1948-03-18

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Supplemental Payments Act to provide that no supplemental payments shall be authorized under the act after the thirty-first day of March, 1949.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the documents tabled on March 10, 1948, relating to the inquiry made pursuant to order in council P.'C. 1160, of February 12, 1942, into the dispatch of the Canadian expeditionary force to the crown colony of Hong Kong, be referred to the joint committee on printing for report under standing order 04.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. FULTON:: 1.	(a) What is the strength presently authorized of the active reserve of the Canadian army? Have there been any amendments or regulations changing this and if so, what is the effect of such amendments? (b) What is the present actual strength of the active reserve of the Canadian army?
2.	What is the composition of the active reserve of the Canadian army by units or part units (giving names) ?
3.	Into what formations are these units or part units organized, giving names (brigades, brigade groups, etc.) ?
4.	What is the authorized strength of each unit or part unit as above?
5.	What is the actual number presently on strength of each unit or part unit as above?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The hon. member has agreed to drop parts 2, 4 and 5 of this question; parts 1 and 3 are answered.
1.	(a) 187,865, subject to the total actual strength not exceeding 90,000 for the present; (b) 28,743.
3.	1st infantry division; 3rd infantry division; 4th infantry division; 5th infantry division; 2nd armoured division; 6th armoured division; 20th armoured brigade; 21st armoured brigade; 5th infantry brigade; 6th infantry brigade; 17th infantry brigade; 18th infantry brigade; 1st corps troops; 2nd corps troops. Selected army and home defence troops grouped under the heading "Ancillary Troops".
2,	4 and 5. Dropped.


NEWFOUNDLAND-QUESTION OF ENTRY INTO CONFEDERATION
Mr. CHURCH:: Has the government any further information to give the house on the proposed agreement for the entry of Newfoundland into confederation?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The hon. member will find a full answer to this question in the papers I tabled on March 11, and in the declaration made by the Prime Minister on the same day, which is reported at pages 2095 and 2096 of Hansard.


WHEAT BOARD-EMPLOYEES
Mr. MILLER:: 1.	What is the number of employees (including members of the board) of the Canadian Wheat board as at December 31, 1947?
2.	Is the consolidated revenue charged with payment of the salaries or wages of (a) the board; (b) the board's employees?
3.	If not, out of what fund are the same paid?
4.	How many employees of the wheat board
(including the members of the board) were, as at December 31, 1947, in each of the following wage or salary classes (a) $1,000' to $2,000 peT
2328
Questions

annum; (b) $2,000 to $3,000 per annum; (c) $3,000 to $4,000 per annum; (d) $4,000 to $5,000 per annum; (e) $5,000 to $6,000 per annum; (f) $6,000 to $7,000 per annum; (g) $7,000 to $8,000 per annum; (h) $8,000 to $9,000 per annum; (i) $0,000 to $10,000 per annum; (j) $10,000 to $15,000 per annum; (k) $15,000 and over?
5.	How many part-time employees did the Canadian wheat board employ during the year 1947, and at what remunerations?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	676.
2.	(a) No. (b) The Department of Trade and Commerce is charged with one-half salary and living allowance of Mr. C. C. Boxer, Washington Representative of the Canadian Wheat Board, through the Department of Trade and Commerce estimates.
3.	Salaries of the board and its employees are part of the operating expenses of the board. If the board operations result in a surplus, salaries are paid by the producers, but if board operations result in a deficit the salaries would be be paid by the dominion
government.
4. Under $1,000 per annum	 103
1(a) $1,000 to $2,000 per annum .... 388 '(b) 2,000 to 3,000 per annum	 122
(c)	3,000	to	4,000 per	annum	
26(d)	4,000	to	5,000 per	annum	
6'(e)' 5,000	to	6,000 per	annum	
7(f)	6,000	to	7,000 per	annum	
2(g) 7,000 to 8,000 per annum	
7(h) 8,000 to 9,000 per anum	
2(i)	9,000 to 10,000 per annum	
1>Cj>
10,000 to 15,000 per annum	11(k) 15,000 and over	
1
5. 28 part-time employees at the under-noted
remunerations:
$ 660 per	annum	
2780 per	annum	
2840 per	annum	
2900 per	annum	
4960 per	annum	
31,080 per	annum	
81,140 per	annum	
21,320 per	annum	
11,380 per	annum	
31,560 per	annum	
1


WARTIME HOUSING-EAST YORK TOWNSHIP
Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	Does the -amount of $6,338.91, as shown in sessional paper 38P of July 9, 1947 (question 10), include the cost of services from street

line to house for water, sewer and sidewalk for all of the 197 houses built in East York township, county of York, by Wartime Housing Limited?
2.	Whait money has been spent on this project since July 9, 1947?
3.	What is the present administrative cost per month on this project?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	No. In addition to the $16,388.91* there have been additional expenditures of $2,558.58 on account of these items bringing the total cost for all 197 houses to $18,947.49.
2.	$24,847.20 made up as follows:
Sewer and water services, etc., as
above answer to question No. 1.. $ 2,558 58
Grading and landscaping	
7,531	34Building contract	
14,757	28Total	$24,847	203.	This is one of several projects administered by the Toronto district rental office of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. No separate cost accounting system is maintained with respect to administrative costs of individual projects under any one rental office. *See supplementary return, sessional paper 98C of March 9, 1948. This amount should read $16,388.91, instead of $6,388.91.


POSTAL SERVICE-LOSS IN HANDLING NEWSPAPERS
Mr. NICHOLSON:: What has been the estimiaited loss for each of the past five years sustained by the Post Office Department as a result of handling newspapers?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: It is not possible to give the estimated loss for each year as during the war years statistics were not taken which would provide the information desired. Based1 on cost ascertainment figures for the fiscal year ended 31st March 1947, however, it is estimated that the loss sustained by the post office department in handling newspapers and' periodicals mailed by publishers is approximately $7,200,000 per annum.


WARTIME HOUSING
Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	How many houses have been constructed by Wartime Housing Limited to December 31, 1947?
2.	Of these how many -are (a) four -rooms;
(b)	five rooms; (e) six rooms; (d) more than
six rooms?
3.	What was the total cost of all these houses?
4.	What was the -average overall cost of the (a) four-room houses; (b) five-room houses;
(c)	six-room houses; (d) more than six-room houses?
5.	Did the average overall cost of these houses include the cost of administration?

Questions
6.	Whiat was the total cost of the administration of Wartime Housing Limited including *architects' fees, to December 31, 1947?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Number of houses built by Wartime Housing Limited to 31st December, 1947, is 30,841. Houses purchased in the process of land acquisition and which were remodelled for occupancy, 294.
At December 31, 1947, there are under construction or under contract but not completed, 5,354.
2.	Of these 30,841 houses completed as of
December 31, 1947
(a)	four-room houses	17,116(b)	five-room houses	
6,370(c)	six-room houses	
7,340(d)	over six-room houses	
nil
special types built for veterans
under special contracts		15
Total	30,841
3.	Total cost of all houses completed and under construction to 31st December, 1947, is 8123,055,595.49.
4.	As. building costs vary considerably in different localities and from year to year, no records have been maintained as to average costs of any type of house. Definite costs can be established for any type of house, at any location.
5.	If available, average over-all cost would only include charges strictly applicable to construction.
6.	The administration of Wartime Housing Limited ceased as at 31st December, 1946. On January 2, 1947, the administration passed to the management of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
At 31st December, 1946, the total cost of administration of all wartime housing properties including operation of houses, staff houses and commissionaries, maintenance, community service, head office expenses, architects' fees, legal expenses and all other expenses was $20,640,569.15.


SUGAR BEETS-PRICE TO CANADIAN PRODUCER
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Why dines the Canadian sugar beet producer not receive a price equal to that paid on purchases made by the government sugar agency to cane growers in British West Indies, Cuba, Fiji and Santo Domingo?


Mr. BELZILE:: The British Ministry of Food acts as agent for the Canadian sugar administration in purchases of cane sugar from abroad. These purchases are made from time to time, in consultation with the Canadian 5849-149J
authority, whenever, in the judgment of the buyer, prices are considered to be favourable. While the laid down cost of supplies for delivery in 1948 cannot yet be determined, depending as it does upon such variable factors as shipping costs, the average may exceed the existing ceiling price by a small amount. Since these purchases were made, however, the price of sugar on world markets has declined so that the Canadian ceiling does not depress domestic prices below the prices at which cane sugar could be laid down in Canada at the present time.


POST OFFICE BUILDINGS
Mr. BOIVIN:: 1.	Has the government of Canada built any new' post offices since 1949 ?
2.	Has the said government made any additions to existing post offices?
3.	If so, in what localities?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1,	2 and 3.
New post office buildings built since 1940. Year	Place
1941 Toronto, Ont., temporary building.
1943	Dawson Creek, B.C., temporary building.
1944	Halifax, N.S., temporary building for fleet mail offices.
Additions made to existing post office buildings since 1940.
1943 Shelburne, N.S.
1943 Ottawa, Ont., Temporary addition to Postal Terminal.
1943 Grande Prairie, Alta.
1946 Montreal, P.Q., Postal Station "S".
1946 Lethbridge, Alta.
1946 Woodstock, Ont.
1946 Sarnia, Ont.
1946 Valleyfield, P.Q.
1946	Leamington, Ont.
1947	Hull, P.Q.
1947 Toronto, Ont., City Delivery Building- Not yet completed.
1947 North Battleford, Sask.
1947 Kamloops, B.C.-Not yet completed. 1947 La Tuque, P.Q.
1947 St. Joseph d'Alma, P.Q.
1947 Lac Megantic, P.Q.-Not yet completed. 1947 St. Boniface, Man.-Not yet completed.


R.C.A.F.-AUTHORIZED AND ACTUAL STRENGTH- AIRFIELDS
Mr. McKAY:: 1.	What is the (a) authorized strength; (b) actual strength, of the Royal Canadian Air Force?
2.	How many airfields are being operated by the K.C.A.F. in Canada at present?
Questions

3.	How many of the present strength of the R.C.A.F. is (a) flying personnel? (b) ground staff?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	(a) 18,221, subject to the total actual strength not exceeding 14,191 for the present.
(b) 11,878, as of March 1, 1948.
2.	31.
3.	(a)	1,282, not including armament,
photography and aircraft maintenance personnel who may be called upon to fly as crew members.
(b) 10,596 as of 1st March, 1948.


FILM BOARD-CIRCUITS-FILM DISTRIBUTION
Mrs. STRUM:: 1.	How many national film board circuits in each province of Canada were financed (a) entirely by the national film board; (b) jointly by the national film board and the province or independent agency; (c) entirely by the province or an independent agency, at the close of the calendar years 1946 and 1947?
2.	Wh-at were the titles and subject matter of the ten films most widely circulated through national film board distribution channels during the period January 1, 1947 to December 31, 1947 and how large an audience did they reach?


Mr. WINTERS:: 1.	(a) Entirely NFB	
	Dec. 31/46	Dec. 31/47
British Columbia	.. 7	8Alberta 	... 6	6Saskatchewan ..	... 9	5Manitoba 	... 7	6Ontario 	... 13	11Quebec 	... 14	9New Brunswick	.. 5	5Nova Scotia 	... 5	6Prince Edward	Is. 1	,167	572.	The ten films most widely circulated through National Film Board non-theatrical distribution channels:
Title *- Subject Matter *- Audience Reached
House I Live In, racial tolerance, 235,173.
White Safari, the Exercise Musk-Ox expedition across the Canadian Arctic, 204,260.
Wind from the West, life in Northern Sweden, 188,340.
Listen to the Prairies, the Manitoba music festival and its place in community cultural life, 182,180.
New North, the Alaska highway and its potentialities for opening Canada's rich northwest, 178,728.
Vegetable Insects, the commoner varieties of garden pests, the damage they do, and measures of control, 172,095.
Life on the Western Marshes, conservation projects to save ducks, geese and other wildlife oni the marshes of western Canada, 171,113.
Search Unending, the story of how new oil deposits are discovered and developed in Canada, 162,839.
Bronco Busters, the wild horses of Alberta, and the Calgary stampede, 161,487.

(b) Joint	(c) Independent
(Estimated)
. 31/46	Dec. 31/47	Dec. 31/46	Dec. 31/473	4	1	24	4	16	213	3	18	183	0	0	023	21	2	61	1	2	140	4	0	00	1	0	00	1	0	037	39	39	61
West Wind, the beauties of the Canadian, wild as seen through the eyes of Tom Thomson, famous Canadian artist of the original group of seven, 149,234.
Theatrical Distribution: The ten films most widely exhibited in Canadian theatres during 1947. The estimated audiences averaged 1,225,000 per film.
Ski Skill, demonstration of skiing techniques by an expert.
Montreal by Night, interpretation of Montreal as a distinctive bilingual metropolis.
One World or None, sets forth basic facts concerning atomic energy and importance of way in which united nations deal with it.
R.C.M.P. file 1365, criminal investigation methods of R.C.M.P. shown through the dramatization of an actual murder case.
River Watch, how the St. Lawrence river is kept open, for safe navigation.
What's on Your Mind, today's mental health problems and progress made by Canadian scientists in their treatment.
Tomorrow's Citizens, discusses the education of today's children in the light of problems created by the atomic age.

Questions
Mexico Today, interprets modern Mexico for Canadians and indicates Mexican-Canadian trade relations.
Challenge of Housing, surveys present day housing problems and the attempts being made in various countries to solve them.
Careers and Cradles, pictures women's struggle for equality since suffragette days and present success of Canadian, women in many fields of endeavour.


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE-SASKATCHEWAN AND ALBERTA
Mr. McKAY:: 1.	How many government employees are required to administer the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in (a) Canada; (b) Saskatchewan; (c) Alberta?
2.	What have been the administrative costs of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act for each of the years 1945, 1946, 1947?
3.	What has been the expenditure under the act in (a) Canada; (b) Saskatchewan; (c) Alberta, in each of the years 1945, 1946, 1947?


Mr. GARDINER:: (The Prairie Farm Assistance Act is applicable only to the three prairie provinces and the Peace River block in British Columbia.)
For 1947-48:
1.	(a) 411; (b) 249; (c) 117.
2.	1945-46 (fiscal year), 8357,529.94; 1946-47 (fiscal year) 8332,494.91; 1947-48 (April 1/47-Feb. 24/48) $422,552.46.
3.	1945-46 (fiscal year) (a) $16,840,852.80; (b) $12,485,454.75; (c) 84,184,532.66.
1946-	47 (fiscal year) (a) $11,249,859.55; (b) 89,388,135.25; (c) $1,839,288.59.
1947-	48 (April 1/47 to Feb. 24/48)	(a)
$14,908,126.96; (b) $12,433,829.75; (c) $2,056,815.81.


A. V. ROE CANADA LIMITED-GRANTS OR SUBSIDIES
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Does the A. V. Roe, Canada Limited receive a money grant or subsidy from the federal government?
2.	If so, for what purpose?
3.	In determining the amount of the grant or subsidy, was any amount included for wage increases?
4.	In making the grant, did the government stipulate that there would be no wage increases at A. Y. Roe, Canada Limited this year?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	No; however, by the terms of an agreement entered into in accordance with order in council P.C. 4436, dated October 31, 1947, the government agreed to contribute toward the cost of design, development and construction of two prototype model C-102 (jet)
transport aircraft. Upon completion by A. V. Roe Canada Limited of the two prototype aircraft, the government may take delivery thereof upon payment to the contractor of all reasonable and proper costs incurred in such construction, in excess of contributions made.
2.	See 1 above.
3.	No. Contributions are made on the basis of a percentage of the company's overall expenditures on the project.
4.	The company's labour costs under the contract are governed by labour conditions attached to and forming part thereof, which stipulate that the contractor shall pay "such wages as are generally accepted1 as current from time to time during the continuance of the contract for competent workmen in the district".


INCOME TAX-NATIONAL CHARITIES DEDUCTIBLE
John George Diefenbaker: What major national charities are considered as deductible from income for income tax purposes?


Mr. WINTERS:: There is no master list presently available of the numerous charitable organizations in Canada. Each income tax district has its own which is constantly changing since some of the organizations recognized are purely temporary. It is practically impossible to compile or keep up to date a list of the charitable organizations to which donations are deductible under the terms and provisions of subsections (lMj) and (l)(jj) of section (5) of the Income War Tax Act. The following national organizations appear amongst the major charities recognized under this section:
1.	Canadian Red Cross Society.
2.	Canadian Paraplegic Association.
3.	The Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League.
4.	Canadian Appeal for Children; United Nations Appeal for Children.
5.	War Amputations of Canada.
6.	Canadian National Institute for the Blind.
7.	Victorian Order of Nurses.
8.	Canadian Tuberculosis Association.
9.	Salvation Army.
10.	Boy Scouts Association.
Religious institutions, public hospitals, schools and universities.
It might be stated that in general exemptions extend and apply to all donations made to organizations in Canada whose sole objects and purposes are the relief of poverty or the advancement of religion or education.
Questions


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE DOCTORS
Mr. HERRIDGE:: 1.	How many doctors are employed in the Department of National Health and Welfare?
2.	What are their names and when was each appointed?
3.	Where did each of them reside at time of appointment?
4.	Are all of them licensed under the Canadian Medical Association?
_ 5. Are all of such doctors Canadian or British subjects by birth?
6.	If not (a) what is the country of their origin; (b) how long has each of them been in Canada; (c) how many have become Canadian citizens, and when?


Mr. MAYBANK:: 
TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE MARRIAGE OF THEIR MAJESTIES
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will the government give consideration to passing a resolution of both houses of parliament and a presentation, congratulating the king and queen on the attainment of their silver anniversary on the twenty-fifth year of their marriage, on April 26 next?
2.	Will a proclamation be issued as to it by the government asking for some notice of it throughout Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Both these matters are receiving consideration.


HEALTH EDUCATION CONFERENCE
Mr. GOURD (Chapleau):: 1.	On what date or dates w>as the last health education conference held in Ottawa, and by whom was it convened?
2.	Will other conferences be held?


Mr. MAYBANK:: 1.	The second dominion-provincial health education conference was held in Ottawa on March 3-5, 1948. It was convened by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on the recommendation of the Dominion Council of Health.
2.	The Dominion Council of Health has recommended that such conferences be held annually.


FRENCH CANADIANS IN THE CIVIL SERVICE
Mr. GAGNON:: 1.	Since 1945, has the government entrusted some members of this house with an inquiry into the position of French Canadians in the civil service, both as to their number and their rank?
2.	If so, what are the names of the said members?
3.	Has a report of their activities been submitted to the government?
4.	If not, for what reason?
5.	If so, when will such report be published?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Honourable Joseph Jean.
3.	Oral reports to cabinet from time to time.
4.	See No. 3.
5.	No decision taken by the cabinet yet.


NARCOTIC DRUGS-PROSECUTIONS
Mr. NIXON:: How7 many narcotic cases, under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Health and Welfare are now before the Canadian courts?


Mr. MAYBANK:: There are usually about sixty to seventy narcotic cases before the Canadian courts. Many of these go to assizes or for speedy trial before a county court judge. A considerable number reach the courts of appeal and on occasion one or two go to the

Questions
Supreme Court of Canada. One especially valuable privilege accorded the division of narcotic control by the Department of Justice [DOT] is that narcotic cases at Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver are conducted by specially authorized senior counsel. In order that they may be completely familiar with all aspects of the narcotic work such counsel are kept fully advised by the division of narcotic control of changing conditions, new regulations, etc.


*WAR ASSETS-MEDICAL EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Has the war assets corporation any medical
equipment, or medical supplies, stored in Canada?	,
2.	If so (a) are these supplies and. equipment to be offered to the profession; (b) -where are these supplies and equipment stored; (e) what is the value of same?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Yes.
1.	Province Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia ...
Total	
2.	No information, as the taxation division does not maintain records of tax collections by occupational classifications.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	No information.


POLISH ART TREASURES
Mr. GAGNON:: 1.	(a) How many visits have been made by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to the Hotel Dieu, in the city of Quebec, with regard to the Polish art treasures; (b) on what dates were such visits made?
2.	(a) How many telephone calls were made by the same organization to the .authorities of the Quebec Hotel Dieu in connection with such treasures; (b) on what dates were such telephone calls made?
3.	After the Roytal Canadian Mounted Police had been informed that the Quebec Hotel Dieu was no longer in possession of the Polish art treasures, what steps were taken by the said police .to verify this fact?

2.	(a) No, medical equipment and supplies are not offered to the profession but are offered through the medical supplies and equipment trade channels.
(b)	In varying amounts in practically all War Assets Corporation warehouses in Canada.
(c)	The value of this medical equipment or supplies is indeterminate, inasmuch as it is disposed of on a bid basis.


INCOME TAX-FARMERS
Mr. BENTLEY:: 1.	By provinces how many farmers filed, income tax returns in the years 1945, 1946 and 1947?	.	.
2.	By provinces, how many farmers paid income .tax .in the years 1945, 1946 and 1947?
3.	By provinces, what -were the total amounts of income taxes paid by farmers?
4.	By provinces, how many farmers were investigated1 * 1 2 3 by officers of .the income tax division?


Robert Henry Winters: Fiscal years
1944-45	1945-46	1946-47489	624	1,322369	422	497103	276	401800	6,689	19,83028,896	21,967	28,90925,964	27,400	31.74232,872	49,895	46,61610,051	22,554	74,6755,044	6,212	6,759104,588	136,039	210,751


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	fa) Six.
(b)' January 29, 1948, 2; January 30, 1948, 1; February 16, 1948, 1; February 25, 1948, 1; February 26, 1948, 1.
2.	(a) One;
.(b) January 29, 1948.
3.	Upon receipt of this information the Royal Canadian Mounted Police verified it by interviews with the Mother Superior of 1'hotel Dieu and the Provincial Archivist.


IMMIGRATION-CHILDREN OF CHINESE DOMICILED IN CANADA
Mr. SHAW:: Are foster children of Chinese Canadians domiciled in Canada, regarded as admissible persons under the Immigration Act?


Mr. McILRAITH:: No.

Questions


HEALTH AND WELFARE-LABORATORY OF HYGIENE
Mr. BLACK (Chateauguay-Huntingdon):: Is there any duplication of work carried out by the laboratory of hygiene as compared with the work carried out by provincial public health laboratories?


Ralph Maybank: No. The laboratory of hygiene provides special service to the provincial laboratories. The provincial laboratories conduct certain routine diagnostic tests on specimens which, though primarily a responsibility of the federal government, would be
difficult if not impossible laboratory of hygiene.	to ship	to	the
Between Ottawa		Classes	
and	1	2	3Toronto 	75J	m	58Quebec 	, 79	70i	59iTimiskaming 	. 90	79	68Muskoka (Gravenhurst) ..	. 79	70i	59i


RAILWAY FREIGHT RATES-ONTARIO AND QUEBEC
Mr. BOIVIN:: 1.	What are the freight rates on the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways, between Ottawa and Toronto, Ottawa and Quebec, Ottawa and Timiskaming, Ottawa and Muskoka ?
2.	What is the distance, an miles, between Ottawa and the four other cities on each of these railways, respectively?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	Freight rates are basically governed by the Canadian freight classification which assigns all commodities into ten classes. The present rates applicable to each class are as follows:
in Cents per 100 lbs.
4	5	6	7	8	9 1047	37i	34i	30i	30i	- 27$50	40	36i	30J	32	- 27i55i	45i	41i	34 i	36i	- 30i50	40	36i	30i	32	- 27i
2.
Official Freight Mileage, C.N.R., C.P.R.
Ottawa-Toronto, 247, 256; Quebec, 268, 268; Timiskaming, -[DOT] 199; Muskoka (Gravenhurst), 263, -.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
-FILMS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES
Mr. STUART (Charlotte):: What films, or film strips, have been released for educational work and for child and maternal health in the Department of National Health and Welfare?


Ralph Maybank: The following health
education films and filmstrips, having a bearing on child and maternal health, have been prepared for the Department of National Health and Welfare by the national film board of Canada:
Films:
"Mother and Her Child"-based on the book "The Canadian Mother and Child" covers both the prenatal and postnatal phases and the care and development of the child up to one year of age.
"Know Your Baby"-illustrates proved methods of psychological care of the new-born infant.
"The Feeling of Rejection"-the first of a proposed series of films on mental mechanisms, designed to illustrate the development of personality factors which often lead to emotional difficulties and physical distress.
"Small Fry"-illustrates the provisions being made for the welfare of Canada's children,
pointing out improvements in education, diet and environment.
"Something to Chew On"-a film for parents showing the correct method of caring for children's teeth.
"Stanley Takes a Trip"-shows in entertaining cartoon fashion the' foods required by a normal growing boy.
Filmstrips:
"Nine to Get Ready"-covers the essential points in prenatal care to ensure the best possible start in life for babies.
"Introducing Baby"-gives detailed information on the care of mother and child from the time the baby is born until the weaning period.
"Internal Triangle"-a cartoon filmstrip describing the adventures of two teen-age girls with Canada's food rules.
"Peppo"-demonstrates bow a family can spend the family allowance wisely to provide healthy diet essential to growing children,
"Rural School Lunches"-a filmstrip providing practical suggestions for the use of teachers and mothers of rural school children.
In addition the following films and filmstrips are being completed and will be released shortly:
"Invisible Armour"-a film on immunization -which will show the general principles of immunization and the need for proper protection in the first year and pre-school age, and will point out the responsibility of the individual in protecting not only his own family but the community as a whole;
Questions

A film on feeding problems, for parents of pre-school children;
"Why We Eat"-a series of filmstrips, which will cover the general aspects of nutrition and deal specifically with each one of the food groups-vegetables, milk, fruits, cereals and bread, and meats.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-DEPUTY AND ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTER
Mr. COYLE:: 1.	Have any appointments been made since January 1, 1947, to the position of deputy minister or assistant deputy minister of Veterans Affairs?
2.	If so, what .are the names of such persons?
3.	At what salaries were such persons appointed?
4.	By whom were they appointed?
5.	What previous positions in government services had each such person held?
6.	Was any examination of their qualifications made?
7.	If so, who were the examining or rating officers?


Mr. GREGG:: 1.	Yes. One assistant deputy minister.
2.	Jean Maurice Bernier, B.A., LL.L.
3.	$7,500 per annum.
4.	Civil service commission.
5.	(a) Assistant private secretary to the Minister of Justice; (b) Advisory counsel, Department of Justice (appointed by civil service commission) ; (c) Private secretary to the Minister of Justice; (d) Private secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs (while holding permanent position of advisory counsel, Department of Justice).
6.	Yes.
7.	Rating officers: Departmental representative, W. S. Woods, C.M.G., LL.D., deputy minister; technical representative, Lieut.-Col.
G.	Bisson, chairman, unemployment insurance commission; civil sendee commission representative, O. A. Lefebvre.


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS-ALLOWANCES TO WIDOWS AND NON-PENSIONED VETERANS
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	Has the government considered increasing present allowances to widows and non-pensioned veterans?
2.	If so, what is the scale of increase?


Mr. GREGG:: 1 and 2. Assuming that the questions relate to widows of non-pensioned veterans, a resolution on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs deals with the subject matter.


FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION
Mr. HENDERSON:: 1.	What are the names of the members of the federal district commission?
2.	When and upon whose recomendation was each such person appointed?
3.	What remuneration or expenses was paid in 1947 to each such person?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I.	and 2.
Names Date of Appointment
F. E. Bronson, May 4, 1927; reappointed July 31, 1947.
Raymond Brunet, September 25, 1946.
Charles Camsell, July 31, 1947.
R. Chevrier, November 28, 1924; reappointed July 31, 1947.
J.	A. Ewart, May 2, 1938.
J. E. Stanley Lewis, January 8, 1936.
D. K. MacTavish, May 2, 1938.
A. J. Major, April 18, 1946.
J. B. Spencer, October 18, 1934.
J. W. Ste. Marie, May 4, 1927; reappointed July 31, 1947.
Mr. Lewis and Mr. Brunet were appointed by by-laws of the cities of Ottawa and Hull respectively. The remainder were appointed by order in council passed on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance (under the Federal District Commission Act, 1927) or the President of the Privy Council (since the amendment to the Act passed in 1946.)
3.	None.


IMMIGRATION-POLISH WAR VETERANS
Mr. BRADSHAW:: 1.	How many single Polish veterans were admitted to Canada under order in council P.C. 1746?
2.	Of these, how many were placed on farms?
3.	How many of these are still working on farms?
4.	Have any other orders in council been passed admitting more Polish war veterans?
5.	If so, how many were admitted under these orders in council?


Mr. COTE (Verdun):: 1.	1,651.
2.	1,650.
3.	1,617.
4.	Yes, order in council P.C. 3112, dated July 23, 1946.
5.	2,876 in November, 1946.


BEEF AND PORK PRODUCTS-SHIPMENTS TO BRITAIN
Mr. BENTLEY:: 1.	How many grades of beef are being sent to Britain?

Questions
2.	Are there more pounds of (a) higher grades; (b) lower grades?
3.	What are the prices Britain is paying for the various grades?
4.	How many grades and kinds of pork products are being sent to Britain?
5.	What are the prices Britain is paying for the various kinds or grades?
6.	What kinds and grades of pork products are being supplied to the Canadian market?
7.	By grades and kinds, at what prices are pork products supplied to Canadian retailers?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Seven.
2. Exports	of beef by grade.	, 1947:
	Bone-In (lb.)	Boneless (lb.)
A 	... 590,292	87,352B 	... 1,9S7,012	127,758C	... 7,539.897	3,429,567D 	... 14.761,044	2,110,702E 	... 120,384	1,805,541P 	2,544,433M 	706,270Exports of >
date:	beef by grade, January 1, 1948	Bone-In (lb.)	Boneless (lb.)A	463B 	... 129,586	C 	... 318,867	25,987D 	. .. 1,384,601	30,844E 	... 10,854	125,813P 	82,942M 	4,9903.	Per 100 lb.	A 	
$27.50	B 	
26.50	C 	
23.10	D 	
21.20	E 	per 100 lb.P 	-[DOT]4	M 	...JHinds $24.00	per 100 lb.
4. Two grades of Wiltshire sides, and export cuts i.e., fores, middles, backs, hams and gammons.
5.	Per 100 lb.
Wiltshires "A" 		.... $36.00
Wiltshires "B" 		.... 35.40
Hams A/C 10-18 		.... 37.90
Hams A/C 18-22 		.... 36.30
Gammons 10-18 		.... 37.90
Gammons 18-22 		.... 36.30
Middles Regular 		.... 38.65
Middles N.A.A.F.I		.... 39.30
Rib Backs 		.... 41.35
Square Fores 10/20 		.... 29.60
Square Fores 20/22 		.... 28.45
6. All kinds and grades.	
7. No information.


VETERANS LAND ACT-PIAP0T INDIAN RESERVATION
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Has the soldier settlement board or the V.L.A. administration, during the last three years, purchased any iand formerly comprising part of the Piapot Indian reservation in Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, how many acres and what price per acre was paid therefor?
3.	Has any of said land been Te-sold to soldier settlers or others? If so, at what price per acre for each parcel?


Mr. GREGG:: 1. Yes. Veterans Land Act Administration.
Parcel	Acres	Price	or approx, per acre1 ...	..320 ....	$2,800 .	....$ 8.752 ...	..317 ....	3.700 .	.... 11.673 ...	..320 ....	4,500 .	.... 14.064 ...	..320 ....	3,000 .	.... 9.37i5 ...	..320 ....	2,500 .	.... 7.816 ...	.. 318-20 ...	3.500 .	.... 11.007 ...	.. 316-46 ...	4,000 .	.... 12.643.	Yes. to qualified veterans. Same as purchase price, but subject to the conditional grant provided for in The Veterans Land Act, 1942.


CANNED FISH-CANNERY REGISTRATION NUMBERS
Mr. McLURE:: 1.	Are the cannery registration numbers embossed on Atlantic coast fish solely for identification purposes?
2.	If not, what is the purpose of embossing canned covers on canned fish?
3.	If these numbers are for identification purposes, are they made known to the trade?
4.	If these numbers are not available to the trade, for what reason are they withheld?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No.
4.	The registration and identification thereof is a confidential departmental record to facilitate administration of the regulations.


CRUMLIN AIRPORT HANGAR
Mr. MANROSS:: 1.	When will government be through with hangar No. 5 at Grumlin airport?
2.	Is it for sale to industry?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	This hangar is being retained indefinitely by the Royal Canadian Air Force.
2.	No.
Questions


CENTRAL EXPERIMENTAL FARM-SALARIES OF DIVISIONAL CHIEFS
Mr. CASE:: What is the salary range for divisional chiefs at the central experimental farm, indicating the division in each case?


James Garfield Gardiner: Salary Range
Cereal Division:	$
Agricultural Scientist, Grade 9-5,400-6,000 Horticulture Division:
Agricultural Scientist, Grade 9-5,400-6,000 Field Husbandry Division:
Agricultural Scientist, Grade 8-4,800-5,400 Forage Plants Division:
Agricultural Scientist, Grade 8-4,800-5,400 Poultry Division:
Agricultural Scientist, Grade 8-4,800-5,400 Animal Husbandry Division:
Agricultural Scientist, Grade 6*-3,900-4,500 Tobacco Division:
Agricultural Scientist, Grade 5*-3.600^4,200 Fibre Division:
Agricultural Scientist, Grade 5*-3,600-4,200 Bee Division:
Agricultural Scientist, Grade 5*-3,600-4,200 Illustration Stations Division:
Chief Supervisor of Illustration Stations*	 3,900-4,500
Under process of revision by civil service commission.


H.M.C.S. &quot;PREVOST&quot;
Mr. MANROSS:: 1.	How many men are stationed at the
H.M.C.S. Prevost in London, Ontario, now?
2.	What rent is paid annually for the building?
3.	What is the average annual upkeep and maintenance cost for the past five years?
4.	Who owns the property?
5.	Is it for sale?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	R.C.N. personnel-13 maintenance and training staff for naval reserve unit.
2.	None.
3.	$7,903.
4.	Department of Public Works.
5.	No.


POST OFFICE-LONDON, ONT.
Mr. MANROSS:: 1.	What was total number of employees of Post Office Department in London, Ontario, in each year 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946 and 1947?
2.	What wag total payroll in each of these years ?
TMr. Lapointe.]
3.	Who are the top ten executives and what is the salary of each?
4.	What is the total number of employees
now?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	As of 31st March: 1941, 287; 1942, 286; 1943, 287; 1944, 306; 1945, 328; 1946, 329; 1947, 344.
2.	1941, $516,981.84; 1942, $541,116.65; 1943, $557,011.92; 1944, $597,143.91; 1945, $624,883.81; 1946, $707,384.17; 1947, $766,043.79.
3.	J. W. Stewart, district post office inspector, $4,200; W. E. Pearson, postmaster, $4,200;
A.	B. Callahan, postal supervisor, grade 7, $3,720; B. S. Merrifield, post office inspector, $3,720; A. W. Poole, post office inspector, $3,240; J. A. Flaherty, postal supervisor, grade 5, $3,000; W. R. Henderson, postal supervisor, grade 4, $2,880; W. H. Smith, postal supervisor, grade 3, $2,940; H. T. Chowen, postal supervisor, grade 3, $2,940; E. H. A. Arnott, postal supervisor, grade 3, $2,580.
4.	371.


CATTLE AND MEAT PRODUCTS-EXPORTS TO THE UNITED STATES
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	How many head of cattle were exported to the United States for each of the years 1945, 1946 and 1947?
2.	How many tons of beef, pork and other meat products other than canned meats were exported to the United States for each of these years?
3.	What was the total value of canned meat products exported to the United States in each of these years?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Cattle exported to the United States: 1945, 70,658; 1946, 96,356; 1947, 74,481.
2.	Meat exported to the United States: Beef and veal, fresh, chilled and frozen (tons)-1945, 33; 1946, 5; 1947, 44. Poultry, dressed or undressed (tons), 1945, 5,207; 1946, nil; 1947, 623. Other meats (except canned) (tons), 1945, 172; 1946, 61; 1947, 31.
3.	Value of canned meats exported to United States: 1945, $301,080; 1946, $5,114; 1947, $8,068.


POULTRY, MEAT AND MEAT PRODUCTS-EXPORTS TO THE UNITED STATES
Mr. ARGUE:: 1.	What quantities of (a) poultry; (b) meat;
(c)	meat products, were exported in natural and processed form to the United States in 1947?
2.	What was the value of each?

Questions


George James McIlraith: 


FEDERAL LIGHTHOUSE KEEPERS IN NEWFOUNDLAND
[Stage Direction]
1 and 2.
(a)	Poultry, 1,246,127 lbs., 8398,690.
(b)	Beef and' veal, fresh, 88,300 lbs., $17,065; mutton and lamb, fresh, 200 lbs., $50; pork, fresh, 9,000 lbs., $2,141; bacon and hams, 8,100 lbs., $2,895; pork, pickled, 400 lbs., $80.
(c)	>
Extract of beef, 45,193 lbs., $30,894; sausage and bologna, 23,900 lbs., $21,887; edible animal entrails, 6,300 lbs., $717; canned
Mr. DORION:: 1.	Has the government control over any lighthouse keepers on the territory of Newfoundland?
2.	If so (a) where; (b) what are their names; (c) their salaries; (d) their respective nationalities; (e) are they appointed by the civil service commission?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1. Yes.
meats, 4,865 lbs., $8,068.	2. As follows:
(a)	(b)	(O	(d)	(e) Appointed byLocation	Name	Salary	Nationality	C.S.C.Belle Isle, S.W. ..	... Davis, F. A	$3,720	Newfoundlander ...	... YesBelle Isle, N	
3,420	tt	ftCape Anguille ...	
3,300	It	itCape Bault	
3,300	It	ttCape Norman ...	
3,240	tt	ItCape Rade 	
2,100	it	ttCape Rade	
1,620	tt	ttCape Rade	... Myrick, P. J	
1,800	tt	ttCape Ray	
3,240	Canadian 	ttFerolle Point	2,880	tt	ttFlower Island ...	
L980	Newfoundlander ...	ttPoint Rich 	
1,980	Canadian	tt


REMIGNY-GUERIN, QUEBEC, MAIL SERVICE
Mr. CAOUETTE:: 1.	By whom are mails carried between Re-migny and Guerin in the county of Pontiac?
2.	What is the remuneration of the person carrying the said mails?
3.	How long has he been a contractor for such work?
4.	When will the present contract expire?
Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier);
1.	Joseph Bourassa.
2.	$855 per annum, plus mail contract supplement of $42.75 per annum.
3.	Twelve years.
4.	31st March, 1948.


CIGARS-IMPORTS FROM CUBA
Mr. PROBE:: What was the total quantity and value of cigars imported into Canada from Cuba during
(a)	the year 1947; (b) November, 1947; (c) December, 1947; (d) January, 1948; (e) February, 1948?


George James McIlraith: (a) Calendar year, 1947, 3,424 lbs., $32,518.
*(b) November, 1947, 824 lbs., $7,858.
(c)	December, 1947, 232 lbs., $2,361.
(d)	January, 1948, 753 lbs., $6,625.
(e)	February, 1948, not yet available.


CANNED PINEAPPLE-IMPORTS FROM CUBA
Mr. KNOWLES:: What was the total quantity and value of canned pineapple imported into Canada from Cuba during (a) the year 1939; (b) the year 1947;	(c) November, 1947;	(d) December,
1947; (e) January, 1948; (f) February, 1948?


George James McIlraith: Lb. Value
(a)	Calendar year 1939..	

	$	-
(b)	Calendar year 1947... 1,099.200	126,561(c)	November 1947	
-	-(d)	December 1947	
2,800	294(e)	January 1948	
-	-(f)	February 1948 .... not yet available.


HEALTH AND WELFARE-CIVIL SERVICE HEALTH DIVISION
Mr. BRUNELLE:: 1.	What are the objects of the civil service health division, Department of National Health and Welfare?
2.	To what extent have such objects been carried out in the development of the said division, up to the present?


Mr. MAYBANK:: 1. The prevention and control of disease among government employees; the provision of an advisory and diagnostic service to individual employees as well as to government
Questions

departments; and the provision of emergency medical and surgical care.
2. In so far as the civil service population of Ottawa is concerned the division is now organized and equipped by virtue of its health centre and health units to carry out the three primary objectives referred to in answer 1 above. Pending the establishment of branch centres in cities where large concentrations of civil servants are employed, these objectives have not as yet been achieved.


OLD AGE PENSIONS
Mr. ARGUE:: 1.	What was the average number of old age pensions, by provinces, for each of the years 1943 to 1947 inclusive?
2.	What was the total amount paid to old age pensioners, based on joint contributions from the federal and provincial governments, in each province for each of the years 1943 to 1947 inclusive?


Mr. MAYBANK:: 1.	1942-43	1943-44	1944-45	1945-46	1946-47Alberta 	
11,094	11,079	11,249	11,832	12,574British Columbia ....	
14,345	14,420	14,988	16,052	17,522Manitoba 	
12,677	12,362	12,286	12,640	13,341New Brunswick 	
11,858	11,859	12,134	12,533	13,145Nova Scotia 	
14,222	14,042	13,954	14,456	15,226Ontario 	
58,345	56,488	57,408	59,313	63,735Prince Edward Island.	
1,920	1,891	1,889	1,939	2,075Quebec 	
47,292	47,099	48,626	50,462	53,450Saskatchewan 	
13,248	12,918	12,810	13,134	14,0662.	1942-43	1943-44	1944-45	1945-46	1946-47Alberta	
$ 2,444,765.07 S 2,750,394.71 $ 3,201,848.27 $ 3,368,286.19 8 3,599,233.36British Columbia.	3,255,093.12	3,719,682.05	4,313,730.29	4,646,927.72	5,022,384.50Manitoba	
2,789,569.91	3,038,528.20	3,453,416.47	3,577,403.84	3,768,331.17New Brunswick	..	2,141,870.53	2,310,227.31	3,187,970.40	3,331,828.42	3,532,026.13Nova Scotia	
2,597,433.06	2,849,655.57	3,743,853.77	3,885,296.42	4,124,272.06Ontario	
12,842,300.04	13,745,605.52	16,386,637.23	17,505,419.88	18,514,226.30P. E. Island	
278,116.41	358,005.46	415,443.73	429,900.52	467,744.17Quebec	
9,398,513.78	11,380,483.75	13,848,152.90	14,431,126.93	15,289,253.70
Saskatchewan 

 2,724,032.73	3,136,243.17	3,726,420.28	3,870,639.85	4,113,398.58


HEALTH AND WELFARE-VENEREAL DISEASE CONTROL
Mr. BRADETTE:: What steps have been taken by the venereal disease control division, Department of National Health and Welfare, to assist provinces in educating the public?


Mr. MAYBANK:: 1.	Early in 1947 the federal division of venereal disease control purchased 22 automatic filmstrip projectors at a cost of approximately $75 each. These were distributed to the provinces for display purposes. A general venereal disease educational filmstrip titled: "Protection Against V.D." was prepared in both English and French by the division and distributed among the provinces for use in the projectors. At present, two further filmstrips, one on syphilis and one on gonorrhoea, are in process of preparation. These are being designed along general public educational lines and will be in colour.

2.	A booklet (3,000 copies) dealing with the use of "Bal" as an anti-arsenical drug was prepared and distributed to the members of the medical profession.
3.	15,000 blotters titled: "Break the Chain of Infection" were produced for distribution among members of the medical profession. This blotter stressed the importance of reporting contacts.
4.	10,000 reprints of an article in Maclean's magazine by Michael Gardiner titled: "Our shameful Y.D. record" were purchased and distributed to the provinces.
5.	5,000 reprints of an article in the Canadian Home Journal by H. Cecil Rhodes titled: "What's the score on VX).?" were purchased and distributed to the provinces.
6.	10,000 reprints of the article in the Nursing Journal by Pearl Stiver titled, "They, too, are our patients", were purchased and distributed.
7.	The venereal disease platform presentation chart, for use by lecturers, was produced

Questions
and distributed to the provinces. Nearly a thousand of these were printed, in both English and French, durably bound, each consisting of 30 individual coloured charts, 18" x 30".
8.	Now being printed is a 65-page book titled: "Venereal disease-what you should know" which will have a dual function. It will serve as a guide for those using the V.D. platform presentation charts, and will be used as a comprehensive informational brochure for general lay education on the subject of V.D. The book carries a reproduction of the 30 charts on the lefthand pages with explanatory textual material on the opposite page. The initial printing order is for 12,000 English and 3,000 French copies.
9.	Now being printed is a series of six blotters dealing with various aspects of venereal disease educational material for lay distribution. These blotters are multicoloured and artistically designed to convey information with pictorial effectiveness. Each is aimed at a specific group: e.g., those contemplating marriage, teen-agers, expectant mothers, etc. The initial order is for 300,000 to be distributed to the provinces for use in their venereal disease control program.
10.	Approximately 6,000 venereal disease posters, for public display purposes, have been distributed to the provinces. These stress the importance of early treatment and pre-natal tests, warn against promiscuity, point out the dangers of neglect, etc.
11.	Miscellaneous pieces of venereal disease literature running into many thousands of copies (in addition to the particular projects listed above) were distributed through the department's information services division.
12.	Many thousand textbooks, pamphlets, etc. were obtained for the provinces directly from publishers by the federal division of venereal disease control.
Note 1: The above covers 1947 only. Two films "16 to 22" and "Very Dangerous" were adapted for general distribution in 1946.
Note 2: Most of the material produced for the provinces is sent out stamped with the provincial V.D. control department imprints, advising the public where they may obtain further information and advice.


PROVINCE OP QUEBEC ACT RESPECTING COMMUNISTIC PROPAGANDA
Mr. BENTLEY:: 1.	Has the government taken any action towards submitting the Quebec padlock law to the Supreme Court of Canada?
2.	If not, will some action be taken in the near future?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	No action has been taken by the government towards submitting to the Supreme Court of Canada the "Act respecting Communistic Propaganda" enacted by the legislature oi Quebec in 1937.
2.	No action is contemplated at this time.


BLINDNESS-RESTORATION OP SIGHT BY MEDICAL METHODS
Mr. TREMBLAY:: 1.	To what extent can the Department of National Health and Welfare control blindness?
2.	Is the said department taking any steps to inform the public that medical methods can restore adequate sight to a considerable number of blind persons?


Mr. MAYBANK:: 1.	Under the British North America Act responsibility in health matters is mainly that of the provincial and local governments, with the exception of the care of members of the armed services, veterans (under certain circumstances), Indians and Eskimos, immigrants upon their first arrival in Canada, and lepers. The Department of National Health and Welfare does not issue regulations designed to control and prevent blindness and the department cannot at present control blindness except by means of an educational campaign designed to inform the public of the causes and treatment of blindness and the medical means which can be taken to control and prevent blindness.
2.	The department informs the public by radio, by films and by various publications of methods to be used in the prevention and treatment of eye trouble and blindness.
The blindness control division has prepared two booklets, "Save Your Eyes" and "Eyestrain, its cause and treatment". These are being widely distributed through the provinces in French and English. The blindness control division shared in the cost of two educational films concerning the eyes. These are being showm on the national film board circuits and they have attracted large and appreciative audiences. The latest film had been seen by 121,629 persons by September, 1947. The blindness control division also supplied the minister with medical information which he incorporated in a radio address given on September 13, 1947, entitled "Clear vision for Canadians".
The blindness control division is engaged in research into the causes of blindness and its prevention and in the preparation of further publications of general interest to the public on eye conditions. A booklet is now in
Orders for Returns

course of preparation, for free distribution, on the subject of preventable blindness.
The blindness control division is keeping in touch with the -methods used in the control and treatment of blindness in other countries.
Funds have been voted by th-e dominion government to be used on a 75-25 per cent basis, in agreement with the provinces, to conduct a treatment scheme to determine whether an appreciable number of blind can be removed from the pension rolls by operation and medical treatment. This project has been endorsed twice by the deputy ministers of health as members of the dominion council of health. To date only the province of New Brunswick has passed an order in council providing for participation in this scheme, although lists of suitable cases are in the hands of the other provincial authorities.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DORION:: 1.	From 1942 to 1-9-46 inclusive, what department of the government of Canada had jurisdiction and control over the iSt. Male plant, at Quebec ?
2.	From what department did the employees of the said plant receive their remuneration?
3.	By whom -and in what manner h-ave the salaries or wages paid to such employees been determined?
4.	During each of the above years, what was the scale of salaries or wages for each class of employees, and particularly for caretakers or constables?


George James McIlraith: Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-STAFF AT PRESCOTT AND PARRY SOUND
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	How many persons are employed by the Department of Transport at Prescott, Ontario?
2.	What are the classifications, hourly wages or monthly salaries an each case?
3.	How many persons are employed by tbe Department of Transport at Parry Sound-, Ontario?
4.	What are the classifications, hourly wages or monthly salaries in each case?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Return tabled.


OBSERVANCE OF GOOD FRIDAY
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What provision has been made by the government for the proper observance of Good Friday, March 26 next?
2.	What is the program of the C.B.C. and government radio stations for such a day as this, and what is their policy to be accordingly?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: Return tabled.


TORONTO HARBOUR COMMISSION
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What sums of money have been voted for Toronto harbour, by years from 19-35 to 1947 inclusive?
2.	What moneys do the Toronto harbour commission spend there (a) federal money; (b) civic (harbour) money?


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: 1.	In the year 1947, how many bushels of barley were shipped from western Canada to the eastern provinces on which freight from the lakehead east was paid by the Canadian government?
2.	How many bushels of this quantity were malting barley?
3.	How many bushels of this malting barley were received by breweries in eastern Canada?
4.	W-as the freight on this barley paid by the government from the lakehead east?



DOLLAR-A-YEAR MEN EMPLOYED DURING THE WAR

Mr. HANSELL:: How many dollar-a-year men were employed by the government during the war years and how many of these men were paid their salaries of $1 per year -as such irrespective of expenses in carrying out their duties?



DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

['I received notice of this question just as I was coming into the house. I have not had time to obtain the answer, but I will give it tomorrow.']
Mr. HARRIS (Grey-Bruce):: Return tabled.



Mr. DORION:: 1.	How many civil servants were appointed
by order in council during the year 1947, without being compelled to pass a civil service "examination ?
2.	How many civil servants have been given a salary increase by order in council during tbe year 1947 ?
3.	How many of such employees are being paid a remuneration of (a) more than $10,060 a year; (b) $8,000 to $10,000-a year; (c) $6.0-00 to $8,000 a year; (d) $4,000 to $6,000 -a year; (e) $2,000 to $4,000 a year; (f) of less than $2,000- -a year?


SUBSIDIES, SUBVENTIONS AND DRAWBACKS
Mr. ARGUE:: 1. On what commodities and services were subsidies, subventions, or drawbacks, paid in 1947?

Inquiries oj the Ministry
2.	What was the value of each?
3.	What companies, if any, received payments in excess of $50,900, and what amount was paid to each of those companies?


LOSSES IN MARKETING OF WHEAT-FREIGHT ASSISTANCE ON GRAIN
Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	By years, since 1935, what losses incurred in marketing of w'heat have been paid out of the federal treasury?
2.	By years, since 1935, what amount has been paid in freight assistance on grain in Canada?


CARBERRY, MAN., AIRPORT
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Are there any goods stored at the airport at Carberry, Manitoba?
2.	If so, what goods and what amount?
3.	Have any of such been declared surplus?
4.	If not, when will they be so declared?


Colin William George Gibson: Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. HODGSON:: For a statement showing the total amount of travelling expenses paid to each minister of the crown, his private secretary, assistant private secretary or any official attached to the personal staff of such minister during the fiscal years ended March 3l, 1946 and 1947?


IMMIGRATION-REFUGEE DOCTORS
Frederick Davis Shaw: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the immigration branch, Department of Mines and Resources, and any official thereof, and the Canadian medical association, medical licensing bodies, or any official thereof, since January 1, 1945, respecting (a) the admission to Canada of refugee doctors; (b) certification of refugee doctors who enter Canada under classification other than medical?


INCOME TAX
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of -the day:
Mr. J. W. BURTON (Humboldt):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue. Has he recently received a communication from the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section, protesting the net worth statement of the new income tax form? If so, what is the intention of the department in connection with this objectionable feature?


Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):: At the moment I have no knowledge of having received a communication. As I said a day or two ago, a statement will be issued shortly with reference to the new income tax form.


WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement made at the opening of -the session yesterday by the Prime Minister relating to the treaty of mutual guarantee which was signed yesterday morning at Brussels, and which had to do with the governments of the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, is the Prime Minister at liberty to inform the house whether it is intended to extend the regional agreement to take in Canada, the United States, the British commonwealth, and other nations whose relationships are friendly?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no authoritative information that I can give to the house.


RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, notice of which I sent to him. Is the minister in a position to make a statement on investigations into the railway accidents which have recently occurred near Kamloops,
B.	C., and can he make a report as to what steps are being taken and what additional safety devices, if any, are being installed to reduce the danger of such accidents in future?


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman refers, I take it, to accidents on railways caused by mountain slides in British Columbia in the vicinity of Kamloops during the past year- on the Canadian Pacific Railway near Chase, on the Canadian National Railways near Ashcroft, and also on the Canadian National Railways below Lytton.
The question is divided' into two parts. First, what steps are being taken to install safety devices? The board of transport commissioners have under study the question of safety devices commonly known as "slide
Inquiries oj the Ministry

detector fences", with a view to ascertaining their practicability and efficiency. The director of engineering of the boardi is now in western Canada making further study of this problem. One of the railways has installed a short section of slide detector fence near Field, British Columbia, as a test.
The second part of the question is, are any available. The answer is given in the following terms. The equipment used in installations of this kind is equipment commonly used in railway signal protection. This equipment is available. There is no standard slide detector fence. The physical features of the ground at each location must be separately considered and a design made to meet each situation


ANSWER TO QUESTION AS TO REFRIGERATOR CARS ON TRACK AT BORDEN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I might answer a question which was asked on Monday by the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Grant). I have had the answer in my hand for two days but have not had an opportunity of giving it to the house. The question had to do with empty refrigerator cars which apparently were at Borden without motive power for their use. I find that on Tuesday the 16th-the report is dated that day-there were seventy-five refrigerator cars on hand at Borden which would be moved on that day. The general situation on Prince Edward Island is very good at the moment, as there is a total of 258 refrigerator cars on the island either being loaded or awaiting placement.


UNITED KINGDOM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario) :: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Finance, of which I gave him oral notice. It is based on an item in the Globe and Mail of this date, dated from London, Canadian Press, and the headline is: "Ask slash in United Kingdom buying from Canada." I read very briefly from the text:
Britain's purchases from non-dollar countries must be increased and her present rate of spending-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to indicate the basis on which the question is being asked.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: My question is this-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I must ask the hon. member to abide by the rules.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: My question is this: Is this reference to the cutting down of British spending in Canada not a serious threat to a vital part of Canada's foreign trade? If so, what steps is the government taking to meet it?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: I saw the Canadian Press dispatch referred to, appearing in the Montreal Gazette, and reporting a statement which appears to have been made by Mr. Strachey in a press conference in London yesterday. Replying to my hon. friend's question, as he knows, Great Britain is purchasing quantities of foodstuffs from Canada under contract, and I have no reason to believe that these contracts will not be carried out.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question. Am I correct in thinking that the contracts to which he referred in his answer expire at the end of this month? If so, will he not agree that his answer was not an answer but a brush off?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend is inaccurate in his understanding of the contracts. They do not expire at the end of this month.


FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. ARGUE (Wood Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Prime Minister. In view of the reports in last night's press that the United Kingdom last week drew the final $9,000,000 of its $45,000,000 Canadian credit, will the Prime Minister indicate whether new financial arrangements are being made for the purchase of agricultural products for the balance of this month and for the next quarter?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer the question. No new financial arrangements have been made. I have already answered the second part of the question in stating, in reply to the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, that 'I had no reason to believe the United1 Kingdom will not carry out contracts which it has entered into for the purchase of food in this country. Concerning financial arrangements, it might be appropriate for me to indicate that Canada has extended already financial assistance greater than that of any other country to assist in the purchase of needed foodstuffs.

Inquiries of the Ministry


BEEF CATTLE-EMBARGO ON EXPORTS TO THE TJNITED STATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. EARL ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the statement appearing in the press this morning to the effect that Great Britain is likely to curtail exports from other than soft currency countries, will the minister consider lifting the embargo on beef cattle going into the United1 States?


James Garfield Gardiner: The Minister of Finance has already answered the first part of the question twice in the negative, so I do not think that it would be possible to answer the second part, basing the answer on the first part of the statement.


William Earl Rowe: In other words, a negative policy.


RADIO BROADCASTING
[Stage Direction]
INTERFERENCE BY ELECTROTHERAPEUTIC .	EQUIPMENT
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce? Has the government given consideration to the request of the Canadian hospital council for a change in the regulations respecting radio interference by electrotherapeutic equipment, for the reasons so well put on March 2 by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair)? If so, what is the result of such consideration?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I received notice of this question just as I was coming into the house. I have not had time to obtain the answer, but I will give it tomorrow.



WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister table the correspondence between the government and the provincial premiers regarding Bill No. 135, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and particularly the questionnaire from the government of the province of Manitoba with respect to legislation on this matter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has been the practice of this government not to table correspondence with a provincial government except with the permission of the provincial government duly obtained. I am sorry to say that the Saskatchewan government does not seem to follow that practice, since hon. gentlemen opposite have read to me a considerable file of correspondence released by the government of Saskatchewan. Notwithstanding that, the practice of the federal government will be continued.


Mr. COLDWELL:: May I ask a supplementary question? Will the minister endeavour to secure permission from the provinces to table the correspondence?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I received one letter from the Premier of Manitoba this morning. I noticed it in going through my mail. I have not had time to read that letter as yet. I assume that the letter calls for a reply, and I may say that after the correspondence is completed, I will ask the Premier of Manitoba, as a matter of courtesy, whether he wishes me to table the correspondence.


Major James William Coldwell: That is good.



TUBERCULOSIS TESTING-SHORTAGE OF STAFF IN HEALTH OF ANIMALS BRANCH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. CHARLTON (Brant):: In view of the present serious situation with regard to tuberculosis testing of cattle throughout Canada, brought about by a serious shortage of personnel in the health of animals branch, is the government taking adequate steps to remedy this situation?


James Garfield Gardiner: I thought I was conferring a favour on my hon. friend when I suggested the other day discussing the question with him and the deputy. I have not yet had the opportunity of meeting the two of them.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. Has the minister acted on the proposal submitted to him at his request by the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities on September 19, 1947, entitled "Outline for national low rent housing legislation"? If so, has a meeting been held of dominion-provincial and municipal authorities?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Clarence Decatur Howe: A brief was submitted by mayors in September, at which time I met with their delegation. The brief contains a proposal for a public housing program under which the dominion would advance to provinces or municipalities the full cost of construction at 2J per cent for thirty-five years. It also proposes that the dominion establish a national rent reduction fund so that rents can be lowered to a non-economic level. Like so many representations we receive, the proposal is that the dominion bear the whole cost, that the provinces and municipalities have no financial interest, but that the projects be owned and operated by a municipal housing authority or the municipality itself. Such a proposal does not appeal to me, and I cannot support it.
The brief suggests investigation into types and use of building materials, with which we are in sympathy, and work is proceeding.
The brief concludes by suggesting 100 per cent loans up to $5,000 at 3J per cent under the terms of the National Housing Act with a guarantee to the lending institution of 25 per cent of the amount of the loan. I question whether the lending institutions would make National Housing Act loans at a 31 per cent rate. Furthermore, I am against promoting home ownership unless the home owner has an equity.
The hon. member asks whether there has been a meeting with the provinces and municipalities. The answer is, no.



COMMUNIST PAPER &quot;COMBAT&quot;


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Earl Rowe: In view of the fact that the communist paper Combat has been prohibited and banned in the province of Quebec, can the Minister of Justice say whether any steps have been taken to prevent its distribution in Quebec from its printing establishment in the city of Toronto?


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice):: Not by the dominion government, no.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence, notice of which I have given to him. Has the cruiser H.M.C.S. Uganda

been placed with the reserve fleet because there are insufficient men available to man her as a unit with the active force?


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: It was never the intention to keep both H.M.C.S. Uganda and H.M.C.S. Ontario in commission under the present authorized ceiling. The decommissioning of the cruiser H.M.C.S. Uganda was made according to plans announced by me in the house on June 9, 1947, in reply to a question asked by the then hon, member for Yale. She was decommissioned at the end of July of that year when H.M.C.S. Ontario was put into full commission.


Mr. ADAMSON:: May I ask a supplementary question? Have we a cruiser on the active list now? If so, what is that cruiser?


Brooke Claxton: H.M.C.S. Ontario.



SALARY INCREASES TO EMPLOYEES-QUESTION AS TO RETROACTIVITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is it the case that treasury board regulations or any other provision will prevent employees on the government payroll from receiving increases retroactive to last October if those increases are not put into effect before March 31, the end of the fiscal year? Will the government make sure that its proposed increases for employees of the House of Commons are brought into effect before the end of this month?


James Horace King: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that he put his question on the order paper.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Cariboo):: I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for. External Affairs, of which I have not given him notice. When may the house expect an opportunity for a proper discussion of international affairs?	.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): The Secretary of State for External Affairs cannot himself arrange the business of this house. The Prime

Transitional Measures Act
Minister has already declared that an opportunity will be given to discuss external affairs as soon as it is possible to go into committee of supply, and that the estimates of the Department of External Affairs will be the first estimates to be called. I would expect that on the first item of those estimates there would be an opportunity for full discussion of the whole international situation.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Agar Rodney Adamson: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works concerning a matter about which I spoke to him yesterday and about which I today had a letter from his secretary. In view of the serious flooding of Etobicoke creek and the loss of life which might be occasioned thereby, will the minister give immediate consideration to granting the application of the Department of Highways of Ontario to proceed with remedial works on this river?


Alphonse Fournier: We are looking into this question to see if it comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government. To date we have not received an answer to that question. If it is under federal jurisdiction we will certainly attend to the works. If not, I believe the province will have to take care of the matter.


Gordon Graydon: I suggest to the minister that when the answer to the question which the hon. member for York West has asked is brought down he keep in mind the fact that serious damage was done by flooding the day before yesterday in the town of Brampton. I should not like to have that town left out of consideration.



TRANSITIONAL MEASURES ACT, 1947 CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 16, consideration in committee of Bill No. 136, to amend the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act, 1947-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: I should like to enlarge upon the brief statement I made in the house on the evening of March 16, with regard to the Canadian Sugar Stabilization
Corporation Limited, and to reply to some of the questions asked by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario and the hon. member for Rosedale.
The Canadian Sugar Stabilization Corporation Limited, as I said on that evening, was incorporated as a crown company in March, 1947, to take over the duties and responsibilities which previously had been vested in the sugar administrator of the wartime prices and trade board. I stated that the corporation had acquired or is acquiring Canada's 1948 requirements of imported cane sugar. I was asked if bulk buying was desirable in peace or was continued only when necessary. It is the policy of the board, under the direction of the government, to withdraw from bulk purchasing as soon as it ceases to be necessary in the public interest. In October 1939 an agreement was entered into with the government of the United Kingdom on a plan of co-ordinating the purchasing of sugar for the duration of the war and for such period thereafter as might be considered necessary to permit of return to normal trading. This agreement was eventually embodied in an exchange of notes in September 1940. In the autumn of 1945 the United Kingdom intimated that they proposed, in the interests of maximum production and an orderly return to normal trade, to guarantee the purchase of all empire cane sugar to the end of 1949, and inquired whether Canada would wish to participate in these purchase arrangements. After full and careful discussion we agreed to participate up to our import requirements, with the proviso that we could withdraw at any time preceding the opening of the new crop year if we felt the proposed prices were too high.
Our present position is that we are in this arrangement for 1948, and that we have the right to withdraw from the 1949 crop at any time prior to December, 1948, if we feel that the proposed price for 1949 is too high. It was then and still is our view that our average price for 1947,	1948 and 1949
under this agreement would be below the average free market price for those years. The world sugar supply, up to and including the 1948 crops, was allocated through the international emergency food council. The 1948 crops are not under international allocation. We agreed with the United Kingdom, however, early in the summer of 1947 that we would buy our 1948 requirements of non-empire sugars from the United Kingdom ministry of food, paying their actual average costs.
We are informed that the highest price paid for 1948 sugar by the United Kingdom
Transitional Measures Act

under these arrangements is $5 per hundred pounds, and the lowest price is $3.75. The agreed price for the 1948 empire cane sugar is $4.75. The average price for all sugar purchased appears likely to be about $4.81. The market quotations for sugar for the 1948 crop have been as high as $5.25 and as low as $3.65. The present open market price is about 84.15. All these prices are f.o.b. West Indies islands. The duty on empire sugar is 29 cents per hundred pounds and on foreign sugar $1.29 per hundred pounds. It is estimated that about 50 per cent of the 1948 imports will come from empire sources and 50 per cent from non-empire sources. The continuance of the Canadian sugar stabilization corporation is necessary to give effect to these arrangements relating to sugar, at least until the 1948 purchase program is completed. The corporation's present selling price to refineries is on the basis of $5.94 per hundred pounds of raw sugar of 96 degree polarization. The refiners' maximum price for refined sugar is $7.89 net per hundred pounds f.o.b. Montreal.
Then I thought the committee would be interested in these figures, which I am able to give. The estimated sugar requirements for Canada for the year is 600,000 tons, of which 250,000 tons is estimated to come from empire sources, 150,000 tons from Santo Domingo, about 100,000 tons from other foreign sources, principally Cuba, and about 100,000 tons from our own domestic sugar beet producers.


Mr. JACKMAN:: I believe this raises the question whether or not this committee is in favour of bulk buying. Sufficient information has not been adduced to the committee to convince one that we are much better off by reason of this contract with Great Britain than we would be if we stood on our own feet and bought sugar where that could be done to the best advantage. For example, the present price of sugar is $4.15 per hundred pounds, while I understood the parliamentary assistant to say that at the present time we are paying an average price of about $4.81. These controls may seem good from certain points of view, but it is surprising how they may have repercussions which are not expected. Last October or November, for instance, I was in Regina and went through a warehouse where I saw carton after carton of American biscuits. Right across the road from this warehouse was the plant of a Canadian biscuit manufacturer. The thing seemed so peculiar that I asked the reason for it. I found that the wholesaler could not get enough Canadian biscuits because at that time I understood we were on a sugar ration or sugar quota;

so we were using our valuable United States dollars to import biscuits which, because of their sugar content, we did not have in Canada, though right next door to this warehouse was a biscuit manufacturer.
I do not profess to know all the ramifications of the sugar business, or of the biscuit business for that matter, but when you see a situation like that you immediately come to the conclusion that those who impose controls upon us little know just how far their controlling goes. Here we faced a situation where the most vital thing in our economy was the preservation of United States exchange. The United States had no sugar quota; it dealt in a free market in sugar, apparently, though I understand it left the empire countries to Great Britain. The United States had all the sugar they wanted; they had it for export in manufactured form, giving employment to her own people, while we were losing the small balance of exchange we had.
I do not understand why we in Canada have been kept on a quota longer than the United States. It may have something to do with the empire agreements, but I think it should be explained to the committee. I believe we would all be interested in learning what were the real advantages; whether or not the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of getting back to free enterprise and the purchase of sugar in the cheapest market we can find.
Just in passing, I happened to notice on the order paper today a question which was not answered. It was sent in by the hon. member for Lake Centre, who asked why we paid more for imported cane sugar than we paid our own growers of sugar beets. I think that question should be answered; it is part and parcel of this whole matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is another matter I wish to speak about.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Is there no answer to what I have just said? I do not think the government has made out any case at all for the continuance of this contract.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is made for 1948.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The contract is made for 1948.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: When was it made?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: In 1947. At the time it was made it looked like a good deal, and it may yet turn out to be even better than it looks at the present time. Sugar is bound to fluctuate from time to time; and I would suggest to the hon. gentleman and the committee that from the general appearance of

Transitional Measures Act
things it might be advisable to continue the arrangement for a time. But I can assure hon. members that it is the intention, to do away with this just as soon as possible, and it is possible that it may be done away with before the 1949 agreement comes into effect.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: If the agreement for 1948 was made in 1947, when in 1947 was it made? I should like to know when we shall consider the 1949 contract. It may be that it is almost due for consideration now, and the opinion of the committee may be useful.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Perhaps I may be permitted to reinforce the question which has been asked. As the hon. member for Rosedale has said, today we have just been given a statement that the government considered it desirable to do this; I do not think we have been given any reason. This seems to me to leave the matter in an unsatisfactory^ position. I shall not press the point unduly, but inasmuch as the parliamentary assistant has stated virtually that this is the last year-or am I putting too much into what he says?-are we astute to get as much sugar as we can from sources other than dollar countries? We still seem to be buying a great deal there, a procedure which seems undesirable if it can be avoided.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Our present position is that we have entered into these arrangements for 1948, and we have a right to withdraw from the 1949 crop at any time prior to December 1948. Unless there be a development of some things we cannot now foresee, it looks to me as though we would be in a position to get out of this by the end of the coming fall.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It is not a question only of whether we are in a position to withdraw. My colleague asked whether it was the present intention of the government to withdraw.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I can assure the committee that it is the desire to get out of these arrangements as soon as possible. But it would be impossible to give the committee a definite date on which that will be done.


Mr. ISNOR:: I should like to ask a question supplementary to that of the hon. member for Rosedale. What was the determining factor which entered into the making of the contract? Was it a matter of quantity, or of price? While I realize that the factor of quantity may have been important during the war, I am more concerned about the trade relations which could be established between this country and some other producing countries. In years gone by we enjoyed a happy trade relationship with both Cuba and Santo 5849-150
Domingo. I should like to see these trade relations revived as soon as possible.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Both factors were considered-regard for a stable price and continuity of supply. Then, I believe I did give the figures when I pointed out that we will be purchasing about 150,000 tons from Santo Domingo and about 100,000 tons from other foreign sources, chiefly Cuba.


Mr. FRASER:: Was the price fixed when the contract was given, or is it a price based upon the market?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: For the empire sugar the British fix the price and we agree. For the non-empire sugar it will be the average price paid.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is the average price lower than the British contract price?


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, before the question is answered let me say that I am impressed by the distinction drawn, between empire and non-empire sugars. Non-empire sugar is imported direct from Cuba, while empire sugar must cross the ocean twice, both eastward and westward, before we get it. That is why it is so expensive.
Why should there be a sugar trust in London? Why should we be obliged to buy that sugar from London when we could have it direct from the West Indies? Not only that, but I renew the suggestion I have made before, that we are entitled to have part of the British empire. Why do we not have the West Indies? Everything has been given to everyone else; but when it comes to Canada we are too proud either to accept or to ask for anything. This is an example of one of the necessities coming from a tropical climate. In Canada we have no tropical temperatures and, while we have beet sugar, we do not have cane sugar. If the West Indies were transferred to Canada we would have cheaper sugar and would be able to import it direct. Why should there be so much red tape in trade? That red tape is paid for by the consumer. Is there anyone who loves the empire so much that he will be content to pay more dearly for his sugar? Where does the money go? It goes for maritime freight, and* to the owners of' the bottoms which carry the sugar both ways across the ocean. It is a fine trip for the sugar, and I am wondering if salt water improves its quality. I am told that if a keg of beer is put on a sailing vessel during the summer and permitted to remain there while the vessel is on a long voyage, it gives a certain gusto to the beer. I wonder if the same applies to sugar?
Transitional Measures Act

This is the kind of trade I denounce, not because it is trade within the empire but because it is nonsensical. Not only that, but we have to pay for it. The empire imports which we take are paid for from the advances we make to them. Couldi anything be sillier? That kind of trade cannot be justified. I was right when I denounced it two years ago this spring; and I am right again today when I suggest the government should be bold enough to tell the British government that it is time for Canada to have some of the crumbs from the British empire.
We are entitled to have the West Indies. I wonder if the government does not dare to ask for them from Great Britain because of the possibility of some objection from the United States. What business is it of the United States to interfere with our dealings with the old country? It is none of their business; it is our own. We are not an enemy country; rather we are a friendly country. There is no great wall of China between the United States and Canada-and how many times have I heard that repeated!
I suggest that we should have sensible, practical and realistic trade with all parts of the world. As I have said, we do not have a tropical climate in Canada; therefore let us have a part of the empire which is in a tropical zone. We might have visits from English warships at times, if we were to own the West Indies. Nevertheless we are entitled to have them, after all the sacrifice in men, money and food, and sacrifices of all descriptions, we have made for the empire.
I may be called an isolationist when I suggest that, but I am not an isolationist. I follow the practice of practical English businessmen and the example of the English bulldog who tries to get all he can for his country. That is laudable. Why should we not follow that example? Why are we so subservient? When we import sugar why should we pay freight on a double crossing of the ocean? That has to be paid for by the Canadian consumer, who has a heavy enough burden to bear already. I know very well that the matter will not be taken into consideration now, but I am throwing out suggestions in order that members of parliament will have an opportunity to think about them and to realize that Canada is entitled to her share of the British empire before it goes somewhere else. Already Palestine has gone; Egypt has gone. Let us at least save the West Indies for Canada. They will be much better off with us than with any other country in the world.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: If the hon. member for Ternis-couata is sound in his argument in regard to

freight rates, I suggest to the minister and his officials that they give serious thought to basing the price on an Atlantic coast port where raw sugar is landed instead of on Montreal. As it is now, it looks to me as though once again central Canada is being given protection. The price is based on* Montreal, in central Canada. We pay the freight on the raw product to Montreal to be refined there and then shipped to other parts of Canada. I say the price should be based on the Atlantic coast port where the sugar is landed. I am glad to see the Minister of Trade and Commerce here. This is an opportunity for him and other members of the cabinet to give encouragement to Nova Scotia and the maritimes by insisting that the Acadia Sugar Refinery be reopened for the refining of sugar, thus producing sugar on the Atlantic coast more cheaply and bringing down the cost to the consumers throughout the whole dominion.


Jean-François Pouliot: If I may be permitted one word more, according to correspondence which I receive from people living in the West Indies and from what I hear from friends who go there, the public feeling in the West Indies is that it should join up with Canada. A large proportion of the population in Trinidad, Jamaica and the other islands wish to do so, and if the question were put to a vote they would join up with Canada at once.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The hon. member for Temiscouata is quite wrong in saying that the sugar crosses the ocean twice. It comes direct from the islands to Canada. As a matter of fact we are paying for empire sugar approximately $4.75 and for foreign sugar $4.87. The British have purchased all the exportable surplus on the islands and they are selling it to us at their cost. Landed in Saint John, New Brunswick, it is two cents per hundredweight less than when landed in Montreal. Sugar prices are based on Saint John, Montreal and Vancouver, at the same price.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Why not include Halifax? I have nothing against Saint John, but for years we had the Acadia Sugar Refinery operating. During the war it was closed down because, we were told, of a shortage of fuel oil. I think that this is an opportunity for the government to step into the picture and once again have the Acadia Sugar Refinery at Woodside resume operations, which would also provide badly needed employment in that part of the country and once again make Woodside, a suburb of Dartmouth, a prosperous community.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member for Halifax will appreciate that it was not by action of

Transitional Measures Act
the dominion government that that refinery was closed down. I do not know exactly what he is suggesting now. Is it that we quote a low price for raw sugar at a place where there is not a refinery?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: No. I go beyond that. I say that here is an opportunity for the Minister of Trade and Commerce and other members of the cabinet, including the highly-respected minister representing Nova Scotia, to help the maritimes by taking action which will result in the re-opening of the Acadia Sugar Refinery at Woodside. It was closed down during the war because of a shortage of fuel oil, or at all events that was the reason given at the time- that it was a war casualty. Of course it may have been just another manoeuvre on the part of the promotors to centralize the refining of sugar. In any case I am asking the government to take action which will result in the re-opening of the Acadia Sugar Refinery.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the hon. member and the minister a question? Does it not follow that he is really asking the government to open up and operate that refinery as a government proposition?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: No; you cannot put me in that position.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are putting yourself there.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: No. If I see a man who needs help, who needs a meal, for instance, I am glad to help him, as I am sure my hon. friend would. The government is perhaps in a position to assist those who formerly operated the Acadia Sugar Refinery.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is not my department, but I could not imagine the government refusing to give a Halifax buyer of raw sugar as low a price as the Saint John buyer. It is based on the West Indies price, plus freight, and the freight is less to Saint John than to Montreal. If there is a refinery in Halifax the freight to that port would be less than to Montreal.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The only price quoted by the parliamentary assistant in his first statement, before I had spoken, was based on Montreal. I still feel that the government could do something.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We could certainly do that.


An hon. MEMBER:: A by-election?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I very seldom think of politics.


Mr. MILLER:: May I ask the parliamentary assistant why the Minister of Finance persists in refusing to grant the request of the sugar 5849-150i
beet growers to have the price of sugar produced from beets equalized with that of sugar produced from cane? At present there is a spread of 19 cents on the average, from $7.89 to $8.08. The sugar beet growers have consistently asked that the government pay the same price for sugar from sugar beets as for sugar from imported cane. The government maintain that they are not subsidizing sugar, or that they will not subsidize sugar producers in this country, but if they are subsidizing, as they really are, cane sugar importations to the extent of 19 cents a hundred I do not see why the sugar beet growers do not get the same consideration, the same price f.o.b. at Montreal. It has never been satisfactorily explained to the sugar beet growers so far as I know, and I should like to have an answer.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I am advised that traditionally beet sugar has been lower than cane sugar, but some time ago beet sugar was raised to the same price as cane sugar. If Montreal is the base, then the price in the sugar factory in Winnipeg would be that price plus the freight; therefore the beet sugar growers in Manitoba would get the Montreal price plus the freight from Montreal to Winnipeg.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Perhaps you can say that in one way, but is it not a fact that the cane sugar people are getting another 19 cents a hundred? You may be paying it out of your $21,000,000 stabilization fund, but actually the cane sugar people are getting 19 cents a hundred more at Montreal than the sugar beet growers; that is, on the basis f.o.b. Montreal. It does not matter where the money comes from; the cane sugar producers are getting the benefit, to the extent of 19 cents a hundred, over the sugar beet growers.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a word on the information given by the parliamentary assistant; he said that the non-British sugar was more expensive than the British sugar; that there was a difference of 12 cents. That may be so, but he knows very well that there are fluctuations in the price of such commodities. Today the difference is on one side; tomorrow it may be on the other side. But taking into account these fluctuations, it is more than evident that it would be to the benefit of Canada to have the West Indies as part of Canada. They are nearer to Nova Scotia than the part of the country in which I live. Everybody would be satisfied to have the West Indies as part of Canada. If that came about we could get sugar, molasses, bananas, rum and all the products of tropical countries from these islands, and it would come from our own country to the great satisfaction of all.
Transitional Measures Act

Another thing I notice is that these are dealings between governments. If I am not mistaken these purchases are made between governments. I wonder whether that is so.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the item carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a minute. I have asked a question. I wonder whether the commercial exchanges are between representatives of both governments, both exporters. I should like to know whether, when we buy empire sugar, it is bought through the British government or from private firms in these countries.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The British government actually purchases the sugar and we are buying it at their cost. Our cheques actually are paid to the growers, not to the British government. That probably answers the hon. gentleman's question. If I understood the hon. member aright he said that empire sugar was costing more than foreign sugar. That is not so. The reverse is true.


Jean-François Pouliot: I understand, and I admit what my hon. friend has said.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: We do not know what the fluctuation is going to be, and the contract is for only 1948. What might happen in 1949 is something else.


Jean-François Pouliot: In the first part of my remarks I said that empire sugar was more expensive, and in the second part I took into account what my hon. friend has said. I notice that there is a difference of 12 cents, and that non-empire sugar is more expensive; but I was under the impression that both governments were dealing together in the purchase of that sugar. That would be pure socialism, and the cost would not have been the same at all concerning the purchase of non-empire sugar. I am glad that my hon. friend has said that the British government was making the arrangement but that payment was made directly to the producers. I congratulate them, and I warn them to be very careful in their dealings with Mr. Strachey, because he does not keep his word very often.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to add a word. I think we cannot pretend that the explanation which has been given as to why this was done takes us very far. The statement has been made that it was thought wise to do so. One wonders whether it has just been continued without anyone standing off and criticizing it. I am looking at it in a detached way to consider whether the time has not come to get away from bulk buying; nevertheless I am not disposed to follow the

matter further, but I should like to say this. I hope very earnestly that it will not be necessary to continue it beyond this year. There has been considerable indication from the parliamentary assistant that it may not go further, although he has not bound himself. If it comes up again we of this party will certainly be very critical, and we shall try to resist any further extension of it.


Calvert Charlton Miller: I should like an answer to my question.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: 
Calvert Charlton Miller: I can see the parliamentary assistant's point but our difficulty is that the sugar beet growers, and the sugar beet company in Manitoba anyway, feel that if the government would meet the request of the

Transitional Measures Act
sugar beet growers and equalize prices, cutting out the 19 cent disparity, it would increase acreage. It would be of advantage to Canada and would help the dollar situation if sugar beet acreage were increased. If however we wait until the particular item to which the parliamentary assistant has referred is brought down, it will be too late even then, if nothing is done about it before that time, to encourage an increase in acreage which should be sown in 1948. That is why I would like to have the parliamentary assistant discuss it with the Minister of Finance. Perhaps the minister could even yet adjust what the sugar beet growers claim is a great injustice.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The matter will be discussed with the ministry.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wish to say a word of appreciation of the Minister of Finance and the parliamentary assistant for their willingness to answer so many questions on so many different subjects. These matters are delicate and difficult and they do their best to inform the house. I am sure everyone has appreciated the way in which they have dealt with the questions that have been submitted to them. The answers were mostly satisfactory to members.


Mr. McKAY:: May I ask the parliamentary assistant to answer the question I asked on Tuesday, which he deferred to a later day? The question had reference to whether or not a directive had been issued to the rental commissioners to favour the tenant rather than the owner of property. He said he would give the answer some time later. I am concerned about the answer because I have received many letters from veterans and old folks who own homes and are unable to obtain occupancy.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: There has been no directive issued by the board along the lines suggested.


Eric Bowness McKay: There hasn't been any?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if we might revert to the discussion of the other evening on the two orders in council listed under the Department of Mines and Resources, 7167 and 7168. The other night I asked a question about these orders in council and the Minister of Trade and Commerce was good enough to make an immediate reply which took the form of an announcement as to the change that had been made in government policy with regard to this matter. Incidentally I have to point out that one of the difficulties in connection with this kind of
legislation is this. When we passed the bill a year ago it carried forward a number of orders in council. Some of these we were opposed1 to and yet they have been carried forward another year, while other orders in council like these we were in favour of, and had1 hoped would be continued, have been revoked in the meantime.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I interrupt to say that when the two orders in council referred to were extended last year I gave notice that it would be only a matter of a short time until they would no longer be required. At that time I expressed the government's viewpoint that minerals in the ground should1 not be subject to control.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I can confirm that the minister gave that indication when the matter was up last year, but I still press the view that these orders in council should have been continued, or that the provisions brought into effect by these orders should have been made effective by permanent statute. It is obvious to all of us that we are at a very early stage in this whole matter of radioactive minerals and atomic energy. It seems to me, in view of the losses that the Canadian people have sustained in the past from the alienation of raw materials and natural resources, we should go rather slowly in this new field of atomic energy.
I remember the Minister of Trade and Commerce telling us on another occasion that he did not want to see a repetition of the experiences that this country suffered in the matter of railroading. He did not want to see those experiences repeated in air transportation. We take the same position with respect to radioactive minerals and atomic energy.
I say as briefly and as pointedly as I can that we disagree with the minister. We feel that these minerals should have been reserved to the crown, at least until the world knows a little more about this subject. It is interesting to note the sort of publicity that has been given to this announcement and the items that have been in the news in the last day or two. This morning's radio carried the news that gold miners were now turning their attention to uranium rather than to gold. Maybe we shall not have to go ahead with Bill No. 7, in which the hon. member for York West and others are so interested, now that this guaranteed price has been fixed for uranium concentrates, with the understanding that the government will buy all the uranium concentrates of a certain specification that are produced.
Transitional Measures Act

In view of the fact that we do not yet know how fully these minerals will be used either for war or for peace, I suggest that we are opening the door to a new phase of profiteering, and I feel very strongly that this alienation of yet another natural resource should not have been permitted by the federal government. I realize that the present policy-


Clarence Decatur Howe: What resource is being alienated? I would point out that any and all uranium mined in this country must be sold to the federal government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am coming to that immediately. Radioactive minerals in the ground, by the orders in council that have been revoked, were reserved to the crown even while in the ground. Now the government has moved to the position that private interests may go in and explore and exploit and develop these minerals, though the minister points out that the government maintains its control in this field by buying all the uranium that is produced.
That is the position at the present time, but I ask hon. members to note that it is a change from what it was before, and I also ask hon. members to note the quotation which the minister gave the other night from a memorandum he had just received with regard to the position in the United States. On page 2285 of Hansard will be found this quotation with reference to the policy of the atomic energy commission in the United States:
In general it will be commission policy to purchase ores for its program from private sources and limit direct government production as far *as possible.
I have not before me the details of the United States program, either as at the present time or for the future, but that sentence sug-gets to me that the commission in the United States thinks in terms of private interests having stockpiles of this material from which the United States atomic energy commission will purchase supplies for its program. The minister said the other night that although arrived at independent!}-, this government and the United States government were following somewhat parallel lines. I should not be surprised if before long the minister announced a further change of policy that permits this sort of thing, namely, the stockpiling of these materials by private interests. The very fact that the government purchases uranium from private interests means that there is a stage at which private interests own this material. It is obvious to all of us that there is no way of telling what the value of these materials will be. I think it is a little too soon for action of this kind to have been taken. In

fact I would hope that we might move in the direction that this sort of action would never have to be taken. But at least in the present situation I regret that the government has taken this stand.
I do not think I shall say anything more at this moment, but will merely ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The statement he made the other night related, I take it, to these two orders in council that have been revoked. They referred only to the radioactive minerals in the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories. That is natural because those are the only parts of Canada in which the natural resources belong to the crown in the right of the federal government. Can the minister tell us what the situation is in the rest of Canada? I refer to the provinces. I realize that that matter is not under his jurisdiction, but it is one of general interest. Can the minister tell us what the situation is in the various provinces?


Mr. GREEN:: Before the minister answers that question, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. How does he suggest that the prospecting for these precious metals be carried out? Does he really believe that the government can prospect for minerals and find them in just as many cases as individual Canadians can?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Individual Canadians can do the prospecting, but they can do it now. just as they did while these orders in council were in effect, under the direction of the government and with the full knowledge that those minerals belong to the government. We have had this sort of discussion a good many times before, and hon. members to my right need not think that what we are saying is any criticism of the rights of individual mining prospectors. They are Canadians; they are workers like a good many more, and deserve their chance to make a decent living. The thing that bothers me is that it is not the individual prospector who makes a mint of money out of mining; it is organizations like Eldorado before it became a crown corporation, Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, and so on. Frankly I have no confidence in organizations of that kind when it comes to a subject which is so tremendous in its energy potential and its wealth-producing potential, not to mention its relation to the problem of war.


Howard Charles Green: My hon. friend has not answered my question. Does he really believe that these minerals can be found best by employees of any government, whether dom-

Transitional Measures Act
inion or provincial? Or does he believe they can be found best by companies, let us say, or individuals whose business is prospecting?


Stanley Howard Knowles: In reply to that question I would say that most of the prospecting that is done today is done with all kinds of help that comes from governments, both federal and provincial. If it were not for all the assistance to mining, such as geodetic surveying and all the rest of it, that is afforded through the expenditure of public money, the prospectors would have a tough time of it.


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid the hon. member does not know much about mining.


Mr. SKEY:: Does the minister expect to increase the amount of uranium ore found in Canada by this recent lifting of the government restriction?


Clarence Decatur Howe: To answer to the first question first, the federal government, as my hon. friend has said, owns the ore only in the Northwest Territories. The provinces own the natural resources within their boundaries. When the ban on prospecting for uranium was imposed by the federal government, each province was communicated with and asked to put into effect a similar prohibition in the provinces. I think seven of the provinces did that and two did not. I leave it to my hon. friend to guess which two did not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is no difficulty there.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As soon as it was felt that it was no longer necessary for the crown to control uranium, the provinces were notified accordingly; and I think all the provinces except Saskatchewan have taken parallel action with the dominion in lifting the prohibition against prospecting. To reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Trinity, yes, we think that opening up uranium prospecting will increase the known reserves of uranium. As hon. gentlemen know, there are in this country a good many million miles of suitable territory to be explored. The federal government for these three years have had a number of parties out-I think some twenty or twenty-two-and certain discoveries have been made. The value of the discoveries cannot be determined until they are opened up. We think that with all the prospectors who are looking for other minerals but are also on the lookout for uranium and those who may be sent out to look primarily for uranium, there will be further discoveries.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Has the status of Eldorado changed as a result of your orders?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. Eldorado is a mining property at Great Bear lake. They are operating a refinery at Port Hope. They are also opening up one or two prospects that have been discovered in the last year or two. But Eldorado is most active and we are hoping its activities will be stepped up as the result of the new regulation.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Has the minister ever tabled the report of the investigation into Eldorado?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know of any investigation into Eldorado.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: It was brought up by way of question last year and the year before. I have reference to the report of the Glassco commission.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That was an interdepartmental report. It will not be tabled.


Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: I disagree with the government's policy in this respect. I think it is wrong. But unfortunately the whole situation concerning this valuable mineral and what we derive from it is shrouded in secrecy, and perhaps with good reason. Today, however, I intend to ask the minister some questions and I hope to get an answer to most of them. None of them will affect security matters at all. The right hon. gentleman, in this statement of his the other day, either said too much or too little; but he has left a great many x's in the equation and I should like to hear the answers to them.
In the first place I should like to lay a background for what I have to say by quoting from the official United States report on atomic energy, with which the minister is well acquainted. The author in his preface states:
The ultimate responsibility for our nation's policy rests on its citizens and they can discharge such responsibilities wisely only if they are informed.
I shall go right to the end and quote words from this book which I think every member of parliament should read. They are found at page 135:
We find ourselves with an explosive which is far from completely perfected. Yet the future possibilities of such explosives are appalling, and their effects on future wars and international affairs are of fundamental importance. Here is a new tool for mankind, a tool of unimaginable destructive power. Its development raises many questions that must be answered in the near future. Because of the restrictions of military security there has been no chance for the congress or the people to debate such questions.
Such, of course, is obviously true in Canada as well, to some extent.
They have been seriously considered by all concerned and vigorously debated among the
Transitional Measures Act

scientists, and the conclusions reached have been passed along to the highest authorities. These questions are not technical questions; they are political and social questions, and the answers given to them may affect all mankind for generations.
We may have to bring up some of these questions in this house, in the hope of getting answers. The report goes on:
In thinking about them the men on the project have been thinking as citizens of the United States vitally interested in the welfare of the human race.
Again we could substitute "Canada" for "the United States".
It has been their duty and that of the responsible high government officials who were informed to look beyond the limits of the present war and its weapons to the ultimate implications of these discoveries. This was a heavy responsibility. In a free country like ours such questions should be debated by the people and decisions must be made by the people through their representatives.
We now have an opportunity, though brief, to discuss some of the fundamental issues contained in the statement made by the minister the other day. The policy of the government is avowedly to permit private exploration for and mining of radioactive materials. As I say, I disagree with that policy just now, because I do not agree with those who see in this new substance, fissionable material, a way to open up suddenly vast resources of energy and potential wealth for the people of the nations. We may not see that in our lifetime; but I am convinced of this, that as far as the nations of the world are concerned, the real value of atomic energy today lies in its power to destroy, to kill and to obliterate. This means we have to consider the policy of the government from that point of view; and that policy is to permit, to some extent, so-called private enterprise-I suppose because the government considers it more efficient- to profit out of this material which is so extraordinarily dangerous when it reaches the end stage.
I should like to have seen the government continue its policy of maintaining title, in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, to these radioactive materials; and I should like to see the government continue the agreement with the provinces, as far as possible. I believe the provinces should be asked to work in co-operation with the federal government, so that when such radioactive minerals are found in the provinces they can be exploited in conjunction with the federal government for the benefit of all.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: If the hon. member will permit a question, is he prepared to see the prov-

inces and the dominion spend the taxpayers' money on the exploration and development of such deposits?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: It is already being spent. We have spent thousands and probably hundreds of thousands of dollars in that way. I have no objection to that, because this material is one of the most vital things in the world today. We have to look at it from that aspect, and from no other. In his statement at page 2284 of Hansard, the minister said:
The government will purchase . . . acceptable uranium bearing ores . . .
Here begins my list of questions. The minister said such ores must have a minimum uranium content equivalent to ten per cent by weight of uranium oxide. What will be the position with respect to ores containing only five per cent of uranium oxide, say, or seven and a half per cent, or eight per cent, or nine per cent? Does the government intend to purchase all such ores, or will it leave the ores with a lesser uranium oxide content in the hands of those doing the mining? If so, what will be the consequences of that policy from the point of view of stock-piling, with which I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre dealt cogently?
That is one question. On the next I admit my ignorance and would be glad to be guided by the minister. What about the question of thorium? The Prime Minister told us in this house some two years ago that thorium was a basic necessity for the manufacture of atomic bombs; yet there is no mention of it here at all. I should like the minister to say something about that.
Then in the statement by the minister we are told that a minimum rate of $2.75 a pound will be paid for this ore. The question which immediately arises in my mind is this. Is $2.75 a pound an excessive price to pay, or is it a reasonable price? We can be certain that the price is not too low, but I should like to know whether the price of $2.75 a pound gives a reasonable return to those who are producing this ore. Who determined that price? On what basis was it determined? Was it done by the department itself, or was it done by the government in conjunction with the corporations which will mine this substance? That is another matter I should like to know something about.
There is something else we must remember. In 1939 an agreement was entered into between the Eldorado company and Union Miniere du Haut Katanga, which was the Belgian company working in the Congo. These two companies were in the field to develop radium, and they had come to the conclusion that if they carried

Transitional Measures Act
on production at the rate then in effect the price would have to be dropped. So they entered into this agreement, under which the Belgian company was to get sixty per cent of the market and the Canadian company, forty per cent. As an annual mining review stated, they did this because the developed potential exceeded absorption capacity. Radium is one of the most vital materials we know of for the preservation of health, for the prevention of disease and, through that prevention, the preservation of life; yet no matter how great the need among the peoples of the world, these two companies decided at that time to restrict production. The reason for that may have been, in the words of the United' States statement which was quoted by the minister, "under the stimulus of profits," but I regret very much to see the stimulus of profits used in such a way. What guarantee is there that this sort of agreement will not be entered into in future? The minister has stated that he looks with approval upon United States policy; but then United States policies have not the complete support of United States scientists and public men. Here I should like to quote part of a study made for a seminar in government administration and public policy at Harvard University, by Mr. Richard Dyer McCann, who is a lecturer there. He said:
Government operation is only partly envisaged in the atomic energy act of 1946. The "declaration of policy" in the act calls for "strengthening free competition in private enterprise" as well as a number of other objectives like increasing the standard of living, promoting world peace, and so on. The accompanying committee report stated that "wherever possible, the committee endeavours to reconcile government monopoly of fissionable material with our tradi-tionable free enterprise system."
Some observers say that under Republican tutelage, atomic energy will be completely "returned" to private enterprise.
That is the hope of many in the United States today. It may even be the aspiration of some in Canada; but as far as I am concerned, it is our responsibility in this party to see that, as far as we can avoid it, that does not become Canada's policy, and I hope it does not. The effects of such a policy can be seen in a later quotation from the same article:
General Electric now has responsibility for a huge new research laboratory at Schenectady and has taken over from duPont the Hanford works in Washington-by far the most important of the three production plants.
That is one of the largest plants erected by the United States government for the manufacture of fissionable material.
Thus General Electric becomes the primary wholesaler of atomic power. Gan it be doubted that General Electric expects to have things
to say about the placement of secondary power plants in the United States? Can it be doubted therefore, that decisions about production policy of the united nations atomic energy commission -and of any future ADA-are of considerable importance ito General Electric? May it not be assumed that we are witnessing the conscious or unconscious growth of new, top-level lobbying interests, economic in character, international in scope?
I should like to be reassured by the minister that this will not be the policy of the federal government, namely, to turn this tremendous power for good and evil into private hands. While here again the facts are quite obscure, we know there were many suspicious, let us say, of what was happening in connection with certain officers of the Eldorado Mining Company some years ago.
How does the government intend, by a system of controls, to see to it that there are no illicit operations in the selling of uranium oxide? How will the government police this operation without, to some extent, leading to that police state which we all deplore? Would it not be better, in the long run, to take over complete ownership of these materials now, rather than be compelled to do so later if, unhappily, we find ourselves in another war?
It may seem to be the easier and more facile way out of the difficulty to have control now; but I think, in the long run, the problem will become much more complicated. I do not think we are doing a service to Canadians by allowing this stimulus of profit to decide how much ore will be produced. I assume we need the maximum amount of ore which can be produced in this country for defence if for no other reason. Yet today we leave its production entirely to the stimulus of profit.
I do not share the easy optimism of those who, as I said before, believe that, through atomic energy', a new world is just around the corner. On the other hand I am inclined to share the pessimism of those who know what an atomic war would mean to the people of the world. And it is because I fear that eventuality that I should like to see entire control of all fissionable material and by-products, from their original source, in the hands of the federal government.
On December 17, 1945, as reported at page 3703 of Hansard, when discussing the atomic energy declaration the Prime Minister said:
If we are agreed on the ultimate necessity of some measure of world government to maintain world security, we should, by every means in our power, support and strengthen every agency of international co-operation and understanding which can help to make the world community a reality.
2360
Transitional Measures Act

I think that, in this small action of the government, it has denied the words of the Prime Minister. Had the government been alive to the moral responsibility which it had to the people, of Canada and of the world, it would have said to the united nations, "We are willing to transfer to any international organization the plant which we have in Canada for the production of fissionable materials, and also to surrender to that international organization the areas in which there are quantities of uranium oxide." There, at least, would have been a gesture of some value to a world which is becoming almost paralyzed with fear. It would have been the type of moral leadership which is badly needed; but the government is falling down on it. It may be suggested from the Social Credit group that this would be a surrender of sovereignty. Of course it is. We cannot expect to live any longer as a sovereign nation; and in any event I doubt very much whether this sovereignty we boast of is a reality or is indeed a myth.
Here again I quote from the Prime Minister from the same page in Hansard:
The more deeply one ponders the problems with which our world is confronted in the light -"the terrible light," as Mr. Attlee said-of the implications of the development of atomic energy, the harder it is to see a solution in anything short of some surrender of national sovereignty.
Of course that is the answer in the long run. But I think the government has made an egregious blunder in carrying out its policy. Perhaps time will tell whether I am right or wrong. But in the meantime, at least I wish to register my opposition to this policy, and to hope that the minister will be able to answer some of the questions T have raised.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The first question, I think, w'as as to the significance of the ten per cent content. That refers entirely to the degree of concentration of the ore which is offered for delivery. Eldorado ore is very low grade. It runs less than one per cent, and is concentrated to about thirty per cent. The government has specified ten per cent as the degree of concentration which it will expect before it can accept delivery. Otherwise it has no significance.
Then, so far as thorium is concerned, may I point out that thorium is covered by atomic energy control. There is no known deposit of thorium in Canada. It is known mostly in tropical countries. The greatest supply is in India and the next is in Brazil.
As to the price of $2.75 a pound, it is felt that a price should be stated which would govern for a considerable length of time, so

that prospectors would be encouraged, and would have some method of assessing the value of any discoveries they made. The price of $2.75 was worked out from the experience of Eldorado as a reasonable price for that purpose.
Then, my hon. friend has referred to prewar agreements between Eldorado-that is the privately owned Eldorado-and	the
Belgian company. I would ask him to remember that the entry of the Canadian company into the field of the production of radium cut the price of radium in two. I think there was for a time a selling agreement between the two countries, but certainly there was no selling agreement after the government acquired the company, and there will be none in the future.


Major James William Coldwell: Has General McNaugh-ton been consulted regarding this policy? I have before me recommendations and reports presented with respect to the proposed atomic energy commission. I notice that General McNaughton is quite specific in his reports which dealt with the agency's functions in relation to the location and the mining of ores. There was one section which impressed me when I read it some time ago, and I looked it up only a few minutes ago. I might say that this paper was prepared by General Andrew G. L. McNaughton of Canada, group leader; Professor Jacques Errera of Belgium; Captain Alvaro Alberto of Brazil; Doctor Bertrand Goldschmidt of France; and Doctor John E. Vance of the United States.
This section struck me as significant:
Security requires international control and allocation of the quantities and locations of uranium and thorium separated from their deposit, time and place of processing and the size, use, and disposition of stocks. Without such comprehensive control of source materials there would be a serious risk of diversion or of the accumulation of stocks with a view to subsequent diversion or seizure. The policies governing this control must be specified in the convention. To administer them the agency must be given control of the source materials promptly after their separation from the deposits.
Therefore, agency ownership must apply to all uranium and thorium from the time of removal.
Reading the various reports made at the time by different persons-and this is mainly General McNaughton's summary-it struck me that, no matter how small the amount of uranium there might be in a concentrate, there would be danger of leakage if this were in the hands of private companies. I should like to see the government responsible for this all the way through.

Transitional Measures Act
Perhaps the minister could tell us whether what he proposes is satisfactory to our representative on the atomic energy commission of the united nations.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The two orders in council were revoked on recommendation of General Mc-Naughton, who was at that time chairman of the atomic energy board. Since that time, General McNaughton has assumed other duties and has resigned as president and member of the board. His place has been taken by Doctor Mackenzie of the national research council. But General McNaughton was chairman at the time this was rescinded.
If my hon. friend will read General Mc-Naughton's statement again he will notice that it recommends control of uranium from the time it is taken out of the ground. That is the purpose of the regulations, as first drawn, of the atomic energy commission. I explained a year ago, when the orders in council were extended, that it was the view of Canada that any attempt to control uranium in the ground was not useful, and that turned out to be the view of the atomic energy commission in New York. We are working in complete conformity with the findings of the commission, and we believe that the regulations- I have a copy of them here and I have no doubt my hon. friend has seen them-provide wholly adequate machinery for the control of uranium which is extracted from the ground.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I understand that this new move by the government comes as a result of consultation with a committee and others who are experts in the Canadian mining field and in atomic energy. I think the government has taken a wise and sensible step; in fact, almost the only step it could have taken under the circumstances. It has acted on the best technical and expert opinion available.
The problem before us in Canada is to see that all possible deposits of radioactive material are discovered and then developed. Whether we would like it or not, the fact remains that the government-and this goes for any government in a democracy-is not competent to discover and develop any ore deposit. One of the big problems of the geological survey is, as they put it, not to find a mine, because that is not their function. Their function is to make the geology so well known that the individual prospector, who has found well over ninety per cent of all the known mineral deposits in Canada today, will be able to discover and subsequently develop mineral deposits in this country. Incidentally when the Eldorado Mining and Smelting Company was taken over and the government's 5849-151J
policy made known at that time I advocated that the prospecting for and development of fissionable materials up to certainly the preliminary concentrate stage should be in the hands of those best able, in fact the only people able to discover and develop them, namely the individual prospector and the mining corporation. I am glad to see that the government has eventually come to that conclusion.
One of the things that this new move does is to put the Geiger counter into the kit of most prospectors. Today our knowledge of the fissionable materials in Canada is superficial. The discovery of the Eldorado deposit was in many ways a fluke. Gilbert LaBine at the time was looking for gold. The original Eldorado company was a gold mining company which had failed in operating a mine in Manitoba, I think it was; and it was only through Gilbert LaBine having a peculiar knowledge, a sort of sixth sense, which enabled him to detect a certain coloured stain on the ice of Great Bear lake that the Eldorado deposit was discovered. So it may be said that in many ways it was a fluke. If there are other deposits of uranium in Canada they are not known, and to prohibit the looking for these deposits and their development by individuals who are fortunate enough to discover them is not likely to lead to the discovery and development of more uranium deposits. It is essential that if there are other uranium deposits in Canada everything should be done to discover and develop them.
I think the government has taken the only sensible step in the circumstances. Whether the price is sufficient, no one in the house is competent to say. It would be difficult to say what the costs of concentrating U3O8 would1 be, and the government has set a price which is probably in the nature of a target price per pound. I hope that this will be considered a flexible price which may be varied to make possible and profitable the discovery of uranium or any other fissionable materials. There is, in my opinion and- in the opinion I think of the atomic energy commission, no danger in having these deposits discovered or in producing the concentrates of uranium so long as the end product continues to be controlled, and I understand from the committee in the United States that there is no idea that the end product shall in any way be released from the most stringent control by the federal authority.


Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: Mr. Chairman, I join with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Winnipeg North in protesting against the five-point program which the government
Transitional Measures Act

announced on March 16. Had I not been perfectly sure on other grounds that I was right in protesting against this policy, after listening to the Tory member to my right I am convinced I am right because we see that the government's policy is acceptable to him.
The development of atomic energy is still in its infancy. The success in breaking the atom so that it could be used for destructive purposes was heralded throughout the world as a discovery of equal importance to that of fire. Here we see a government right after the war, with the possibilities either of destruction or of peacetime use of that energy, ready to throw it into the hands of private enterprise where it will be promoted or retarded at the whim of such private enterprise. I take exception to that very principle because, for the good of the people of this country and for the good of the peoples throughout the world, I think we should undertake to develop atomic energy to its fullest. I cannot go so far as the hon. member for Winnipeg North and say that the peacetime uses of atomic energy may not come in our generation, I have read articles by well-known world scientists who hold the view that we may be able to use atomic energy in ten years. If we would go all-out and make an effort to use that energy for the welfare of the people we could find many uses for it in the matter of a few years.
Reference has already been made to the use of radioactive materials in determining certain functions in plant growth, and also in the field of medicine and surgery, where it is used to great advantage today. Therefore I want to register my great concern that this material be turned over to public enterprise to promote the development of it to the greatest extent possible. I should like to ask the minister whether the government has underwritten the production of all ore-bearing uranium oxide to the extent of $2.75 a pound. Will he tell the committee whether or not this is a low figure, and what is the possibility of a higher figure being paid? If a higher figure is paid in some instances, just how high is the government prepared to go? Here we have an instance of private companies going into exploratory work. They could very easily form a monopoly and hold back the production, thereby building up a sort of demand for it if the government should need it, and then request higher prices.
In conclusion may I say I feel that the government should reverse its program. Rather than attach our public development, or the development of these atomic uranium deposits to the skirts of the United States government, let us have our own policy and go all-out on public development.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: Has the government any assurance that any claims staked by the private companies in developments of this kind will be developed? Is there any way in which the government is assured that the companies will not stake claims and then sit down on the job and keep other people from developing them?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, there is no such assurance, except that it is very expensive to keep claims under control. My hon. friend knows that a certain amount of development work is required to keep title to a claim alive.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Is there any regulation providing that anything that is produced in these mines must be delivered to the government immediately, or is there an opportunity for stock-piling?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It must be delivered immediately.


Jean-François Pouliot: It seems to be the time to give some expression on this matter which is very important. We must consider it seriously. The minister holds Jupiter's thunder in his hand. What I appreciate of the minister is his serenity; he has not the sombre looks of General McNaughton. I would prefer to have the picture of the minister to one of General McNaughton, because the minister understands that atomic energy is most powerful, but he is not always making depressing speeches, undertaker's speeches, like some that we hear all the time. Life is sad, anybody might die suddenly; it is very sad, but that is the story.


Major James William Coldwell: Particularly with the atomic bomb.


Jean-François Pouliot: An atomic bomb may explode and kill many people. Until this happens, why should everybody have a sombre look? Every time the atomic bomb is mentioned, why not think of the happy possibilities of the whole thing?


An hon. MEMBER:: Of being blown to bits.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend is not serious. I suggest that the matter should be treated seriously, but not in the spirit of an undertaker. Besides that, I will point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is a qualified engineer. The hon. member for York West is also a qualified engineer. I am not, and the other hon. members who have spoken on it are not engineers. What do they know about the formula of the atomic bomb? They know nothing about it. They have seen pictures in the press and in illustrated periodicals the same as everybody else; they have seen the big cloud of smoke,

Transitional Measures Act
and afterwards they have seen the ravages of destruction. That is all they know about the atomic bomb.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That is enough.


Jean-François Pouliot: When we see a small part of atomic energy providing the power to move a big ship or a locomotive or an aeroplane or anything of that sort, then we shall have every reason to rejoice. During and before the last war, what did we hear about poison gas? Poison gas was invented before the first war. It was used in the first war. It happened that mustard gas killed some people in some cities of Europe between the two wars, but when the second war started there was an implicit agreement between the belligerent parties not to use poison gas, and it was not used by anybody.
Who knows about the use of atomic energy during a future wair? In the first place, shall we have a future war? Why should we always have panicky speeches about a future war? We are not sure about it. and even if we have it will atomic energy be used by all the belligerent countries? We are not sure about it. Therefore we should have a better philosophy of life and, considering the power of atomic energy and realizing it, we should not always be afraid of it, because it may be a benefit to mankind, most people are hoping. Consequently, why should we worry unduly and make depressing and panicky speeches about the atomic bomb?
I have something else to say. I find it very pleasant that the present Minister of Trade and Commerce is the member of the cabinet who has atomic energy under his jurisdiction to a large extent. He knows a lot about it; he has contributed more than anybody else to the development of that energy, and I am sure that his earnest wish is that it may be used for the benefit of mankind at the earliest possible opportunity.


Eric Bowness McKay: All of us recognize that the second report; of the united nations commission on atomic energy does not envisage control of radioactive ores by any international authority, but I cannot accept the government's view that it is a wise policy to permit the mining of uranium-bearing ores by mining interests which have no other interest in the matter than that of making fortunes for a few people.
I am not interested in profits for a few shareholders of such companies that may be interested in the production of these ores, but I am concerned about the potential economic value of such mineral-producing concentrates to the general public. The Minister of Trade
and Commerce will say that the government still have control of uranium because they are the sole purchasing agents. I am sure the minister is quite satisfied that the purchase of concentrates by the government will give the federal authorities far from complete control over such mining development. This sort of control would not eliminate such possibilities as smuggling to other countries where higher prices might be paid than those offered in Canada.
Uranium can be of great economic value in the production of energy. I think that has been indicated in this house by men who should have some reasonable knowledge of that particular subject. It seems to me that if profits are to be made out of a rare mineral of this kind the people of Canada should be the beneficiaries from this great natural resource and it should be the heritage of all Canadians and not of just a few. I saw today a news item in a reputable paper, the Christian Science Monitor, from which I wish to quote some words spoken by so outstanding a physicist, Doctor Lyle B. Borst. This gentleman, I may say, was in charge of developing the Hanford plutonium plant in Washington during the war and is now directing the building of a nuclear reactor at Brookhaven national laboratory in Upton, Long Island, New York. He said;
The industrial applications of atomic energy will be legion but will certainly not be immediate. There are too many problems to be solved in the meantime. But development of atomic power is one of. the most direct and foreseeable future industries.
He says there are certain definite applications such as mobile power for ships, submarines and planes and probably a practical application of atomic power in many other fields. I suggest that in the development of atomic energy for power purposes there are unlimited possibilities. It may take five years, ten years or even a generation, but there seems to be little doubt that the energy from this source will be used in Canada some day, and certainly it will be used elsewhere. Because of this definite trend, which is, we know in its scientific value quite important, I feel that the government should control every avenue of its development. While a minimum price has been set for ores and concentrates, there does not appear to be any indication that a maximum has been placed on the price which may be paid.
This country has had some experience in Ihe past in the alienation of natural resources to private interests, and it has not always made for better living standards among our people. Electrical energy has been one of these
Transitional Measures Act

resources which have been exploited. It has been developed in many cases by private interests and later purchased by municipal or state bodies in order to protect the people from exploitation.
Private interests may develop uranium deposits along similar lines, but what guarantee is there that a monopoly may not shut out the small producer and then hold up the state when these ores are needed for vital economic development?
There the minister makes a reference to very special circumstances in which consideration might be given to the payment of a higher price by the government. I wonder what these very special circumstances would be. Would that possibly envisage the probability of war? We hope that will never occur, but if a war did occur we know that the atomic bomb would certainly come in for definite use. And1 if a war comes, it does not seem to me a very safe prospect to hand over the production of uranium, which is so important in the production of atomic energy, to private enterprise.
I think we should seriously object now, as we certainly should during a wrar period, to the paying of higher prices for an essential ore just to make it possible for shareholders to make profits when the nation is, in all probability, fighting for its life.
No one has any right to profit from war. We had an experience in the last war when profiteers were oblivious of everything else. Apart from war, however, which we all hope will1 never come, our quarrel with this situation should be definitely on the basis of the great economic value of this mineral, and because of that I feel that it should remain in the hands of the people. I therefore strenuously oppose the revocation of these orders, making it possible for private enterprise to get control of so important a commodity.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a question? Is there any indication that atomic energy will be usable to replace such commodities as coal' and oil, of which Canada is in such short supply at the moment?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We all know that the fission of uranium does release a tremendous amount of energy. Ways and means of using that energy are being studied: at the moment, but it is too early to say positively what its economic uses may be. In the United Kingdom it has been announced in the House of Commons that plans are under way to utilize the heat transferred from fission as a means of heating, but here we are not far enough advanced to make an announcement of the kind.
fMr. McKay.]


Howard Charles Green: We have not made as great progress along that line as the United Kingdom?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not say. I do not
know what progress they have made. They have made an announcement, and I would not be prepared to say that atomic energy would compete with either coal or electrical power from an economic point of view. The economics of the United Kingdom are somewhat different from those of Canada in that regard.


John Oliver Probe: I am definitely in agreement with other speakers of our group. I have opposed the rather casual way in which the Minister of Trade and Commerce treats the subject. I am getting used to the casualness with which he can dispose of economic empires in this country, doing it with a simple shrug of the shoulders or a wave of the hand. I happened to be sitting in this chamber about two and a half years ago, in August, 1945, when the Prime Minister of Canada made a statement during the meeting of provincial premiers, which startled, I am sure, all those within the soundi of his voice. He made a pronouncement, which was startling to all the world, with respect to the first destructive action upon humanity that had been recorded so far as the material about which we are now speaking is concerned'.
For that reason, or at least because of the impressions left with me and the feeling that we have not had a sufficiently broad1 statement from the minister as regards the military protection we are to have in connection with letting everyone who will, or who can afford to do so, dabble in this material under the limited protection the government is giving us, the people of Canada, I must protest against what looks to me like the selling of another important military commodity. I am not concerned at the moment about the details of economic development. I know nothing about, it, and I know nothing about any phase of this work except that we are again selling or allowing to be given away something which belongs to the people of Canada. Yesterday a motion was moved to adjourn the House of Commons to discuss what was a matter of great import to all the Canadian people. Today with a shrug of the shoulders we are to give away something that would protect us.
I wish to ask a concrete question of the minister. I want to know just how much money has thus far been spent by the government of Canada for the purchase of property, equities in properties, mines or anything that is connected with uranium oxide or other radioactive materials that were purchased by the government before, during, or since the

Transitional Measures Act
war. Then I want to know how much has been spent by the government for development since the acquisition of these properties. Then, what additional has been spent by way of assisting prospectors to find the materials? I might say that I am not opposed to an individual or a group of small individuals prospecting and finding materials for sale to the government, as was mentioned by the minister. But I certainly fear the cartel or larger corporation which, by stock manipulation and otherwise, will squeeze out the small man who finds the materials which have the value that these radioactive substances appear to have. I fear that then somebody in a swivel-chair will dictate policies to the Canadian people with respect to price and everything else. Would the minister give us some idea of how much Canadian money has been thrown around in this manner?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know of no Canadian money that has been thrown around. Canadian money has been carefully invested.


John Oliver Probe: That is better still.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Great precautions have been taken. I think there is on record in this house about all the information I can give in the matter of government policy. The hon. member asks how much has been paid to encourage prospectors. All afternoon I have been trying to say that for several years we have been forbidding prospectors to look for uranium.


John Oliver Probe: Then the amount is nil. That is fine.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, it is nil. My hon. friends in the C.C.F. group seem to imagine great fortunes coming out of the search for uranium. I have no such fear.


John Oliver Probe: There are great fortunes coming out of the search for everything, under certain conditions; I do not mean for the individual who does the searching.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have never learned that there are many wealthy prospectors for gold, although there are a great many persistent gentlemen who have been following that vocation for a good many years. I sincerely hope that <we can get the same calibre of prospectors interested in the search for uranium. Just as the government sets the price of 835 an ounce for gold, we have set a price $2.75 a pound for U3O8, we believe that the compensation
is relatively about the same. By that offer we hope to lead to prospecting which will discover new sources of wealth for Canada.


John Oliver Probe: Surely the minister is not making the statement that that goes to the prospectors.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It may be said that we have tremendous wealth in our Northwest Territories. It may be there, but it is not of much value until we find it.


John Oliver Probe: Agreed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The purpose of government policy is to lead in the direction of discovery of important deposits of uranium. At the moment we know of only one. We think there are others. We have found prospects which may be valuable when we open them up. We do not know. But we hope that over the years-and in not too many years-we shall find other important deposits of uranium in Canada. It is with that objective that the present regulations are framed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I a^k the minister just one administrative question? These orders in council that have been revoked were listed as being under the Department of Mines and Resources. Do we understand now that everything in connection with radioactive materials and the development of atomic energy is under the minister's department, so far as the government is concerned? By that I mean under the Department of Reconstruction and Supply.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is all under the direction of the atomic energy control board.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is there any division of the department or any controller that has anything to do with the matter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Except the atomic energy control board, which has the control of fissionable material.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the atomic energy control board comes under the direction of and is responsible to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is responsible to parliament. Parliament framed the act. It reports to parliament through the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the 'third time and passed.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe for the second reading of Bill No. 135, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
Jean-François Pouliot: I wish to conclude, Mr. Speaker, what I was saying the other night about this bill. It seems to be a socialist measure, and there are no half-ways with respect to free enterprise and socialism. A measure cannot be half socialist and half free enterprise. It must be either socialist or free enterprise, and this is why I again urge the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to consider the desire of the farmers of Canada not to have oats and barley under the wheat board but to leave them to be dealt with by free enterprise.
The suggestion has been made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture that these grains be handled by the wheat board. Some people are impressed by the word "co-operative". In a committee of this house we have seen what was done by a co-operative in the west; but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in my constituency there are co-operatives of farmers who buy their grain from private dealers instead of from the Cooperative Federee, and the price they pay is five or ten cents less than they would have to pay the co-operative. Whether that is because the co-operative is not well administered, or what is wrong, I am not in a position to say; but if one compares the prices of the private merchants with those of the co-operative it will be seen that the prices of the private grain dealers are lower. This is why some co-operatives in my constituency are dealing with private merchants instead of with the Cooperative Federee.


Mr. KNIGHT:: May I ask a question?


Jean-François Pouliot: I have only five minutes remaining, but I will answer the question.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Does the particular
co-operative of which the hon. gentleman speaks pay dividends?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not in a position to answer that question, but I tell my hon. friend that I had representations from this organization asking that they should not be required to pay taxes. The local merchants must pay taxes, but the Cooperative Federee is reluctant to do so, and I had some correspondence

with them about the matter last year. I am not at all opposed to co-operatives. It is all right for the farmers to join together. But fanners are intelligent; they know where to buy, and very often they buy from local merchants instead of from an organization like that. This is my experience; this is what I learn from the farmers of my constituency.
In conclusion, once more I wish to tell my hon. friends of the Social Credit group that I do not want to offend anyone. 'I do not believe in their doctrine, but I know they are very good members of the house and they have the right to their views just as everyone here has a right to his views. In this matter I believe we should be sufficiently open-minded to consider what is best for the people concerned. I have tried to be the interpreter of the feelings of most of the farmers of my constituency in this respect. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members of this house that if they consider the matter objectively they will realize that free enterprise has been the salvation of the farmer as well as of all other individuals. It is the best system. So I make a last appeal to those who sponsor this bill, and ask them not to bring coarse grains under the wheat board.


Ralph Maybank: Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose I shall take even until six o'clock, even though only fifteen minutes remain. I only wish to record my position with respect to this measure. As I see it, three principles are involved in this bill. The first is the establishment of a pension plan for those concerned with the operation of the wheat board. With respect to that, I think probably it will be unanimously accepted, and certainly I am in favour of it. The second principle dealt with by this legislation involves an increase in the payments to farmers for deliveries of wheat. Again I should think this would be accepted unanimously, and certainly I am in favour of this principle as it is expressed in the bill.
The third feature, however, with which I cannot agree, makes it possible to institute a state monopoly in nearly all grains produced in Canada. In that regard I wish to say only that I am opposed to this socialist principle. I do not follow the hon. member for Temis-eouata (Mr. Pouliot) in most of his statements, but I agree with his opposition to the introduction of this state monopoly. I realize, of course, that this bill does not actually institute a monopoly. It does make that possible, however; and because I know that if it were introducing a monopoly I would have to oppose it. I believe I should declare myself now as holding this view.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
I do not know that such an expression of opinion makes very much difference, but it seems to me that I owe it to myself and to my constituents to make this statement. I was not elected here to bring about the institution of socialism. On the contrary, I was elected in opposition to such an idea; and until my electorate decides to have another sort of representation, or that it wants socialism, I feel that, in order to be true to the people who elected me, I have to oppose any measure which carries out the principle of state monopoly.
When it comes to voting I feel in a sort of quandary, and I imagine all hon. members who have similar views will feel as I do. I am strongly in favour of the provision for an additional payment to the farmer. I am also in favour of the pension provisions contained in the bill. I am in opposition to the third principle, as I have indicated. I believe that probably the bill should be supported and sent to committee, and that is the way I expect to vote. I do so on the understanding that in committee the bill will be divided into two parts and will come back to the house in two pieces, so that the provisions with respect to pensions and increased payments may be dealt with on the one hand, and the matter of state control considered by itself on the other.
I have spoken in this way only because I feel it is a person's duty to make his views known at some time. I have kept my remarks as brief as possible, because I believe it is a duty to the house to allow hon. members to get on with this legislation which, clearly, has majority support in the house.
While I have kept my word in saying that I did not think I would speak until six o'clock -and I observe I have not-I believe I have placed before the house briefly my views on the subject, and I thank hon. members for listening. With that I conclude.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, before the measure is passed or voted upon, I wish to take a few minutes of the time of the house to summarize our position with respect to the various features of this bill.
The measure before us is one to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. This bill has four distinctly different features. Some of these we support. One we could support, with one variation in it; and the fourth we find ourselves unable to support.
The first feature of the bill is that which provides a pension fund for the officers and employees of the board. The second gives power to the board to pay to wheat farmers a part of their own money which the government has been holding back from them. The third feature of the bill gives the wheat board the same powers to handle wheat products that it now has in respect of wheat. I presume those wheat products include flour, bran, shorts and the like.
The fourth feature of the bill is one which would force farmers who grow oats and barley to sell those crops only through the wheat board, and thus to accept prices fixed by a government-appointed board, and administered by the same government-appointed board.
With respect to the second and third of these features, as I said a minute ago, we are in agreement. In the matter of pensions to officers and employees I may say that we agree in principle, but we differ as to the manner of assessment of costs for the half of that scheme not borne by the employees. Then, with respect to the fourth feature, namely the one which compels farmers to market through one board, and denies them the right to sell in any other way, we are opposed. We are opposed because, as I said, it forces them to sell to only one board. We are opposed because, in our judgment, by our forcing them to sell in that way they will be forced to accept a price lower than they might otherwise receive.
I wish to discuss each of these four features as briefly as I can. As to the general question of the desirability of pensions for public servants, I believe there is general agreement as to principle. But as to who should pay a part of the cost of that service, there is a good deal of difference of opinion as to where the assessment should be placed. The question before us is not one as to whether it is desirable that the employees of a public institution such as this should qualify for pension. Rather, the pertinent question is this: Who is to pay the cost of those pensions? These are costs which may run into scores, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars in the years ahead.
The bill proposes that half the cost of the pension scheme shall be borne by the officers and employees themselves. With respect to that feature, I imagine that there will be substantially unanimous support, as there will be to the general question of providing pensions. If other public or semi-public bodies such as this are to have pensions provided to their employees, there is no reason why this one should not. The question is: Who should be assessed with that part of the cost which is not borne by the employees themselves? That question raises a basic point, namely, as to whether this is a farmers' board charged with responsibility and accepting the responsibility for marketing the farmers' wheat to
Canadian Wheat Board Act

the best advantage, or whether it is a government board charged with the responsibility of being used for something other than that purpose.
If this is a fanners' board charged primarily with the marketing of farmers' crops, farmers' wheat, to the best advantage, then this half of the cost should be assessed against those doing business with the board, namely the farmers of Canada.
Your Honour, I see it is six o'clock.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I may be permitted a word before six o'clock, I am sorry to say I have an engagement of long standing for this evening. It is my first offence this year, and I hope hon. members will bear with me. It is the wish of the government that at eight o'clock the house resume discussion of the emergency legislation of the Minister of Finance, with respect to excise tax, and to continue this debate tomorrow.
On motion of Mr. Bracken the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) had not finished his speech and just after six o'clock some of us attempted to make an arrangement, off the record, so that he would have an opportunity to conclude his remarks. He cannot be here at eight o'clock this evening because he has an appointment, but whatever the government leader decides will be satisfactory provided that the leader of the opposition can conclude his remarks.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, it was arranged before dinner by representatives of the different groups that we would continue the debate on the second reading of Bill No. 135, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, until the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) had made his speech and that then the debate would be adjourned. If that is agreeable to the house, the hon. member for Selkirk might proceed now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it understood that the right of the leader of the opposition to resume his speech later is protected, or just what is the arrangement?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understood from the hon. member for Souris that the leader of the

opposition is prepared to continue in committee with what he has to say, and the arrangement was that the hon. member for Selkirk would resume the debate tonight and that when he had finished the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) would adjourn the debate.


James Arthur Ross: If it is the government's desire I presume that the leader of the opposition will finish his remarks in committee, but in all fairness I suggest that when the hon. member for Selkirk has finished his remarks one of our members should be allowed to adjourn the debate.


William Ross Macdonald: I should point out to the house that the leader of the opposition has already spoken and that if the debate continues now he would not be allowed under the rules to speak a second time on second reading.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would hope that there would be unanimous consent to allowing the leader of the opposition to finish his speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There will be so far as we are concerned.


William Ross Macdonald: Just so that the record will be clear, I understand that it is the unanimous desire of the house that the leader of the opposition be allowed to continue his speech after the hon. member for Selkirk has spoken.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Agreed.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe for the second reading of Bill No. 135, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
William Scottie Bryce: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to prolong this debate, because I am just as anxious as anyone else in the house to see these cheques go out to the farmers, and therefore I shall be brief.
Let me say at the outset that I do not see why these cheques cannot go out before the bill is passed. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) can impose taxes and make arrangements for collecting them before a bill for that purpose is passed, so that in an emergency like this, when the farmers are waiting anxiously for this money, I do not see why the cheques could1 not be sent out now and the bill be passed later.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
The second part of the bill has to do with pensions for the employees of the wheat board. I have sat in my seat and listened to criticism of that proposal by different members. But the wheat board is really the farmer in business; I personally have always been in favour of a man having some security for his old age, and I do not see how the farmers can take any exception to pensions being provided for the employees of the board. If we employ people to do our business it is only right that we should pay them and treat them fairly. But I should not like to see the minister have the whole say in this matter. I should like to see half a dozen farmers on the advisory committee of the wheat board have some say as to pensions, in order that the interests of the farmer may be safeguarded and the pensions paid in a fair way. The Canadian National Railways has its pension fund and the Canadian wheat board is, in many ways, a similar institution, so that I do not think we can take any exception to providing pensions for the employees of the wheat board.
The third part of the bill, which would bring in barley or oats, is the most contentious part of the bill. Many members object to it and some members are in favour of it. Personally, not only am I in favour of it but I do not think it goes far enough. I cannot understand some of the objections that have been made against the wheat board. My good friend the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), who is not in his place at the moment, has condemned the wrheat board over the distribution of feeds, something with which the wheat board has absolutely nothing to do. 1 have been the guest of the hon. member for Temiscouata before and have an invitation to go back again, and I intend to go back and try, by reasoned argument, to show him how the wheat board will be an advantage not only to the west but to the east as well.
The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Maybank) were clear-cut in what they had to say. They have no use for the wheat board. They prefer a speculative system.
My good friends the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Miller) did not commit themselves. I have read over their speeches and I see that they want whatever method will give to the farmer the greatest advantage. I think that sums up their position fairly, but really I cannot understand two hon. members who have been raised on the prairies not being able to make up their minds as to which method will be best
for the farmer. I gave them credit for more intelligence and for being able to come to a decision as to w'hich method would be best for the farmer.
Most hon. gentlemen who have spoken against the wheat board have been lawyers. They have pointed out how the farmer will lose his independence if we adopt the wheat board. I cannot understand how a lawyer should1 take that position, because lawyers belong to the strongest union in the world. They are dictated to by the bar association. They are told what they shall do and what they shall not do. When it comes to the farmer organizing for himself and trying to do something better than he has ever done before, what happens? It is said that you are taking away the farmer's independence. That argument will not hold water. The farmer has organized to protect himself. He is doing only what other people have done, and why it should be wrong in his case I cannot understand. If the farmers vote by a majority that they want to market their grain in that way, then it should be logical for them to do it in that way. When it is pointed out that by having a wheat board, we are taking away liberty of the farmer, I can only point out what the lawyers' union would do. If a lawyer breaks any of the rules of the bar association they will unfrock or ungown him; I do not know what they call it. They will deprive him of his living. But no farm organization has ever tried to deprive anybody of his living. The farm, organizations have tried to raise the standard of living of the farmer, and we should not endeavour to throw cold water on the wheat board. The wheat board is not everything I should like to see, but it is something better than we had before, and I hope we shall have more of it in the future.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch) talked about the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. He can correct me if I am wrong, but I think he said forty per cent of the farmers belonged1 to it. I want to assure the hon. member that the last survey showed that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have over fifty-five per cent of the farmers of Canada on their books.


Mr. MUTCH:: I am sure the hon. gentleman would not want to misquote me. I think he will find that I said I doubted whether the Canadian council of agriculture and other farm organizations spoke for forty per cent of the farmers. There are live locals and there are others. If you look at some of the protests I think you will find the names of many local directors of the local pool.


William Scottie Bryce: I can assure my hon. friend that he can speak for the dead ones if he
Canadian Wheat Board Act

wishes, but I am speaking for the live ones. I have authentic information to show that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture speaks for fifty-five per cent of the farmers of Canada today, both east and west.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: You can assure me but you will not convince me.


William Scottie Bryce: I do not know whether my hon. friend asked me a question or not. I have never pitted my strength against a lawyer yet, because I know I would be beaten.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: On a point of privilege, I have been accused of being a lawyer many times, and I have resented and repudiated it. I am not a lawyer.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: On a point of privilege, I want it known that there are lawyers, members of bar associations, and then there are barber shop and barrack-room lawyers here to whom we are listening all the time.


William Scottie Bryce: I did not think I was insulting my hon. friend tonight. I have always respected the lawyers. I may get into difficulties some day and may need to use a lawyer. Therefore I do not want to be too hard1 on them.
It has been said that professional men get to the top of these farm organizations as leaders. I want to correct that misapprehension. I am one of the men who have climbed to the top of the Manitoba federation. I did not do that in one year. I started in the local organization and went to the district organization, then to the provincial and right up to the top. You do not do that unless you have the confidence of the people whom you represent. To say that they are just figureheads or professional leaders is not true. I do not want hon. gentlemen to believe that, because it is not true. You have to climb that ladder and have the support of the farmers who send you there before you can go that distance.
I regret that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has not seen fit to include rye in this bill; it should have been included. Speculators in rye raised the price to $4.05 a bushel. Until last year the miller paid 64J cents a bushel for his rye, and the speculator was paid out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada. Somebody may say to me, "Well, the farmer got his share of that". I am going to ask, what percentage did he get? He did not get the percentage that the speculators got. As most hon. members know, I am against the speculators market. I do not think it is the right and

proper way for the farmers to sell grain. It might have been all right in 1903 but not today.
Three groups are interested in the speculative market. There are the farmers, the millers and the grain handling firms. You must have the speculators to buy hedges. The speculative market cannot operate unless you have the speculator to come in. Have hon. members considered who the speculator is? A survey was made on the Chicago board of trade of the people who were carrying on speculation to keep the farmers' price going up and down, to take up the hedges. "When the government looked to see who was trading in wheat on the Chicago board of trade one day last fall they found, amongst the 3,287 speculators, six clergymen, twenty-four students, six butlers and maids, 308 housewives, 846 farmers, 181 barbers, butchers and bakers and even 44 unemployed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No lawyers?


William Scottie Bryce: The minister does not want me to tell him about the lawyers; I shall let them go this time. I know a great many commissions have sat in my province-I think there have been about eighteen altogether- to look into the marketing of grain and inquire into the futures market. All of them have either approved or condoned the futures market or the futures trade. The fact that so many inquiries have been held in such a short space of time is definite proof that the speculative grain market has failed to give the farmers satisfaction. Can hon. members imagine what would happen if other people had to depend on speculation in a market like that for their bread and butter?
May I quote what I heard another man say, and I have tried to copy it as correctly as I could. Speaking of the results that would follow if everybody were in a speculative market, not only the farmer but everybody else, he states that the effect would be something like this:
Let us suppose that other classes of people in Manitoba obtained their financial rewards under a speculative system. The results would perhaps be something like this:	We would read in
the morning's paper that with few exceptions, the market is weak all along the line today. May carpenters were quoted steady to 25 cents off. The market for July plumbers lacked serious support and reacted to a persistent try by short sellers by dropping 30 cents below yesterday's average. Or we might read that weakness was most pronounced in the barber's pit, -where the price of December haircuts dropped 30 cents, while plain shaves for December delivery decreased five points to 15J cents. Or we might read that the only strong point in

Excise Tax Act Amendment
the labour market was in stenographers, where a squeeze put the price up to $25 a week. Or let us suppose that our Manitoba farmers were to read in the morning paper that May tractors showed a decline of $75 from yesterday's final quotations, or that January refrigerators dropped $40, or spot seed drills were steady at $8 below yesterday's closing. Or it may be that we would read that an unusually large crop of doctors graduated from Canadian universities, and as a result the cost of appendix operations dropped $10 in the medical exchange this morning.
All this may be considered amusing, but such are the conditions under which the fanner is expected to market his produce by those who champion the speculative system in normal times. Many farmers believe what the late President Roosevelt said:
Over-production, under-production and speculation are three evil sisters. Over-production and under-production are about as good for speculators as overindulgence or undernourishment is to the medical profession.
I had the pleasure of being at Lake Success when that great little fighter, the late Mayor LaGuardia, spoke at the food conference. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) was there and so was the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), when that gentleman spoke and condemned speculation. And, by the way, I may say that when I was at the united nations I paid my own expenses. I do not want anyone to get the idea that somebody else paid them.


Mr. MacNICOL:: You deserve credit for that.


William Scottie Bryce: Here is what the late Mayor LaGuardia said:
"You cannot have both stability in prices and security for the farmer els well as fluctuation in prices. It is no use saying that we are not going to interfere with free exchange and free sales. If you want what is needed," Mr. LaGuardia warned, "you will interfere, and you will put every gambling grain exchange out of business in Chicago, Winnipeg, in Liverpool or wherever it exists."
There were fifty-four nations represented around that table that morning. Nobody spoke against that statement, and Canada was represented there. If we disagreed with that statement, our representatives should have stood up and condemned it and declared that we wanted a speculative market. No one advocates that any other producer of goods should sell his produce on a speculative market, because he would be at the mercy of the speculator. I am sure no one would expect the Cockshutt Plow Company, Massey-Harris, or any of the other manufacturers to sell their goods on a speculative market, and I do not think the farmer should be expected to do so.
While there has been rumblings in the west and grumbling about the price paid for wheat, and dissatisfaction in more ways than one, the idea of a central agency to handle grain has had the approval of most of the western farmers. I think that has been pretty definitely agreed to, that the farmer in the west wants orderly marketing through a grain board or a cereal board, call it what you like. But if we are ever to build up that ever-normal granary to provide for drought years or grasshopper years, we must get away from speculative marketing and get down to orderly marketing through a wheat board or some organization similar to that.
On motion of Mr. Mcllraith the debate was adjourned.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act and to provide:
1. Effective on and after November 18, 1947, an excise tax of 25 per cent is imposed on the following goods:
(a)	The following electrical appliances: waffle irons; roasters; kettles; chafing dishes; juice extractors; coffee makers; toasters of all kinds; portable humidifiers; curling irons or tongs, hair dryers; permanent waving machines and spacers or clamps; rods and heaters therefor; razors and shavers; garbage disposal units;
(b)	The following electrical appliances when adapted to household use: food or drink mixers; food choppers and grinders; irons and ironers; vacuum cleaners and attachments therefor; floor waxers and polishers;
(c)	Electric or gas refrigerators or freezing equipment, and coils, condensing or compressor units, cabinets, boxes, evaporators and expansion valves therefor; all the foregoing when adapted to household or apartment use or when for use in places of entertainment, amusement or recreation, including rinks, auditoria, halls and clubs;
(d)	Firearms except for military or police purposes;
(e)	Outboard motors;
(f)	Motorcycles, and all other two- or threewheeled motor-driven vehicles including motors for attachment to bicycles but not including vehicles specially designed for carrying goods or for use by invalids;
(g)	Projectors for slides, films or pictures designed for industrial or professional photographers' use;
(h)	Toilet articles of all kinds (including combs, mirrors and brushes other than tooth brushes or shaving brushes the duty paid value or the Canadian manufacturer's selling price of which combs, mirrors and brushes is more than
Excise Tax Act Amendment
[Stage Direction]
twenty-five cents each) and which items do not already come within any other item in schedule one of the said act.
2.	That on and after November 18, 1947, the rate of excise tax on automobiles adapted or adaptable for passenger use with seating capacity for not more than ten persons each, imported into or manufactured or produced in Canada be increased from ten per cent to the following rates, namely, on automobiles valued at $1,200 or less, 25 per cent over $1,200 but not more than $2,000, 25 per cent on $1,200 plus 50 per cent on the amount in excess of $1,200; over $2,000, 25 per cent on $1,200 plus 50 per cent on $800 plus 75 per cent on the amount in excess of $2,000.
3.	That on and after November 18, 1947, the rate of excise tax on phonographs, record-playing devices, radio broadcast receiving sets and tubes therefor, be increased from ten per cent to twenty-five per cent.
4.	That on and after November 18, 1947, the rate of excise tax on cameras, photographic films and plates, projectors for slides, films or pictures, except those designed exclusively for industrial or professional photographers' use, be increased from ten per cent to twenty-five per cent.
5.	That on and after November 18, 1947, electricity and gas used in dwellings be exempt from consumption or sales tax; and
fi. That on and after November 18, 1947, the excise tax of one per cent per pound on sugar, grape sugar, glucose, sugar syrup, corn syrup, etc., be repealed.
William Ross Macdonald: Shall the resolution carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When we last had this resolution before us I had pointed out to the minister that in his opening speech he had said that the main purpose of the new taxes is to save United States dollar exchange. Other reasons were given, but I suggested to the minister that we should not be asked to vote on this resolution until we had some estimate-and after all, some months have elapsed now since it came into effect- of the amount of United States exchange which is, in fact, being saved. I suggested, as best I could, a certain method which the minister might follow, and I am bound to say he did not think much of it. I also suggested to him that no doubt his officials would have a better method of doing it, and I hope that tonight he will be able to give us some figures. I might remind the minister that there were three or four reasons given for the passage of the bill, to be founded on the resolution, but this was the first and most important, and I suggest that some figures should now be given the committee.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Following the discussion we had some days ago when this matter was before the committee, I discussed it again with the officials. I am sure one cannot give in dollars

and cents the saving of United States exchange which might result from the imposition of deterring taxes of this kind. Of course the initial saving in articles that are subject to the tax will come as a result of the operation of schedule III of the import restriction bill. There will be an incidental saving, and an incidental saving only if the tax will then slow down the consumption of the articles which are being manufactured in Canada and which are already subject to some control, shall we say, by the operation of schedule III.
I do not suppose one can yet say that there is any backing up of sales of, let us say, automobiles. In the case of automobiles, schedule III, through the foreign exchange control board order in council, has been in operation for a matter of only two or three weeks. Therefore I again say that I do not see how, at this stage, I could possibly be expected to express in terms of dollars and cents what the saving would be. There is the second effect, as my hon. friend appreciates, which is desired, and that is the general slowing down of consumption in Canada in order to create again this over-all current account surplus of which I have spoken. I have asked my officials if they can give even a rough estimate of what effect this might have had expressed in terms of dollars and cents, and they tell me it is impossible to do so. I may have misunderstood what my hon. friend wanted. If I have, perhaps he will try to show me where I have misunderstood him.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will try. In the first place, I have a feeling as this goes on, that however much we may have disliked certain features of Bill No. 3, the embargo, nevertheless it has teeth in it and it can act. In connection with that we obtained, although with some difficulty, figures from the Minister of Trade and Commerce as to what the government thought it might achieve in the way of money.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The minister said what it would do in the future.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes. I appreciate that this is different. But nevertheless I still suggest that these figures could be obtained. First of all, I am surprised if this is being brought forward with no estimated figures of any kind. I wonder if the minister really wants to go so far as to state that. In the second place, I suggest that, while the embargo has been in effect for only a few weeks, this tax has already been in effect for a few months-actually since November last. Surely the saving which will be effected by this is, in effect, the saving by reason of the

Excise Tax Act Amendment
slowing up, as the minister said a moment ago, of the manufacture of Canadian goods into which United States parts go. Are we in agreement on that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think that is accurate. I would hope that the imposition of this fairly stiff tax of 25 per cent on a line of semi-luxury articles, shall we call them, would have the effect of getting people to slow down in their purchases. That is the intention. If this objective is not achieved, the tax will of course, have failed. But it will at least have this effect, that if people spend their money on these things, they will not have it to spend on something else and force the prices of those things up.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister is now bringing in what I call his deflationary argument.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is all right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think we want to stick to one thing at a time and that, when we are trying to assess one reason, we should not go off to another. I am not underestimating the difficulties, but I am saying and repeating, perhaps a little tiresomely, that I do not think we should be asked to go it blind in this thing. There should be some estimate. We happen to be in the position that the thing has already been in operation for three months. I now come back to my suggestion. My suggestion is that it is perfectly feasible to find the sales which were taking place in the classes of goods before November 17 and the sales which were taking place after that date, when the tax came into effect. I am not suggesting [DOT] that is a perfect test. I know there are certain qualifications in that which the minister will want to make and which I might make for him. But I still suggest that these figures would give us some prima facie evidence as to whether or not any definite effect is being produced. Suppose it is found actually that the consumption of these things in Canada has been greater since November. The minister might say he expects to find them greater because of the cutting off of United States goods. I appreciate that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: May I say-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I finish?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I suggest that this is a figure which could be obtained. I cannot think there is any difficulty in getting that because, after all, I understand the department from month to month, through its agents, visits the various companies and examines the taxation records; therefore they know the consumption., production and sale of the articles in question. The producers can equally well give the figures before November 17. Therefore I do not think the figure is an impossible one to get.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It may not be absolutely impossible. I cannot say that it is. But the officials tell me that they cannot obtain or cannot yet give an accurate estimate of what the result is. On the question of cars and radios may I say this. I have had numerous discussions with representative groups of car manufacturers and radio manufacturers, because they are two of the larger groups. The car manufacturers do not claim that the tax has yet slowed down the consumption of cars. They tell me that they think it will. Whether they are right or wrong, I do not know. The same thing applies to the radio people. No one has contended to me that the sale of radios has yet been diminished. But the radio manufacturers who come in tell me that they are most apprehensive as to what the result will be in the near future. I tell them that I hate to say it but I am glad to hear that, because that is the sort of thing I am trying to accomplish with this tax. I wish I could give my hon. friend the figures. I think he will bear me out when I say that I am the last man who ever tries to keep figures from this house. If the information is available, I want to give it. But I have not been able to get from the officials, or they are not prepared to give me, an estimate which they believe can give any accurate indication of what the effect of this new tax has been on sales. I put on Hansard a week or so ago the total tax collections on this group, and I gave the estimated increased tax. Those are the only figures that the officials tell me they can give. To try to pull out of that what the sales would have been had the tax not been on, is something which the national revenue department tell me they cannot do.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I suggest that the minister has really not said that these figures cannot be obtained. Rather what he has said is that he does not think the thing has gone on long enough yet to achieve the hoped-for result. He says he hopes that will come later. That is a perfectly legitimate hope. I say again that I realize the difficulty of the question I am asking; nevertheless I do not believe that it is impossible for these figures to be obtained.
Excise Tax Act Amendment

I still suggest that these figures should be obtained so that we are not asked to vote on something absolutely blind, as we are now being asked to do.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am a little bit lost in this. I really would like to give my hon. friend the information for which he asks. Perhaps the officials could go into the figures and estimate what tax would have been collected had there been no increase and try to translate that into the number of units, and that could be applied to radios and automobiles. But this tax covers a much wider field than that. Suppose my hon. friend had that information. I do not wish to be offensive, but what good would it do him? What conclusion could he draw from it? After two or three months' operation, and with stocks in hand, I do not see what useful information that would give him.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It seems to me that it is reasonable for me to say this: Suppose these figures are obtained and that they show that up to the present there is no sign of any saving in United States exchange at all.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But we cannot tell whether it has saved United States exchange or not.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not so sure. I am not under-estimating the difficulties, and I do not intend to persist in this unduly; but I still do not think the minister has told me that the figures cannot be obtained. What the minister has said is that he thinks that, when the figures are obtained, they will not show anything that will be enlightening. Maybe not. Maybe I shall have to admit that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will tell my hon. friend this. I think the sales of radios, since this tax went into effect, have been just as great as they were before. I make that assertion. I do not know whether it is true but possibly it is the case. I am sure that the sales of domestically produced automobiles have been just as great. The purchasing power in this country is such, and the demand for automobiles at the moment is such, that people will buy them whether or not there is an extra 25 per cent tax. But one cannot judge the ultimate results of this on the initial one, two or three months' operations, and I do not believe any figures one would give as to tax receipts for the first two or three months would prove anything at all. I could give those figures; I gave them before.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Not exactly the ones I am asking for. It seems to me that what the minister is saying

is not that we cannot have those figures, but that he thinks they will not be any good to us if we get them. Coming back to what I said before, I would say that if the figures on automobiles and radios prove what he suggested a moment ago, namely, that there has been no reduction, I will frankly concede to the minister that this does not necessarily mean the tax is no good; but equally I say it does not prove the tax is good. In other words, surely the minister cannot ask us to vote for something without some further indication than just a kind of reasoning on general principles.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister and the government proceed on the assumption that the imposition of a tax will have the effect which is generally accepted among economists and1 those who know something about fiscal methods; that is, that it will slow down consumption of the article which is taxed. Perhaps the wealth and spending power of this country are such that this tax will not have that effect. Perhaps the tax is inadequate; perhaps we should have made it 50 per cent or 75 per cent. I do not think so. I can only be assertive, but I believe the tax will accomplish the results, or will help to accomplish the results we are trying to achieve. If it should not, then, of course, it would have been useless to impose it, but I do not think we can determine that at this stage of the game.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then let me ask just one other question. I repeat that the reason I am being persistent in this is that I think you have already in your hands one weapon which is effective, and I have very great doubts as to whether this new weapon is effective. Also I have no doubt whatever that it is offensive to a large number of people.
There is another consideration which enters in here, and in this connection there should be a figure which can be obtained. That is, even if this slowing down process does occur, then coming back to our test in connection with United States exchange, all you are saving is the lowered amount of United States parts that go into these articles; that is to say, the lowered amount of United States parts that are used. Some of these things have a trifling amount of United States parts, and some have none at all. That is the other figure for which I asked the other night which, if it were found, I think might show that, as far as the saving of United States exchange is concerned, this measure is trivial.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Surely I do not have to go into my reduction of consumption thesis again

Excise Tax Act Amendment
and point out that if we are to continue to ship goods abroad on credit, somehow or another we must reduce our domestic consumption and create again this over-all current account surplus we have lost. The fiscal method is one way of doing that. My criticism of this tax, if I were speaking from the point of view of economics and were sitting across the way, would be that it does not cover a wide enough field; that it should cover more; that it should not be restricted to electrical equipment, cars and so on, but that we should go into a wider field. That might be a valid criticism; but when my hon. friend says it will not accomplish the results expected he is being assertive, and I can only be assertive and say I hope it will.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister is now changing to another argument. It may be a good argument, but I want to bring him back-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I know what I said in my opening remarks, but I am not tied to that as the only reason for which this tax is being imposed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, you are not tied to it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No one will contend that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. I have said there are several other reasons, but I think it proper to say the minister pointed out that this was the main reason. If the main reason turns out to be valid, then we are entitled to doubt the other reasons as well. I want to see what validity there is in this main reason, first of all. It may turn out that it is not the main reason at all; that there are other, better reasons; but I submit that we are entitled to find out if this main reason is a real reason.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can answer my hon. friend only by saying I think it is too soon for us to judge. In putting this forward, the government believes it will accomplish these results. The initial results of the over-all program have been good. Perhaps six months from now we shall be in a better position to see whether it is really doing what we hope it will. I wish I could give my hon. friend the figures he would like to have, but I do not seem able to do so. I cannot help that.


Mr. THATCHER:: I will ask the minister perhaps a little easier question, if the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has finished. If we are able to cut the consumption of these things at home, I understand from the minister that we shall send the surplus to the United States, if possible, to try and get United States dollars?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not necessarily.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that. But my understanding is that the United States customs authorities intend to take this 25 per cent into account when they put on their tariff.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We dealt with that the other evening; but we are not shipping cars back to the United States.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: It is not just cars I am thinking about. I have in mind refrigerators and all the other things.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If we cut down the consumption of refrigerators and other articles which contain metal, we can sell the metal in its original form for dollars in the United States or anywhere else. That is one way whereby we can get United States exchange. Instead of using labour in Canada to convert the metal into things our own people consume, we shall sell the raw materials. We can sell all the copper, all the nickel, all the aluminum and so on, we produce; and we can sell it for hard currency.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Does the minister say none of the things in this schedule are being exported to the United States?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We have pretty well taken out of the schedule those articles in which we have an export market in the United States. As I explained on earlier occasions, that was one reason we took out such things as hot plates, because some of our manufacturers have built up a market for those articles in the United States. The same is true of golf clubs. One may ask why we would take golf clubs out of the list. We found that some of our manufacturers had developed a profitable export market in the United States. The same thing applies to golf balls. That is why we took these sporting goods out of the schedule, because there were these export opportunities in the United States. But we do not and cannot export refrigerators to the United States; at least we never have done so. We have never exported cars to the United States. I do not know about radios.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Did the minister make representations to the United States authorities?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. If my hon. friend will look at page 2131 of Hansard he will see the explanation I gave the other evening in reply to the hon. member for Kindersley. We made
Excise Tax Act Amendment

representations. Under the Geneva agreements the United States have undertaken to change their practice so that a tax of this kind would not be included for duty purposes. But that requires legislative action by congress, and until the legislative action has been taken, the United States customs authorities are obliged to include the tax. My hon. friend will find that information in Hansard as I have indicated; an hon. member from Toronto asked me the same question.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: The farther we go, the more confusing this becomes. I have listened to the explanations given by the minister, and he has not yet put us in possession of any facts or figures to prove that this is right. In other words, it would appear that so far it has been a bit of guesswork, much the same as the last two budgets which have been presented to this house. Each made a forecast which was out by millions upon millions of dollars. It seems to me that, irrespective of what the minister says, the object of this is to raise more revenue; in any event that seems to be one of the results.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We took off some taxes at the same time.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Let me say this, and I say it with great respect for the minister because he did give an explanation. I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that there are two schools of thought. One school believes this could have been done by leaving our dollar devalued and having the 90-cent dollar or the 81-eent dollar, or whatever it might be. The minister has explained that; and I suppose the same people are advising him now who advised him then.
Another explanation the *minister gave was that, because of the trend toward inflation in the United States, he felt it was necessary to bring our dollar on a par with the United States dollar. May I ask this: Can the minister tell me why he would place our dollar on a par with the United States dollar, where it would buy a dollar's worth of United States goods and by the same token on November 17 reverse the position and say that the Canadian dollar was worth only seventy-five cents?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would love to debate this question of devaluation with the hon. member for Grey North, and I have already made several statements on it. However it is not strictly relevant to the committee's discussion of this ways and means resolution, and I think I must reserve that discussion to some other time.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: All I am trying to get at is this. You have now devalued the Canadian dollar in the home market by the imposition of this excise tax. You are saying, "For numerous goods your dollar will buy only seventy-five cents worth; and the other twenty-five cents goes to the government."


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will answer my hon. friend. We are exercising selective devaluation, not across-the-board devaluation.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Selective devaluation is resting in the hands of a group of bureaucrats. We have very little to say about directing their course. That same group are advising the minister, and they have got into effect this measure which has already been said to be unconstitutional. And you are going to depend upon the government's majority sitting behind you to pass it.


Mr. BENTLEY:: I should like to ask the minister a plain question, one which is not quite so complicated as some of the others which have been asked. As I have come up to these buildings in the last few days I have seen some small cards in the windows of stores where magazines are sold. These cards read, "Back on Canadian newsstands, True Romances and True Story". How does that help us save United States dollars?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think it does. I imagine that the enterprising publishers of these delightful publications have arranged to put them out in Canada. I am only guessing, but I think that must be so. They are certainly prohibited, so far as entry into Canada is concerned.


Thomas John Bentley: Still prohibited.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They must be printing them here.


William Ross Macdonald: I must remind hon. members that we are dealing with the Excise Tax Act. Magazines do not come into this discussion; they do not come within the act, at all.


Thomas John Bentley: I shall not ask the question again.


Mr. QUELCH:: There is one question I wish to ask the minister. I have heard him say on many occasions that one of the reasons for putting on this excise tax is the fact that we are exporting on credit. I should like to ask him if he is absolutely certain that we are.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not put it that way.


Victor Quelch: It means the same thing. AVe both mean the same thing. I should like


IS, 1948
[Stage Direction]
Excise Tax Act Amendment
to ask him if he is quite satisfied that we are actually exporting on credit. I ask that because I heard the Minister of Agriculture say that these are not really loans, but rather that they are gifts which will never be repaid. Are we exporting on credit or are we actually making gifts of these goods?
Douglas Charles Abbott: I answered that the other day in reply to a question by the hon. member for Kamloops. I said that these credits are being made under the terms of a contract which calls for repayment. As Minister of Finance, I expect that contract to be carried out. Of course, under existing conditions it would perhaps be unreasonably optimistic to expect all of this loan to be met at maturity. And there will unquestionably or probably be some loss. We set by each year in our accounts out of current revenue the amount of 825,000,000, I believe it is, in a reserve to take care of loss on inactive assets; just as businessmen would do. I cannot give my hon. friend any other answer.


Victor Quelch: All right. The minister expects at some future day that a large number of these loans will be repaid.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would hope so, yes.


Victor Quelch: So that all we need to do is to ask the people to defer their spending until a future day, or until such time as these nations pay for what they receive. Then these goods will be available for the people to buy. That being so, would it not be satisfactory for the government, as the hon. member for Peace River suggested, to float a loan to buy food for these countries, such loan to be subscribed from the savings of the people? I am not suggesting that the government should borrow from the banks, because that would mean an expansion. But would it not be possible for the government to borrow the savings of the people and in that way reduce the demand for goods, so as to make those goods available for other countries? Then, when those nations repay the loan the government will be able to repay the loan made from the people, and the people will have money with which to buy goods.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That would be effective only if the floating of such a loan and subscriptions to it by the people resulted in effective reduction in consumption in this country; if the people, as a result of having put their money into these loans, and having no other money to use for the purchase of commodities, would be unable to or would voluntarily refrain from purchasing consumption or capital goods in this country or importing them from the
United States. Otherwise we could float loans until we were blue in the face without helping our balance of payments position.
No one understands better than my hon. friend that the crux of this balance of payments difficulty is this, that we have ceased to have in this country an over-all current account surplus. In other words, we are consuming just about as much as we are producing.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That is not the crux of it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Victor Quelch: The minister has been putting forward to the people, or it was put to them at one time, that it was necessary for them to buy bonds in order to curtail spending. It seems to me that if the government were to carry on the same program, explaining to the people the necessity for helping foreign nations by supplying goods, and by asking the people in the lower income brackets to buy bonds for that purpose, it would not have to float loans with the people in the high-income brackets. Then the minister would agree that it would have the effect he desires, and probably it would do it more effectively than the excise tax.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is possible. The people bought these bonds during wartime, and rightly so, under wartime conditions. But now the war is over and a great many people naturally want to go out and buy new refrigerators, new radios, new washing machines and all the rest of it. That is a very natural thing to do. But unfortunately we are not yet in a position, because of these world difficulties, to which I have referred, where the people can fully gratify those wishes; that is, if we are to continue to play our part in helping in the recovery of the devastated countries.
Mr. SMITH {Calgary West): I wish to ask one or .two questions. The first one deals with what has just been discussed by the hon. member for Acadia. It is this: Did I understand the Minister of Finance correctly a minute ago when he said, as I thought, that he figured these loans would be paid, although not altogether on their due date. Did I understand him to say that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have said twice that they are made under terms which call for repayment, and I expect them to be repaid. It would perhaps be unreasonably optimistic to expect they would all be repaid. That is what I have said. And the portion that would not be repaid would be small. I have no reason
Excise Tax Act Amendment

to think, for instance, that the United Kingdom would not live \jp to its obligations. She has always done so in the past. I expect she will continue to do so.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am sure she will, if she can. The point I make is this. Apparently the Minister of Finance takes the position directly opposite to that of the Minister of Agriculture, who told us in this chamber within the past three weeks that everybody knew that a great portion of these loans would never be repaid. Apparently those views have to be reconciled one way or another.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a matter of opinion.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I turn to the second question; and it is amazing to see me as an economist at the present time. But I do know these simple things.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Probably better than the rest of us.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The minister told us a few minutes ago that it was a well known law of economics that the higher the price, the less purchases were made; with which law I am in entire agreement. I think he will also agree that, having regard to articles in the luxury class of goods, those luxury goods would be purchased largely by people with plenty of money, and that the law would not apply, for example, as it would in respect of food and clothing. It ceases to have the same effect when you go up that stairway. That would, I think, be a correct statement.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As a general statement I think that is all right.


Arthur Leroy Smith: My general statement is just the same as the minister's, so that I think he will agree with me. We cannot get much closer than that. The suggestion I make to the minister is this, that he will at least admit that, in the four months' experience he has had with this excise tax, he sees no evidence that there is a saving from it in United States dollars or that there is not. Is that the position now?


Douglas Charles Abbott: To be strictly accurate, we have been saving United States dollars. We have reversed a loss of $70 million by a gain last month of $13 million. How much of that is due to the tax, how much to direct controls, and how much to a number of other factors, I cannot say nor can anyone else, but it appears that the program is doing what it was intended to do. That is all I can say.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is not what I asked. It is fairly easy, you know, if you take it gently. All I ask the minister to admit is this. Aside from what he has just said, at the present time he has no evidence that this excise tax in these four months has saved United States dollars.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And I never shall have evidence, because this is only one part of a three-pronged program, and I shall never be able to pin the gain on any one facet.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then, as a part of this austerity program the minister admits that he will never know whether this excise tax has succeeded or not. That is the statement he has just made.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall have pretty good evidence wThen I see the exchange saving each month.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Maybe you will, but a moment ago you said you would not.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: This subject is becoming somewhat technical and I do not feel competent to attack it on that level. I have been wondering what the housewives in the gallery and in the country think about this particular tax. I was thinking of it rather from the point of view of the family man. When the minister said he was well aware that he had not become a national hero through the imposition of this tax, I think he was making an understatement.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I never thought it was a popularity gaining move, and I said so.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: This new excise tax does not bring much comfort to the already harassed consumer. I do not think I am competent to enter into a discussion of the constitutionality of the tax, although at school I did learn that a principle of British parliamentary procedure was' that there would be no taxation without the consent of the people taxed; and I find it difficult to accept the only defence the minister could give for the imposition of this tax in his announcement over the radio on November 17, that the tax would be effective on the morning of the 18th or thereabouts, was that it was necessary, and that he hoped to get the consent of parliament to the imposition of the tax, which later on he told us is not a tax until it is passed by parliament. In the meantime, as has been pointed out by the various speakers, the tax has been collected, as most heads of families are very well aware. Incidentally the minister has not yet obtained the consent of this house to the tax.

Excise Tax Act Amendment
and I am wondering what would happen in case the house withheld its consent, because I am not one of those who believe that refunds would be made on the basis of purchase slips because many of these purchase slips carry no record of the purchase. So far as I am concerned, I think the government's action was inexcusable, particularly for a government based upon a party which has always loudly proclaimed that taxation is the function of parliament and that the will of parliament is supreme.
There are two matters which I am advancing in the form of questions. I take it that the first main reason for this particular tax is to reduce in this country the purchase of goods we import from abroad or goods made up of parts imported from other countries. Many householders have been waiting for years to purchase these household goods which are now taxed heavily. They were urged during the war to purchase bonds to keep purchasing power out of the hands of the people; and now, when purchasing power comes into their hands and they thought they would have an opportunity to buy that refrigerator, they find they cannot do so because of this tax.
My question is this: If it were necessary to cut down the imports from the United States in order to conserve United States exchange, and it may have been, why would it not have been feasible or practicable for the minister by some method to see to it that Canadian manufacturers would not take advantage of that situation? Could there not have been a ceiling? There have been ceilings before. They were abandoned only a short time ago. Could a ceiling not have been reimposed on this particular type of goods so that people who, in perfect good faith, had co-operated with the government in the purchase of bonds, people in the small income brackets, would have been able to buy these goods which the minute the tax was imposed they found they could not buy because there was a competitive sellers' market in which the people in the low-income brackets could not compete. These goods were not available to people in the low-income brackets once this tax was imposed. That is my first question, whether it would not have been practicable to impose a ceiling on these things, and, if not, why, so that people in the low-income brackets could have obtained some of these goods and not have had to compete with people with more money.
My second question is this. I take it that one of the remedies for this situation would be the tremendously increased production of Canadian goods. I would ask the minister, and the government through him, why it was that a great amount of machinery for the manufacture of goods which had come into the possession of the country was scrapped or sold for a very small percentage of its value when, if the government is genuine in its belief that more goods are necessary in this country, such machinery could have been used for the production of these goods which, for years, the public had wanted and done without.


Douglas Charles Abbott: First, as to the imposition of ceilings, that would have meant, in the view of the government, the resumption of practically over-all price control and the resumption of rationing, and it was felt that this was not feasible.
As to increasing production by additional machinery, there is no lack of production in Canada today because of a lack of machinery. Every bit of machinery is being utilized. One of the reasons we have lost a good deal of United States dollars has been the heavy imports of machinery from the United States. Not only are all the existing production facilities of the country being utilized but they are being rapidly expanded. I said, when discussing this matter the other evening, that possibly production could be increased in this country by increased efficiency and the working of longer hours and so on, but by and large we are working at nearly full employment now, and I question whether, with the existing manpower, the existing hours of labour and the existing techinques, the productive capacity of this country could be greatly expanded. Many of our essential production processes depend upon the importation of essential materials from the United States. That would have involved still further expenditures of United States dollars.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I believe that, as the questioning goes on and the facts come out in connection with this matter it becomes less desirable. AVe were told definitely at the beginning that this was a measure to conserve that portion of import commodities in those commodities which are taxed and which may come from the United States. That was given as the chief reason by the minister on several occasions. Then, after some persistent questioning from this side of the house, another interesting factor came out, and was disturbing too, namely that the minister told us later another reason was that the government was anxious to preserve the market for United States businessmen who had been selling these commodities in Canada until the time that this matter came up. That was a revealing piece of information and one which-*


Douglas Charles Abbott: It did not come out after questioning. I pointed that out in my radio speech as an essential provision.
Excise Tax Act Amendment


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: We can be forgiven for not remembering-


Douglas Charles Abbott: It did not result from any cross-examination by my hon. friend or anyone else.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: We can be forgiven for not-remembering what the minister said over the radio, because it is such a long time ago; it is almost history; but it has come out now, and I am sure that the Canadian people-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I take objection to the "now." It was announced at the same time that the program was announced.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That is fine. I am sure that the Canadian businessman engaged in the selling of these commodities or the manufacturer who is engaged in manufacturing them will not thank the minister for that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You are not asking for protection, are you?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: No; you are giving the United States businessmen protection. If anyone is to get protection, then certainly our citizens are the first ones entitled to it.
Another thing that has come out-I will not say "now," because apparently the minister does not like that expression-through the questions which have been fired back and forth is that this policy is designed so as to discourage the buying of commodities in Canada, regardless of whether they have any United States import content in them or not. The minister has told us that. I believe it came out. after questioning. What it adds up to is simply this. The government apparently believes that, by taxing the Canadian people 25 per cent on these articles, they will release that amount of purchasing power which would have gone into these articles, for the purpose of purchasing something else. I believe the minister will agree with that, because he has said on several occasions if they do not spend their money on these articles, then they will have that money to spend on something else, which he hopes will be essentials such as the things that go into production and even capital goods and so on. If that is the case, then the government must admit that they made a terrible blunder when they started decontrolling about a year ago.
It will be remembered that the first things that were decontrolled in this country-and all we have to do is look up the records-were what were called luxury goods. In other words, when the time for reconversion was on its way in this country, when there was an opportunity to direct the economy toward the

production of essential commodities, what did the government do? They took price control off these commodities which were non-essential; they took controls off luxury commodities-


William Henry Golding: Order. We are not now dealing with decontrol.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is pertinent, because what the minister is attempting to do by placing this tax on these commodities is to discourage the consumption of what he calls semi-luxury goods. If you discourage the consumption of these goods it also means you discourage the proproduction of them, because there would be no object in producing them if nobody will buy them. I imagine that the government was-


William Henry Golding: Order. We have had quite a lengthy debate on these controls.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Chairman, you will note that I am not debating the merits of price control as such. At the moment I am only pointing out that, had the government used the power of price control which they still had in their hands-


Douglas Charles Abbott: They would not have to do this.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: -at the present time, then they would not have to use this excise tax to the same extent that they are now using it. I believe that is a sound argument. What is more, they would have protected the consumer in the lower income brackets to a greater extent than is now done. What has happened now is that, by decontrolling first of all the so-called luxury articles in this country, the government gave an impetus to the production of these non-essentials. Then, having found that there were too many of them on the market and people spending their money on so-called semi-luxury doodads the government says, "We will not only stop you from buying luxury goods, but we will stop you from buying semi-luxury goods as well by asking you to pay 25 per cent more."
What are some of these so-called semiluxury goods? We could have a debate on what is a necessity and what is not because, when I look down the list, I find, for example, a rather small article, but a very necessary one, particularly so when I look around here, because we are practically all men. I find that shaving brushes are not taxed, but razors and shavers are. There will be some pretty grizzly looking characters around here in a

Excise Tax Act Amendment
year or so, because no one can shave with a shaving brush, you must have a razor along with it.


Mr. REID:: That will be the new look for men.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Our beards will be down to our knees.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Shaving brushes are not taxed.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: No, but razors and
shavers are.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Because there was an export market for these goods.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: You can lather up your face and go out; you cannot shave.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You can, unless you use an electric razor. My hon. friend1 may use these expensive electric razors. I use the old-fashioned1 Gillette. There are no taxes on those.


Howard Charles Green: You are a real Tory.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Seriously though, there are in this list commodities which cannot be called luxury goods. It cannot be argued that these articles are luxury items for all the people. For example, let us take automobiles. There are thousands of people in this country who depend for their livelihood on owning and driving an automobile. Go into the field of salesmanship. There are a lot of people who work in the civil service, for example, who have travelling jobs; they are people who earn their living by owning and operating a car. Had the minister placed a tax on cars which are priced at from $2,000 upward, it might not have been so bad because then you could say that anyone who makes a living by owning and operating an automobile will not buy a Cadillac or a Buick or any one of these expensive cars; he will be satisfied with a cheaper model. But no, the tax starts from $1,200, which means that there is not an automobile on the market today which you can buy without paying the excise tax. This means that there will be thousands of people across this country who will find it 25 per cent harder to make a living than before.
We find that articles for household use such as refrigerators and all kinds of electrical appliances are taxed so that people who are trying to buy them in the western provinces, where unfortunately our electrification schemes have not gone forward as fast as they have in some other parts of the country on account of the depression we had there, are finding it exceedingly difficult. Today those provinces
are attempting to start rural electrification schemes and they run smack into these taxes. They find that the people for whom they are planning this electrification are beginning to become lukewarm over the matter and are not enthusiastic because the price of the goods they have to buy has gone up 25 per cent. The difficulty of the government is-and I say this sincerely-they are attempting to get the effect or the result of a planned economy without doing any planning. They are attempting to get out of the so-called free enterprise system the same result as they would get out of a planned economy, but they have refused to do that supplementary or complementary part, which is to have a planned economy in the first place; I do not know what this committee can do except to register its protest. If the government were to be fair with this committee they would separate from this list the last two parts of the resolution, paragraphs 5 and 6, which have to do with the taking off of the tax. That part could be taken separately, in a separate bill if necessary, and the committee could decide on the merits of this tax alone. I do not think it is wise to attempt to confuse the public and parliament by proposing in the same debate to tax the people 25 per cent or more, at the same time pointing to another part of the resolution ajid saying, "Oh, we are taking the tax off electricity and sugar". If we are to 'have a taxation scheme let us make our decision and deal with that by itself and deal with the other aspect separately. If it were put in that way, and if private members opposite were given a free vote, I am confident that the resolution would not carry.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: It seems to me that we talk in millions so often in this house that it is difficult to get a genuine appreciation of just how this affects the ordinary citizen. During the war we had compulsory savings and there was the sale of something which was popular, namely war savings certificates for $4. This year that little savings certificate will be due and will be worth $5. I wonder if it has occurred to the Minister of Finance, when he thinks about this, that people who have been saving in this way over a period of years would like now to buy some of the luxuries and even the necessities for which they have been waiting so long a time to acquire-a refrigerator, an automobile or something else that might appeal to them. Has it occurred to the minister that his 25 per cent excise tax will take every cent that the little war savings certificate earned? People have invested their money in war savings certificates in the last seven and a half years, and now they will find
Excise Tax Act Amendment

that the dollar they have earned on every four dollars they invested will be taken from them when they attempt to spend their money for something which is necessary in their homes.


Mr. MOORE:: In view of the minister's statement that the purpose of the tax is to restrict consumption, how long does he expect it will be necessary to enforce this legislation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot make any forecast as to the length of time it will last. That will depend upon how our balance of payments position works out. The reserves today, while improving, are far below what they should be and far below what I should like them to be. I cannot say how long it will be necessary to continue these restrictive measures; but, as I have said on numerous occasions, I do not wish to keep them on a day or an hour longer than is necessary.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: May I ask the minister this question? If the Marshall plan in the
United States goes through in the next few weeks, can he give any undertaking that the taxes will be taken off?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot give any undertaking. Of course that is an important factor, as it is bound to be, in helping to restore our balance of payments position.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I wish to ask a question which I think will simplify matters not only for myself but for the rest of Canada. In my opinion the whole system of taxation is wrong, but can the minister tell me when the 25 per cent tax will be taken off cars? I want to buy one.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I want to buy one too, so that I am in the same boat as the hon. member for Eraser Valley. I am driving a 1939 model at the moment.


Howard Charles Green: These excise taxes, as we all know, are part of the exchange conservation program. I would ask the minister, in all seriousness, just how much his program would be affected if they were dropped for the present at least and further consideration given to measures of this type. Then, whatever might be decided upon could be brought down at the time of the budget. The minister must realize that there is great opposition to this tax across the country.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is, of course, opposition to every tax.


Howard Charles Green: But in my time I have
never known a tax that was so much disliked as this particular one, and frankly, I believe that is the feeling among many private members on the government side. There are

features of the tax which are most unfortunate; perhaps the minister and his advisers do not realize all the implications.
I should like to know now what damage would be done if the tax proposals were dropped and whatever steps the minister might decide to take were taken in the budget. The government has power under Bill No. 3 to deal with the whole question. I am quite sure that the excise taxes are only a minor part of the program and I cannot see that much harm would be done if the government withdrew these proposals. I believe there was great merit in the argument that the tax. is unconstitutional and that, in any event, it was imposed in a way that should not have been followed, when the minister announced it over the radio rather than to the house as he announces ordinary taxation measures in a budget.
The minister himself has said repeatedly that he does not want the money. He is not interested in the amount of money that is taken in as a result of the tax. In his article in New Liberty on January 31 of this year we find this statement with reference to the excise taxes:
The revenue isn't important; the less raised the better, for that will indicate that the tax has had the desired effect of persuading Canadians to postpone buying until some later time when the country as a whole can afford the U.S. dollars involved.
It is only a matter of a few weeks now until the budget is brought down. The very fact that these excise taxes were announced has already had some effect, I should think, on purchases, and has partly accomplished the minister's objective, and I should like to know how seriously his plan would be endangered if these taxes were dropped at this time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a pure matter of opinion, as my hon. friend realizes. He would have one opinion and I another. I believe these taxes are having and will continue to have a real effect in deterring consumption of these particular articles, and I would not be prepared to consider dropping them now and considering their reimposition in the regular budget.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister say why
he has imposed the supertaxes on automobiles? They run to 25 per cent in some cases, 50 per cent in others and then 75 per cent in addition to the taxes already levied on cars. Why were there such terrifically stiff taxes imposed on automobiles?

Excise Tax Act Amendment


Douglas Charles Abbott: In the case of the lower priced automobiles, that is of the Ford and Chevrolet class, the additional tax was 15 per cent, and that, I am told, will affect cars in that range to the extent of 8130. When you get to the more expensive models, the Buicks, the Lincolns, the Cadillacs and so on, where there is a limited quota, the tax is steeply progressive and it goes up fast. It was intended to be a real deterrent to the purchase of these cars.


Howard Charles Green: Is the automobile situation not covered now by the quotas which have been imposed since the austerity program was announced?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not entirely. I tried to deal with that in answering the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. Quotas have been in effect for two or three weeks now, but they apply not only to imported cars but to importation of parts, and under existing conditions we would like to see a slowing down of the purchase of domestically produced cars as well. I do not think the quotas can entirely accomplish that purpose.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I wish to ask a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South. I was asked from over on the right here this question: "If you are not a lawyer, why get into this?" That is the trouble in this house. There are too many lawyers or so-called lawyers. I want to get a little further explanation with respect to the Chevrolet or the Ford; and I am not trying to give a boost to those makes; I am thinking of the lower priced cars. I understand that 90 per cent of the content of those cars is produced in Canada. Am I correct?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is not quite as high as that. I think the highest domestic content is with respect to the Ford-and I am speaking from memory-and that it is something of the order of 70 or 75 per cent.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The minister says it is 75 per cent. I regret that this government, although not as much as previous governments, has permitted this condition to exist, and that we have not all-over production here.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Some cars are made here but some are imported.


George Alexander Cruickshank: They should not have been. If this and other governments had been on their toes, there would have been 100 per cent production in Canada. I cannot understand this situation with respect to low-priced cars. I can understand it with respect 5849-152
to Cadillacs-perhaps I should not mention the names, but I am thinking of the expensive cars-but I cannot understand it with respect to the lower priced cars, which are not now a luxury but are rather a necessity of life as much as an electric water pump or a milking machine is on the farm. Automobiles are as much a necessity of life for a salesman or a businessman. I cannot see this idea of putting on this 25 per cent tax at this time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is only an extra 15 per cent.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is an extra 15 per cent. But it is now 25 per cent.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Will you vote against it?


William Henry Golding: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member for Moose Jaw is getting away from those fifteen Japs he has.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is a slick comeback.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I could come back with a better one for you.


An hon. MEMBER:: Keep coming.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What I should like to know is this. I am informed by the largest General Motors dealer in my province that in British Columbia in 1940 a Chevrolet standard sedan sold for $1,380, I think it was. Today the same car sells for $2,000. I am also informed-whether I am correctly informed or not I do not know-that the tax on that car, imposed by federal authorities, as a result of the new taxation, with sales tax on it, is $600.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. It would not be that much.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, that is what I am informed. I want to be corrected in this if I am wrong, or if my informants are wrong I want to be corrected. I cannot understand why a car which is essential for farmers' purposes should bear this excessive tax, and I am speaking of these lower priced cars. We believe that you are prohibiting the manufacture of them in Canada rather than encouraging it. I should like particularly to be informed if I am wrongly informed. If I am wrong in my figures I should like to be corrected. I am informed that the present tax on a Chevrolet standard car in Vancouver is $600.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I could not verify that figure. But the added tax, as a result of the
Excise Tax Act Amendment

proposed additional 15 per cent here, is, I am told, about 8180; it is $150 to $180. I thought it was $130 but, depending on the model, it is between $150 and $180.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Is that additional?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is additional tax. There was the existing tax, the sales tax and so on, and that is on the wholesale price of the car; it may have gone up; I do not know. But the additional tax, the additional 15 per cent as a result of this proposed tax, is of the order of $150 to $180 on a standard type Chevrolet or Ford, so I am informed.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to ask one more question in case I do not understand the matter correctly. I think the minister definitely stated the figure, but in case he has not I will ask this question. The average amount on a car retailing at $2,000 is what? What is the average production in Canada? What did the minister say?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am told with respect to the Ford-I do not know about the Chevrolet -that the Canadian content is about 75 per cent.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to ask this question following up what the hon. member for Fraser Valley has said. That $180 is tax on the car of 25 per cent, which also-


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; that is additional.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I know; that is additional tax. But that additional tax also is a tax on the sales tax-


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: -because sales tax is added first, and then this is on top of that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. The tax is on the
wholesale price of the car. To the wholesale price of the car is added the sales tax and excise tax. The additional excise tax on this type of standard model that I am referring to, as a result of this measure, will be of the order of $150 to $180.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask one question more? Is that tax placed on the wholesale price?


Douglas Charles Abbott: On the wholesale price, at the wholesale level; at the factory.


George Alexander Cruickshank: To the manufacturer?


Douglas Charles Abbott: To the dealer.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Not the ordinary retail dealer, but it is on the manufacturer's price?


Douglas Charles Abbott: At the factory, yes.


John Oliver Probe: I wanted to ask one or two questions of the minister before eleven o'clock. But before doing so I want just to tell him, through you, Mr. Chairman, that he is not the most popular Minister of Finance that my constituency has known; and it is my duty here to register a strong protest on behalf of my riding against this amendment of the excise tax in so far as the 25 per cent portion is concerned. I think all our people have expressed, where they have taken the time to do so, some appreciation of the fact that the electricity and gas tax for dwellings is now cut off and that the sugar tax has been abolished.


Douglas Charles Abbott: One or two have been, yes.


John Oliver Probe: But you do not get those letters quite as frequently as the others.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Tea and coffee too.


John Oliver Probe: In our province we have a number of Liberals who have been talking for some time with torrents of eloquence about a two per cent sales tax levied on certain things by my own provincial government, the government of Saskatchewan.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: It is three per cent in British Columbia.


John Oliver Probe: The Liberals argued with great eloquence that this two per cent tax in Saskatchewan on certain sales should be repealed-a tax which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre reminds me the Liberals themselves put on some years ago. Yet they weep a form of crocodile tears in my province that the C.C.F. are not taking that limited source of revenue off. Here we have an argument which the Minister of Finance puts forward with equal eloquence as to why there should be a 25 per cent excise tax on many commodities that are considered by people in my section of the country as essential. That is all with respect to registering the protest.
I should now like to ask a question or two briefly, if I may. Will the minister assure the committee that this list which we have in the mimeographed sheets, as amended by the third mimeographed' sheet-


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is printed in Hansard now.


John Oliver Probe: -and printed in Hansard represents now the complete list of articles involved under the revised 25 per cent excise list? The minister nods his head.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; the list printed in Hansard is a consolidation of the amendments.

Excise Tax Act Amendment


John Oliver Probe: The reason I ask is, of course, that there must have been some changes of which I was not aware. I have a protest with respect to curling stones, for example, which I intended to present to the minister, but he assures me that the 25 per cent excise tax does not apply on those.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right; the sporting goods group were taken out. The remaining items were of such minor importance that we decided to eliminate the whole group.


John Oliver Probe: Very good.
The other matter is in connection with a clause on page 2 of the sheet I have before me. I refer to section 4, which reads:
That on and after November 18, 1947, the rate of excise tax on cameras, photographic films and plates, projectors for slides, films or pictures, except those designed exclusively for industrial or professional photographers' use, be increased from 10 per cent to 25 per cent.
I should like to know if that clause calls for a 25 per cent excise tax, regardless of the size of projector used. That is the first point. Second, whether or not there is a rebate in the case of educational institutions; whether they can get a refund of the 25 per cent excise tax where the projectors are used for educational purposes. I ask the second question because I understand that a change is to be announced next Monday, March 22, with respect to projectors, and I should like that clarified1. If it is only a rumour it should be denied. What is the exact position of educational institutions with respect to the 25 per cent excise tax on these items, and would the minister indicate what size projectors are concerned?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am told that projectors of all types are to be taxable at the increased rate, irrespective of who may be the user.


John Oliver Probe: There is no refund, then, for educational institutions?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am told not.


John Oliver Probe: That, I think, imposes an undue hardship, because educational institutions are increasingly becoming users of these items for school purposes. As I understand it, in this country there is only one assembly plant for this form of equipment; there is not a manufacturing plant, and they cannot meet the demand. This just increases the difficulty.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We shall have to look into that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to come back to the point we were on arlier in the evening. I hope that the minder feels more tolerant towards me now than 5849-1524
he did then; I know I feel more tolerant toward him. I want to reiterate that, whether or not he thinks the figures I am asking for are significant, namely the difference in sales before and after November 17, and the United States content, I am going to ask him to let us have those figures when we get into committee after second reading of the bill; and I will say no more about the matter this evening.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will urge the officials again to get whatever figures they can, and I will ask them to study my hon. friend's remarks in Hansard. I know I am rather stupid in this thing, but I found it rather hard to see exactly what my hon. friend wanted. However, I will study his remarks carefully and will ask the officials to do the same; and if we can get figures of that kind-and I should think we could get some, at any rate-I will see that they are made available when we are in committee after second reading.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I just want to certify to the minister, not on my own authority but on that of my deskmate, that he thinks my questions are not wholly unreasonable.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They are never that, I am sure.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I should like to ask the minister what car is sold now by the manufacturer for $1,200 or less. I understand there is none. There is an increase of 15 per cent, from 10 per cent to 25 per cent, on cars selling by the manufacturer at $1,200 or less, but once you get over $1,200, the excise tax is 50 per cent.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am told that at the factory cars are still sold at $1,200. Of course freight and all the rest of the charges have to be added.


Benoît Michaud: I should like to know what cars they are. Twenty-five per cent of $1,200 is $300. Then there is the eight per cent sales tax, which amounts to $96, making a total of $1,596.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is also freight and handling.


Benoît Michaud: Where does the difference come in? We are being fleeced somewhere.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The retailer makes a profit.


Benoît Michaud: I should like to know what cars are sold by the manufacturer at $1,200.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Ford and Chevrolet.
Excise Tax Act Amendment


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Did the minister say earlier this evening whether representations had been made to the government of the United States to change their basis of assessing customs duty so that the excise tax would not form part of the base?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I answered that first in reply to a question of the hon. member for Kinders-ley. The other afternoon the hon. member for Parkdale asked the same question. I referred him to the page of Hansard which contained my answer to the hon. member for Kindersley. This afternoon the hon. member for Moose Jaw asked the same question, and I gave the answer again. Representations were made to the United States authorities objecting to the inclusion of the 25 per cent tax as part of the value for duty purposes, asserting that under the provisions of the Geneva agreements it was not to be so included. Those representations were sympathetically received. It was conceded that the Geneva agreements would exclude it; but it was pointed out that, before this could be done, legislative action was required by the United States congress, which it has not yet taken. In the meantime, under the existing United States law, it must be added to the import value for duty purposes. That, of course, created a difficult situation for our manufacturers who were exporting that class of goods, which was one of the reasons a number of articles were taken out of the list.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It is expected that if the United States congress takes the action the minister has requested we shall again have the various articles which have been removed from this excise tax placed back under it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, that will have to be looked at when the contingency arises.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The reason you took them off the list will have been gone, and I presume the status quo would be resumed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That may well be.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The minister has said a valid criticism which could come from this side-and I agree with him, but I have not taken very much of his time in this debate, so I have not brought it up-is that if we are to decrease consumption in Canada so that we may have more goods for export, the excise tax as outlined here should be applied to a much wider range of goods. If the government is serious about this matter and is really trying to decrease consumption, an argument which has come up rather late in this debate, why has it not followed its own criticism, if

you like, and made the excise tax apply to a much wider range of goods? As the situation is now, the classes of goods to which the excise tax applies are not very large, and I doubt very much if there will be a decrease In the over-all spending of our people. If they cannot get these particular articles, many of which have little or no United States content, they will spend their money on other articles, so that the net result will rather fly in the face of the argument the minister put up, namely, that the purpose of this excise tax is to decrease over-all consumption in Canada, so that once again we shall have more for export and attain an over-all export surplus instead of breaking about even, as was the case last- year. Therefore I should like to ask the minister why, believing as he does and suggesting to us that one valid line of criticism is that they have not gone far enough, the administration lacks the courage to make this measure completely effective.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We thought we would
perhaps start out slowly and see what results were achieved as part of the over-all program. Of course it may be necessary, if we have to take further steps to protect our balance of payments position, to impose other taxes or further restrictions. I cannot give that assurance. I hope it will not be, but we felt that this was as far as we should go at this time.


Mr. MERRITT:: We have had evidence tonight that this is an improper tax. However, before the question is put I should like to revert to the fact that this is an illegal and unconstitutional tax. The amendment should not carry under any circumstances. This tax cannot be levied against the Canadian people because, I submit, parliament cannot overlook the constitutional question herein involved. That question goes to the root of everything which we in Canada believe.
It is all very well to talk about the incidence of the tax, and everything of that kind; but, in the end, we come back to this question: Is the House of Commons to pass for a government-for the executive-a tax measure which was laid on the Canadian people when the house was not in session, and which the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for the tax, now presents to the house as something legal? Are we to create a precedent which will last at least until we have the courage to undo it; are we to sit in silence and let such a tax go through?
That is the question which is posed for members of the government party. Will their loyalty to their party be such that they have no loyalty to the constitution? That is the question they must ask themselves before

Excise Tax Act Amendment
they vote upon the amendment; or upon the bill if, unfortunately, we should reach that stage.
The minister has maintained, as one of his defences, that no tax was laid. I wonder if he still maintains that position. He does not answer; perhaps he cannot answer. But if he does not answer I must assume that he still maintains his position that no tax was laid.
First of all, I would bring to the attention of the committee the minister's own words in his radio speech of November 17 where, after referring to the purpose of the tax and the articles upon which it was to be placed'-and the tax reduction; I wish to give him all credit -he said this:
Now that the government's proposals have been announced we propose to follow the usual budgetary practice of asking parliament to make them effective from the time of announcement, and taxes a.t the new rates will therefore be collected on all sales by manufacturers and on imports beginning tomorrow morning.
The words I wish to draw to the attention of the committee, particularly of private members who sit on the government side-because all my remarks tonight are directed to them -are these:
Taxes at the new rates will therefore be collected on all sales by manufacturers and on imports beginning tomorrow morning.
I ask any hon. member who understands the English language whether the words, "will therefore be collected," are the wording of an order, or. as the minister has tried to say, if they are the wording of a warning or invitation to pay a tax, although there is no legal compulsion to pay it. I say that to any ordinary citizen of Canada the words, "will therefore be collected," have one meaning, and one meaning only-an order to pay to the executive government of this country. In my view they would be quite sufficient to establish that this tax was imposed.
I am afraid the minister will have to put his newspaper down-


Douglas Charles Abbott: So far, it was just a repetition of what my hon. friend so ably said the other night. I thought I might catch up with the newspaper.
Mr. MaeINNIS: It is a rehash, anyway.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The hon. member for Vancouver East says it is a rehash. Does he believe that this point is unimportant?
Mr. MaeINNIS: No, I did not say that at all.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: All right. The question I wish to ask the minister is this. The hon. member for Lake Centre read to the minister the memorandum circular issued over the signature of the deputy minister of customs and
excise. I ask the minister if that memorandum circular went out at the minister's direction or with his knowledge and consent.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It did not go out at my direction, and I cannot say if it went out with my knowledge. I presume I may have known something about it, but the Department of National Revenue sent it out. It was not my department.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I want to read to the minister again the wording of that circular. It states:
Until further instructed take all customs and excise entries presented on and after eighteenth instant subject to amendment. Notify outports by wire: The following are the provisions of the special resolutions affecting the Excise Tax Act and the customs tariff, to be introduced in parliament at the coming session. Please note particularly that these resolutions are effective today.
The minister says he has no personal knowledge of the wording of this document. I can understand he would not have. Does the minister say that those last words, "please note particularly that these resolutions are effective today", are necessary for the direction of a public official carrying out the policy announced by the minister?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I suppose if the circular had been technically correct it would say, "are to be effective as from today". They were drawn, I assume, by departmental officials; they were not drawn by me. I do not recollect having seen them at all before they went out.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Will the minister agree with me that a customs officer, an excise officer or any person charged with the responsibility of collecting taxes under the Excise Tax Act could, under his duty, do anything other than collect the tax after receiving a document of that kind?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; and, as I have said before, if any importer or any purchaser felt that parliament would not accept the tax, he could have refused to pay to the customs officer, and the customs officer could not have collected in court. That is the legal position. It has been that way all along. No one has ever disputed it.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I shall come to that later, because I do not want to have any doubt of any kind with respect to it. At the present time I am only interested in asking a question of the minister, and I should like to have it clearly answered. It. is simply this: Could any officer of the customs and excise branch, after receiving that circular, do other than perform
23aa
Excise Tax Act Amendment

his duty of collecting the excise tax in respect of these particular taxes announced in the resolution?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Of course every customs officer would request purchasers to pay; of course they would That was the purpose of the circular.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: On this point as to
whether or not the tax is imposed, one thing that disappoints me in connection with the minister's action, unconstitutional as it was, is that it was not even new. This question of sending out letters like this was thought of in the reign of one of the Richards, I believe it was. They were known then as benevolences.
Reading from Maitland's "History of the Constitution" at page 260, I find this:
A more serious step was now necessary if money "was to be obtained. The king had recourse to benevolences. Letters were written to the sheriffs directing them to call upon persons of ability for contributions.
I thought it -might interest any hon. member who has any doubt of the constitutionality of this measure to know that exactly the same procedure was adopted long ago by executive power and that letters were sent to the sheriffs exactly as letters were sent in this case, calling for the collection of money. The minister does not want to call it imposing a tax. He says it was an invitation to pay in advance. I want to ask the minister this question. Does he agree that if this resolution and the bill to be founded upon it were passed by the house, not only the taxes he is proposing but the other provisions of the Excise Tax Act, its general provisions, would also come into effect as and from November 18?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I take it that the only effect of the bill to be introduced in the specific case we are discussing will be to increase certain taxes by a certain percentage and impose certain others and that the bill will take the form of an amendment to the Excise Tax Act.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: And of course all the general sections of the Excise Tax Act respecting enforcement will come into force as and from November 18. Is that not correct?


Douglas Charles Abbott: They are in force now. They have been in force.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: But I mean with respect to the new tax. Is that not correct?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that I quite follow my hon. friend.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The enforcement provisions which are now contained in the Excise

Tax Act will come into force with respect to the new taxes immediately upon parliament adopting the amendment?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right, and if somebody had not paid the tax you could use the enforcement provisions to make him pay.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Then, with that situation, how is it possible for the minister longer to maintain to the committee that he did not impose a tax as and from November 18? He says that nobody need pay the tax if it is illegal, that they could refuse to pay it. But they refuse to pay it under a penalty, and the penalty is not merely the payment of the new tax but something much more severe than that. I have before me the 1947 amendment to the Special War Revenue Act, section 106 of which reads:
Every person who is required by . . . this act to pay or to collect taxes shall make each month a true return of his taxable sales for the last preceding month, containing such information and in such form as may be required by regulations.
And the date of filing and of payment of the tax is prescribed and penalties are provided for default in payment of the tax.
Then sections 108, 111, 112, and 118, all provide for penalties. They do not simply provide that one of these brave manufacturers who defies the minister shall pay just the tax imposed, once parliament imposes them, and then go scot-free. They provide that he shall go to jail, if you please, for failure to pay the tax, even though his failure took place before this parliament approved the tax. So that there is no use in anyone blinding himself to the fact that the tax was actually imposed.
I wish to refer to one more section of the Excise Tax Act. Many questions have been directed to the minister, particularly by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, respecting the difficult situation in which the minister must find himself because of the collection of taxes by manufacturers on articles which have been released from the tax, and the difficulties that these manufacturers or the retailers ahead of them would have in getting the money back into the hands of those who had paid a higher price because of the tax. The minister said: That is their problem; let them work it out for themselves. Those were almost his exact words.
I call attention to another section of the Excise Tax Act, and I want to show the committee, and, if I may say so, the minister and the government for, after all, the whole cabinet had some responsibility for this

Excise Tax Act Amendment
austerity program and, therefore, for the tax, some of the dangers that he runs into by acting in an unconstitutional manner. If he will look at section 119 of the Excise Tax Act he will1 find' that it reads as follows:
Everyone liable under this act to pay to His Majesty any of the taxes hereby imposed, or to collect the same on His Majesty's behalf, who collects, under colour of this act-
Note those words: "under colour of this act."
-any sum of money in excess of such sum as he is hereby required to pay to His Majesty, shall pay to His Majesty all moneys so collected, and shall in addition be liable to a penalty not exceeding five hundred dollars.
In other words, everyone of these manufacturers who has collected the tax from the retailers ahead of them, under colour of this act and under colour of the minister's action, is not only liable to pay to the retailer the tax which was exacted from him but liable also to a penalty of $500 because of his action in collecting that tax. I imagine that this is one very good reason why it is so important to adhere to the constitution.
I now come to some of the excuses which the minister has made for his action, which I say, and there is no doubt about it at all, was unconstitutional. He said, first, that it was absolutely essential that this tax be imposed on November 17 in order to prevent anyone from taking speculative advantage of the restrictive program. But speculative advantage was placed in the hands of the people by the minister himself when he imposed this tax. If he had not imposed this tax a lot of these commodities would not have gone up in price by 25 per cent and the moneys would not have been collected from consumers in the country and from retailers.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I am coming to the hon.
gentlemen on the government side of the house who called "carried". But first another reason which the minister gave was this, at page 2031 of Hansard, and the hon. gentlemen who called "carried" might listen to this:
. . . but the public assumes that parliament will pass these taxes and make them effective, as the government has asked.
I want to say to the hon. members who called "carried" that the minister is wrong. The public never assumed that parliament would pass the taxes for which the government has asked. The public does not yet assume that this is a house of rubber-stamps. The minister was wrong when he thought parliament would approve so easily. The minister
meant that his own supporters would do the approving. The minister felt-*


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is the majority of parliament.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: -that the cabinet had such control over its own supporters that even his unconstitutional acts would be approved by hon. gentlemen who sit opposite and who call "carried". I think the hon. member for Halton who spoke the other day and attempted to pass some ridicule on the hon. member for Lake Centre for citing some mediaeval cases, and other hon. members on the government side might be interested in this little passage from Maitland who seemed to have foreseen everything that the government is trying to do today. After referring to the fight by parliament against this kind of imposition of taxes, Maitland says this:
Under the Tudors the danger is of a differemt kind-it is not so much that the king will tax without parliamentary consent, but that parliament will consent to just whatever the king wants and will condone his illegal acts.
Have we a Tudor parliament here tonight? Are the hon. members opposite-


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: -back in the sixteenth century? They call "carried"; therefore I imagine they are Tudor members, but I am just going to put this on the record for their benefit, so that they may know what they are doing when they vote on this amendment.


Mr. SINNOTT:: Since when did you become a legal adviser?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I have a few questions I wish to ask the minister.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Since when did you become a teacher?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I understand that the minister maintains that this is constitutional practice. That is correct is it not?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: He said at page 1542 of Hansard:
It is exactly the same procedure as is followed when the budget is brought down save that we anticipated the calling of parliament by some ten days or itwo weeks.
That is to be the new constitutional procedure. You can do ten days or two weeks before parliament sits what you can do when parliament is in session, and I should like to ask the minister this question. What are the limits of this doctrine he proposes; because, do not forget, the minister says he
Excise Tax Act Amendment

will do it again. He said tonight that it maybe necessary to take further steps of this kind. Will the minister define the limits of this constitutional practice? It is constitutional if he does it in two weeks or ten days before parliament sits and calls parliament. Is it constitutional for a month, or is it constitutional for a year before parliament sits? I should like an answer to that question.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That, of course, is a matter of opinion. We have not a written constitution in matters of that kind. I think I have explained this thing pretty carefully. At the time this announcement was made parliament had been called. I gave the reasons why, in the emergency which I said existed at that time, this should be done. I am not going to attempt, nor do I think anyone should attempt to put any time limit on that sort of thing. I suppose, in theory, it might be a month or it might be three months. I do not know that there is any written provision anywhere, in Britain or anywhere else, which covers these things, none whatever.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Yes, there is. It has been read to the minister.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Then my hon. friend has done better than others.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: It was read to the minister the other night. The written principle is contained in the Bill of Rights in the reign of William an.d Mary, and it followed upon precisely the-


Douglas Charles Abbott: What does it mean?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: -action that the minister has taken. It was because King James II imposed taxes two months before parliament met that that provision was contained in the Bill of Rights; and the provision in the Bill of Rights is, of course, that no taxation shall be laid upon the people without the consent of parliament. It is in writing and it is the very foimula embedded in our constitution. The minister now says he does not know; it may be one, two or three months.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But no taxation is imposed except with the consent of parliament. How often does that have to be reiterated? No one has ever challenged that proposition.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister now says it can be done, as I understand it, three months before parliament is called.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not say three months at all. My hon. friend was asking what the limit would be after announcement. I said that no one could say what it would be. I have given it time and again; the committee

is thoroughly familiar with it, and the people of this country are thoroughly familiar with the circumstances under which this announcement was made. I have nothing I can add to that. My hon. friend has a perfect right to go on and elaborate his constitutional argument. I listened to him with interest; but let him develop his own argument; do not keep on interrupting by asking me to put a time limit on this, that, or the other thing.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: We are in committee. Qne of the purposes of being in committee is to ask questions, and I am going to continue to ask my questions. As I understand it, the minister now says that he does not know that there is any time limit-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: That is one way to learn.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: -within which he must call parliament together.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will answer any questions of fact that my hon. friend wants to put to me, and these are the only questions that he is entitled to put to me.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The question I am asking is a question of fact, I think, Mr. Chairman. I am asking him to define the limits of the constitutional principle that he propounds. If that is not a question of fact it is a question of such great importance to the committee that I do not care whether it is a question of fact or not.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I answered that. My hon. friend can read the answer in Hansard tomorrow.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: As I understood the
minister's answer, it was not limited to two weeks or ten days, and he cannot give a limit-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Of course I cannot, neither can anyone else.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: because, of course, there is no such constitutional principle; that is why.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is pure assertion.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: If the time limit cannot be defined, in whose hands lies the decision as to what that time limit shall be? Does it lie in the hands of the Minister of Finance, or does it lie in the hands of the cabinet as a whole? Answer that question.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Obviously that decision has to be taken by the government on its responsibility as a government. I cannot conceive of any government announcing the imposition of such a tax when parliament had not been called. That is my own personal view. I would not do it myself and I doubt whether any

Excise Tax Act Amendment
other minister of finance would do it. I have said time and again that I considered a procedure of this kind could be followed only in the most exceptional circumstances, which I considered, and which the government considered, existed in the middle of November. With all the will in the world I cannot elaborate any further on that. So far as I am concerned, I would not consider that such an announcement should be made until parliament had at least been summoned.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister now says that parliament must be summoned.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said it should be.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Upon the announcement of the taxes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said, in my opinion it should be.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Apparently not that it must be.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think there is any provision anywhere which requires it to be summoned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is there any provision which permits you to do it otherwise?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: It has always been my understanding that this country did have a constitution. Perhaps it has not. It is starting to look very much, from the action of the "carried, carried" boys, as if this country has not much of a constitution.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend knows that the British constitution is not a written constitution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On that point, the minister has said before tonight that in Britain there is no written statute covering this point. I ask him again to consider the argument made by my colleague, the hon. member for Kindersley, who drew the minister's attention to the matter. The hon. member for Kindersley drew the minister's attention to the provisional collection of taxes act passed in the third year of George V, chapter 3, which is a written statute to cover and makes valid the collection of taxes that had been announced and not yet passed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a statutory provision. It is not a constitutional provision but an ordinary statutory provision of the parliament at Westminster which may or may not have been necessary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But that is the way in which the constitution at Westminster has been built up.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. For heaven's sake, let us not get into an argument on the British constitution. My legal friends will agree, I think, that it is recognized that the British constitution is an unwritten constitution. There is what my hon. friend refers to as the Bill of Rights, which is a statute, but the British constitution and constitutional practice are not incorporated in a written constitution as in the case of the United States. Our constitution is, in part contained in the British North America Act, and we follow British constitutional practice in parliamentary matters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is my point. If in Britain they found it necessary, under their unwritten constitution, to pass such an act as the one to which I have referred, I submit that, since we are following British practice, we should have done the same.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The effect of that act would be that they could sue for those taxes the moment notice of them was given in parliament, but we cannot do that and we have never been able to do it. There is no law which enables the crown to sue for a recovery of taxes until the appropriate bill is passed by this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then they are not legally in effect.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The argument applies with equal force to that practice, with this exception, as I have said before, that this was announced two weeks before parliament was actually in session.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Tonight I have read sections to show that, should parliament approve them, not only can these taxes be sued for, but penalties, by fine or imprisonment, may be imposed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not agree with my hon. friend. I know those sections and they apply to other things. We shall never get anywhere if we enter into that argument tonight.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I am not, from now on, taking the minister's statement on points of law as a very high authority. I wall simply say that the sections I have read were the enforcement sections of the excise act, and if they would1 not apply to these taxes they would not apply to any taxes.
I wish to come to another statement the minister made, because I am trying to define the limits of this new constitutional principle so that we can refer to them if this house should be so neglectful of its duties as to pass this resolution. I think that now, while our
2392
Excise Tax Act Amendment

constitution is still intact, we can sound out what new limits will be put upon it, and that is why I have asked my question. The minister said this was different from what was known as an ordinary budget leak, because it was a public statement made at once to all the people and was not a statement dished out to one newspaperman or to a few people without the general public being made aware of it. That seems to me to be a statement that what is unconstitutional, if issued' under the blanket or piecemeal or to a few people, is made constitutional by open announcement. I do not think I will ask the minister a question now. I will simply state to him that he cannot find, any such principle either in the constitution or in reason, for a statement made in public is no better than a statement made in private if there is no foundation for either. You might as well say that an act committed at midday on a public highway is not a crime, whereas, if committed at night in a back alley, it is illegal. I leave that point there and ask the members of the committee to test this new constitutional principle by that statement.


Mr. CLEAVER:: Before the hon. member leaves the point he has made, would he mind answering a question?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: No, I would not mind at all.


Hughes Cleaver: Do I understand that the hon. member is arguing that a tax can be imposed1 and has been imposed other than by parliament?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I will answer the question if the hon. member will sit down. Of course I am arguing that a tax has been imposed in effect, but that it cannot be imposed1 in law and that this house and the hon. member for Halton, who has questioned me now, cannot give approval to the de jacto collection of an illegal tax. Is that clear?


Hughes Cleaver: May I ask a supplementary question?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Certainly.


Hughes Cleaver: We are agreed then, because I have always argued that only parliament can impose a tax. I take it that hon. members agree-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Why don't you tell the minister that?


Hughes Cleaver: The supplementary question is on the other point. I understood the hon. member to argue that a tax had been imposed.


An hon. MEMBER:: It has been, certainly.


Hughes Cleaver: His immediate answer to me is that it has not been imposed because parliament has not yet imposed it. Are we in agreement so far?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Mr. Chairman-


Hughes Cleaver: My supplementary question is this. Does the hon. member argue that, if parliament does not pass this measure, all of this tax which has been voluntarily paid could not be collected?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hughes Cleaver: If I paid 25 per cent in anticipation of parliament passing retroactive taxation, does the hon. member argue that I could not collect back the 25 per cent which I gratuitously paid?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: We discussed that the other night. Where were you?


Hughes Cleaver: Will the hon. member answer the question?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: We are in committee, and I do not mind the hon. member asking a question, but he attempted to paraphrase what I said. He made a very ungainly attempt and misquoted what I said; then he proceeded to ask a question which I have answered many times. If the hon. member wants it once more, it is simply this. A tax has been imposed in fact and people have paid the tax in fact. If we allow this kind of procedure to go on, and if the hon. member votes for this resolution, parliament will be giving approval to the principle that a tax imposed in fact, but not in law, by the executive authority of the country, while parliament is not in session, will nevertheless be made the law ex post facto in future. It will put in the power of the cabinet of Canada the ability to lay any tax on the Canadian people at any time and make it good afterwards by a "Tudor" following in parliament. The hon. member can make a speech afterwards-


Hughes Cleaver: Would the hon. member be good enough to answer the question?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Don't embarrass him. He cannot answer.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He has embarrassed himself.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: There is one further thing I should like to say. The "hear, hear" boys and the "question, question" boys can listen to this one with some interest, I should think. If they think this is just an academic question-


An hon. MEMBER:: It is an economic question.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: -or something that does not go to the root of our way of life and our

Excise Tax Act Amendment
whole democratic procedure, they can listen. At page 2036 of Hansard the minister said he would do this again, he said he will do it next time by press release.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said that was facetious. My hon. friend knows that.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I know he said it was facetious.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister is too facetious about the whole matter.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I will ask the Minister of Finance this question. Does he say he will never do it again?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. I will answer that question. It is a perfectly fair one. Under similar circumstances, I would recommend and do exactly what I did this time.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Then you do not get this through.


James Arthur Ross: When is the minister serious and when is he not?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will get it through all right.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Perhaps this shows the importance of what I am talking about tonight. The minister says that under similar circumstances he would do it again.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Of course.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: He said, too, that this is not a tax for revenue but, as I understand it, that this is a way of using the fiscal method of directing the economy of Canada. Think of that, hon. gentlemen opposite!


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend talks about paraphrasing people's language. I never used the phrase "directing the economy of Canada." I would ask the hon. member to quote what I said and not to twist it.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister said, "fiscal method of reducing consumption."


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is accurate.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: If that is not directing the economy of Canada, I do not know what it is.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Just say what I said; do not paraphrase it, because it may not be too accurate.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: We are now in the position that the minister would do it again under similar circumstances. He will use the tax to cause people to change their habits. It. is not only to raise a revenue which was all that
King Charles I was trying to do; this is to change the method of living of the Canadian people. That puts more responsibility on hon. members opposite.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not use the phrase "change the method of living."


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That is what you are doing.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: That is what you are trying to do. I just want to conclude, and I do not intend to say anything more about this matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Hon. members opposite may laugh all they want to, but I do not think it will do them a great deal of credit.


Mr. HARTT:: We are falling asleep.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I shall not be much longer but I want to say what I have to say.


Maurice Hartt: That is encouraging.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member should do it in the forty minutes allotted.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: You see, Mr. Chairman, there is another aspirant for cabinet rank calling out.


Maurice Hartt: What a brainstorm!


Douglas Charles Abbott: What a wit!


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Since the war, we have had what is known as the emergency doctrine. Some hon. members on this side of the house have questioned the emergency doctrine.


Mr. MacINNIS:: And voted for it.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: All right; and voted for it, if you like. But one of them at least has voted against it, and the hon. member for Vancouver East knows that.


Angus MacInnis: What is one among so many?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The emergency doctrine was that in times of national emergency, such as of war or the post-war period, the dominion could invade the constitutional fields reserved by the British North America Act for the provinces. That was the doctrine which has been enunciated in this house and upon which this government has acted. That, of course, is one of doubtful constitutionality, although there is a great deal of law on it that I will not discuss. But I never thought-and I do not think any members of this house thought either-that the emergency doctrine should be carried so far that not only does it allow this parliament to invade the fields reserved to the 5849-1531
Excise Tax Act Amendment

provinces but now, in this measure and by this expression of emergency, the minister is saying that it allows the cabinet and the executive to invade the jurisdiction of parliament itself. That shows you, Mr. Chairman., the danger of letting these small constitutional breaches creep in. They get bigger; they grow wider; and the first thing you know, you have no constitution at all. As I said the other night, the Lord knows that we in this country, in these times ahead, have need of constitutional rectitude of the highest order. In my view, our constitution, which has been built up over the years and has met every emergency in every British country before this time, is so flexible and so free that there is nothing the government needs to do that it cannot do within the four corners of the constitution.
Finally, just before I sit down I wish to read to hon. members one paragraph from a speech made by Lord Chatham in 1775 with regard to the American War of Independence. Of course that whole war, that breaking off of the thirteen colonies, was nothing more than a revolution against the breach of the right of the people not to be taxed without their consent. This is what w-as said by Lord Chatham in that year:
This resistance to your arbitrary system of taxation might have been foreseen; it was obvious from the nature of things, and of mankind; and above all, from the Whiggish spirit flourishing in that country. The spirit which now resists your taxation in America, is the same which formerly opposed loans, benevolences, and ship-money in England: the same spirit which called all England on its legs, and by the Bill of Rights vindicated the English constitution; the same spirit which established the great, fundamental, essential maxim of your liberties, that no subject of England shall be taxed but by his own consent.
Think of those words, all hon. members who are going to vote on this resolution. Will a breach of this principle not get you all on your feet? Will you not vindicate your spirit? Will you sit here, like a Tudor parliament, and vote against your consciences in blind obedience to the will of the executive authority of this country?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: That is the issue which is before us.


Hughes Cleaver: I asked the hon. member who has just taken his seat a question, and I thought it was a reasonable one. I did not ask it in order to cause him annoyance. I asked it to see if it were not possible that we could reach agreement at least as to what we were discussing in this debate. He charac-

terized my question as a clumsy or ungainly one, thus obviously showing his annoyance at the question. Then he went on to make a long-winded answer, which did everything but answer the question I asked.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Ask it again.


Hughes Cleaver: If there is anybody in doubt as to which utterance was ungainly, I would even suggest to my hon. friend that he read his answer. I will not call it ungainly, but I will say it is not an answer at all. It wandered all over the question but did not answer it.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The answer was too direct to suit you.


Hughes Cleaver: My question was simply this. We all agree that only parliament can impose these taxes. I ask the hon. member this question. If I pay this tax in advance and this parliament does not pass the measure, does not impose the tax, could I get a refund of the amount paid, by legal procedure?


Mr. MANROSS:: Hire a lawyer.


Hughes Cleaver: The hon. member is a lawyer, and I should like an answer to that question. I am not asking for an answer from any of the others who are making so much noise.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I will answer the hon. member. As a matter of fact, in the case cited by the hon. member for Kindersley, Bowles vs. The Bank of England, this kind of tax was held unconstitutional and in direct defiance of the Bill of Rights by an English court. In his judgment the learned judge doubted whether there was any process of law which would enable a person so taxed to recover what he had paid. If the hon. member wants an answer to the question the best I can do is quote the only authority I know, which indicates doubt whether there is any process which would enable any person to recover his tax.


Hughes Cleaver: I read the authority to which my hon. friend referred, a quite recent case, with judgment given in 1913, I believe; and my understanding of that authority

I shall read it again, of course-is that there was a distinct ruling by the court that no tax was imposed until parliament passed the taxation measure. I contend that mjf hon. friends across the way fail to distinguish between the imposition of a tax and the notification that parliament will be asked to impose a tax. I add that the extent to which the public and business generally in this country have responded to the minister's announcement,

Excise Tax Act Amendment
and have paid and collected this tax, is an indication of what? It is an indication of the confidence business in this country has in an announcement by a minister of this government. If they had no confidence in the ability of the minister to have parliament implement that announcement by the actual imposition of the tax, then the business life of this country would have rebelled, if they had felt safe in doing so. They would have said. "We will not collect the tax. It is not imposed yet, and it never will be imposed". We all agree that only parliament can impose it, but who can show me anything unconstitutional in parliament making a tax retroactive? My hon. friends are driven to argue that the parliament of Canada cannot impose a tax retroactively, if they are to support all these arguments we have heard tonight.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I see the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the chamber. He was formerly the Minister of Justice and, as everyone knows, is a distinguished lawyer. The Minister of Justice is not here at the moment, nor is the Prime Minister. I think the committee is entitled to hear from both those right hon. gentlemen on this point, but I wonder if the Secretary of State for External Affairs would say whether, in his opinion, the procedure followed of announcing and collecting the tax, while parliament was not in session, is in keeping with the Canadian constitution.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member for Vancouver East.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Answer.


Angus MacInnis: 
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I had no intention of speaking further, but after listening to the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard; after realizing that apparently this matter is regarded as a joke by a good many people on the other side of the house, since I regard it as a serious matter I determined to say a few words about it. Speaking as one Mac to another, it was refreshing to hear a little wave of common sense after all this talk. The hon. member for Vancouver East made it clear when a tax is a tax, and got away from all this hair-splitting that there is no tax and that you do not need to pay the tax, when here we have an instruction which has gone out to every customs inspector, and when instances have been given in this house where goods could not be brought in without the tax being paid. So is it not time we stopped1 talking about there being no tax? Let me say this:	We have
had1 a lot of talk in here about a long word called "constitutionality. I want to talk about a very short word called "law." This tax-and it was a tax, and intended to be a tax, and collected as a tax, and accepted by the people of Canada as a tax-was a lawless tax.
In the house yesterday we were in- general agreement, everyone was talking about a group of people in this country who believe in lawlessness, who are going to try to practise lawlessness and to destroy our dearest privileges and our way of life. What do we find here? We find, first of all, and for no valid reason at all-because no reason has been given; the reasons given, or supposed to be
Excise Tax Act Amendment

given by the hon. member for Halton the other night were frivolous in the highest degree -we have lawlessness.
Let me read the words used in this House of Commons some years ago by the present Prime Minister; and then see if members opposite will laugh that off, as they tried to laugh off what was said earlier in the evening. This is what the Prime Minister said, speaking in the House of Commons in 1931, as reported at page 4413 of Hansard for that year:
The fundamental tradition in all that pertains to responsible government is that the people's representatives in the House of Commons must exercise control over taxation and that that right must never be taken away from them.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the matter with that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Of course.


An hon. MEMBER:: We all agree with that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You all agree with it, in words; but in action, it was not done.
The minister said tonight; he has been frank tonight in saying that he does not know how far back you can go before parliament is summoned. In this instance it was three weeks. He has been frank enough to say that he does not think three weeks is the limit. I think he said it might be three months. I do not see why, on the same reasoning, it should not be six months.
I am surprised and disturbed that hon. gentlemen opposite, whom I respect, do not seem even willing to look at this question. They seem to be ready to put it aside and to deal with it as if there were no substance involved in it. If you can impose a tax of this kind-and it is a tax-then the people of Canada had money taken out of their pockets for three weeks, and without any authority at all. The analogy between, that and the budget speech in parliament has been exploded here, and I need not explode it again. But what I want to say is this: We are coming to a situation where parliament is being asked to validate this action. I hope, whatever other action is taken with regard to this measure, whatever other defects are found in it, that it will be refused passage; but, if it is passed, then I hope this House of Commons will insist-and like the hon. member behind me I appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite that it be made retroactive only to December 5 last, when parliament met. If this House of Commons validates it from December 5 back to November 17, then all I can say is that thfy are condoning an act of lawlessness.


An hon. MEMBER:: Rubber-stamp.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, the expression "rubber-stamp" is used. But I am stating it is lawlessness, and it is lawlessness. There has been an expression used' by the minister; and with all my respect for him I have been grieved1 more than I can say that the minister seems to have considered this as a kind of joke. I am not holding the minister to the- words he used, but he said he would d'o it the next time by press release. I think the minister was a little perturbed at having said it, and afterwards, when he was pressed on the question, he was at pains to say that he was joking.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have to listen to so much in the course of the discussion that perhaps it is understandable that I become a little facetious at times.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I complain that the minister should consider as facetious something which is important. There is nothing facetious about it.
And one final reason, one final comment: W.e have been given one main reason in the fact that this great emergency arose and that parliament could not have been assembled in time to deal with it. What was the reason? The reason given the other night by the hon. member for Halton was the same reason, I think, that the Prime Minister gave in the house before Christmas, namely, that we could not show our hand and show our difficulty until trade treaties were passed. I think they were signed a day or two before November 17. Anyway, it was just before that.


Hughes Cleaver: And you call that a facetious reason?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I say that is a sharp reason. If we were holding it back so as not to give an account of what we intended to do, and so as to try to get other people to enter into agreements and then take them by surprise later on, then all I can say is that that is the kind of thing which, in business life, would be regarded as sharp practice and, indeed, I think I would be safe in saying that it would be sufficient to set aside an agreement entered into. Even if we did accept this reason, what earthly reason was there that parliament should not have been called some weeks before November 17 when the minister made his speech? The notice did not need to give chapter and verse for everything to be done; and if the notice had said that we would deal with a shortage of United States exchange, it would not have been telling anyone any secret. The world knew we were short of it by that time. So I

Excise Tax Act Amendment
say that the reason was utterly invalid, and that for no emergency the government has committed this act of lawlessness and now asks us to rubber-stamp it and to put it through.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Chairman, I wish to read one paragraph into the record.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I believe it is important, with regard to the tax.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The minister and several members have said they did not know how these taxes have affected certain of the industries. I have figures here to show how they have affected the radio receiver industry, and I think they are important.


Howard Charles Green: Eleven o'clock.


Agar Rodney Adamson: One paragraph states:
As an indication of how drastically these measures have effected the production and sales of our member companies, their production and sales of radio receivers in November, 1947, were 103,329 and 102,300 respectively. In December, production dropped to 71,000 and sales to 80,573. In January, 1948, sales dropped to 39,608 receivers and production to 48,811.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There is on the order paper a resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs for the introduction of a bill to deal with the War Veterans Allowance Act. That has not yet been advanced to the stage of government orders, and the minister could not do more with it tomorrow than to advance it one stage. I understand, however, there is a desire that the bill be introduced and referred to the committee on veterans affairs. If there were unanimous consent that could be dealt with tomorrow, and it would be the first order.
If there is not unanimous consent, the first item-
Howard Charles Green: The minister means that
the whole thing should be allowed to go to the committee on veterans affairs without any discussion? We cannot give any such undertaking as that.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Then it will have to follow its regular procedure. The minister will advance it one stage, so that it will be under government orders. The first item will be second reading of Bill No. 135, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act; following that, the resolution respecting the Agricultural Products Act, and then we shall go into committee of ways and means on the resolution we have been discussing this evening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Might I have one point made clear with respect to the wheat board act? Is it the intention after second reading, if that is reached tomorrow, to go into committee on the bill tomorrow?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The intention is to go into committee of the whole on the bill, as is usual after second reading.


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


Friday, March 19, 1948