point I am going to raise later. I believe the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is worthy of the attention of the parliamentary assistant; not that I think it is as workable as the present method, but at least it deserves serious thought. And because of the hon. gentleman's suggestion, I am going to offer one of my own with respect to greater consideration for the maritimes and other parts of Canada, other than Quebec and Ontario.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Hazen) and his reference to the report of the royal commission on maritime claims, which consisted of Sir Andrew Rae Duncan, the late Hon. W. B. Wallace and Professor Cyrus Macmillan. On more than one occasion I have quoted paragraph 39 of that report, but, since the hon. member for Saint John-Albert has placed it on record today, I do not propose to read it again. With that paragraph in mind, however, I wrote Mr. Marshall on May 31, hoping he might be able to advise me that steps had been taken to gather data along the lines suggested by Sir Andrew. Unfortunately he did not think that was feasible, or at least no definite action has been taken with respect to compiling that information. I think that is rather unfortunate, though at the same time I wish to say I quite appreciate the difficulties the bureau would encounter in gathering that information.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was discussing the general principle underlying Bill No. 326, respecting the dominion bureau of statistics. I would refer first to the reference made by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Hazen) to the recommendations of Sir Andrew Duncan as they are set forth in the report of the royal commission on maritime claims at page 44. paragraph 39. Sir Andrew emphasized the lack of certain statistics relating to trade between the provinces, and strongly urged that these difficulties should be overcome, so that on this phase of internal trade statistics could be made regularly available at as early a day as possible.
I support that thought and I urge that the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and of his parliamentary assistant be directed to that recommendation, so that they might embody a section in the bill or, if that is not feasible, so that they might suggest to the bureau of statistics that an effort be made to compile that information. I believe it would be a real help to us in interprovincial trade relations, one which does not exist at the present time.
I have pointed out the great centralization of trade in Ontario and Quebec. While I am prepared to give credit to those provinces for the splendid manner in which they have built up their trade, I say it is not a healthy sign from a dominion-wide standpoint. And it is with that in mind that I make the suggestion which I am now about to make, and which I had intended to discuss when I took part in this debate. What I am about to discuss is centred around the same spirit as I believe existed in the United States when that country dealt with the Geneva trade agreements. Acting in a generous manner, they did not think only of themselves, but rather of the good they could do to the weaker and smaller nations throughout the world. And I believe they had particular reference to Canada, too. We gain by the Geneva agreements, and the world at large will enjoy more friendly relationships, from the standpoint of trade. I believe it will do much good throughout the world in future years, apart altogether from the financial benefits.
I suggest to the minister that if that same spirit were shown by the two large industrial provinces in Canada, Ontario and Quebec, conditions throughout the country would be better. In my view a survey could be made by the Department of Trade and Commerce. I am not suggesting that a royal commission
Statistics Act

be appointed; rather I am suggesting that a survey be made which would help develop trade not only in those two central provinces, but throughout the dominion as a whole, and that it would be to our advantage as a nation to do so. Because of the terms upon which the maritime provinces and other parts of Canada entered confederation; because of the benefits we expected from confederation, and because of the grounds upon which the dominion has granted special aids to the provinces,
I am suggesting that the minister should authorize an investigation as to the possibilities of similar trade arrangements among the various provinces, and particularly the development of trade between the industrial centres of Ontario and Quebec and the other sections of Canada, with a view to selling goods-this is the important part of my suggestion, and I am sticking closely to the principle of the bill-manufactured in Ontario and Quebec to the people in other provinces at the same laid-down cost as those goods are supplied to buyers in the two central provinces.
If we had such a survey I believe it would be shown that goods could be sold to all sections of Canada at the same laid-down price. It would not be a great trade hindrance, so far as the further development of industrial centres in Ontario and Quebec is concerned. On the contrary, it would create additional possibilities and perhaps give other sections of Canada which are not so fortunate as the two large industrial provinces a greater opportunity to enjoy to a certain extent the prosperity to which all people in Canada are entitled.
I could go on and say that Canada is a wonderful country, and make other statements of that kind, but possibly I would be called to order if I did.
Before taking my seat, I should like to make reference to the publications of the bureau of statistics. I believe they have done an exceptionally fine job in their latest publication, which deals with the maritime provinces in their relation to the national economy of Canada. This issue just reached my desk within the last few days, and I have not had an opportunity to do more than to give it casual perusal. It contains information, however, which is of real value to every Canadian who is interested in the welfare of his country. I believe it should be made available to every library in Canada and should be used as a book of reference by every member of parliament who is anxious to see, not a limited picture, but rather the whole picture of Canada.
This afternoon the "Canadian Statistical Review" for April reached my desk. That, too, is a valuable publication. With sufficient
information of this kind, I believe we could develop the budget I have in mind, that of placing the facts before the whole country so as to create a greater interest in sections outside Ontario and Quebec.
Perhaps I have said all I require to say at this time. In closing, I should like to make one further reference to the maritime provinces. Out of a total population in Canada of about 11,500,000, we find that in the maritime provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island there are only
1,100,000.	We occupy only a small place, perhaps, in the eyes of certain sections of Canada. But we are still part of this dominion. As such we should be entitled to enjoy the prosperity which is so evident in the two central industrial provinces. Within a radius of a hundred miles of Toronto we find a third of the population of the dominion. This density of population makes that area an important one, and gives it an advantage which those of us in the far-flung sections do not enjoy.
Although we are a small part of the dominion, we have sent men to fill every important position Canada has to offer. In the past we have sent important men to the House of Commons; men like Sir Charles Tupper, Sir Robert Borden, Viscount Bennett, W. S. Fielding, Edgar Rhodes, and J. L. Ralston who passed away recently. In addition to all these is our present Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley). There are many other names I could add to the list, but I do not think it is necessary to do so.
I am reminded of a question which was asked of an outstanding Halifax citizen when visiting New York about a week ago. The New Yorker said, "Tell me about this institution of yours, Dalhousie University. Is it a large place?" The reply was, "It is not as large as many of your educational institutions, but it does occupy an important place in the life of Canada, and it stood out particularly during the war years." He went on to say that Canada's war effort had centred around five or six key positions: the finance department, because it was necessary to have money to carry on the war; the department of munitions; the research council; the three branches of the defence department, army, navy and air force; and then he made this significant statement: "In the finance department we had Colonel Ralston, then we had the Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley, as Minister of Finance during the war period, both of them connected with Dalhousie University. In the Department of Munitions and Supply we had another man closely connected with Dalhousie University, one who had taken a very important part in its life, the

Statistics Act
Right Hon. C. D. Howe. At the head of the research council we had Doctor C. J. Mackenzie. At the head of the army we first had the late Norman Rogers; then we had Colonel Ralston, and at the head of the navy we had the Hon. Angus Macdonald. In other words, five out of these six key positions were held by men closely connected with Dalhousie University, and five out of the six were mari-timers, so that we played an important part in the war effort in Canada."
We are now asking the rest of Canada, particularly the two large cential provinces of Ontario and Quebec, to allow some little part of their prosperity to overflow and spread out toward the other sections of Canada. I say it would be a good thing for the bureau of statistics to prepare a report showing a way in which goods could be landed in the extreme eastern and western parts of Canada and sold at the same prices at which they are sold in central Canada.
Mr. HAROLD W. TIMMINS (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary assistant, when introducing this bill respecting the dominion bureau of statistics, said that the bureau and the bill itself were intended to cover all the important statistical fields of government. It is apparent, from the magnitude of the bill and the amendments before us, that we are dealing with a growing branch of government. We listened with interest to the statistics given us this afternoon by the parliamentary assistant as to the number of people employed in the bureau and. with respect to its various activities, and with all that we agree. But it seems to me that one field of statistics has been sadly neglected, and that is the field of revenue and taxation. I do not believe that we have adequate statistics in respect to revenue and taxation, and I say that for this reason. Last year, I had a question on the order paper with respect to income tax payments. I shall not read the question, but the answer I got from the Department of National Revenue was:
The accounting records of the taxation division are not maintained in such a manner as to readily facilitate an answer to this question. However, steps are being taken to obtain such information.
I followed my question up with another shortly afterwards, asking:
How many married women in the Ottawa taxation area paid income tax in 1945 in respect to salaries alone (as contrasted from those who paid income tax on investments), and what was the aggregate of the income tax so paid?
The answer I received was:
Statistics have not been assembled in a form to answer this question definitely either for the Ottawa district or the country as a whole but, 5849-302
as indicated in a reply to a previous question, arrangements have been made to gather such statistics in the future. However, as a partial reply, the department estimates that there were approximately 110,000 married female taxpayers in all Canada in the year 1046. Their salary or wage income is estimated at $148,000,000 and the tax payable on this income in 1946 is estimated at $18,500,000.
A number of us were concerned at that time to see that the income tax exemptions enjoyed by married women in industry and the professions during the war should be continued, because otherwise they would go out of nursing, teaching and the stenographic field. When I came to delve into the matter I found that there was no branch of the bureau concerned with taxation statistics in the Department of National Revenue.	It was
admitted that the records were not up to date.
I found one young man in the department who had been given the task of assembling these statistics. I do not know whether his staff has since been augmented, but the point I am making is that, there is no statistical branch in the Department of National Revenue.
Section 32 of the bill enumerates a long list of subjects upon which the bureau shall collect, compile, analyse, abstract and publish statistics, but there is no mention of taxation statistics, unless that would be included under paragraph (i), which deals with public and private finance, and I do not suppose that taxation statistics would come under that. Taxation is apparently going to be with us for a long while, and those of us on the back benches who have to deal with questions of taxation with respect to the public who sent us here would like to have something better than the answer I got to my question on the order paper, when we ask for taxation statistics. It is something upon which all the members of the house should be given prompt and accurate information.
I suggest to the parliamentary assistant that the answer I got last year was at the very best an estimate. It was in a sense an attempt at an approximation. It was an attempt to arrive at an estimate by means of probabilities, and that is not good enough. I ask the parliamentary assistant now whether it is intended that a branch of the bureau of statistics shall be set up in the Department of National Revenue. If not, will he see that the statistical branch which is in that department, and which is just in its infancy, is taken out and put under the bureau of statistics, so that from now on we may have full and accurate statistics in regard to taxation matters? With respect to income taxes, and all the other taxes that we have to bear, we should have accurate and firsthand knowledge of the taxes that beset the people, so that we can properly analyse
Statistics Act

the material which is placed before us by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and by the Department of National Revenue from time to time. I wonder whether the parliamentary assistant can give us some help with regard to this matter at this time.


George James McIlraith: In committee.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would suggest to the hon. member that he wait until the parliamentary assistant replies, or until we reach the committee stage.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, the bill is a lengthy one and, as you have just suggested, we might reserve our questions until the bill is dealt with in committee.
I am going to make a few general observations. First, I wish to say that I agree with the senior hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor), who suggested that accurate records should be kept with respect to interprovincial trade. That is something which is not now available. If records were kept they would be revealing. We would find that in this country interprovincial trade is pretty nearly a oneway street. I am not going to go into it any farther than that. Perhaps the central provinces, about which my hon. friend was talking and suggesting that they might allow some of the crumbs from the rich man's table to 'be diverted to the poor, may have very good reasons for not wanting the actual picture of interprovincial trade to be printed in a form that would be easily understood by most of the people of Canada.
I again agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who suggested that the cost of living index, as compiled by the government, is something that is very misleading, and certainly does not reflect the cost of living as it fluctuates from time to time in Canada. In addition to having the thing revised and brought up to date, I suggest that the cost of living index should be compiled on a regional basis, because the cost of living in some parts of the country, in comparison with other parts, is away out of line. I know that in the part of the country from which I come we have the highest cost of living in Canada. That is understandable when one takes into consideration the matter of freight rates, and so forth. The cost of living index should be compiled on a regional basis, instead of a certain number of cities in Canada and a certain number of items being taken and an arbitrary figure being set which certainly does not reflect the actual cost of living as it obtains in different sections of the country.

I, too, want to compliment the dominion bureau of statistics on the recent survey of the maritime provinces. I have gone through this survey and marked it pretty well. I have read every word of it. It certainly sets out the disabilities of the maritimes, but the sad part of statistics is that all they do is to set out the disabilities. They recommend nothing. The bureau of statistics has done an excellent job over the years. It has compiled many reports similar to this one, but unfortunately they go to the archives to gather dust, and nothing is ever done about them. This last one on the maritimes is very revealing. It shows the inequality that exists in the distribution of the national income as between the maritimes and the rest of Canada. I am going to read an editorial from the Halifax Herald, which compliments the bureau of statistics on the compilation of this last survey of the maritimes in relation to the national income of Canada. This short editorial compliments those who drafted the report, and tells the story better than I could do it. I am going to conclude with this. The editorial reads:
The bureau of statistics has shown, in a study, that Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces are less prosperous than the rest of Canada. But the cold figures of the study can never emphasize the gravity of the situation so strikingly as the news that 200 children in Halifax lack shoes.
That is the meat of the matter. We compile statistics and show the inequalities which exist as between province and province-we have been doing that for at least thirty years-yet nothing has ever been done to try to remedy the situation or cure the disabilities that the cold, hard statistics set out. The fact of the matter is that the trend is in reverse. The answer is not statistics. So far as the maritimes are concerned, we have all kinds of statistical proof as to what is needed. The problem in the maritimes is financial; it is an economic problem. Right at the present time small industries in Nova Scotia are not able to secure capital to expand their plants, despite the fact that the statistical report proves that a lot of subsidiary industry is needed in that end of the country. This survey shows it clearly.
Recently I met in this city people who required a few thousand dollars to expand plants that are already in operation, and they could not get the money. The banks will not give it to them. They have no redress from the Industrial Development bank, which I thought was designed to create small industry, complementary to the major set-ups. The-

Statistics Act
reverse is true. The bank now functions for the purpose of supplying funds for plant expansion, but in that end of the country you cannot get capital, despite all of the statistics, and the most recent ones are the most glaring that I have ever seen.
If we want to do something about what the survey sets out I suggest to the maritime members that we must do something with the chartered banks. In the economy we have now we want risk capital. The government's policy, as announced in the house by several ministers, is that where private enterprise does not measure up, the government will step in.


James Horace King: Order.


Clarence Gillis: I expected that, Mr. Speaker.


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member-


Clarence Gillis: I am merely following the lead of the senior hon. member for Halifax.


James Horace King: We are considering Bill No. 326, respecting the dominion bureau of statistics.


Clarence Gillis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I will stick right to that. I thought I was still in Canada. The hon. senior member for Halifax was in New York for a while; I am still in Canada. We are setting up an act to expand, increase and further develop the matter of collecting statistics in Canada. I am in agreement with it. It is a very necessary department. I am talking about one of the most recent publications put out by the bureau of statistics on the maritime provinces and their relation to the national economy of Canada, issued in 1948.


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I have been pretty generous vrith him already, and I was generous with the hon. senior member for Halifax. Hon. members must realize that they have to confine their remarks to the principle of the bill which is before the house. The bill before the house has nothing to do with the maritime provinces. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Clarence Gillis: No, Mr. Speaker. The bill before the house cannot be discussed in all its ramifications until it gets into committee. What I am doing is what others have done before me. I am discussing the principle of gathering statistics, and I am suggesting that there is not much use in gathering them unless we are prepared to do something about them after we have them. I am talking now
about reports that have been issued to us, since the opening of the house, by the very bureau w'hieh it is proposed to expand, and if we are not going to do something about the statistics that they gather, I suggest once more that there is no use in getting them.
What are we gathering statistics for? What I am discussing now is the principle of the bill we are considering: that is, the purpose for which we are to gather statistics. Is it worth the money, the time and the effort necessary on the part of the Canadian people, who in the final analysis have to pay for it, to set up a department, with a minister, to extend the efforts that are now made, carrying them into other fields, when we have documentary evidence gathered by this department indicating the disabilities in one section of the country in relation to the economy of Canada as a whole, if it is not the intention of the government to make use of those statistics once they are gathered? If that is not the intention, then, as far as I am concerned, the thing should be folded up. If, however, we are to do something about the matter, I think this is the time, when we are considering the expansion of this particular branch of the service, to make reference to reports already available to members of the house setting out the disabilities that affect a large section of the population of the country, and to inquire of the government as to what plans they have for removing the disabilities now indicated by the bureau of statistics.
I think it is one of the best branches of the service, and sometimes I am amazed at the information one can get from it. Its members sometimes seem to me to be miracle men. I would refer the house to this latest report which they have handed out on the maritimes. My hon. friend the senior member for Halifax said he had not read it.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I said I had given it only a casual reading, owing to the fact that it reached me only a few days ago. The hon. member must have sat up all night for the last three or four nights reading it.


Clarence Gillis: I got it a month ago, after
I heard it was out. I wrote to the bureau and they sent it to me. I read it from cover to cover and marked it.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I said I received my copy only two or three days ago.


Clarence Gillis: You are rather slack. 'The document is so important to the people of the
5849-302i
Statistics Act

maritime provinces that I should have thought the hon. member, being a supporter of the government, would have had it a long time ago. In fact, others had it long before I received it.
If you had not allowed the senior hon. member for Halifax to ream around in the United States, Mr. Speaker, I would have stayed closer to the terms of the bill. However we shall have more to say about it in committee.
In conclusion, may I say this, for the [DOT]benefit of my hon. friends over there wh.o believe in the system of free enterprise. The cure for the maritime problem is not statistics, under their system, with risk capital. You cannot get it in that way. If we were over there we would step in and do the job ourselves. The statistics are available.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: You come along ar.d put up
a real proposition and you will get the necessary money.
^ Mr. C. T. RICHARD (Gloucester): I am in accord with what has been said by previous speakers with reference to the advisability of having a scheme whereby we may receive proper data on interprovincial trade. I would not go so far as to say I would support an amendment, because I believe that in order to obtain the data it is essential that we give several complex systems a complete study before proceeding hastily to amend the act.
I believe, however, the department would be wise in making a study of a scheme whereby such data might be obtained.
I do not believe that anyone can study certain economic phases of our industrial life in Canada without having such data. You cannot, for instance, study freight rates intelligently without knowing what goods move from one province to another. You cannot study the impact or the consequences of certain economic policies without knowing what is the flow of trade between provinces. You cannot study tariff policies without knowing what is the trade between provinces, and no businessman, who thinks about the import or export business, would think of conducting his affairs without knowing what are the exports and imports of other countries. I believe it is just as essential for our businessmen to have data on our interprovincial trade as it is for us to have data on the business of other countries.
For that reason I believe we should proceed as speedily as possible to obtain such data.
I have several times got in touch with the different departmental officials and have been told that I may get the total national statistics, but that they cannot be broken [DOT]down into provincial figures.
:air. Gillis.]
As to statistics proving a cure for the ills of the maritimes, I may say we have been fed up with figures. We want more than that. I believe, however, that we should study not only the maritimes but other places, other parts of the country that are sympathizing with the maritimes, and this cannot be done unless we know just how trade is moving between the provinces.


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the bill. I wish to express my appreciation of the work done by the officials and ithe employees of the bureau of statistics. I think it is a work that is not fully appreciated by a large number of the Canadian people because of their lack of knowledge and understanding of its importance and extent. These officials and employees carry on, as it were, behind the scenes, without fanfare or publicity, and I am pleased to see that this bill provides for the development and extension of what I consider to be one of the most important services of government.
I wish also to express my support of some suggestions put forward this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I will not repeat them, but I thought they were sound, and the government should give them every consideration.
I also wish to commend the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) and the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Richard) on their observations concerning interprovincial trade statistics, which are most necessary. I trust that the government will give that point consideration.
During the recent sittings of the veterans affairs committee many members of that committee were, I know, much impressed with the factual way in which evidence on the cost of living was presented. The people who are gathering statistics and correctly analysing them and interpreting them according to certain principles require long and special training, and that type of person is not generally recognized because there is no publicity, nothing spectacular about the work. In my opinion a great number of the improvements which we hope to bring about in the way of social reforms, economic organization, the development of our natural resources, transportation and so on will be brought about as a result of the basing of our conclusions upon figures and statistics provided by the bureau of statistics; that is, on facts.
One other suggestion I might make as to the collection of statistics. It would be inter-

Statistics Act
esting for the western and the maritime provinces to have statistics regarding the flow of profits from the flanks of Canada to Toronto and Montreal, and information concerning insurance companies which collect moneys from east and west and re-lend them to the maritimes and the western provinces for capital investment in housing, the development of farms, and business, and as a result pyramid interest receipts. The truer picture we get of the Canadian economy because of an accurate knowledge of the facts, the better are we able to judge any situation.
I am greatly impressed by the fact-and this has been the case for a long time prior to this bill coming before the house-that the Canadian people as a whole are exceedingly under-informed about the functions of the bureau of statistics and the information that can be obtained. While technically I believe it is correct to say anyone can obtain that information, I am quite sure that generally throughout the country the great majority of the people are not aware of the mine of information obtainable from the bureau of statistics. I believe the government should carry on some publicity campaign in that respect.
This evening we have had mentioned a report which, as I understand it, deals purely with the maritimes and which quotes figures in connection with a certain situation there. From that report people are able to draw conclusions and on it are able to base opinions for improving the situation which the figures in that report indicate. I think the government should do something to see that representative organizations throughout this country are well informed on the activities of the bureau of statistics and on the information which can be obtained from that source. I would suggest that adult organizations throughout this country should be seriously concerned in playing their part to bring this information to the attention of a greater number of Canadians. The strength of democracy rests on understanding and knowledge of facts. The more we have of those attributes throughout this country the stronger will our democracy be.
I think also that more information in this connection could be brought to the attention of the school children. I have been the chairman of a school board for some years, and have been dissatisfied at the condition which existed, and the same condition exists today to some extent. It seems that those who prepare the textbooks and arithmetic courses are inclined to be over-academic and to be divorced from the practical stream of events, or shall I say, from the facts of life.
Let us take as an example our books on arithmetic or mathematics. Very often they are designed to have the pupils solve certain questions on certain subjects which are not related to the daily life of those children or their parents or to the economic activities in the district in which they live. I believe that something should be done to remedy that situation. The bureau of statistics could provide a great fund of information for the development of sound practical textbooks on arithmetic and mathematics in this country, so that the boys and girls going through our schools, in learning the processes of arithmetic and mathematics, would also come to understand the economic arrangements in our country, the situation as it exists with regard to production, population and so on. In my opinion this is a great field for the findings of the bureau of statistics to be used and introduced more fully into our educational system.
The national film board could well develop a series of pictures outlining the functions of government. While in our schools, cursory teaching is given on the British North America Act, the dominion parliament, the provincial legislatures and so on, there is little information on the function of government as it is related to the departments of government. I believe that the more we can get our older people and our children to understand how the government functions in this country-for instance, to understand what the Department of National Health and Welfare is, and its functions, what the bureau of statistics stands for and what it is-the sounder will be our democracy. I believe that the more we are able to create among the people a fuller understanding of the functions of government, the better will they be able to form judgments and sound opinions concerning any situation.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I again suggest, and bring to the attention of hon. members as a whole, that I have thought for a long time that the records, figures and findings of the bureau of statistics would make an excellent basis for the publication of books on arithmetic and mathematics more closely allied to the life which our children will have to live when they reach adult age.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Sections 1 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
On section 14-Remuneration.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I notice that a number of the clauses start out by saying that the minister shall do so and so. Is the Secretary of State the present minister?
Statistics Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


George James McIlraith: "Minister" is defined in section 2 (d) of the act, which reads:
"Minister" means the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There is no intention that this department shall have a minister of its own ?


George James McIlraith: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 15 to 31 inclusive agreed to.
On section 32-General statistics.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps section 32 might be a good one at which the chairman might stop a moment for breath and also to ask the parliamentary assistant if he would comment on some of the suggestions that have been made. This is the section that sets out the various kinds of subjects concerning which statistics can be gathered under authority of this act. Tonight we have had suggestions from the maritime members about statistics on interprovincial trade; I made some suggestions about the cost of living index; and the hon. member for Kootenay West has also made some suggestions. Does the parliamentary assistant wish to comment on them?


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I should take advantage of this opportunity to say, first, that I appreciate the remarks made by hon. gentlemen on all sides of the house with reference to the work of the bureau generally. It is well to know that the competent work being done by the bureau is appreciated so generally.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The Minister of Agriculture does not agree with the parliamentary assistant, because he says he has better figures than has the bureau.


George James McIlraith: I should still like to express my appreciation to hon. members, in any event.
Perhaps if I deal in order with some of the points raised on second reading, it would be the best way of dealing with the section.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The parliamentary assistant does not have to make a speech.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised some interesting points with respect to the cost of living index. The statutory authority for what he suggests exists in the act; I think there is no question as to that. But it is pointed out that he would desire to have the information given on a

dollar basis as well as on a percentage basis. That raises some problems, because it is hard to know just what is meant. If you get it down to a dollar basis, are you to take the average dollar basis or the dollar basis in each area of the country? It comes to this, that about the only accurate way would be to take your average on a percentage basis. However, one point the hon. member made was of particular interest. That was with respect- to what he called the norm or base from which it is operated, and the need for revision. I am happy to be able to tell him that this problem is being worked on right now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good.


George James McIlraith: That does not mean, of course, that there may be an immediate change in the system of putting out those statistics, because the information will have to be collected from the various sources right across the country to get a proper base, and it may take some time; but that is under way.
Then there was another interesting suggestion by the hon. member for Kootenay West. Perhaps it is not possible to be specific, but I think everyone will agree it is highly desirable that more widespread use should be made of the information and publications available. There is one problem in connection with the publications generally; that is, that great numbers of inquiries are received as to the possibility of having statistics provided on subjects other than those at present covered. The difficulty is always to know when to say no, because it would be easy to run into an expensive piece of work without serving any useful purpose. So it requires some judgment to strike a happy medium, where the use of the statistics prepared may be consistent with the cost. However, with the general remarks of the hon. member about making the information available in the schools, and the schools using it and basing their textbooks upon the information, and so on, I think all hon. members will agree.
Another point emphasized by hon. members on all sides of the house had to do with the question of interprovincial trade. That point comes specifically under section 32; and of course most of the discussion was based on a paragraph contained in the report of the royal commission on maritime claims, the so-called Duncan report. Since that time, there has been a great development in the field of internal trade statistics. For instance, in 1931 the first census of retail, wholesale and service establishments was taken. The bureau now issues monthly and annual data pertaining to some of these establishments.

Statistics Act
However, in the field of interprovineial trade, as opposed to internal trade generally, there are some serious difficulties, and I should like to take a moment specifically to point out some of them to hon. members. First, there is the development of motor transport in the transportation of goods. Statistics concerning this type of traffic would have to be included, but with the present practices of the motor transport industry many of the firms do not keep records in sufficient detail to be of use in interprovineial trade statistics. That is one difficulty. Another is that the detail now shown in the monthly traffic reports of railways would have to be considerably increased. Another is that, even if it were practicable to obtain all the data that would be essential, the cost W'ould be high. It is estimated that it would take between $300,000 and $400,000 a year. This relates only to the work of the bureau, and does not have anything to do with the added costs to the transportation and other firms supplying the data.
There is a further difficulty. Even if the complete figures on interprovineial trade were available, it would be difficult to determine their significance. Supposing province A should be shown as the source of a volume of goods for province B. Province A might * have imported many of the materials used from the United States, or from some other province, so that, before the interprovineial statistics could be made up, the proper significance of that factor would have to be determined. It means that in reality province A would be only in part the source of the goods for province B; and after an attempt to unravel that complexity as between the provinces and the foreign trade, it is almost impossible to see just how the information could be obtained.
There is a further difficulty, that would cast some doubt on the real value of statistics on interprovineial trade. That is, the commodity trade by itself is only one aspect of interprovincial trade. There are the invisible items such as, for instance, the movement of tourists. How could one get the data on the movement of tourists and travelers from one province to another?


Arthur Leroy Smith: It would be comparative, would it not? There would be no difficulty. You would get balances.


George James McIlraith: It is an easy matter when the tourists come from another country, because they are checked at customs and immigration ports as they enter and leave, so that you have a base. But it is a little difficult to see just how you could check them as between provinces.


Arthur Leroy Smith: If you go to British Columbia you have to register when you enter the province.


George James McIlraith: There is another difficulty, namely the question of supplying services. It would be difficult to get an actual breakdown of the cost of supplying services between the provinces; and by that I mean insurance, the use of harbours, and other personal services as well as even professional services.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I hope you do not think I am opposed. It would not do me any good, anyway.


George James McIlraith: In any event, that illustrates the difficulty of getting a proper and complete set of interprovineial trade statistics that would really be useful.
In connection with the suggestion of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert about an amendment to section 32, it is noted that the wording of that section puts an absolute obligation on the bureau to collect and compile the statistics enumerated. My suggestion would be that there is a general clause under section 32 (m) authorizing the bureau to collect, compile, and so on, statistics on any other matters prescribed by the minister or by the governor in council. I should like to examine into it, to see if there are statistics other than those we are now getting which we can collect and which would be useful on this subject of interprovineial trade, but which could be handled under paragraph (m). Otherwise I would think the suggestion of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert is in too rigid language. It might be heading us into something that would mean a tremendous increase in staff and a tremendous burden which might be out of all proportion to its value.


Mr. TIMMINS:: Could the parliamentary assistant answer the question I asked with respect to revenue and taxation under the Department of National Revenue? I need not develop it further at the moment.


George James McIlraith: I am sorry I overlooked the point raised by the hon. member for Parkdale. His point had to do with, as he expressed it, statistic' of taxation and revenue. Actually there is authority for collecting statistics under section 32 (i), "public and private finance".
With respect to the particular matter he raised, there is now in the Department of National Revenue a statistics section which I believe is being developed at this time. It is interesting to note that the type of information for which the hon. member asked was
Statistics Act

statistics on the subject of a new tax arising out of the tremendous increase in taxation during the war. I think the point he raises about having better statistics in respect of the collection of national revenue is already being covered by the statistics branch of the Department of National Revenue, which branch is now in operation.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: The question I really asked of the parliamentary assistant was this. He has said that a statistical section is being developed in the Department of National Revenue. I say to him I agree with that. I think it is just now in its infancy, and probably arises out of the lack of help during the war. The department has as much as told me that it really does not have any statistics at all.
What I am suggesting to the parliamentary assistant is this. Is this not the time when those statistics should be developed under the dominion bureau rather than by having a duplication in the Department of National Revenue?


George James McIlraith: That raises two or three points which should be considered. First of all, there is the matter of the secrecy of the income tax form. The way it works out in actual practice is that the bureau of statistics works with them in the matter of general statistics-that is, methods of setting up, and the like-but does not do the detailed work of putting the statistics together.
The hon. member is quite right when he makes reference to the matter of staff during the war, and the development since. I think that is about as complete an answer as anything I could have said.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: In view of the fact that I raised this question of interprovincial trade figures, I should like to thank the parliamentary assistant for covering it so fully. I feel, however, that when he says there is some question as to the value of these figures, even though they could procure them, his statement is debatable. No doubt he may hold that opinion, but others have a different thought on the matter.
I say if we had figures such as I have suggested in regard to freight rates, such figures would have had a definite bearing in our case at the time the maritime provinces appeared before the board of transport commissioners. As the bureau does in respect of merchants, I feel it might do in this instance. The bureau sends out forms upon which it asks the merchants to report each month. If the same thought were followed out and a similar form sent to the railways asking that they report as to the tonnage originating in the various prov-

inces this would serve a useful purpose and, I believe, could be done without difficulty. Something could be worked out which would give information of real value, if we had to represent our case on freight rates. If it were made to apply to railways, the same could be done in connection with trucking companies on the highway. This would be a valuable help, and could be useful to us in preparing a case in the future.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I should make it clear to the hon. senior member for Halifax that I was not casting any doubt on the value of the statistics, if we could get all the information that should go into the subject of interprovincial trade. What I was questioning was the significance such statistics would have if they were not complete in all respects. It is that rather technical problem which I intended to raise. I did not intend to cast any doubt on the value of the statistics, if we could get a complete picture and cover all the factors which enter into the making of a complete statistical picture of interprovincial trade.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to add a few remarks to the suggestion of compiling statistics respecting interprovincial trade. Such information would be most interesting. The bureau of statistics is an able body, and if it could find any way of getting that information it would be useful and interesting. The difficulties, however, I believe are almost insurm ount abl e.
I have in mind manufacturers of heavj-goods. Not only are the goods heavy, but they are invoiced at large sums of money. Some of those companies may have only ten or fifteen accounts in the whole of Canada. They- deal through large wholesale houses in the large centres of the dominion-Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver and perhaps some other centres. I know of one big firm with which I was closely associated which had only seven accounts in all Canada. The people to whom they shipped trainloads of material, in turn shipped it throughout Canada. So that the large manufacturing institution in Toronto might ship ten carloads of boilers or radiators to a jobber in Montreal who, in turn, might ship it to the maritime provinces or back to eastern Ontario, northern Ontario or Manitoba.
It looks to me like a difficult procedure, if the bureau would hope to have any accurate information on the subject. If it were available, however, it would be interesting to have.
I do not believe it would disclose what my hon. friend to my left has suggested, that interprovincial trade is a one-way street; not

Statistics Act
by any means. We want to develop it, so that when a carload of one class of goods is shipped to the east a carload of another class will be shipped back. That is real trade; and if the bureau of statistics can produce any information along those lines it would be both interesting and helpful.


John Oliver Probe: Section 32(h) indicates that educational statistics are the responsibility of the bureau. From time to time some of us have had occasion to ask for and to use statistics prepared by the bureau with respect to education. What I have to say must not be construed as a criticism of the bureau, because I am pleased to concur in the compliments which have been paid to their efficiency in obtaining information for members of the house. However, some of us have had some difficulty in securing statistics of an educational nature dealing with enrolments, and the like, because certain provinces are definitely excluded from the figures we are given.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has seen fit to delete section 19(1) (e), which dealt with the municipal. educational, charitable, penal and other institutions, would the parliamentary assistant explain why the educational statistics presented by the bureau are deficient to the extent that whole provinces are excluded from the statistical picture?


George James McIlraith: I was of the impression that we get statistics from each of the provinces. I think the difficulty is rather with the breakdown or the completeness of the information. I must say frankly that I am not too familiar with the point raised by the hon. member, but I think the situation is that we get general educational statistics from all the provinces but not details on all aspects from one or two of the provinces.


John Oliver Probe: In connection with enrolment in primary and secondary schools, I recall that just a few weeks ago I received the most recent figures available; they were for the year 1944, and the figures for the secondary schools were omitted from the picture. That was true of some other details the nature of which I have forgotten, but that has been the case every time. I have secured such statistics from the bureau. In other words, the picture that I require and that other members would require under similar circumstances is not a complete picture. Is it a fact that all statistics relating to enrolment, expenditures and so on, with respect to education, are obtained from all the provinces?


George James McIlraith: Yes, it is a fact that we get all these statistics from all the provinces.
I am not familiar with the details of the point raised, but I will look into it. Some of the provinces are a bit slower than one might wish in supplying the information required, but there is not much that one can do about the matter.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Does the parliamentary assistant to the minister think the basis of dollar value is of any use without an accompanying table of the quantities of the things produced? What I have in mind is this. We find that the dollar value of our trade in a certain commodity is so much. It may be that we are manufacturing only fifty per cent of what we used to manufacture; yet the dollar value remains the same. I want to get the opinion of the statistics department as to what use dollar value is without accompanying production figures of the article being dealt with.


George James McIlraith: I think the answer to that is this. With some items there is no measuring value other than the dollar value. But when you are dealing with commodities there is no doubt at all that, in addition to the dollar value, the unit value-the quantities, bushels or pounds or whatever it may be-is necessary. But there is this difficulty, that certain statistics which are very useful include items that cannot be measured in other than dollar value.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Agreed, but the point I am trying to make, and I want you to agree with me, is this. Trade figures given in dollar value only for years like 1946, 1947 and 1948, are practically meaningless having regard to the production of commodities in the country or imported into the country. In other words, they can have no meaning unless we have one column showing the dollar value, and another column showing the production figures. Is that not an accurate statement?


George James McIlraith: That places me in rather an embarrassing position. The trade statistics to which the hon. member refers may include items other than commodities, such as the tourist trade, which cannot be measured in other than dollar value. But if the statistics dealt only with commodities my hon. friend's criticism would be fair. For most of the major products comparative quantities can be obtained, and it is just a matter of using the two sets of figures.


Arthur Leroy Smith: My whole point is that they should be shown side by
Statistics Act

side. As to tourist dollars, we say that the United States dollar is on a par with ours, and we welcome tourists from the United States who come here and spend United States dollars to help balance our exchange. But, as everyone who knows anything about the matter knows, what the United States tourist is doing is buying our dollars in the United States at ninety or eighty-eight cents or something like that, and when we keep on bragging about how these tourists are helping our dollar situation it is just a lot of nonsense, is it not? Anyone who is half smart buys our dollar in New York at eighty-eight cents and spends it in Canada and gets a dollar's worth, and that is not helping our dollar situation at all.


George James McIlraith: I cannot admit that the United States tourist may buy some of our dollars at a reduced rate, but it is not fair to say that is the way the whole operation goes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: If he were smart, he would do it in that way.
I want to ask another question. We have in Canada a three-pronged program for righting our United States exchange position, and one of those prongs is the 25 per cent excise tax. I want to know through the parliamentary assistant, and the very bright gentlemen who sit quite close to him, whether the bureau of statistics are able to give me one very simple statement of fact, and that is the amount of United States dollars which the 25 per cent excise tax has saved in so far as Canada is concerned. I have asked a real question about statistics. I should like the parliamentary assistant to answer it.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I should answer that question first and then I want to revert to another one. The bureau of statistics does not have that information. That information, if available, would be available in the Department of Finance.
Reverting to the earlier point raised by the hon. member with respect to tourist-dollars, we have the records of the number of tourists as well as the number of dollars. Therefore, if you will read the two sets of figures together you can develop any argument or point you want to make arising out of the question asked me. It would be well to bear in mind that we have the quantitative statistics as well as the dollar statistics.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the clause carry?


Arthur Leroy Smith: No; I have been away celebrating a great political victory for my side, and therefore I am a little behind. The parliamentary assistant says he has the record of the number of tourists.

That is obvious. One can get that from the customs department. The parliamentary assistant's next statement was -that the information I sought, if it -were available anywhere, was in the Department of Finance.


George James McIlraith: With respect to the excise -tax.


Arthur Leroy Smith: If you have a department dealing with taxation and internal revenue you can get access to the Department of Agriculture and to any of those numerous departments controlled by -the Department of Trade and Commerce. Is the parliamentary assistant suggesting to me that the bureau of statistics cannot get from the Department of Finance a very simple answer to the question I asked? If not, of what use is the bureau of statistics? I am very proud of it. I would like its records to be accepted in courts of law, and without proof, but now that I learn it cannot get the information from the Department of Finance I have completely changed my mind in the last minute and a half. If the bureau of statistics is to be of any use at all, surely it must have access to all these places. Is the parliamentary assistant suggesting that the Department of Finance has an iron curtain raised against the bureau of statistics?


George James McIlraith: No.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is what it means if I understood him correctly.


George James McIlraith: No; I was suggesting that the hon. member go to them; they have it. That was my point.


Arthur Leroy Smith: With great respect, perhaps the parliamentary assistant had better answer a little more fully.


George James McIlraith: With deference, and with very great respect for the hon. member, I will answer a little more fully. The point I was making was that if the statistical information on excise tax is available-I do not know whether or not it is-it would be available in the Department of Finance and in the public accounts. I do not see any reason why the bureau of statistics should duplicate it and make the information available. That was my point.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Here is my point. I have asked the question. On the 17th day of last November we had an excise tax imposed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By radio.


Arthur Leroy Smith: By radio.
I like the radio, but that is neither here nor

Statistics Act
there. We got rid of the constitutional problem long ago. We were right, but the government succeeded; but that does not matter. The point I have is this. That happened on the 17th day of November. We are now at the third day of June. Has not the statistical department this information? Have the Department of Finance refused it? I do not think they have. If they do not have it, why do they not have it? That is a worthwhile statistic, because everybody is paying that tax today.
We have a bureau of statistics. The word "bureau" is a much better word than "department". Bureaucratic does not apply to the bureau of statistics. May I make that very plain? Why do we not have the information? Surely a statistical department must have immediate and quick access to all other departments of government. If the parliamentary assistant's answer is that he does not know, and with all the information available he cannot answer me, that, at least, would be a straight answer; but please do not say that the Department of Finance has it and the bureau of statistics cannot get it out of that department. That is what he has said up to now.


George James McIlraith: No; I was very careful, Mr. Chairman, not to say that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to thank the parliamentary assistant for the comments he made some time ago on my suggestions with regard to the cost of living index. I was indeed pleased to note his favourable reply to the effect that the bureau is at present working on a new base or norm for this important index.
However I should like to say a few additional words with reference to my other suggestion, namely, that an attempt be made to give the public an index in terms of dollars and cents. I was glad to note his statement that the statutory authority for the bureau to do this is already provided, so that what I am really doing is making a suggestion through him to the officials of the bureau.
The parliamentary assistant said this would be difficult. I believe he said that one would have to find some average, and that the dollar and cents figure which would be given would therefore in a sense be unreal. I agree that all averages are unreal except for one fictional person, the so-called famous average man, and they are also deceptive. But I point out that that is even more true of the index figure the way it is now given. My contention is that if this could be translated into dollars 5849-3034
and cents it would be much more readily understood by the people of the country.
At the present moment I believe the cost of living index stands at 152. What that means is that today it costs 152 per cent of what it cost during the period from 1935 to 1939 to buy a certain arbitrary quantity of goods and services. That arbitrary quantity was the amount that could be bought for $1,453.80,
broken down as follows:
Food	 $443.00
Shelter	 209.50
Fuel and light	 90.50
Clothing	 165.80
Home furnishings	 125.70
Miscellaneous (health, personal care, transportation, recreation, life insurance)	 319.40
Other items	 39.90
These were the items included in the index, and the quantities that could be purchased by these amounts were considered as the norm in the period 1935 to 1939. The total added up to $1,453.80. When we say today the cost of living index stands at 152 it simply means that to go into the market and buy the same quantity of goods that was bought for that figure in the previous period would now cost 152 per cent of that figure, or $2,209.77.
Let me bring both of these figures down to monthly and weekly figures. They would mean, in other words, that what it cost S121 a month to buy in 1935-39 now costs $183.92 a month; or again that what it cost $27.96 a week to buy in 1936 to 1939 now costs $42.49 a week. I have given the figures for the three periods, the year, the month and the week. Let me now stick with the figure for the week. What this all adds up to, as I see it, is this. When the dominion bureau of statistics tells us that the cost of living index is 152 it is simply saying that it cost $27.96 a week to buy a certain quantity of food and services in 1935 to 1939 for a certain group of Canadian families, and it now costs $42.49.
If the bureau were to say that the cost of living stands at $42.49 there would, of course, still be something unreal about that, in that it would be only the experience of the average man, who does not exist, and it would be only in terms of that arbitrary allotment or assortment of goods and services chosen by the bureau in 1935-39. That is true, but at least I contend it would give a better idea to the Canadian people as to where the cost of living really stands. My hope is that, when the bureau works out a new base or norm, it will arrive at that base or norm after consulting experts in the field of nutrition and health, and that it will tell us what the figure is for a decent, respectable Canadian living standard and give us that in dollars
Statistics Act

and cents. And then from here on, let us be told what the cost of that decent Canadian living standard amounts to in dollars and cents and whether it goes up or comes down.
I am not a statistician and I may be getting beyond my depth. I admit that candidly, but it seems to me that this is common sense and that if we could move in this direction the cost of living figure would be more understandable to the Canadian people generally and it would be more useful to all of us in trying to arrive at policies whereby something could be done about the cost of living and the standard of living of our people.
However, for the moment I wish to thank the parliamentary assistant for the assurance that the bureau is working on the matter.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: All our maritime men have spoken on this bill that is before us, and I thought I might join in the discussion either to support what they have said or to agree in part or to disagree as the case might be. The hon. senior member for Halifax stated, with reference to the population of the maritimes, that it was 1,100,000. Well, our province of Prince Edward Island is part of the 100,000 and not of the 1,000,000.
The bureau of statistics is one of the great things in this country, either from the provincial point of view or from the point of view of the country as a whole. The gathering of statistics is important, and if they were analysed properly the result would be to extricate governments from many of the difficulties they get into. All we have to do is to look at the transportation question which we discussed some time ago and the increase that was involved.
In section 32 there is little reference to transportation and different systems of transportation, the long haul of freight and the short haul. No government or commission, if these statistics had been available to it, would have come to the conclusion that there should be a universal increase in freights all over the country.
While we may be gathering statistics, we are not having them analysed for the benefit of the people. This is exemplified in connection with the long haul of freight. The government may have had the statistics, and no doubt the Canadian National Railways had them for the last month with reference to the freight on the long haul originating in Prince Edward Island. During the month of April, which is the only one for which I have been able to get statistics, 2,600 cars of freight inward and outward were moving on the long haul. Of these, more than 1,800 were outward and 760 were inward, all going to the

benefit of the long haul freight rate. If we in our province had had those statistics, with a proper analysis of them, I do not believe that we would have been subjected to a twenty-one per cent increase in our freight rates.
In this section, 32, there is very little with regard to the collecting of statistics on transportation, which, after all, is the most important factor in the economic welfare of any province.
I am glad that the hon. senior member for Halifax has become a convert to the stamp freight idea, about which I have spoken three or four times. I notice he is now in favour of the idea that goods originating in Ontario and in Montreal should be sold at the same rate to the retailer, no matter where the retailer lives. I am glad, as I say, that he has been converted.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 33 to 42 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
309. Departmental administration, $1,09-6,287.
Thomas Langton Church: I wish to call the attention of the minister for four or five minutes to certain matters in connection with which I have had a good deal of correspondence with him. There is a large surplus in the department at the present time, and I am asking for better working conditions and hours of labour for some of the rank and file of the post office. In our city we have recently taken over one of the buildings used during the war, situated at the foot of Bay street, where the army had its storehouse, and the navy and other branches were accommodated. I refer to the mail order department. The surpluses for the past six years have been: 1941, $1,683,000. That was a war year. In 1942 it was $4,492,000; in 1943, $4,126,000; in 1944, $12,585,000; in 1945, $11,442,000; in 1946, $10,905,913; in 1947, last year, $8,773,574. So far so good. I notice that our city has a postal revenue of over $15 million; I think it is about $15,250,000. I believe that Montreal has a revenue of only about $10,100,000. I have the figures here. In that connection I may say there are far more substations in

Supply-Post Office
Montreal than there are in Toronto, although the revenue is nearly $5 million less. I think the time has come when some of these profits should be used to reduce the postal rates.
The post office is a magnificent public utility. It has the endorsement of all the people of our city and, I think, of practically all the people in the whole country. It is a well-conducted public utility. I believe the time has come when there should be some additional reduction in the postal rates which were largely raised shortly before the war and during the war when so many of our men and women were in the forces. The time has now come for better working conditions. I should think in the city we should have a one-cent drop letter rate, and for the rest of the country a three-cent rate. If that were done, it would mean that there would be some reduction of the surplus.
I think the time has come when, in our city and throughout Canada, the minister should own, occupy and manage his own public building. I do not think it is fair to have the Department of Public Works over the present minister, who has a vast experience in business as a lawyer. I think it would be far better if control were transferred from the Department of Public Works to the Post Office Department. I would make that suggestion.
The other suggestion I wish to make is that we should have a more progressive public utility. It is progressive. Valuable services are being given at low cost, and some improvements are being made, I will admit, in labouring conditions, with regard to holidays at week ends and at Christmas time and matters like that. But I think the time has come when the post office should branch out and assume some of the functions performed by the British post office, because our post office has not improved greatly in functions up to 1948.
I do not wish to delay the minister in getting his estimates through, but I hope there will be some reform along the lines I have suggested. The minister should have full jurisdiction over the ownership of the building, repairs and all that kind of thing. A number of old buildings have been used, and they might be put to other uses. Some public buildings and post offices are built where the revenues received are not commensurate with their size. For example, in some of the cities and towns large public buildings are being built where one about half the size would be commensurate with the business done. I believe that should be a good principle to follow, because the cost of building today is
almost prohibitive. It is now about three times what it used to be. I believe it would be far better if a cheaper form of building were provided, with more windows and all that kind of thing. A more modern structure could be built. I think the revenue should be considered. If a public building is to be built in town A, B, or C, consideration should be given to what the revenue of that public building will be in town A, B, or C. There should be some relationship between the size of the building and the use to which it is to be put, its functions, and how many departments are using it. I think the time has come when we should have some reduction in rates which apply to the post office department of our city, and not have the surplus used outside for other purposes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I just wish to add a little to what has been said by the hon. member for Broadview and to ask a few questions. Is the minister able to give the committee the approximate number of postmen employed throughout the whole country, and the approximate number in the principal cities such as Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, and Vancouver?


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: In connection with what the previous
speaker said, in Toronto there are large stores like Eaton's and Simpson's, which use the mails extensively. This in large part accounts for the increase in revenue or for the larger amount of postage stamps sold in Toronto as compared with Montreal.
As to the postal stations, there are more in Montreal; but Montreal is more extensive in area than Toronto, and is divided by the mountain, by rivers, the canal and so forth; therefore a few more postal stations are needed, although the revenue is not as large as it is in Toronto.
As to the transfer of the building of post offices to the Postmaster General, I have no objection at all as long as I am Postmaster General. If I changed my position, I might not be in favour of the change. But up to this time it has been decided that the Department of Public Works is the department which is to take care of the construction of the buildings for every department.
As to what the hon. gentleman just asked me, I must say that altogether we have about
41,000	employees, including the rural mail contractors. We have over 25,000 employees who are civil servants. At headquarters in Ottawa we have 1,088 employees. At staff post offices we have 13,593, and in district offices, 522. In the railway mail services there are 1,191. Revenue postmasters, including sub and seasonal offices, 11,826. The mail service takes
Supply-Post Office

12,910. That makes a total of 41,130. The number of employees in large offices is as follows:
Toronto	 2,978
Montreal	 2,860
Winnipeg	 770
Vancouver	 966
Ottawa	 662


John Ritchie MacNicol: The last time these
estimates were dealt with I brought up the question of more comfortable quarters in the average branch post offices in Toronto. I am aware that some, such as the West Toronto post office, are splendid, and the department deserves praise for putting up a fine branch like that. But there are other offices with quite a number of postmen, perhaps forty, more or less, much of whose work is done down in the basement of the building they happen to be in, which probably was formerly a store. In the summer those quarters are not very comfortable; it gets very hot down there.
I should like to see the department try to bring about a uniform standard of comfort for the postmen throughout the city. That may be hard to do, but I hope some way will be found of doing it. We have a wonderful civil service in Canada, and of the whole service no part does a better job than the ordinary postman. No part of the service works harder than they do, though I am not finding fault with the other departments in that regard. The difference is that the postman is out in all sorts of weather, hot or raining or snowing, usually carrying a heavy load. So when he returns to his station he is entitled to a comfortable place to rest a while before starting for home. Very few of the branch post offices have such a convenience. They may have benches to sit on, but there is not much in the way of comfort or any amenities. I should like to see that situation improved.
On the last occasion I believe I brought up the question of the remuneration of the postmen, and I understand that has been attended to, that they are now getting better remuneration. But I understand that the foreman in the office; I forget what he is called-


Ernest Bertrand: The supervisor.


John Ritchie MacNicol: -the man who allocates and supervises the beats, and so on, who has a responsible job, was not advanced on the last occasion. Has he been advanced since then?


Ernest Bertrand: Yes, everyone has been advanced to the same extent as the other employees.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am glad to learn that; I know the minister is doing the best job he can. I think that pretty well covers the questions I wanted to ask. Personally I am proud of the whole postal service, particularly of the fine type of men employed, practically all of wThom are returned soldiers. It is seldom one hears of any malfeasance or theft or robbery, though they handle precious and valuable mail. To my mind the ordinary postman represents one class of civil servants who deserve unstinted credit.


Mr. TUSTIN:: I was pleased to hear the minister say a few moments ago that he had no objection to building post offices as long as he was Postmaster General. For quite some time I have been putting off a request, but possibly this is the proper time to make it to him and, through him, to the Minister of Public Works. In my constituency a post office was built many years ago.


Ernest Bertrand: That is in Picton, is it?


George James Tustin: Yes, in the town of Picton.


John Ritchie MacNicol: A beautiful town.


George James Tustin: One of the finest in Canada. This post office was built a good many years ago. Now, with the increased revenue the space has become too small for the increased work that has to be done. It is not only the work in connection with the town itself; there are ten rural mail routes running out of that post office. I would request the minister to make a survey, and if he can see his way clear to do so I would urge him to recommend to the Department of Public Works that a new post office be built in the town of Picton. If that is impossible I would suggest that at least the present building be considerably modernized.
While I am on my feet I should like to bring another matter to the attention of the Postmaster General. I refer to the employees in the post offices both in Picton and in Napanee, which town also I have the honour to represent. Those post offices are in a category which I believe includes very few others. The only member of the staff coming under the civil service is the postmaster himself. The remainder of the staff are placed there on a patronage basis, or some other basis. I am not complaining about that at all, but I say to the Postmaster General that these young men. most of whom are veterans, are not receiving wages that are nearly adequate for the work they have to do. As a matter of fact, in view of the present cost of living I do not know how they keen a home together and live.

I think that is something which should be considered at an early day. I am aware that some small consideration has been given them; but in my opinion if one man in a post office is under the civil service and eligible for superannuation and other benefits, all employees in that post office should be treated in the same way. I would urge the minister to consider seeing to it that all the employees in these post offices are brought within the civil service and given the same rights as are employed by those in other offices.


Frank Exton Lennard: First I should like to thank the department, through the minister, for instituting a postal delivery service in the fine little town of Dundas several months ago. In connection with the philatelic division, or whatever it is called, I should like to say a word on the issue of the Princess Elizabeth stamps. I have a letter which I have preserved for this purpose, and I quote from it:
[DOT]lust a note to say many thanks for the first day cover of the Princess Elizabeth stamp that I have received from you in Ottawa. I did get a couple of other covers but yours is the only one that is hand stamped'-
I may say it was hand stamped here in the House of Commons.
-which makes it more attractive. Ottawa ran all the covers through a cancelling machine with a worn slug in it and really made a mess of all the stamps.
I merely draw this to the attention of the department in a kindly way, as the Minister of Labour would say, so that when they send out first covers on another occasion and have them stamped in Ottawa they might bear this in mind and not have some old slug doing the job.


Ernest Bertrand: I received a letter from the hon. gentleman in this connection, and we have advised our employees to see that this does not happen again.


Mr. MENARY:: Some of the post offices in the rural districts of my riding are being closed, where there may be a mail route which will serve the people. Just last week representations were made to me in connection with another post office, which is some twelve miles out. These people do not want to lose their post office, because on the rural routes they have to wait outside if they want to get a postal note. We have a great deal of snow in our part of the country, and it is very cold waiting around for the mailman. I saw the department this week about this matter, and they told me nothing would be done, but I wonder if it could not be re-
Supply-Post Office
considered. This post office is about twelve miles from my home town and about twenty miles from the next town in the other direction. They would like very much to keep their post offices.
Then, I should like to join with the previous speaker in asking that these returned men employed by the Post Office Department be put under the civil service. If a returned boy works for the post office and is receiving only 51,200, $1,500 or something like that, he should be under the civil service. The postmaster is under the new system, but I should like to see the clerks in post offices placed in the same position as postmasters.


William Scottie Bryce: I wish to make my annual plea to the Postmaster General for better post office buildings in the constituency of Selkirk. We have one or two good post offices there, but many of the buildings are not satisfactory.
I am pleased to see the genial Minister of Public Works in his seat, because I am sure the Postmaster General will be telling me to see him.
I have had many representations from towns in my constituency which are growing by leaps and bounds. When one sees a post office in an old broken down building it gives the whole department a bad name. I do not want to get in wrong with any other ministers, but I believe the post office is one of the best departments we have, so far as giving service to the community is concerned. To do a proper job they should have good buildings- and I would ask the Minister of Public Works to listen to what I am saying.
We have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in many of our districts in the west. They have to have barracks and offices. It would be worth while to see one government building housing the post office and the mounted police. I do not know whether the minister has been to the town of Arborg, but if he has he will know it is a growing town. They have built a hospital for themselves, but the post office is a disgrace to the community.
What I have suggested is something which should be done. We should have better post offices for people to work in, buildings which would be a credit to the towns and the department. I have mentioned only one town; I could give the names of a dozen of them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have three or four matters I should like to take up .with the Postmaster General. The first is the question raised by the announcement made in the press, and I believe also in the house, to the effect that rural postmasters, or postmasters of small offices, were to be made civil servants. So far
Supply-Post Office

as I know, the necessary legislation has not gone through the house. Is it intended to introduce a bill this year, or is that to be done by order in council?


Ernest Bertrand: According to the rules, that is done by the Postmaster General himself. An explanation as to why it is done in that way would take some time, but I would point out that it has always been within the jurisdiction of the Postmaster General.
It is true, as the hon. member says, that a greater amount of post office revenue and a greater number of postmasters are being brought under the civil service, with fair salaries. In the meantime, in respect of post offices with revenue of over $3,000, we are now taking care of rentals ourselves to ensure that we have better places in which to install our post offices. Also, if help is required we see that the salaries of the helpers are fixed by and paid for by the department. The postmaster will have a fixed salary. Postmasters in post offices with revenue of more than $3,000 will, we hope, be eligible for superannuation, if they are not too old. In this way they become permanent employees.
We are working on this matter. A beginning has been made and we hope to be able to continue. It will be remembered, of course, that there are over 12,000 post offices in Canada, and it will take considerable time before we can establish this procedure at every point.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thank the Postmaster
General for his answer. Is it correct to say that the proposal to make postmasters civil servants applies only to those offices with revenues at the present time over $3,000 a year?


Ernest Bertrand: That is right. We cannot do it for very small post offices with revenues of only $300 or $400 a year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Was there a separate proposal, or is it part of the same proposal, to allow rural postmasters to contribute to and to come under the superannuation scheme?


Ernest Bertrand: It is just an experiment. We hope to do something for those who receive over $3,000. But of course we have to submit our plan first to treasury board.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was consulted some time ago with respect to a proposal concerning which I did not know the details and upon which, for that reason, I could not give

advice. The person who consulted me said he understood if he had been there a certain number of years, made a request and made certain contributions, he might come under the superannuation scheme, even though he would not be classed as a civil servant. Is that a separate scheme, or was he misinformed?


Ernest Bertrand: No specific decision has yet been made on that point. We know what we would like to do, but no specific decision has been made. I should not like to say anything until it has been decided upon by the proper officers.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May we expect in the near future to have a complete statement from the Postmaster General covering both schemes?


Ernest Bertrand: I think I shall be able to give it next session.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not before then?


Ernest Bertrand: We hope this session is not going to last very long.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask the minister some specific questions with regard to the mail service in my own riding. I do so because I have had correspondence with him. While I appreciate the points he has made in his replies, I have not obtained the results I had hoped to obtain. Perhaps he could outline the general provisions governing.
I should like first to refer to the mail service-to and from Blue River, British Columbia. This is a divisional point on the Canadian National Railways half way between Kamloops, British Columbia, and Edmonton, Alberta. They have a growing amount of correspondence with Edmonton, and yet they find that the mail between Blue River and Edmonton must go south to Kamloops, be transferred to the Canadian- Pacific, go east to Calgary, be transferred at Calgary, and go north to Edmonton. This is a matter of some-650 miles, instead of going north from Blue River to Edmonton, a matter of about 300 miles. The answer given by the Postmaster General is that there are no mail clerks on the Canadian National Railways train.
Then they find that the same situation applies between Blue River and Vancouver. The mail to Vancouver goes to Kamloops by the Canadian National, the only railway serving that district; then it is transferred at Kamloops to the Canadian Pacific, and transhipped to Vancouver.
In both cases I have had instances cited to me of mail taking about five days to reach Vancouver or Edmonton by these roundabout routes, whereas the train itself requires only1

Supply-Post Office
fourteen hours to Vancouver and ten hours or less to Edmonton. The answer I have from the Post Office Department is that it is cheaper to do it in that way; that is, to tranship it to the Canadian Pacific rather than send it direct on the Canadian National. I cannot understand how it would not be more expensive to tranship it, recheck the letters from the bags, and send them from one railway to another. The money they save by not having a mail clerk on the Canadian National would be more than the $3,000 which they say they are saving now by having a mail clerk on the Canadian Pacific.


Ernest Bertrand: We are still in correspondence about this problem, and we have not got an answer to our last inquiries, because of flood conditions in that part of the country. To be frank, I would not be able to give all the particulars here, because we have so many of these problems and cannot learn the details by heart but must have the files before us. I will take note of what the hon. gentleman has asked and will take the liberty of writing him and explaining at full length.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to hear the minister say that, because, from the correspondence we had, I was under the impression that the minister's last decision was final and that a change could not be made. I take it that the matter is still under consideration?


Ernest Bertrand: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am grateful for that assurance.


Mr. WINTERS:: So that the .minister will not think there is no support on this side of the house for the point raised by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox, and reiterated by others, I feel that the assistant postmasters particularly should be made eligible for civil service benefits. I have had considerable correspondence about this matter; I must say that the minister has been most receptive, and I w'ish to thank him for his attitude. The present status of my correspondence is that, unless the revenue at a post office is $30,000 or more, the assistant postmaster will not be eligible to qualify for civil service status; and, even where the revenue is in excess of $30,000, he cannot qualify at present, although I understand that something to that end is being undertaken. I think $30,000 is too high a figure. If an assistant postmaster is necessary he should be given the privilege of qualifying for the same civil service benefits as the postmaster. The assistant postmaster in offices of the size under discussion receives a relatively small salary and is not entitled to pension or
superannuation benefits of any kind. I should like to see the minister go as far as the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox urged, and embrace all the employees, but at the moment I am appealing for consideration for the assistant postmaster. I ask the minister if he will not consider this matter further with a view to going below the $30,000 line he has apparently drawn, so that where an assistant postmaster is necessary he may be allowed to qualify for civil service status.


Ernest Bertrand: Yes.


Mr. JAQUES:: I have a copy of a letter from the board of trade of Leduc in my riding concerning the post office at Leduc. They say:
Dear Sir:
The Leduc board of trade after a thorough discussion as to the needs of a larger and better post office for the town of Leduc instructed me to write you about this matter. I realize, of course, that you are fully cognizant of the situation in our town and it would avail little my dwelling upon the needs.
However, to draw this matter to your attention for your further investigation I might mention that Leduc is a growing town due to the discoveries of oil in its vicinity. The population is growing rapidly and the old post office, which is a corner of the E & S store, has been hardly large enough in the past to accommodate Leduc and its large rural mail deliveries, let alone taking care of its booming requirements.
I earnestly appeal to you that you may take into your immediate plans the urgent needs of Leduc for better and larger postal facilities.
Thanking you for your valuable time, I am, Yours truly,
R. MacLaren,
Secretary-treasurer.
I can say from my own knowledge that this post office is entirely inadequate for the postal needs of the people of Leduc and the surrounding country. It is true that, owing to oil developments, the town is crowded and a great many new people have come into it. Most certainly they are in need of larger and better postal facilities. I understand that the minister has received a copy of this letter. Can he hold out any hope that he will take action in regard to the post office at Leduc?


Ernest Bertrand: I can quite understand that in a place like Leduc, because of the development that is going on there, the need for postal service is increasing rapidly. For six or seven years we have not been building any post offices because of the war and post-war conditions, but we hope to be able to catch up very soon with the time lost. I know about the situation in Leduc, and we hope to be able to do something there, if not this year, at least next year.
Supply-Post Office


Mr. CARDIFF:: From time to time I have had requests for extensions of rural mail routes in my riding. I go to the Post Office Department with these representations and receive a courteous hearing, but nothing is done about the matter. I am very glad to learn tonight that the Post Office Department is in such a healthy financial condition, because it means that one of two things must be done; either the service must be extended, or the cost of the service must be reduced. Would the minister state whether there is any intention of extending rural routes, short spurs and that sort of thing, at this time?


Ernest Bertrand: A question
asked about one particular place is pretty difficult to answer without our having the files before us; but I can state, as a matter of principle, that we are going to extend the rural routes in different places where they should be extended, according to the regulations of the Post Office Department. For some time we have not been making extensions, and when I recently announced the all-up service by plane, I stated at the same time that we would be ready to establish and extend more rural routes.


Frank Exton Lennard: I want to make an appeal to the Postmaster General which has been made before, namely, that he consider reducing the postage on overseas relief parcels. I have been under the impression during the past several sessions that the major portion of that charge was for conveyance of the parcels overseas. In a recent letter from the department I was instructed that twenty-five per cent of the nominal $2.50 was charged on a regular overseas relief parcel for ocean conveyance; the rest is for transportation in Canada. I feel that the Canadian postal department could very well consider reducing that amount. If only twenty-five per cent is being used for overseas transportation then the remainder, seventy-five per cent, of the $2.50, could very well be reduced. Like one other hon. member who spoke a few moments ago, I am speaking for myself on this matter. I send parcels overseas and I want some relief. This is a matter that the Postmaster General should seriously consider, and reduce the postage on the overseas relief parcels.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether the minister would make some further comment about letter carriers and other post office employees. I have been interested in listening to the remarks about service in rural

areas, but I should like to direct his attention for a moment to the conditions of those who work in urban areas. The minister may recall that I had some correspondence with him on behalf of employees in Winnipeg who are concerned about the inadequacy of the pay increases which they received recently, and are also concerned about the classifications of letter carriers, porters, sorters and so on.
In addition, I have before me a letter which happens to be addressed to the leader of this group. It comes from one of the associations in Vancouver, expressing the same concern principally about the salary increases that were given recently when other civil service increases were announced. This letter points out, as employees of the Post Office Department in Winnipeg have pointed out to me, that in some cases these increases, long awaited, long anticipated, amounted to only $3 a month. The suggestion is that letter carriers, for example, surely should be getting for the service that they perform more than the $1,800, which is the amount that some of them receive now; it should be $2,400.
I would appreciate it if the Postmaster General would comment on this whole question of wage conditions and classification of urban post office employees. If it means that representations have to be made to the civil service commission I hope the minister will tell us that he is making these representations just as forcefully as we make them to him.


Ernest Bertrand: I desire to answer the hon. gentleman's question about the letter carriers. The increase which has been given to all the employees is exactly the same, $660 a year since 1939. The reason why letter carriers have not received in the last increase as much as the postal clerks, for example, is that at a certain time a high cost of living bonus was given. The amount of high cost of living bonus which was given was larger for the lower paid employees than for the higher paid. Later on, these bonuses were merged with the salaries, and the differential that existed in 1939 between the postal clerks and the letter carriers was not the same as it was before. There is a certain differential between the postal clerks and the letter carriers which has always existed. When we gave the last increase to the employees we took into consideration the fact that at a certain time between 1939 and today the letter carriers had received, through a high cost of living bonus, more than postal clerks, and this was readjusted. The letter carriers have

Supply-Post Office
contended that the increase was not large enough; but the letters which were received were not complete, because we were accused of giving an increase of only $36 to the letter carriers, while others received, let us say, about $120, if I am not mistaken. But if we took into account all the increases since 1939 it would amount to the same, $660 for everyone of them. We put the facts as they should have been put, and the letter carriers have had to admit that it was just. The letter carriers who were in the maximum bracket received only $36, because they had received a larger bonus than the postal clerks, but the readjustment at the end was $660 for every employee.
By the way I may say it is $180 more for the employees of the post office than for the employees of other departments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the Postmaster
General give the present schedule of the letter carriers, minimum, intermediate and maximum rates?


Thomas Langton Church: Someone took the floor from me before I had concluded what I had to say. I thought the minister was going to reply to part of what I had to say. I wish to point out to him that the revenues of our city are over $15,000,000. I want to find out what the government is going to do about giving us better facilities in the Post Office Department, a great public utility. Compare your post office, that great utility, in terminal A w7ith the following public utilities: the Bell Telephone Company, the Consumers Gas Company, the Hydro Electric, Eaton's, Simpson's and all these other places where they have modem buildings. We have made no progress since confederation. At the head of Toronto street, on Adelaide street there is an old post office, one of the first buildings erected after confederation in that part of the city. I would not call it a post office. I should like to find out what the plan is for the Toronto district, because with a $15,000,000 revenue you are spending hardly any of it there. What is the program for Toronto? We have terminals A, B, C, D, and all down through the alphabet in the city. I wish to know what they are going to do. They said that they would have at the back of the Toronto post office on Lombard street, Church street, Adelaide street and Victoria street a big public square and dominion building. It cannot be done now. I do not expect that. I do expect to have some place where they can sell postage stamps. The staff are magnificent. They work under poor labour conditions. The minister has done a great
deal to improve it. I have said that. He has given holidays, improved labour conditions, and has done things like that.
Another matter I wish to mention is the difficulty of getting postage stamps. With that large revenue, I see no reason why the practice followed in the United States, where they sell postage stamps in the railway trains, could not be followed here. You get off the train coming from Toronto to Ottawa and you cannot buy a stamp at any station. During the time that the troops were demobilized in Halifax and were taken across the country, they had a great deal of difficulty. The civilian population should not have to put up with that in times like these. You cannot buy a postage stamp on the train; you cannot buy one in any railway station in Canada.
Another thing I should like to mention is the airmail service. The average letter dropped in the mailbox goes almost as quickly as an airmail letter out of Ottawa and other places. With regard to the staff in the post office, are the returned men getting the preference in these positions? Will these men get their old positions now that they have come back? In both the first and the second world war the Post Office Department contributed a larger number of men to the service than other public utilities and corporations. These men have to make out application forms, and the wages are not what they should be. It is true they have been increased, but the men have to go to 465 Bay street, where the civil service commission has a finger in the pie, and by the time the soldier gets through running around he is tired of trying to find someone who will give him some information.
One important question I wish to bring once more to the attention of the minister is the fate of the man who happens to steal thirty cents or fifty cents from the post office. The penalty is altogether too severe. We got it reduced from a three-year term after a ten-year fight here. It used to be three years, without any discretion on the part of the magistrate. For a petty offence the employee would be sent to prison and his wife and family would suffer in consequence. I fail to see why these women and their children should suffer when the breadwinner is sent away for three years, now a year in some cases by amendments to the criminal code. I suggest that proper arrangements should be made with the provinces to take care of the prisoner in some better provincial jail, and of the sufferers, the wife and family of any man who is convicted on such a charge.
47S0
Supply-Post Office

Moreover, is it British justice to maintain a spy decoy system whereby someone keeps a watch on a man and slips a decoy into his pocket? Is that a Christian principle for our Post Office Department to adopt? I say no, emphatically. It should have been abolished long ago, and I regret to see indications of this sort of thing in our police courts. Such evidence should be ruled out.
We want a more up-to-date act. We are not back in 1867. We want a British North America Act not for the dead but for the living. The Post Office Act was, until about three years ago, almost an exact copy of that of 1868. I do not think it is at all just to sentence a man to one year imprisonment now for a minor offence and have his wife and children thrown upon the municipality. I repeat, there should be some reform in this direction, and a satisfactory arrangement should be made with the provinces as to a proper place for detention.
There are many other matters that I should like to touch upon, but I have not the time tonight to deal with them. Among these I might mention money order transactions, the line-up at the post office, the length of time it takes to get service, the Canadian parcel post and so forth. Then there is the question of the post office savings bank. That used to be an important function and, with the penny bank being abolished, I hope this particular service will be improved. I would also point out the delay in collecting airmail from the boxes. In some of the post offices there are special receptacles for airmail letters. I hope there will be an improvement in the mail boxes. There is also the question of inspection service. As far as that is concerned, the sooner we abolish the notorious system, which is worthy of Hitler, of trying to induce someone to steal a letter and then penalizing him, the better.
There is also the equipment supply branch to be considered. I suggest that we need a house-cleaning in the city of Toronto, whose contribution, as I have pointed out before, amounts to $15,000,000.
Lastly, I would urge upon the minister that everything possible be done to improve the conditions in the Post Office Department in so far as they affect the returned man. He does not get his job back from the post office, notwithstanding that a law was passed, which was enforced by the deputy minister of labour, calling upon large corporations to give returned soldiers the identical jobs they had before they joined up, or some other occupation suitable to them. That has not been carried out so far as the Post Office

Department is concerned. Promotions should also be looked into for the returned1 men. I do not think the civil service commission knows much about it. The Post Office Department is one public utility which the Canadian people support and everyone likes to see the postman making his rounds. The children like to see him. I trust, therefore, that improvements will be made in the various directions I have suggested.


Frank Exton Lennard: The Postmaster General was about to give me a partial answer to my question regarding overseas parcels when some energetic member jumped up and prevented it. Can he give the answer now?


Ernest Bertrand: First, in regard to the postal clerk, the maximum is $2,400, and in the case of the letter carrier the maximum is $2,160. The letter carrier's salary of $2,124 was increased by $36 only, but this $36 makes up what the postal clerk received before.
As to parcel gifts, I might take as an example a parcel of fifteen pounds. The handling at the office of origin costs ten cents; the handling at the exchange office, five cents; land transportation in Canada, sixty cents; Atlantic sea transport, ninety cents; British cost, fifty-one cents. We may receive a parcel of that size in Vancouver and we put it on the sea transport for eighty cents. It costs ninety cents on the vessel and fifty-one cents for delivery of the parcel in Britain, where distances are never as long as they are here. We have to prepay all this, because we have to account to Britain for the fifty-one cents. Of course we have to pay the ship ninety cents.
This question came up quite often during the war and it has arisen ever since, but when we compare what we are receiving with what Britain receives, I do not think we can reduce our receipts for this service in comparison with what Britain receives for the service rendered there. It would be really another gift we would be making in addition to the gifts our citizens are sending to their friends in England, because it amounts to only a small part of our total receipts. For one pound we receive 5, 3, 5, plus 8, or 21 cents; 8 cents of the 21 cents is for transport on the ship, and Britain takes 17 cents per pound parcel. Altogether it is 38 cents. What we charge is only 21 cents, and to reduce that would be simply to make a gift, since we are charging just what it costs us without making half a cent profit.


Frank Exton Lennard: The Postmaster Genera! mentioned a fifteen-pound parcel. I understand that the weight of gift parcels is twenty pounds.

Supply-Post Office


Ernest Bertrand: I took the figure "15" because that appears on. the table I have.


Frank Exton Lennard: Were those figures which the minister gave for a twenty-pound parcel?


Ernest Bertrand: I have not the twenty-pound parcel figures here. My tabulation stops at fifteen.


Frank Exton Lennard: What prompted my bringing up this matter tonight was the letter I had from the Postmaster General's office, signed by the Postmaster General himself, in which I was informed, as I stated previously, that twenty-five per cent additional of the postage is paid for the conveyance of the parcel across the Atlantic. I thought that was a small percentage of the whole, and I felt we should probably reduce it to some extent to give relief to the people who were sending parcels to relatives overseas. If the figures the Postmaster General gave me a few minutes ago are on a twenty-pound parcel, they add up- and I have added them up roughly-to $2.16, which is not $2.50.


Ernest Bertrand: The $2.16 applied to the fifteen pounds, and we charge only $2 for that.


Mr. BURTON:: I have a question or two I should like to ask, and this is about the only item I can see under which I can properly ask them. Who was responsible for imposing that nuisance tax on the people who make use of post office savings accounts? Some months ago they found themselves confronted with this nuisance tax when they make a withdrawal. I should like to know who was responsible for imposing that tax and what was the reason for it. In withdrawing money from the post office savings account, it is not a matter of issuing cheques on a bank account; because one must appear in person, make his application and withdraw the money there at the post office. He has not the privilege of issuing a cheque against the account, as can be done with a savings account or any other account with a bank. From what I can see, this is only a nuisance, and I should like to know the reason why it was imposed on the people.


Ernest Bertrand: The savings account branch we have in the postal service is not meant to be a bank in the usual sense in which we use the bank here in Canada. If you withdraw money from that by cheque, you pay three cents or six cents, according to the amount of your withdrawal, as you would on any other bank account.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: What is the rate?


Ernest Bertrand: The rate is three cents, the same as at any other bank. It is three cents on anything up to $100 and six cents on anything over $100.


Charles Edward Johnston: When was that impost put on, or has it always been there?


Ernest Bertrand: I am informed that this was put on a few months ago. But it is the amount that is being charged by any other bank in Canada for the withdrawal of money by cheque.


Joseph William Burton: I believe it is more than a few months ago. It must be at least half a year, if not more. But what the minister says is only a partial answer to the questions I asked. In the first place, his answer shows that it is only a nuisance tax. The revenue that it brings in does not amount to anything. As to comparing withdrawing money from the post office with withdrawing money from any other institution that you have money in, you are not in the same position with the post office savings account, because with any other bank account you can issue cheques against it. I have no objection to placing my stamp on any of those cheques. But when the individual must appear in person before the wicket, make out an application for a 850 or $100 withdrawal, and then is subject to this nuisance tax, he must fish around to find three cents to pay that little tax. It is not that it brings in any revenue; and it only results in a nuisance for the post office employees when they are making out the application for withdrawal and in their accounting with regard to the moneys handled in the branch.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: My plea is for the old fellows in the post office. During the war, as we know, when the soldiers were overseas the older men were brought into the post office and were told that their jobs were simply temporary, that they would have to make way for the returned men when they came back. When the returned men came back, according to my experience, they were given back their jobs, which is only proper and fair. But the old chaps, most of whom were experienced clerks in the urban centres, were kept on for a time. Then, after a while their employment came down to, we will say, four days a week. Latterly they have been getting probably three days a week. Then they have been cut down to four or five hours a day in the city. These men held the fort for us pretty well during the war days. They are mostly men over sixty years of age. They cannot find
Supply-Post Office

employment anywhere else. They are doing a good job in the post office. They are efficient.
My plea to the Postmaster General is that he direct the postmasters in the urban centres such as Toronto to do what they can to keep these men in employment. The post office is doing fairly well financially. We do not want the post office ever to make so much money that we shall have to take money away from it and use it for some other purpose. I would ask the minister that he direct the postmaster in Toronto, where we have a great many of these men-and they have been efficient clerks during the war and since-to give them something more in the way of employment.
One more thing. In Toronto we have a most disgraceful main post office. It is really just a barracks. This does not come exactly in the department of the minister. He does not construct the buildings; nevertheless, he does make recommendations. Our post office may be in the wrong place. At any rate, I worked there as a boy, when I was going to university, and that is a long while ago. It was pretty much a derelict building even in those days. I am hoping that the minister will not wait until some more Liberal members come from the city of Toronto before he gives us a new post office, because that may be a long time.
Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier); We never have those ideas in the department.
Mr. TIMMINS; No, I know the postmaster has not. But then, of course, he is only one in the cabinet. He cannot have it all his own way. I hope that this year, now that we have expanding revenues, he will tell the cabinet members, the men on the executive council, that we should like to have a new post office in Toronto, and that we should like it to be number one on the list.


Mr. BENTLEY:: I wish to bring up a matter to which I think the minister should give serious attention. Last Christmas at Maple Creek a person was engaged to assist in the Christmas rush. The postmistress there was convicted in a Saskatchewan court of paying less than the minimum wage under the laws of Saskatchewan. The matter was finally brought to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the federal government counsel argued that both employer and employee were in the postal service of Canada, under the jurisdiction of parliament, and that therefore the provincial legislation did not apply to them.
I do not intend to quarrel with the actions of the courts; it is their business to discover what the law is and to apply it. I presume the Supreme Court of Canada was correct in its

finding; and the point is that if it was correct something is radically wrong with the administration of any government department that refuses to pay an employee $18.50 a week in this day and age.
The laws of Saskatchewan were made for the benefit of the people of that province by the government duly elected; and if the federal government is not prepared to permit these people to come under the wage laws of that province, then the federal government should see to it that they are paid proper wages, in line with the minimum wages of that or any other province having minimum wage legislation. That amount is certainly not exorbitant.
As I say, I am not trying to blame the postmistress. It was up to her to get the job done, and she was not going to spend any more money than was permissible. But when the court finds that both she and the temporary employees come under the Post Office department-and that is the finding-then the federal department and the administration are responsible for seeing to it that their employees get at least the minimum wage for the work they do.


Ernest Bertrand: As I explained a few moments ago, we have changed the rules. In the revenue post offices today we pay the postmasters fixed salaries, which will entitle them to superannuation, and so forth. The postmaster formerly paid these employees himself, out of his revenue, and at times we found that he was not very generous with them. Since April 1, however, we have changed that procedure, and that was one reason we did so, in order to see to it that the employees are paid reasonable salaries. We also see that the post office is located according to our specifications, so that these postmasters will not gyp us, if that word may be used, in regard to the location. We are going to see that the smaller post offices are located in better quarters.	.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: 
Ernest Bertrand: The amount is high enough, indeed; but if the hon. gentleman would take into consideration the fact that during the Christmas season, in Toronto, for example, we have to obtain over seven thousand temporary employees, and in Montreal around six thousand temporary employees, he would see the reason for it. In every city we require temporary employees at that time of year, some of whom may work for a month and others for shorter periods. To have all those names appear in the estimates would enlarge the book considerably; but all those expenditures are audited. It covers employees who may work for two or four or five days, while others may work for a week or more. If the hon. gentleman emphasized the point I might be able to bring in a list of these employees, but it would be a difficult return to prepare. I do not think that expenditure can be treated in any other way.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: That is a satisfactory answer. Never before have we been given any idea of the extent of this temporary employment. Now the Postmaster General has given us some idea, which is quite satisfactory to me.


Ernest Bertrand: In all the city offices we require over 25,000 temporary employees.


Mrs. STRUM:: How do you determine the yearly income of postmasters in small villages? Some of them, I understand from some of my constituents who work in these places, must be there all day because of the hours, and they cannot undertake other work. They tell me they can hardly live. Is there any way of putting a floor under the income of these people, or how do you determine what their living will be?
Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier); We have small offices where the revenue is below $100 a year. In those offices the postmaster has the privilege of doing something else. He is generally a restaurant keeper or a storekeeper, and he keeps the post office in his store. But even if a postmaster has a revenue of only $12 or $13 or $15 we pay him a minimum of $120. A postmaster in a very small village who also keeps a store, in which the post office occupies a small booth, receives at least $120, though the revenue may be only $25 a year.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I am thinking of the man in a place where there are three other stores, who has not the capital to open a store of his own, where there is not room for another grocery store, but who must keep his post office open all day, six days a week. Is there any way of determining what he will live on? How can he go out and work as a carpenter if he has to stay in the post office?


Ernest Bertrand: He must not take a job as postmaster unless that is to be simply a by-product, if I may call it, of what he is going to earn. It must be a man or woman who can keep a little post office in the house or in the store. If he is a carpenter he had better not also be the postmaster.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Edmund Davie Fulton: What is the business for tomorrow?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: We shall go into supply of the Post Office Department, hoping that we may make a little more progress; and then trade and commerce, reconstruction and supply, justice, Secretary of State and public works.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
[Stage Direction]
.
[Stage Direction]
		:*
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		'
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		*
[Stage Direction]


47S5
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 4, 1948