[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from May 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gibson (Secretary of State):
That the report from the civil service commission respecting revisions in classifications of officials of the House of Commons, laid on the table on Thursday, 29th April, 1948, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the report of the civil service commission relating to the appointment of Miss M. E. Black to the position of permanent clerk in the debates branch of the House of Commons, laid on the table of the house on March 11, 1948, be now approved.
In the report from the civil service commission it is stated:
Miss Black as a sessional employee is receiving $7 per day, or $2,555 per annum. A competition was held to fill the position of principal clerk and Miss Black was the successful candidate. In order that she may not have to suffer a reduction in compensation, it is recommended, under section 59 of the Civil Service Act, that position HC-C-88 be exempt from section 13 of the act in order that Miss Black may be appointed at $2,649 per annum, effective from the date of her appointment, such exemption to apply to the appointment of Miss Black only.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That on and after Wednesday, June 9, 1948, until the end of the present session, the house shall meet at eleven o'clock in the morning of each sitting day, and that in addition to the usual intermission at six o'clock p.m., there shall also be an intermission every day from one to three o'clock p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to revise and consolidate the law respecting the levying of income tax and the administration thereof.
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.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend an Act respecting the national battlefields at Quebec, to authorize payment out of the consolidated Tevenue fund of the sum of $1,000,090 over a period of ten years from the first of April, 1948, to the commission for the purposes and subject to the provisions of the Act and to authorize the commission to acquire and hold a certain parcel and tract of land therein described.
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.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I informed the house in connection with the Fraser valley floods that it was the intention of the government to appoint a commission to have supervision over the entire situation, which commission would have on it a repre-

Flood Relief in British Columbia
sentative of the government of British Columbia and a representative of the federal government. I am happy to say that the federal government has been fortunate enough to obtain the services of Major General B. M. Hoffmeister as our representative. Hon. members will recall that General Hoffmeister was the officer appointed to command the Pacific forces at the time of the Japanese war. General Hoffmeister will be on loan from the H. B. MacMillan Company, of which he is the vice-president.
I am also happy to announce that Hon. Eric Hamber, former lieutenant governor of British Columbia, has agreed to act on the commission as the representative of the government of British Columbia. These two gentlemen will work together as representatives of our respective governments, and will have the opportunity of communicating directly with the ministers of both governments.
The federal representative on the commission will report to the Minister of Finance, but he will also have direct access to all departments of the federal government. The exact duties of the commission will be outlined more definitely later on.
In connection with the services of the navy, army and air force, General Hoffmeister will be available for consultations with Colonel Snow, commander of the Vancouver area of the Canadian Army, who, under direction from the Minister of National Defence, and with the authority of the provincial government, has been acting as co-ordinator of the agencies fighting the flood. Colonel Snow will remain the military officer in charge, responsible in the ordinary way to the military authorities and to the Minister of National Defence.
Just before coming into the house I received a telegram from Building Products Limited of Montreal, which company apparently has noticed that a commission was being established. This telegram is addressed to the Fraser valley relief and rehabilitation commission. That is the name that was suggested for the commission. It is sent in care of myself and is as follows:
If material required will be happy to donate five carloads of our roofing and siding products to Fraser Valley relief. All freight charges paid by us to destination.
Building Products Ltd.
I should like to express the thanks of the government to Building Products Limited. Their patriotic example is one which, in all probability, will be followed by many other industrial concerns in our country, and if so, such action will be deeply appreciated.
rMr. Mackenzie King.]



SUBSIDY ON BUTTER TO BRITISH COLUMBIA

Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: May I say a word on a related subject? I was informed the day before yesterday that washouts caused by the recent heavy floods had cut off the rail shipments of butter to British Columbia from the prairie provinces, the usual source of butter supplies for that province. Available stocks of butter in British Columbia, we were informed, were inadequate to meet the requirements of hospitals and many other high-rating claimants. It was suggested that the ceiling should be raised to provide for the added cost of flying in the necessary supplies, but that seemed to be inadvisable, and in order to meet this emergency the wartime prices and trade board have been authorized to pay a subsidy up to six cents a pound, or the difference between the cost of air and rail transport, whichever is the lesser, on butter moved by air transport from Lethbridge, Calgary or Edmonton to the isolated areas of British Columbia. This will enable the British Columbia consumers to continue to obtain butter supplies at prices within the price ceiling regulations.


Mr. FULTON:: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the announcement just made by the Prime Minister, and speaking as a member from British Columbia, I know I am correct when I say that all the residents of that province feel that no finer appointment could have been made than that of Major General Hoffmeister. I know that British Columbia will welcome that appointment.
In view of the report as to the extent of the damage amounting to over S30 million, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can elaborate on the statement made yesterday with regard to the extension of financial assistance, and particularly whether he will indicate the basis on which the federal government proposes to extend that assistance -whether on a dollar for dollar basis, or more, or less.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I thank my hon. friend for what he has just said in reference to the appointment of General Hoffmeister. The house I know will feel the same way with respect to the appointment of the former lieutenant governor, Hon. Eric Hamber, who is the nominee of the government of British Columbia. One of the purposes in the appointment of the commission was to afford opportunity of conferring between the representatives of both governments on all matters of importance in relation to flood conditions, in order that the governments might be advised confidentially, before

Inquiries oj the Ministry
final decisions were reached, as to amounts of payments and the like. I should be glad to give my hon. friend the information he has just asked for, if I had the facts upon which to base it. The government has felt that it would be preferable to have the whole situation surveyed by these gentlemen in the first instance.
May I say that both the government of British Columbia and our government are in entire agreement about the wisdom of appointment of the commission and its personnel.


Mr. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the statement which the Prime Minister made yesterday and the statement he has made today, may I say that the term "Fraser river relief and rehabilitation commission" has been used several times. Will the Prime Minister give the house an assurance that the financial aid to be given to the province will be used to assist flood victims in all parts of the province and not in the Fraser river area alone?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I have said, one of the purposes of the appointment of the commission is to provide for a survey of the situation. Before the government reaches a decision as to the extent to which relief should be given, we should await the word we may receive from those who are in a position to advise in the matter.


Mr. PEARKES:: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Finance? In view of his statement as to the steps being taken to relieve the butter shortage in Vancouver, are any steps being taken to meet the grave danger of a milk shortage in Vancouver and other coast towns owing to the destruction of herds in the Fraser vallley, which is normally the source of supply of milk for that area?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not had any representations with respect to that matter. I think my hon. friend will appreciate that it would be difficult to fly adequate supplies of fresh milk to meet the situation.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance with reference to butter? When the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) left here and went to the distressed area, did he take his margarine with him or did he leave it in someone's keeping?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have no information on that question, Mr. Speaker.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. O. BREITHAUPT (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Since confusion and misunderstanding have arisen in the minds of certain farmers with respect to the 1947 income tax forms and the Farmers' Income Tax Guide, will the minister please clarify the department's requirements with regard to use of these forms and guides.


Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member I would first draw his attention to my statement of March 19, which appears in Hansard, page 2400, on the subject of the farmers' income tax form, and which deals particularly with the net worth statement appearing on this form. At that time I announced that the department had decided that farmers who report taxable income based on cash actually received and cash expenses actually paid out during the calendar year will not be required to fill out the net worth statement on the new 1947 prairie farmers' or farmers' income tax return. Farmers who report income on an accrual basis for tax purposes will be required to submit a statement of assets and liabilities as heretofore, or to complete the appropriate parts of the net worth statement.
It will be appreciated that under the terms of the Income War Tax Act where the department cannot obtain sufficient information by any other means it may require a further statement which in many instances may actually be "the net worth statement". This would apply, of course, to any year for which sufficient information Ls not available.
With respect to the farmers' income tax guide and account book which has been provided free to all farmers in Canada, I would like to point out that this book has two main purposes. The first one is to provide the Canadian farmer with a sample book for the puipose of recording his farm income and expenses in such a way as to facilitate the accurate completion of his income tax returns. The second is to answer general and specific questions which the department has found to be most common in its dealings with farmers.
I should add that the farmer is not obliged to use this accounting book. It has been provided free for his convenience and assistance. A farmer may keep, if he prefers, any other form of record which he finds more convenient.
The fact that the demand for these guides has resulted in over 700,000 copies being
Inquiries oj the Ministry

placed in the hands of Canadian farmers would indicate that they will be put to widespread use.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Revenue. There is grave doubt about the situation as to farmers' income tax. My question is this: Suppose a farmer in his return for 1948 income fails to give the net worth statement, will he in 1949. if he changes his opinion, be denied the right then, to go on the accrual basis in the determination of his income tax?


James Joseph McCann: I think not. I think he would be permitted to make the change from the cash basis to the accrual basis at that time.


Mr. MILLER:: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue? If the farmers take advantage of the permission that is now given not to fill in the form at the top of page 5, will it make any difference to or interfere with the farmer's right to claim to have his income spread over three years in case some years are good and some bad, as he has now under the act?


James Joseph McCann: I will take note of the question and give an answer tomorrow.


Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):: I should like to direct a further question to the Minister of National Revenue arising out of the question asked by the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Breithaupt), and other questions of the same purport. Is it the intention eventually to have all farmers fill out the net worth statement? I do not mean this year or next year, but eventually.


James Joseph McCann: That is a matter of policy which has not yet been determined.



FARM PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. BURTON (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Financial Post, dated June 5, wherein there is forecast the removal of the embargo on livestock and feed grains to the United States? If so, is the report correct?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I do not always read the Financial Post. I did not happen to

see the article referred to, but I have heard about it. I dare say the policy of the government will be announced in due course.


Joseph William Burton: Will the minister read the report and inform us later?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot inform the hon. gentleman in advance of an announcement by the government.



IMPORT RESTRICTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the indignation being expressed by some lumber and mining operators concerning their inability to purchase kerosene refrigerators, and in view of the fact that in some instances in British Columbia men are leaving camps not serviced with refrigeration to work in camps serviced with refrigeration, would the government give consideration to permitting the importation of kerosene refrigerators for purchase only for use in mining and lumber camps and isolated farms not serviced with electrical energy?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of the question, and I have been able to look into the situation. I find that the emergency import control division is prepared to consider applications on an individual basis of essentiality in accordance with the hardship provisions of the order, and in fact a number of applications have been approved where supported by certificate from provincial health authorities indicating that it would be injurious to the health of workers if such equipment were not available. There have been a number of applications by companies and others representing that their camp was in an isolated area where electricity was not available and where supplies of provisions can be brought in only once a week, there being in such places 100 persons or more. These applications have been looked into and it has been found that, for example, what was asked for was an 8-foot refrigerator. Obviously it would be physically impossible to store perishables for 100 persons in a refrigerator of that size, and therefore the conclusion arrived at in a number of these cases was that the application was perhaps more for the benefit of senior hired help than for the mass of the employees.

Supply-Post Office



INQUIRY AS TO SETTING UP OF RADIO COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister, in the absence of the appropriate minister. In view of the fact that the house has decided today to sit from eleven o'clock in the morning, beginning shortly, is the Prime Minister in a position to advise whether, having regard to recent changes in policy by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the radio committee will be set up during the rest of the present session?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry I cannot give my hon. friend an answer offhand, but I shall hope to be prepared to give an answer on Monday.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The house may be interested in having the latest word in regard to the referendum taken in Newfoundland a day or two ago on the future form of government in that colony. Only nine out of twenty-five districts have complete returns. While incomplete the latest returns for the whole, up to 12.30 today's Newfoundland time, indicate the vote: for responsible government, 65.991; for confederation, 60,147; for commission government, 20,805. Apparently no form of government will have a majority, and another referendum will therefore have to be held, probably some weeks hence, to decide between the two forms, responsible government or confederation.

The house in committee of supply. Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
309. Departmental administration, $1,096,287.
John George Diefenbaker: There are one or two matters, Mr. Chairman, which I should like to bring to the attention of the minister with a view to securing some information from him. The first has to do with representations that have been made to me by postmasters in revenue offices.
For these men and women there are no such things as minimum salaries or hours of employment, holidays or promotion. They render a great service to the people of the country as a whole; they receive their payment on a commission basis, and since they are not classified
as civil servants, they receive no pension. According to representations made to me, during the war they worked for a number of government departments without any remuneration, giving assistance in reporting enemy aliens, national registration, the foreign exchange control board, and generally making themselves useful in connection with various activities furthering the war effort. Having regard to the increase in the cost of living, and the surplus enjoyed by the post office department, what consideration has the government given to providing for a 25 per cent increase in rates as requested by these postmasters? Also, what if anything, is being done toward the establishment of a pension plan fop them?
Under the present deputy postmaster general, in common with hon. members in all parts of this house I have observed an attitude that I desire to commend. When matters are brought to the attention of the deputy postmaster genera], he has been most diligent in his endeavour to remove any cause of inconvenience. I think it only fair to say that; for after all, many of these officials are doing responsible, effective and efficient work. Too often we take for granted what they are doing, and fail to pass on to them and to those who work with them the commendation of the constituents whom we represent in parliament.
What consideration, if any, has been given during the year to the reduction of the postage rate from four cents to three cents, which was indicated last year as a possibility? The matter is one that I think deserves the consideration of the minister, and I feel that the committee should have an explanation with regard to it.
I want to join with the hon. member for Wentworth in the representations he made last evening on a matter to which he has made frequent reference. He asked that something be done to relieve the people from the present high postage rates on parcels sent to Britain to help the people over there. I know of two or three persons in my own constituency who during the last year have sent parcels, to the limit now allowed, to the parents of young men who served in the armed! forces of this country and whose acquaintance they made during the war. The minister has had this matter brought to his attention on previous occasions. I know he would have the support of Canadians everywhere were he to make provision to remove, as far as possible, the postage rates on parcels being sent to Great Britain by patriotic Canadians with a view to assisting .the people over there to get additional nutritional value in their diet.
Supply-Post Office

On previous occasions I have heard the arguments used in answer to this request. But if the minister could see the letters that one receives from men and women in the lower-income brackets who regard it as a patriotic duty to assist their kinsmen overseas, and who are prevented from being as generous as they otherwise would be because of the high transportation charges, some favourable consideration would be given to the matter. I ask the minister what he proposes to do about it. I know he will say that he realizes the conditions that exist, but that-there are administrative difficulties in the way. I say to him: remove those difficulties; give Canadians an opportunity to help their relatives and friends in Great Britain. When they are voluntarily sending parcels to assist people in another part of this commonwealth, it is difficult for them to understand why they must pay a postage rate which is as high or almost as high as the value of the things they are sending. The same argument, of course, applies to patriotic organizations who prepare bundles to assist destitute families in England and who find1 themselves penalized to a degree that seems scarcely justifiable.
I would like the minister to tell the committee also what is 'being done about the representations made by the rural mail couriers wherein they point out the unfairness of the present tender system, and urge that the present contract system by tender be discontinued and replaced by a contract system comparable with other similar postal services, under which a definite price would be determined for each individual route, subject to revaluation when made necessary by changes in mileage, number of boxes, and the like.
I shall not go into all the representations which have been made in that connection. The bonus system was merely a temporary arrangement to meet individual cases, though in some of those cases-and I have the records before me-there was an unusual spread as between various applicants operating similar routes. I do not know what would be the justification, but when one finds two routes approximately the same in length, with the bonus in one case greater than in the other, one wonders on what basis it was done.


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: Because the conditions were very different.
Mr. D1EFENBAKER: That may be true, but physical conditions are not always the reason for the difference in these payments.


Mr. PROBE:: Political conditions.


John George Diefenbaker: Certainly some of them seem hard to justify; they would indicate one basis for certain individuals and areas, and another for others. The minister says conditions are different. That explanation may cover the situation generally, but it is something which at the moment I would prefer not to discuss in too great detail. I do think the bonus system, being merely temporary, should be supplanted in accordance with the suggestions made by the rural mail couriers' association, whose representations are couched in reasonable and temperate language, and with a full realization not only of their position but also of their responsibility as servants of this country.
Finally I have one further question. In the appointments to fill vacancies, is the veterans' preference actually being carried out? I should like to know the number of appointments made during the past year, vacancies and replacements, and the number of men and women appointed who have the veteran qualification.


Ernest Bertrand: Last evening we discussed the question of revenue postmasters to a certain extent, but I am glad the hon. gentleman has raised1 the question again because I want, to make a more complete statement. We have been using an antiquated method of paying the postmasters, and in our view it is very unfair in many instances.


John George Diefenbaker: What method is the minister referring to?


Ernest Bertrand: Payments
based on revenue. When I came into the department-<1 do not say I was responsible for correcting this situation-there were revenue postmasters in what had become large centres of population, and as a result they were receiving much more than they should, though of course there were very few of those. There were some also who should have received more than they were getting. The method of paying postmasters according to the postage sold was not the best, because in certain post offices a great deal of work has to be done in addition to selling stamps. A post office may be a distribution centre for rural mail, or may distribute mail to other post offices, and in that case the work is much heavier. So we decided to change that system, and have been doing so since April 1. Of course it involves a great deal of work, and we cannot change it all at the same time.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the change?

Supply-Post Office


Ernest Bertrand: We are
putting them on straight salary according to the importance of their office. We are also taking it upon ourselves to see that their employees, if they need employees, are properly paid. We do not now leave this to the discretion of the postmaster, because sometimes they may pay a little less than they should, and we want the employees to be properly paid. There was a case in Saskatchewan in which an employee of a revenue post office was not receiving the minimum wage under provincial law. That employee, though working in the post office, was not directly employed by us. Such cases will not occur in future.
We have also received representations from many quarters asking us to extend the right of superannuation to these employees. We could not do that when they were paid according to the revenue received from the sale of postage, but now we have submitted to treasury board a plan under which those employees will be brought under superannuation.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the plan?


Ernest Bertrand: They will
contribute a certain amount, as other civil service employees do, and those within a certain age will pay what is necessary in order to entitle them to superannuation under the act so that they may retire at the age of sixty-five and have something on which to live, like other civil service employees. In some cases postmasters have been in office for a long time and are quite old. They may be unable to do anything else, and too old properly to serve the public. In such cases it is very disagreeable to have to tell them they must give up their job to somebody else, without being able to offer them any superannuation. That is one reason for changing the method of payment.
The hon. gentleman spoke about the salaries we are paying. The salary varies, of course, according to the work done in the individual offices. I might add that this superannuation can apply only to postmasters whose offices have a revenue of at least $3,000, and in the case of such offices the salary, as determined at the moment, is to be $1,920.


John George Diefenbaker: How many post offices are in that position?


Ernest Bertrand: There are 1,385 with a revenue of above $3,000. As yet we have not fixed a figure for post offices with a revenue of less than $3,000. We are studying the matter now, and it takes time to arrive at a definite conclusion.


John George Diefenbaker: What are the
alternative plans the minister is considering in reference to post offices with an income of less than $3,000?


Ernest Bertrand: There are
some small post offices where the revenue is not $100, and it would be difficult to provide superannuation for a postmistress in charge of such a small office. We are working to see to what extent we can do this, but we cannot say exactly what we are going to do.
The hon. gentleman asked me about the three-cent and four-cent- rates of postage. In both cases there is a one cent tax. That is not charged by the Post Office Department, although the department benefits from any surplus. That tax could not be eliminated except by action of the government. Expenses have increased considerably. Salaries to our employees have been increased by $660, and we are paying more to the rural mail contractors, railway clerks, and so on. We could hardly recommend to the Minister of Finance that we return to the three cents and two cents postage when costs are what they are.
In the United States immediately after the war considerable pressure was put on the government to return to the pre-war postage rates of three cents and two cents, the same as we had before the war. The airmail rate was reduced from eight cents to five cents, and they reduced other rates. The result was disastrous. At the end of the year they had a deficit of $442 million, and the President sent a message to congress asking them to try to find some way to make up this deficit. If we reduced our rates in Canada it would mean a loss of revenue of between $11 million and $14 million in first-class letter rates. We are trying to improve service by providing all-up mail service on July 1 as an experiment. Through this service we shall be able to deliver mail in Canada just as quickly as though we were a small country only 150 or 200 miles long. It will be an experiment, but I am quite sure it will work. We have to admit that we are experimenting. We would not be able to recommend elimination of the one-cent tax.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the revenue from that one-cent tax shown under the heading of taxation, or does it go into the revenues of the Post Office Department?


Ernest Bertrand: It all goes in the same pot. We return all our revenue to the consolidated revenue fund, and it is counted in any surplus there may be. It might be diverted to national revenue, but it all

Supply-Post Office
goes into the consolidated revenue fund and then we draw on that fund according to what is voted here.
Reference was made to the high postage rates on gift parcels to Great Britain. According to our figures, only five per cent of the British people are receiving gift parcels. We are not making any money out of these parcels, as we charge only for our out-of-pocket expenses. The largest parcel that can be sent is twenty pounds, but small parcels of five pounds or so are sent quite often. The cost on these parcels is high. The total postage is 85 cents, but we have to pay 38 cents for sea transportation and 27 cents to the British post office for handling and delivering there, which leaves us 20 cents as payment for transporting a parcel, say from the west to Halifax.
If the present rates were reduced it would mean that we would be paying a subsidy or making a donation to individuals instead of to the people as a whole.
As I say, only about five per cent of the British people receive gift parcels because they have friends or relatives here. We have the greatest sympathy for the people in England. I have friends there to whom I send parcels once in a while. I may say that my deputy minister is going to Britain in a few weeks to discuss certain matters, and this question of parcels will be one of them. It may be that the reduction could be made on the other side instead of here, and that would help the people who are sending parcels.


John George Diefenbaker: Has any request been made of the United Kingdom government that they forgo the charges they make for transmitting these parcels in Britain?


Ernest Bertrand: Yes, the
United Kingdom authorities have been asked to do that.


Calvert Charlton Miller: How do these rates compare with those charged on parcels for the troops during the war?


Ernest Bertrand: During the war we did not have to pay the steamship companies anything for the distribution of these parcels, because it was done by the army.


Calvert Charlton Miller: The rate was quite low, was it not?


Ernest Bertrand: It was twelve cents a pound, and on a twenty-pound parcel the rate was ten cents cheaper than our present rate.
As to the tender system, the hon. member for Lake Centre indicated that it might be dangerous to leave the fixing of the rates to

the department alone. Tenders have always been called for. Of course there will always be certain persons who are willing to accept a lower price because they are in a position to do it. Perhaps they are carrying merchandise as well as the mail, or carrying passengers. Some of them run taxis. If we attempted to fix a standard price there would have to be as many standard prices fixed as there are railway freight rates, because the routes vary greatly as to number of boxes, difficulties of the road, and so forth. One contractor might be getting on in years and be glad to carry the mail to earn a little money. Another man might be the father of a large family and would require more remuneration. . I am quite certain that if we fixed a rate the department itself would be the loser and very few people would gain by it.
During the war, because the cost of living was going up, we had to grant bonuses and supplements, but supplements were granted only on the merits of each individual case, where it was absolutely necessary to increase the amount. When we compare the number of cases in which supplements were granted with the number of cases in which it was necessary to ask for tenders because, for example, of the death of the contractor, we find that the proportion was 36 per cent in the one case and 39 per cent in the other. The tenders were about three per cent higher.
I could not say offhand just how many veterans we employed last year, but we make it a rule in the department to give the veterans the preference, and we go a long way to help the veteran. Many temporaries were taken on during the war and served in the department for five or six years; some were replaced as the veterans came back, but there are temporaries still in the service. I could get the figures my hon. friend asked for.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish the minister would.


Ernest Bertrand: I shall do that with pleasure.


Mr. MATTHEWS (Brandon):: I was unable to be present during all the discussion on postal matters, and perhaps the point I have in mind has already been dealt with. I wanted to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General one class of employees in the postal service who I think are worthy of the best possible consideration; I refer to the railway mail clerks. They have the hardest of hard work. Their hours are about the worst of any group in the civil service. The

Supply-Post Office
work is often exceedingly dangerous. It is wearing on the nerves, as we all know, and often these employees come to the verge of a complete breakdown. They have day runs, night runs-all kinds of runs except home runs; because their home life is completely broken into. Their facilities for getting meals are most inadequate. They have in their custody registered mail, and that tends to worry them. If something has not been done already for this class of employees, I trust that it will be done. I should also have mentioned that their work is done in a rush, because they have to be ready with the mail at each trainstop; they are on edge all the time. I would like to see these conditions recognized financially and otherwise by the department.


Ernest Bertrand: The railway post office employees are the highest paid class in the department, and whenever these positions become vacant, employees in other branches are glad to take them, because it is considered as a promotion.


John Oliver Probe: I would like to have a state-men from the Postmaster General as to what his department has done in cutting down the rather top-heavy subsidy that has been paid for some time by the Post Office Department with respect to newspapers and periodicals in the second-class mailing group, where there is a mailing rate of one and a half cents a pound. This matter was taken up by me last year. At that time I had the support of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I am hoping that the minister will be able to make a statement indicating that some change has been made in the policy.
I want to remind the minister that last year I asked him a question as to how we stood financially with respect to the handling of newspapers and periodicals by the Post Office Department. In reply to my question he said that the loss in handling was estimated at $7,287,400 per annum. Even the Postmaster General must admit that a subsidy of that kind to people who I think could get along quite well without it makes quite a dent in the otherwise excellent service which his department can provide. Newspapers, which are the biggest recipients of the subsidy involved in the charge made for second-class mail matter- including newspapers, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says, which consistently decry subsidies for what I would call humanitarian purposes-are permitted to sell advertising up to fifty per cent of their total space and still remain within the second-class field. I think some change should be made in that regard. They definitely receive large revenues 5849-304
on the sale of these advertisements. On top of that they receive a subsidy which in effect amounts to approximately one-tenth of the minister's estimated revenues for the year just ended, 1947-48. That is quite a big contribution from the rest of the Canadian citizens to this one service which is handling and distributing second-class mail matter. The department, by efficient management, did have, according to the budget report and the estimates that are before us, in spite of this big concession, a revenue of approximately $8,010,000 in 1947-48. By requiring the newspapers to pay the exact cost of providing these services, the department could have had a revenue for the past year of some $15,300,000 net, as I calculate it.
I do not think the minister will quarrel with the way in which I have built up the figures to indicate that, had they paid their own way for all these services, the net revenue to the Post Office Department would have been over $15,000,000 instead of the present estimated one of $8,000,000. We would have almost doubled our net revenue had a different policy been implemented by the Post Office Department with respect to the charges on newspapers and periodicals. Had that been done perhaps the Postmaster General could have subsidized these relief parcels which have been mentioned by quite a number of hon. members in the house, food parcels for overseas, or he could have given a 25 per cent increase in pay to post office employees all across Canada instead of the timid increases which were mentioned last night by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
As a matter of fact I believe the minister has received representations almost annually from organized groups of letter carriers to the effect that second-class mail matter be handled by the corporations which send them out through postal channels. I hold in my hand a resolution from the federated association of letter carriers, the final paragraph of which reads as follows:
Be it resolved that the delivery of individual magazines, periodicals, newspapers, catalogues, et cetera, by letter carriers be discontinued, and that said magazines, newspapers, periodicals, catalogues, et cetera be delivered en masse to news depots or duly authorized agents appointed by the publishers of said magazines, newspapers, periodicals, catalogues, et cetera.
I appreciate the reason why the letter carriers take that stand. In my own city, when one gets off the pavement in the early spring of the year and on that South Saskatchewan gumbo, a pretty husky man or woman could get stuck with the load that these people carry when they go out on their routes. It seems to me that it is time the minister seriously contemplated a complete revision either
Supply-Post Ojjice

of the rates or of the service in connection with second-class mail matter. I would appreciate a word or two with respect to that general subject.


James Ewen Matthews: I listened attentively, but I must admit I did not hear the observation of the minister a while ago. I should like to know what he said. Sitting here I could not get it at all.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: It is not very often that I have the opportunity of supporting suggestions made by the hon. member for Regina City, but this subject has been a kind of pet interest of mine. I would be much interested, in a matter of this kind, to hear the views of the Progressive Conservative party. This is a matter of great concern. It is a tangible way in which we might save a little of the taxpayers' money. If a change were made here we might cut some of the expenditures of government. Surely there should be some way in which we could rectify the situation.
I understand that we have to carry newspapers. I am all for the broadcasting of proper information to the public. I think everyone would be willing to carry, out of our revenues, a necessary service of this kind, but there should be some limit to it. Newspapers published in Montreal or Toronto, for instance, are carried all the way out to Vancouver. As a matter of fact my pet peeve against these papers has been that they carry very little actual news or factual material, and we could get along very well without them. In fact the publishers in Vancouver complain bitterly that Little Orphan Annie arrives out there via the Toronto Star Weekly or the Montreal Standard on Tuesday, three or four days ahead of the time that cartoon appears in their papers, and I do not think that is a fair practice. It is not fair to a good newspaper like the Vancouver Sun or the Vancouver Province, which rarely gets down to this part of the country except in the parliamentary reading room. This is just one more instance of all the people subsidizing the manufacturers of news in Ontario and Quebec.
I would ask the minister to give some explanation as to why there is not some limit in this matter. I hate to have the thought in my mind that there is some kind of intangible or subtle blackmail, as it were, perhaps unconscious, on the part of the newspapers. But the fact remains that neither the Liberal government nor the Conservative government when in power-and I doubt whether the C.C.F. would change this, although it would be interesting to hear what the attitude of the hon. member for Regina City is-has done anything
IMr. Probe.]
about the matter. It has always seemed to me that there was something that somebody was afraid to do anything about. I would be interested to hear the minister's explanation.


Ernest Bertrand: First, in
answer to the hon. member for Brandon, I said that railway clerks in the post office were the highest paid employees in the department, and whenever a vacancy occurs there are always many other employees who wish to get into that branch. If they are successful they consider themselves promoted. I will not say why they like to travel, but I suppose they have good reasons.
As regards the deficit on newspapers and periodicals, which this year is $7,500,000, I admit it is a large amount, but the rates are fixed by parliament and are not under the jurisdiction of the Postmaster General. I admit that they are not reasonable, but they were created through the years when the newspapers were not of their present bulk of 30, 40 or 50 pages.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: When was the act first passed?


Ernest Bertrand: I do not remember offhand.


Mr. KNOWLES:: None of us were here.


Ernest Bertrand: In 1932, I am informed. Today the newspapers are heavy. We gave them the privilege of paying one cent and something-


John Oliver Probe: One cent and a half per pound.


Ernest Bertrand: That is right, for the full poundage of the newspaper, provided they did not publish more than 50 per cent of advertising. I maintain that in the department we are very fair, because, although the law provides that it shall be 50 per cent, it is sometimes difficult to determine a just pro rata, and we start to count at 54 per cent instead of 50 per cent.
I understand that when this arrangement was established it was a good thing for the people receiving newspapers, but today there is a change. For one thing, the radio provides people in the country with a good deal of news, and the different political parties have since begun to broadcast and are teaching many things to certain provinces-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Ernest Bertrand: with results. I must admit, in certain cases. There is also the privilege of sending free the speeches that are made in this house, which is taken advan-

Supply-Post Office
tage of to a large extent. As I say, I admit that the deficit of $7,500,000 on newspapers is too high.


John Oliver Probe: That is right.


Ernest Bertrand: We are looking into the question. As a matter of fact, a newspaper representative came to us and made a certain offer which I will not disclose now since we are studying it at the moment. The deficit attributable to the dailies is only $1,500,000, the other $6 million being created by other publications and magazines. In Canada we are in a rather peculiar position. We receive many more American magazines than we ourselves deliver to the United States, and this of course accounts for a certain part of. the deficit.


John Oliver Probe: You had better start saving foreign exchange.


Ernest Bertrand: There are
international regulations and they cannot be changed by one party for a particular reason without reference to the bulk of the regulations. Some years ago, before my time, we succeeded in getting American publishers to ship to Toronto their publications for Canadian distribution. Those that are to be distributed in Canada are mailed here, so that at least we have a certain revenue in that direction, whereas if they were mailed in New York or some other city in the United States we would lose a larger amount than we do.
The question is a delicate one. Of course people must realize that if the newspapers pay $1,500,000 more the cost of newspapers will be advanced, and instead of two cents it will be five cents for most newspapers. That is coming anyhow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are all five cents now.


Ernest Bertrand: The question is being studied along with many other matters in the department, and I may say that we are quite studious.


Mr. DICKEY:: Can the minister tell the committee whether or not a design has yet been selected for the commemorative stamp to be issued on the occasion of the Halifax bicentenary in 1949, and also what the denomination of that stamp will be?


Ernest Bertrand: A design is being studied by different artists, but one has not yet been definitely chosen. The stamp will be a four-cent stamp.


John George Diefenbaker: I understand that the United States intend to issue a special stamp in August to commemorate the centen-.ory of peace with Canada. Does the minister, 5849-304J
as Postmaster General, intend to reciprocate the decision made by the United States and have a similar type of stamp issued by Canada?


Ernest Bertrand: Mr. Chairman, any question about philately is always a delicate one. Indeed, there are many more philatelists in the world than I ever dreamed of before I became Postmaster General.


John George Diefenbaker: They bring in a lot of profit, too.


Ernest Bertrand: Yes; but in the long run, if we granted all their requests, our stamps would be depreciated from the philatelists' point of view. Our stamps have a high value in the world of philately, for the reason that we do not make too many issues. We wait until there is a very good reason.
The stamp commemorating the Niagara bridge, which has been referred to as being associated with the centenary of peace, is not exact from the historical point of view, because peace was signed between Canada and the United States in 1815, whereas the bridge was opened to the public 100 years ago. There has been pressure to have a stamp commemorating the opening of the bridge. This is a private bridge, and it would be helping a private organization in its publicity. I was not Postmater General at the time, but a few years ago the city of Vancouver celebrated its centenary. Many people are of the opinion that we should have issued a stamp on that occasion, and I would suggest that to issue a stamp commemorating the centenary of the erection of this bridge, in view of the fact that we did not issue one to mark the foundation of Vancouver, would not be fail'. Of course the United States issue many more stamps than we do, but their stamps have not the same value from the philatelic point of view.


John George Diefenbaker: Does this all add up to the fact that, after so many words, the Postmaster General does not intend to issue such a stamp?


Ernest Bertrand: I must say it was a diplomatic way of saying no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask the Postmaster General what are the regulations and the practice with respect to stamp meters. Some letters are put out metered without anything else on the letter but the stamp itself. But sometimes there are little slogans or designs that go along with the meter. I have in my hand an interesting one that was given to me a little while ago. It was put out on meter number 140,287. The letter was mailed at Montreal on March 30, 1948. The amount
Supply-Post Office

of postage paid was four cents. The slogan that is printed as part of the cancellation stamp reads as follows: "Free enterprise means good living. Keep it alive."


John Lambert Gibson: There
should be more of that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was fairly sure that that slogan would receive endorsement in most parts of this house, but the enthusiasm shown by my hon. friend simply supports my contention that it is a political slogan.


Mr. TIMMINS:: The hon. member just made it up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not make it up at all. It is stamped on the letter by the post office metering machine.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: The hon. member is
making it a slogan, though.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is stamped on the letter.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Why does the hon. member not adopt it?


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it the policy of the Post Office Department to put out slogans from time to time? If so, I should like to offer some suggestions. For instance, next week, how about "Humanity first"; or "Make this your Canada"; or "Production for use and not for profit"? Or maybe my friends to my right have some slogans to suggest.


Mr. LENNARD:: They will speak for themselves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yesterday the hon. member for Calgary West gave an interesting one: "Yale, Yale, the gang's all here I"
This may be amusing, Mr. Chairman, but it is also serious. I should like to know just where the line is drawn in the matter of the slogans that go with these meters. Is the slogan put into the meter which a firm may rent from the post office, or may a firm rent one of these meters and put in any slogan it wishes? If the latter, I still think that either some line should be drawn or we down at Woodsworth House should be allowed to rent a meter and put in any slogan we wish to use.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Where is Woodsworth House?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Woodsworth House is the C.C.F. national office at 301 Metcalfe street, here ini Ottawa.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is where they sing the Red Flag.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not at all. WTien a slogan is put out in this way, it gives the people who receive it the impression that there is something official about it. I should be glad to have the Postmaster General's comments on this matter.


Ernest Bertrand: May I have the envelope to which the hon. member referred?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes; I shall be glad to send it over to the Postmaster General.


Mr. ISNOR:: Perhaps when the Postmaster General is answering the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre he will also explain why the post office favour the use of postal meters. It is because of the time saved to the employees, and also the splendid service given by free enterprise and those who are willing to 'buy these meters at a fairly substantial amount, paying $100 in advance. Instead of going in and buying a few stamps at a time and taking up the time of the vendor, they buy $100 worth at a time, get a receipt, and their register is shown at that amount. They continue to use it day after day until they use up that amount; then they go back for a further large amount, and their money is deposited with the Post Office Department. I think it is a splendid method of saving time both for the employer and for the Post Office Department. With regard to slogans, I may say that I use one of these machines and I have a slogan. I advertise that great Atlantic port, Halifax. The stamp is marked, "Halifax", and underneath it "That great Atlantic port". I also speak of a fine brand of clothes and carry a slogan about them, but I have a slogan too which helps Halifax.


An hon. MEMBER:: Isnor's "Fit-U clothes".


Ernest Bertrand: We allow
corporations to rent or buy meters, and our duty is to see that we are not defrauded of our revenue in any way. We see to that. Some of the corporations like to have a motto like this one, "Free enterprise means good living; keep it alive." Others would like some other one. As long as those mottoes are not indecent or insulting,- and so on, we have no objection.


John Lambert Gibson: If they insult your intelligence, is that all right?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Ernest Bertrand: Intelligence is so different in different people that I can see why, for instance, a son-in-law does not agree with his mother-in-law. But I must

Supply-Post Office
tell the hon. gentlemen that we also have slogans which are asked for at different times. We are scribblers to a certain extent in the department. Now that this has come up, I must admit that this week a certain political party in Quebec asked to have this slogan put on their letters: "Vote Liberal."


Mr. MacNICOL:: Right on the envelope?


Ernest Bertrand: Much to my disappointment I had to say no; I refused to allow it.


Calvert Charlton Miller: You might insult their
intelligence.


Ernest Bertrand: Yes. Of course, these meters serve a useful purpose. They save a great deal of money to people who send out a large number of letters, having regard to the amount of labour involved. Stamps do not have to be put on the letters. If even the Progressive Conservative party want to use a meter and put on something which is decent, and which is according to their orthodox thinking-if it can be called orthodox-we have no objection to it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just in order to have the regulation clear, do I understand that when the Post Office Department rents a meter -and incidentally I support the statement made by the senior member for Halifax that this is a good idea-to organizations or corporations, they must submit a proposed slogan to the department in all cases, or are they free to put in anything they wish?


Ernest Bertrand: They are free to put in whatever they want to, but if it so happens that we do not want it, it would be too bad for the organization that is submitting something which we cannot permit.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Does the department have to pass on these slogans before they are accepted or put into the machine?


Ernest Bertrand: No. But if
something indecent were to come out, we would intervene.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am not quite clear on this. I understood the Postmaster General to say that he turned down a request from his own province to vote Liberal.


Ernest Bertrand: It was for a slug.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Was it because that was an indecent statement to go on the letter that the request was turned down?


John Lambert Gibson: It was too political; that is all.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think we should have this matter clarified. I understood the minister to suggest that if the Progressive Conservative party wanted a slogan, it would be quite in order, but that he had to turn down a similar request from his own party in Quebec. I think the idea of boosting Halifax or Vancouver or Edmonton is quite worthy-


Ernest Bertrand: We allow those things.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: And I think they are quite worthy.


Ernest Bertrand: But when an election is taking place in a province or in Canada it would be improper for the Postmaster General to permit anything which would refer to one party as against another.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Elections are being fought, or are about to be fought, and it seems to me hardly the thing to have business firms and other organizations carry on political activity by putting in a plug for free enterprise, or trying to discredit views they do not support, at the same time creating the impression that this is the official party of the government of Canada, which at the moment happens to be a Liberal government. In a few years we may have a C.C.F. government, and it would be hardly cricket for any political party in power to sanction the use of slogans on these meters in support of one political party and in an attempt to discredit others. So I think this policy should be reviewed by the Postmaster General.


Calvert Charlton Miller: I have just one question, which may have been cleared up, on the matter of this reduced rate on air mail. Suppose an airmail letter is sent to my own city of Portage la Prairie, for instance, where the planes do not land. That letter would be taken to Winnipeg and sent by train to Portage la Prairie. Would the same rate apply?


Ernest Bertrand: Yes.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Even though it was not taken all the way by air mail?


Ernest Bertrand: The public need not worry about that. We will send the mail by plane at the same price wherever we can gain time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask one or two questions; I have looked through Hansard and have not seen them dealt with, though I have been out of the chamber for some time today. I am not clear as to what post offices are to come under the civil service. I am very much interested in that question. I have objected strenuously, as have many of
Supply-Post Office

my constituents, to men who were operating quite successful companies and receiving fair remuneration also acting as postmasters, spending a great deal of time away from the post office and letting their wives or some other employees do the work for a very small remuneration. So I should like the minister to tell us exactly what type of post office is coming under the civil service.
Then the Department of Labour informs me that employees of a rural postmaster come within the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I should like to ask what the Post Office Department does to see that rural postmasters comply with dominion laws.


Ernest Bertrand: Post offices with revenue of $3,000 and up will now come under the civil service, and these postmasters are asked to spend all their time at that job. It has not been decided as yet whether post offices with revenue of less than $3,000 will come under the civil service. As to the unemployment insurance, this is a matter which must be looked after by the contractor.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The Postmaster General did not quite get my question. I was referring to employees of rural postmasters working in post offices.


Ernest Bertrand: The arrangement is similar.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The Canadian National Railways, operating about sixty per cent of the railway mileage in Canada and employing about sixty per cent of the railway personnel, has never been able to get its full share of the post office business. Could the Postmaster General report what percentage of the amount paid out last year went to the Canadian National and what percentage to the Canadian Pacific, and could he also tell us what prospect the Canadian National has of getting its sixty per cent share as soon as possible?


Ernest Bertrand: We do not distribute the postal bags according to the miles served by the two railways. We send the mail by whichever railway is more convenient. I am not sure, but it may happen that the Canadian Pacific passes through an older section of the country, and must receive a little more. I do not know exactly; I have never calculated who gets the larger share.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The Canadian National provides equally good service between Winnipeg and Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver, and Montreal and Vancouver; and if the Canadian Pacific is getting more than its fair

share of the revenue I should imagine it would be easy to divert some of that mail in order to ensure that each company gets its fair share.


Frank Exton Lennard: They never arrive on time.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: My hon. friend had better not say that in any part of Canada served by the Canadian National, because they are very proud of the service they receive.


Ernest Bertrand: Some officials of the Canadian National have complained in this connection. We have asked them to come and look at the figures, and if they were ill treated we would see what could be done.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Has the minister the percentages paid the two companies?


Ernest Bertrand: They are paid according to the work done, and the work is given to whichever company serves the greatest population.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If the minister would just give us the percentage of the revenue going to each company we could see the position.


Ernest Bertrand: Last year the Canadian Pacific were paid $4,177,000, and the Canadian National, $3.756,000.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I do not think that is satisfactory. In view of the fact that the Canadian National has more mileage and more employees, there really is no justification-


Ernest Bertrand: That is not the point. The point is whether they serve as large a population.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: They both serve
Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and the larger centres, so that I think the time has come when our publicly owned railway should get at least fifty per cent of the amount .the Post Office Department pays the railway companies in Canada.


Ernest Bertrand: We have
asked the officials of the Canadian National to discuss this matter with us, but so far they have not come. We want to serve the people in the best way possible. We do not care whether it is done by the Canadian National or by the Canadian Pacific. As a member of parliament, I can appreciate that the more we can give the Canadian National, the more it will benefit that railway, which badly needs additional revenue. It goes according to the number of bags collected on the way and the number sent from one city to another.

Supply-Post Office
We cannot discuss the matter very well here, because we have asked those interested to discuss it with us and so far they have not done so.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have brought up this point year after year. If the officials of the Canadian National have not come this year I am sure it is not because they have not been concerned about getting some adjustment. When those officials have been before committees of this parliament they have told us they have not been satisfied with the percentage of the revenue they have been getting and that they have been negotiating for a larger percentage. As a taxpayer in Canada, the Postmaster General is concerned about the financial position of his own railway; and I think it is not unreasonable to ask that the Canadian National, our own railway, should get at least fifty per cent of the revenue. I am not asking that we should discontinue mail service to Canadian Pacific points; but the Canadian National has good trains between Toronto and Winnipeg, Winnipeg and Vancouver, Montreal and Vancouver, and so on, and there is no reason why we could not give the Canadian National more money.


Ernest Bertrand: The hon.
gentleman is making a point on a question which is very difficult, involving a great deal of study, and which I cannot answer at the moment. We did the reasonable thing; we asked the officials of the Canadian National to discuss this matter with us, and we are waiting for them.


Charles Edward Johnston: I want to ask the minister a further question about this tax that has been put on the people who use the post office savings department. I should like to ask why the department thought it necessary to impose this tax. This service has been given for a great number of years, and people have been permitted to withdraw money from the postal savings bank without this tax being imposed. Now all of a sudden the Post Office Department decides that it should tax at the same rate as the chartered bank. Why was it deemed necessary? Was it to increase revenue? If so, how much increased revenue has been obtained?


Ernest Bertrand: The savings bank is not a paying proposition, because we lose money in the sense that we give service free. The bank is intended to be exclusively a savings bank, and it is used by many people in far-off places or by foreigners who have confidence in the Canadian government, whatever it may be, and deposit their money there. However, it has been found that certain people
are using their post office savings accounts as checking accounts. We think it reasonable that they should pay the same tax that is imposed on anyone who goes to a bank and draws a cheque.


Charles Edward Johnston: Was it done to obtain increased revenue or to discourage people from using their accounts?


Ernest Bertrand: It was done to discourage people from using this bank as an ordinary commercial bank instead of as a savings bank.


Charles Edward Johnston: I can see the force of the minister's argument if this tax were imposed only on people who are travelling and use the post office savings bank as a convenience, but I do not think his argument is valid when applied to people in remote places where there is no bank. He is penalizing those who live in outlying districts in order to discourage people from using this bank. It seems to me that in doing this the Post Office Department is forcing people to use the chartered banks. The post office savings bank should be for the convenience of people, particularly those in outlying districts who have not access to chartered banks. I think the revenue the minister will get will be negligible, while the service that could be rendered is considerable. We have got along all these years without imposing this tax, and I do not think we should start to do it when the post office revenue is up so high. It certainly cannot be for revenue, and the only conclusion one can come to is that this is being done to discourage the people from using this service. If that is true, then the proper thing to do would be to close up the service entirely. Goodness knows, we have enough taxes nowadays without having any new ones.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was speaking the other day about changes in mail services where the railroad provides service only three times a week, but I have another matter I should like to bring up now. This concerns a community which is served partly by bus and partly by rail. The patrons have requested that the mail be carried every day by bus because there is a daily service. I wrote to the minister on behalf of the people of Williams Lake on December 8. I had a reply on December 15 saying that careful inquiry would be made into the matter, but I have heard nothing since that time. From conversation with officials of the department, I understand that the whole question of carrying mail by bus is being investigated. Is the minister in a position to say anything about it today?
4S00
Supply-Post Office


Ernest Bertrand: All I can say
is that we are studying this question. We hope that we shall be able to render better service in certain places by using bus lines.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the inquiry progressing? I have been waiting since the middle of December for a reply.


John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Kamloops brought up the question of salacious and pornographic magazines, and books and other material of that kind. What is the attitude of the department toward the transmission in the mail of material such as that? By whom is the decision made, denying the use of mails to such things as shock one's sense of decency or which may have the direct result of contributing to the delinquency of juveniles?


Ernest Bertrand: Any material from another country is supposed to be censored by the customs department. I know this, because when I was an attorney I had to come and discuss certain points with the officials here concerning exactly what the hon. member for Lake Centre has brought up. If it is domestic we rely, and rightly so, upon the attorneys general of the different provinces. There is a tendency to impose upon the Postmaster General the duties of the Attorney General of Canada, something that I do not like myself. The attorney general is the one to say what is criminal or what should be prohibited. Under the postal regulations we have the right to stop immoral books whenever we find them.
Recently I received protests in connection with the importation of a book which has been sold in large numbers in the United States. I understand that 200,000 copies have been sold at $7 or $8 each. This book is supposed to be immoral because it relates to sex.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a best seller in the United States.


Ernest Bertrand: I am going to read this book myself, and then I am going to ask somebody else to read it so that I shall not be the only one to pass an opinion on it. We try to do everything possible to stop the distribution of immoral material.


John George Diefenbaker: I am interested in the fact that the minister is going to look over this book and that he is justifying his doing so on the ground that it is in the interests of Canadian morals.


An hon. MEMBER:: His are incorruptible.


John George Diefenbaker: Then, after he reads it he is going to call in somebody else to read it, so that his will not be the only opinion. I

should like to ascertain the degree of exclusion of immoral books or magazines from the mails during the past year. The minister has mentioned that he acts only at the request of the attorneys general of the different provinces.


Ernest Bertrand: I would say it is the duty of the attorney general of the province to see to that.


John George Diefenbaker: The right to use the mails to transmit money for lottery tickets to another country and to receive tickets from that country has been denied by the Post Office Department. Was that decision made by the Postmaster General in his department, or was it made at the request of the attorneys general of the. several provinces? It is difficult, I realize, for anyone to set up as a censor and determine what is good and what is proper. The minister says he has that power, but apparently he relies on the customs department to bar objectionable books and magazines from entering Canada. Of publications produced in Canada, have any during the past year been barred from the mails?


Ernest Bertrand: No. So far
as lottery tickets are concerned, there is a section in the Post Office Act dealing with them, and it is easy to determine whether it is an illegal lottery. But it is more difficult to say whether a book is immoral.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I brought this matter up yesterday when the amendment to the Canada Evidence Act was going through. It does seem to me that one of the means by which the circulation of these so-called crime comics in Canada might be stopped would be through denying them the use of the mails. I confess I had not actually looked at one of these crime comics until samples were sent to me by the parent-teachers' association of my own city. Under the guise of some slogan such as "Crime does not pay", they appeal to children, who read them and see in every picture the portrayal of some crime of violence or sexual offence, or something of that kind. The attorney general of the province cannot deny the use of the mails to these magazines, but I think the Postmaster General can. If he would look at one of these books I am sure that he would have no hesitation in saying that is contributes to juvenile delinquency and is therefore an offence under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, and that he can use his power to deny such books the use of the mails. The ones I have seen are printed mostly in Toronto. They are not all brought in from the United States. When the embargo

Supply-Post Office
went on I think the printing of these magazines in Canada increased greatly. I would appreciate it if the Postmaster General would answer why he does not use his power to deny the use of the mails to these magazines in order to remove this threat to Canadian youth.


Ernest Bertrand: Many of
these publications go in bundles to the different stores where they are sold. If the Postmaster General had to assume the duties of censor, we should need a lot more employees. Then, in addition, mail matter is secret. We are not supposed to open a sealed envelope. I will look at the publication and refer it to the Minister of Justice, because I doubt my capacity to judge for all the people of Canada. Different people have different standards of what is moral and immoral.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will send over samples to the Postmaster General. He will see that they are given second-class mail privileges by his department.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to carry this matter a little further. The minister has decided, in the interest of the country as a whole, to read this book on the sex life of the male. After he determines that in his opinion it should be denied the use of the mails, what course will he follow? What has he in mind? He must have some objective in mind, because he has told us that the only reason he is going to read it is to find out whether it would be disturbing to the morals of our country. If he should determine that it is, what course does the minister intend to follow?


Ernest Bertrand: The only thing I would be allowed to do would be to refer it to some of my colleagues who could stop the entry of this book into Canada, or cancel its present privileges. It would be very difficult for the Postmaster General to do that. It is a matter for the attorneys general of the different provinces. It is a question which needs to be studied, I admit. Doctor Bates of Toronto drew my attention to the book that has been mentioned.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He is head of the health league.


Ernest Bertrand: Yes, and he asked me to do something about it. I shall have to get the book and look at it or ask somebody to look at it for me.


John George Diefenbaker: You should not
delegate that task.


Ernest Bertrand: When I was crown prosecutor I had a storekeeper arrested and we confiscated quite a lot of books he had for sale which in my opinion were immoral. I put in the box a witness who had read these books and he declared them immoral, but much to my surprise two ministers of religion came along the next day and swore that the books were not immoral. I had not read the books myself because I had not time; but the judge, who was a man of sound common sense, said, "I shall read them and decide for myself whether they are immoral". He read them and declared that they were immoral. The books were confiscated and the accused was found guilty.


Mr. HAZEN:: I understand that from time to time post office employees are brought to Ottawa from different parts of Canada for the purpose of receiving instruction. Would the minister tell us what the length is of the course of instruction and how many post office employees are brought here for the purpose of receiving instruction? I think the idea is a very good one, and I would like to have more light on it.


Ernest Bertrand: At different times we bring to Ottawa good employees who have been earmarked not only for increases but for promotion, so that they may learn more about the operations of the post office throughout Canada. They stay here for a certain time and then go back to their own districts. The purpose is to give them a broad general knowledge of the operations of the department. We have five classes with ten in each class.


Douglas King Hazen: Has that been going on for
some time?


Ernest Bertrand: No; about two years ago we started it.


Douglas King Hazen: With regard to the postage meters that we were discussing, does the department rent them or sell them to different firms? Can the minister tell us who manufactures these machines, and what they cost the government?


Ernest Bertrand: The firms which manufacture them are authorized to sell them to the different people, but we control the operation. The manufacturing firm makes arrangements with the different corporations that are using them, after they have been accepted by the department.


Douglas King Hazen: The department does not sell or rent the machines?


Ernest Bertrand: No.
4802
Supply-Post Office


Douglas King Hazen: The department approves them.


Ernest Bertrand: We see that they do not defraud the treasury. We have been using some ourselves in the different departments. At the present time we are making an experiment to see what the franking privilege is costing the Post Office Department, and we are doing that by installing meters.


Douglas King Hazen: Has the minister found out what it is costing the department?


Ernest Bertrand: I could give these figures to the hon. gentleman. We have rented a few.


Edmund Davie Fulton: To revert to the matter which was discussed a moment ago, under what section of the Post Office Act does the minister find the power to deny certain individuals the use of the mail?


Ernest Bertrand: Section 7 of the Post Office Act, chapter 161.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the minister the relevant portion in front of him?


Ernest Bertrand: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May we have it?


Ernest Bertrand: The Postmaster General may, subject to the provisions of this act, make regulations declaring what shall and what shall not be deemed to be mailable matter for the purpose of this act.
These are the words under which these publications fall. When we declare it is not mailable matter it is refused.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: How many permanent and temporary employees are in the service of the Post Office Department?


Ernest Bertrand: As of March 31, 1948, the number of employees under the civil service were 11,134 permanent and 4,182 temporaries. These are in staff offices. The number of employees and contractors amounted to 41,130. At headquarters there were 1,000 employees; in staff post offices 13,593; in district offices, 522; railway mail service, 1,191; revenue postmasters, 11,826; mail services, 12,910.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Of the 41.130 employees who are not in staff offices, how many are permanent and how many are on the temporary list?


Ernest Bertrand: I did not catch the question.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I want to find out how many employees in the service of the department are on .the permanent list and how many on the temporary list.


Ernest Bertrand: In regard to the staff post offices there are 13,593. I gave that figure a few seconds ago. There are 11,826 revenue postmasters. There are no permanent or temporary employees. They are postmasters. We do not consider that they are either temporary or permanent. The same thing applies to the mail services. These are rural mail and so forth.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Perhaps I could confine my question to the mail porters and the letter carriers. These are the two classes in which I am particularly interested.


Ernest Bertrand: As of March 31, 1948, 3,225 letter carriers were permanent and 1,208 were temporary. There were 899 permanent mail porters and 549 temporaries.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Can the minister give the committee the number of qualified temporary employees who have been let out in order to make way for veterans who have applied for positions and who have the preference?


Ernest Bertrand: It would take a long time to give these figures to the hon. gentleman, and I could' not give them here. I would have to go through the files. There are temporary employees who have been on the staff for a few years. We have extended their time in order to give them a chance to pass another examination, because some of them were not successful in the first examination. I may say that whenever there was a qualified veteran for the position the temporary employee had to go.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I was wondering how many employees had been taken on in that way.


Ernest Bertrand: Does the hon. gentleman want the figures for any particular year, say 1945, for example?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The year 1947 would be satisfactory. Take some year since we passed the veterans preference act.


Ernest Bertrand: I shall have a report made on that.


Mr. McLURE:: Are clerks grades 2, 3 or 4 paid the same salary whether they are working in Toronto, Montreal, Saint John or Charlottetown?


Ernest Bertrand: The answer is yes.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: They are all paid the same salary?


Ernest Bertrand: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
SI2. Railway mail service, $15,446,980.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: A good deal has been said with reference to this. When the minister was before the committee with his bonus bill I made some remarks, and I am not going to make any extended remarks at this time, except to say that this discrimination with regard to rural mail contracts still continues. For instance, a month ago I placed on Hansard some of the discriminations with reference to contracts.
Dealing only with the rural mail contracts in my own constituency, I cite the man who has a 16-mile mail route. He gets $1,000, and at the same time the mail courier, driving over a 26-mile mail route, both of them being very much alike, except that the 26-mile route is a little more hilly, receives only $902.50. In other words, he is penalized to the extent of $97.50 for having to drive ten miles further.
I could give parallel cases, but I will mention just one more. In my constituency there is a mail courier who drives a 17-mile route and receives $1,200, while another man not far away, driving a 28-mile route, gets $1,100. In other words, the man who is going the longer distance by thirteen miles is penalized $100 for driving the extra mileage.
That is one thing against the tender system. A few days ago in my own constituency a man who had been driving on a mail contract for fifteen years, having given excellent service, and having received $625, decided that he should get a little more. He took the matter up with the office, urging that he should receive $150 more, but the office called for tenders. When this man saw that there were other people tendering for the contract, he thought he would also put in a tender for $600, seeing that he had the equipment. Somebody else comes in with a tender which is $5 or perhaps $1 less and takes the contract from this man who has given fifteen or sixteen years of service. At the end of another year this man who has tendered at a little less than $600 can get a bonus of $125. This system of tendering is one that should be done away with. I would appeal again to the minister, as I have done before, to have a committee of this house set up to study rural mail problems, so that justice will be done these people. At present they are labouring under an injustice.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
***}[DOT] Audit of revenue, money order, postal note and savings bank business; issue of postage stamps and postal notes, $2,165,284.
5849-305J
Harry Rutherford Jackman: Does the department do its own auditing or does the auditor general come in and do it? Is there just a final check up?


Ernest Bertrand: This is the actual auditing of the different post offices by our employees.
Mr. JACKMAN; Has the auditor general
any supervision?


Ernest Bertrand: Yes. The
auditor general has the right to come in and audit any of our branches or any of the post offices. This is done at different times in certain places.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
hiO. Departmental administration, $272,600.
Mr. MERRITT:: Surely the minister will be making a statement with regard to the European recovery program and its effect on Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is nothing in these estimates having to do with the European recovery program.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: There may be nothing in the estimates directly related to that; but on departmental administration, under the estimates of trade and commerce, with the situation as it is in respect of Canadian trade, I should think the committee would expect a statement from the minister on that subject. He has just been to Washington, and it would be amazing if he had not come here prepared to make a statement on Canada's participation and generally regarding the subject.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the facts regarding the European recovery program are well known to hon. members. An appropriation has been made by congress to cover the first fifteen months' requirements. The amount is now being reconsidered. At the moment, I believe, something over $5 billion is the amount of the appropriation for the first fifteen months of the five-year program. Of that, provision is made for off-shore expenditures, perhaps up to an amount of S1,S00 million. According to a press statement made within the last two days, Mr. Bissell, Mr. Hoffman's assistant, stated that, from that fund set aside for off-shore purchases, purchasing from Canada was proceeding very well for the reason that Canadian prices are satisfactory to those administering the European recovery program.
Funds allocated to the United Kingdom are at present being used to pay for wheat and
Supply-Trade and Commerce

meat products and certain other products that are being shipped from Canada. The program provides that trade will flow through the normal channels. It is not the intention of ERP administration that government buying shall be a feature of ERP, unless government buying of the particular commodity was the practice before ERP came into being.
Funds are being allocated to sixteen recipient countries, and anyone wishing to sell goods to those countries under ERP must approach the countries through the usual channels and have his articles included in the requisition from the country concerned.
The Department of Trade and Commerce has obtained the services of Mr. Sidney Pierce who was formerly our ambassador to Mexico, to head up our ERP organization abroad. He has just returned from Washington and will leave within the next few days for Paris, which is the headquarters of the overseas ERP organization.
I have had conversations with those administering ERP; with all senior officials. Mr. Pierce has recently returned from further conferences with them. We both believe that Canada's position in the program is well established. I do not know that there is anything further that I can add. If there are any questions I shall be glad to answer them.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Does the minister mean that the United States has allocated a certain amount of the $5 billion to each of these sixteen receiving countries in Europe and that selling has to be done directly by the supplying countries to those individual recipient countries? Once an order is received by a Canadian supplier, must it be authorized by ERP? Will he explain the procedure? What is the type of products that Canada will be able to supply, not from the standpoint of our ability to produce but from the standpoint of the products being authorized? Will it be raw material products or processed or partly processed products, such as canned goods, that will be sold to the receiving country or to the ERP board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This list of availabilities that Canada has submitted to the ERP administration was submitted some two or three months ago. A revised list was submitted within the last few days. I have not that list at hand, but I shall be glad to have it here this evening and give any information from it that the hon. member may wish to have. It must be thoroughly understood that the letter "R" in the ERP program stands for "Recovery" and not "Relief". We must all be careful not to regard ERP as a dumping ground for unwanted

surpluses. That has been made clear by the administration, and I should like to make it clear in this house. The purchases that will be made will be purchases that the recipient countries require for the recovery program. Machinery will be given high priority. Food, of course, is more in the nature of relief than recovery, but is necessary to recovery in some cases. My present information is that all the food that Canada can produce-that is, staple foods such as wheat, which is the most concentrated, high-protein food in existence-will be required. Fish is more a borderline case. I cannot state definitely about that, although it is quite in order for those interested in selling fish to attempt to sell it to the recipient countries. If they can succeed in having it included on the list, there is a fair possibility that it may be approved. But the general situation is that those who have been selling abroad should continue to sell abroad. If they succeed in getting their material on the requisitions from a particular country, then those requisitions will be "vetted" by the ERP administration. If the list is approved, then the material qualifies for sale under ERP.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Does ERP itself place the order?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. ERP places no order.


William Henry Golding: Order. If hon. members will look at page 68 of the main estimates, they will find that the item of departmental administration covers an expenditure of $272,600,000. Then, if they will turn to page 251, they will see a vote for foreign trade services. I believe that the discussions which are taking place now might, come under that item, and not under departmental administration as outlined in this item of $272,600,000.


Joseph William Burton: Since this is the first time that the minister has appeared before the committee in connection with presenting these estimates, I think we might be allowed a little bit of general discussion. Like the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, I was surprised that the minister did not come before the committee prepared-


William Henry Golding: Order. The chair is always in the hands of the committee in dealing with matters of this kind. On the other hand, I think the chair should try to give direction to the members in order to expedite the business of the committee. If it is the wish of the committee to deal with the matter that has now been brought up, it is quite all right. But I just point out the fact

Supply-Trade and Commerce
to which I have referred, so that members can decide now whether they want to go on with that discussion or not.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In the past it has been the custom to allow on the first item, departmental administration, discussion on almost any item pertaining to the department.


William Henry Golding: The estimates are divided into the two parts, as I have tried to point out. If the hon. member will look at page 251, he will find that the expenditure under foreign trade services does not come under the $272,600,000 for departmental administration. However I do not intend to press the point. I will leave it to the committee to decide what they wish to do.


Joseph William Burton: I quite realize that it is necessary for you, Mr. Chairman, in your position, to give direction to the committee; and I shall be quite happy to abide by your decision. But as has been said by the hon. member for Davenport, it is the custom on the first item to have the general discussion. It was along those lines that I had intended to say a few words.


William Henry Golding: Then it is agreeable to the committee to discuss this foreign trade matter under departmental administration. Is that the idea?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that if you were to decide that, since foreign trade is mentioned separately, it cannot be discussed under departmental administration, it would be consistent for you to pick out other things such as standards division, wheat and grain division, or Canada Grain Act, and apply the same rule. It may be that some day the house will decide to follow that practice. But certainly that has not been the case during the years that most of us know about. It seems to me that it would be a fairly drastic change to make without some consideration by the committee and the house in general. I think the committee would prefer to follow the practice of permitting general discussion on the first item in the department. I think that, by adopting that procedure, in the long run time will be saved.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Henry Golding: Then, if that is the unanimous wish of the committee, we shall continue along that line.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Joseph William Burton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I continue by saying that, since this is the first time the minister has appeared before
the committee with his estimates for this department, it was surprising to some of us that he did not come prepared to give a fairly comprehensive statement as to the work carried on by this department and as to what is anticipated in the immediate future. However, since the minister has not seen fit to do that, we shall probably have to grope around in the dark and gather up the loose ends, so to speak.
Before I endeavour to make my little contribution, may I assure the minister that I am glad to see that he finds time to take care of this department. I hope he will not take it amiss when I say that when I heard of his appointment as minister in charge of this department, the first thought that struck me was that the minister is much more suited and much better trained to be a builder than to be a trader. However, some of us may be wrong in that respect. It is to be hoped that the energetic leadership that he can give to this department will prove that the fears of myself, and of other hon. members who think as I do, were unwarranted.
I have had an opportunity on several occasions, particularly last summer, to view some of his work; and, now that he is Minister of Trade and Commerce, I hope he will make an effort to see that full use is made of his work in other lines and other years. I have particular reference to the fact that the minister and" his department can be of considerable assistance to those of us who would like to see more trade into and out of Hudson bay, making use of the Hudson bay port and the Hudson bay route. That is the first point of which I should like the minister to make a special note. In the past the minister devoted a great deal of time and energy to the development of that port; I hope he will now help us prove that the Hudson bay route and port are a feasible undertaking. For my part I do not think we should be satisfied with exporting just a few million bushels of wheat by that means this summer. I believe our objective should be at least 25,000,000 bushels.
That is only one small bit of the whole trade picture. This nation is endeavouring to get back to a peacetime footing, but we have found that our old conception of trade has been largely upset. In the first place, we find trade being carried on under entirely different circumstances, on account of the fact that so many commodities are in short supply, with the result that we have a seller's market. So we must adjust ourselves to meet these conditions.
On the other hand, we should also remember that in the final analysis the best market for
4S06
Supply-Trade and Commerce

Canadians is the home market. We must not overlook the fact that the first demand on the production of this nation should be the provision of a full, rich life for our own people. Let no one think I am saying I do not believe we should go the limit, even to the extent of denying ourselves if necessary, in helping to provide foodstuffs and other commodities for people in lands less fortunate than ours. Nevertheless we should so organize our trade within our own country that our own people will reap the benefit of the wonderful productivity of this country. Here again the minister and his department can give a great deal of leadership.
I hope we shall never again see British Columbia apples going to waste, while at the same time the children on the prairies are not able to obtain apples, and similar conditions in other parts of the country. I hope we may never again see the textile warehouses piled high, and at the same time, as was the case in the not too distant past, the people of this country lacking sufficient and proper clothing. So I say trade should be carried on for the benefit of our own people; then, in branching out into international trade, we should be in a position to trade our surplus goods for commodities we cannot economically produce in our own country, so that our people may be able to round out a full and satisfying life.
In that connection I think it is of considerable significance that at the present time we should have in progress in our own country an international trade fair or exhibition. While the public as a whole are not invited to attend, I believe this fair gives us an idea of what may happen in future. At such a gathering of nations each is able to show the others its commodities, and we can start trading with one another, thus disposing of our surplus products in exchange for commodities we require. I believe in this I am expressing the opinion of hon. members who have had an opportunity' to visit the trade fair and learn at least something of what is going on there.
Then I think I should mention that today our trade is not on the same basis as in. the years gone by. We find that instead of trading being carried on in a haphazard manner, with buyers and sellers running around at loose ends, with people bidding against each other to run prices down or bidding against each other to run prices up, more and more the principal importing countries are buying through import boards or government agencies in order to meet their requirements. So I think we must realize that the old days of laissez-faire are gone, and we

must adjust ourselves to new circumstances and a new order. I would say that Canada is in a very favourable position; and if the Department of Trade and Commerce bears in mind the points I have mentioned I believe it can be of great assistance to the people of this country.
I do not intend to deal with any specific items, Mr. Chairman, though I may do so later on. In conclusion, however, once more I would appeal to the minister to help us make this a banner y'ear for the Hudson bay route.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I see it is now ten
minutes to six, Mr. Chairman. I was surprised that the minister did not make a statement about the European recovery program. I do not mean the statement he made a moment ago, but a prepared statement giving the committee considerable detail.
But that was not the only thing I thought the minister would come before the committee prepared to deal with this afternoon. During the past y'ear, various things have happened in connection with our external trade which have made the subject one of compelling interest to all the Canadian people. I have in mind such things as the minister's statement last November, at the time the restrictions were put on, that Canada should make the building up of United States dollar exports a national objective. I have in mind, when Bill No. 3 was being discussed, the references that were made to a positive dollar program, which, of course, was built up on the income of United States dollars from the various means which were not disclosed but which the minister attempted to leave the house to believe he had in mind. I have mentioned the European recovery program.
I saw recently' that the Canadian exporters' association, in a brief presented to the government, expressed alarm that the empire markets upon which they had relied in the past were drying up. All these things require a statement of government policy on the matter of external trade. Will the minister be kind enough, when the committee resumes his estimates at nine o'clock, to give a comprehensive statement as to the prospects of trade in the coming year, what he has accomplished in respect to expanding exports to the United States, what he hopes to do and what can be done to protect the empire markets about which the exporters' association is so much alarmed?
I cannot help reiterating my great disappointment that no statement was ready for us when the minister started his estimates, which are probably as important as any that

_______ Supply-Trade and Commerce
will come before the committee. I hope the minister will try to do that tonight. In the meantime I should like to ask a few questions with respect to the statement he made on ERP. I think the minister said that funds had been allocated to the countries but that purchases were to be through normal channels and not through government agencies as a general rule. Then he spoke about statements of availability and requisitions.
Am I correct in understanding that the United States is going to make United States dollars available to the purchasing countries and that they can be spent in any way, provided that the ERP organization approves the bulk requisition for that kind of article, or does each individual transaction have to be put through the ERP organization? As the hon. member for Rosedale has suggested, perhaps the minister might trace an individual transaction through the whole process, so that we can understand how the mechanism works.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I stated, trade practices are being followed. For example, we have been making bulk sales to the United Kingdom of foodstuffs. The ERP organization has approved those contracts. We shall continue to ship under those contracts to recipients of ERP funds.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Will the payment be made at Washington or London?


Clarence Decatur Howe: London. The ERP does not buy or sell or pay; it just makes funds available to recipient countries for use in buying articles on an approved list of commodities. The list must be in detail. For example, if a country requires leather, it decides where it wants to buy that leather. The transaction is put up .to the ERP organization, presumably in Paris. If it wishes to buy leather from Canada or from a specific firm in Canada, that is specified. The ERP organization approves or does not approve the transaction. If it is approved, the purchaser will qualify for payment from ERP funds.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: How do we specify for United States funds?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Everything we sell is for United States funds or Canadian funds unless we make some other arrangement.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: If the contract were made through London, if we were selling to Great Britain, or through Paris, if we were selling to France, and we were following the normal course of trade we could not insist upon United States dollars. How do we make sure that we get United States dollars on these ERP shipments?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The transaction may be made in sterling. The Bank of Canada has clearing arrangements with the Bank of England. If it is made in convertible currency the transfer can be made. It would have to be a purchase authorized by the Bank of England. If it is authorized, clearance is through the bank. Our sales to the United Kingdom of wheat and food and most other commodities are in Canadian dollars.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It is difficult to understand exactly what does happen. Taking leather, the example the minister gave us, let us say that France needs so much sole leather and will get it in Canada with ERP approval. The Canadian tanner would ship to France against a draft in dollars or United States dollars or francs. That is what would happen when you are trying to maintain ordinary trade channels. I do not quite understand how we get the United States dollars which we are after and which are being provided for this purpose. Would the shipment be segregated from all other shipments going to France, so that we could get United States dollars?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does my hon. friend know anyone who sells to France for anything except United States or Canadian dollars?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: We do not want Canadian dollars.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are pleased to get them. They are just the same as United States dollars for our purposes. I will take my hon. friend aside some day and explain it to him.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Will the minister make a statement at nine o'clock?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What statement? I have just made a statement. I shall be glad to answer any question my hon. friend asks on ERP or on my statement. Has he any objection to the statement I made?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Yes, I have.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I thought it was preferable to speak without a document. Now my hon. friend insists upon a document.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Of course I do not insist on the minister reading from a document, but I suggest to him that the statement he made on ERP, being a statement without proper preparation, apparently just from what he carries in his head, was not as clear to the committee as it would have been had he attempted to forecast the questions he was going to be asked. There were four specific things that I mentioned. I suggest to the minister that his estimates will go through more quickly if he trier to give us a compre-

Private Bills-Divorce
hensive picture and does not attempt to have his estimates go through by our jumping up and asking detailed questions and trying to work out the whole picture. I think it would be in the interests of the committee and of the minister himself if he were to present a comprehensive picture.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is my thirteenth session in the House of Commons, and I have never noticed that a minister who made a long statement on the opening of his estimates got through any faster for that reason.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



RAILWAY ACT


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, and by leave of the house, may I ask that the bill in my name which appears as No. 20 under public bills and orders be withdrawn.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Has the hon. member the consent of the house to withdraw the bill?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
Bill withdrawn.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Lucien Menard.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Sheila Trench Thomson Ellis.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 224, for the relief of Alexandre Hebert.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 225, for the relief of Anne Green-blatt Pliss.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Sonnie Levitt Shereck.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 227, for the relief of James Young.- Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 230, for the relief of Hazel Violet Camp Mace.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 231, for the relief of Adah Elizabeth Jeffries Heinz.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 232, for the relief of Mabel Findlay Turner Rollo.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 233, for the relief of Anna Dagmar Dahl.-Mr. Timmins.

Bill No. 234, for the relief of Florence Evelyn White Marshall.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 235, for the relief of Kathryn Mae Richardson Rowe-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 236, for the relief of Margaret Dawson Jamieson Turnbull McKay.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 237, for the relief of Margaret Elizabeth Dunn Vezina.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 238, for the relief of Elizabeth Craig Blair.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 239, for the relief of Charles Henry Kennell.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 240, for the relief of Muriel Frances Pratt Fiddes.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 241, for the relief of Leah Zeiger Rudenko.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 242, for the relief of Ruth Harris - Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 243, for the relief of Eva Booth Morrison McCormick.-Mr. Maybank.
BU No. 244, for the relief of Naomi Evelyn Masterangelo Rosenstein.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 245, for the relief of Jean Lauder Rutledge.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Henry George Chartier.-iMr. Maybank.
Bill No. 247, for the relief of Francis Russell Stone.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 249, for the relief of Mathilda Welter Jackson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 250, for the relief of Joseph Thomson Mowat-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 251, for the relief of Mary Hrychuk Fleury.-(Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 252, for the relief of Anna Kathleen Burnie Beebe.-Mr. (Maybank.
Bill No. 253, for the relief of Jenny Muriel Pressley Scott-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 254, for the relief of Mary Pappas Gigantes, otherwise known as Maria Papadatos Gigantes.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 255, for the relief of Gilbert Brin-ton Campbell.-(Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 256, for the relief of Helen McGregor Hanley-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 257, for the relief of Yudit Mary de Bartok Richardson-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 258, for the relief of Abraham Schechter.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 259, for the relief of Caroline Alice Woods Mayhew.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 260, for the relief of Giana Stephen Cantlie Lyman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 261, for the relief of James Gustov Reed.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 262, for the relief of Elizabeth Ruth Maitland Harley.-Mr. Maybank.

Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 263, for the relief of Daisy Elizabeth May Fishlock Wallis.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 264, for the relief of Gertrude Agnes Dorothy Cunningham McLamon.-Mr. May-bank.
Bill No. 265, for the relief of Jeannette Ore Paige.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 266, for the relief of Reva James Nathanson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 267, for the relief of Gerald Roderick Bartlett.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 268, for the relief of Dorothy Jardine Palmer Petrie.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 269, for the relief of Nellie Maisie Wingham Carphin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 270, for the relief of Beatrice Gertrude Corbin Simand.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 271, for the relief of Margaret Mc-Ca'llum Cameron Baird Brine. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 272, for the relief of Leila May Willett Ascah.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 273, for the relief of Joseph Ulric Stanislas Caron.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 274, for the relief of Edith Elizabeth Walker.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 275, for the relief of Yvonne Jeanne Leslie.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 276, for the relief of Bertha (Brana) Hindes Ramer.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 277, for the relief of Ellen Gertrude Hinks Fairhurst.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 278, for the relief of Shirley Marder Berman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 279, for the relief of Vera Maud Thayer Gunn.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 283, for the relief of Joseph Chiarella.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 284, for the relief of Merle Allene Dalton.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 285, for the relief of George Nestor Cloutier.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 286, for the relief of Rufina Olga Soltysik Leshchynski.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 287, for the relief of Rhea Lillian Appel Ostroff.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 288, for the relief of Alice Elizabeth Tucker Shaw.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 289, for the relief of Libby Raikles Lerner.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 290. for the relief of Beatrice Catherine McCabe Sowerby.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 291, for the relief of John Morrell. -Mr. Cardiff.
Bill No. 292, for the relief of Lily White Borgan.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 293. for the relief of James Donald Bacon.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 294, for the relief of Laurel Gwendolyn Wilband Walsh.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 295, for the relief of Lillian Eileen Rendle Nadler.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 296, for the relief of Claire Alice Tucker Vincent.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 297, for the relief of Audrey Beryl Fryer.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 301, for the relief of Aldoria Rodier dit St. Martin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 302, for the relief of Marguerite Pichette Sanzone.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 303, for the relief of Frederick Edward Sherman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 304, for the relief of Joseph Leopold Joffre Viau.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 305, for the relief of Olga Timofy Ewaschuk.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 306, for the relief of Leie Snideman Tuchsneider, otherwise known as Lilly Schneid-man Schneider.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 307, for the relief of William Francis Dunphy.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 308, for the relief of Alice Hoare Dubeau.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 309. for the relief of Jennie Leibo-vitch Margolese.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 310, for the relief of Hugh Cyril Harvey.-Mr. Brown.
Bill No. 311, for the relief of Barbara Yuile.
[DOT]-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 312, for the relief of Violet Mae Ruth Johnson Menaker.

Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 314, for the relief of John Clayton Sturgeon.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 315, for the relief of Alice Deborah Townsend Hawker.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 316, for the relief of Rae Bellam Baron.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 317, for the relief of David Ewing Jackson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 318, for the relief of Olive Turnidge Burns Turner.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 319, for the relief of Dorothy June Wilson Weedmark.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 320, for the relief of Kate Henny Wacker Prengel.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 321, for the relief of Jeannette Racine Garneau.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 322, for the relief of Gladys Gwendolyn Goode Buttress.

Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 323, for the relief of Gladys Victoria Lewis White.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 324, for the relief of Madge Reynard Lambton.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 325, for the relief of Cornelia Barendrecht Nickel-Mr. Maybank.
(Translation):
Mr. PAUL EDMOND GAGNON (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, according to the Canada Year Book, between 1S67-the date of Con-
Private Bills-Divorce

federation-and 1900, there were less than 20 divorces a year in Canada. Then in 1903 there were 23; in 1909, 51 and, in 1913, 60; less than one per 1,000 marriages.
One of the consequences-and not the least
disastrous at that-of World War I was an increased rate of divorces, due mostly to living conditions in that troubled period, softer laws and easier legal proceedings.
Divorces in Canada numbered 114 in 1918, 608 in 1926, 700 in 1931, 1,570 in 1936 and 2,369 in 1940.
In 1945, last year for which statistics are available, the divorce figures are as follows: Nova Scotia, 158; New Brunswick, 171; Ontario, 1,940; Manitoba, 405; Saskatchewan, 282; Alberta, 575; British Columbia, 1,366; Quebec, 177; Prince Edward Island, 2. This adds up to a total of 5,076 divorces.
In the province of Quebec, where there are no divorce courts, the percentage for 1945 is 3-5 per thousand marriages, compared with 26-9 in British Columbia and 38-2 in Ontario.
In 1947, in the latter province alone, 3,936 divorces, an all-time high, were granted by the supreme court. In 1946, there had been 3,500.
Divorces are increasing at an alarming rate in Canada.
The family, which is the basis of society, is being disintegrated with frightening unconsciousness. Divorce is a sure sign that moral standards are on the down grade, that civilization is on the way to disaster and will inevitably be destroyed.
When people have not enough character, religious conviction, courage, abnegation, honesty, charity and honour to respect the most sacred of all contracts, how can we hope that they will respect the laws to which they are subject and all other contracts by which they are bound?
There are many reasons for divorce, although adultery is the only one mentioned. However, in my opinion one of the principal causes of misunderstanding and separation is marriage between people of different faiths.
Following an investigation in the matter, Bishop Page, of the United States Episcopal Church, found a few years ago that only one per cent of those seeking divorces were of the same faith.
If it is true that we must increase the police force in a country where people have no 
respect for religion, I believe we can also say that where the Christian spirit of a people is low, divorces are bound to increase.
Last year, the Ottawa Journal pointed out that parliamentary jurisdiction in the matter of divorce was little short of scandalous. It doubted very much "if in the whole democratic world, there was a more grotesque parliamentary fact than this."
It is sad, not to say revolting, that people's representatives should sanction and condone by their votes decisions based on sham evidence, obvious perjury and summary proceedings trumped up by experts in the matter.
Marriage being a divinely instituted sacrament, men, be they senators, have no power to put asunder "what God hath joined together."
It is false to claim that the privilege, if you wish to call it that, of seeking divorce is a right, just as it is ludicrous to print on reports of those proceedings that in divorcing Mrs. So-and-so from Mr. So-and-so, parliament is passing an act "for the relief" of Mrs. So-and-so.
In 1886, Mr. Joseph Fremont, LL.D., quondam professor at Laval University, pointed out the danger of this procedure in his survey entitled "Divorce and Separation.":
We are fast heading towards recognition of divorce as the generally accepted rule in the country. . . Besides, is it not recognition of the divorce principle to allow it by means of private bills? The privilege of private bills has served to introduce in society all doctrines and theories later sanctioned by law.
In brief, as stated by Mr. Henri Bourassa in an address, the constitution of 1867 has established divorce, as well as marriage as a principle of national organic law. The federal parliament has maintained or established ordinary divorce jurisdictions in seven provinces and set up a parliamentary divorce court for the whole country. Justice Belleau rightfully said:	"Divorce has been thrust upon us by parliament." Technically since 1867, in current practice since 1888. "Parliament has full authority to break up our homes. Unfortunately it cannot salvage the remains."
Children, those innocent victims, are the ones to suffer; thus do children have to pay the price for their parents' selfishness and mistakes. Driven to the gutter by the judges, they will later appear at the bar of the assize court or within the confines of penitentiaries. The greatness, the future and the very life of the nation are at stake. The country is

Private Bills-Divorce
being deprived of the life blood of generations essential to its growth and expansion. Because its vital forces are being exhausted at the source, the country is impoverished. The plague of divorce' is more dangerous than communisirf and all subversive doctrines combined. To defend and to cultivate the Canadian soil, men and soldiers are needed. Where shall we find them if we destroy the family, the source of life from which new harvests should forever spring?
Let us stem the wave of heathenism that is sweeping over the world, curb the ills bred by divorce and restore the Christian social order. Let parliament, once for all, leave off being a party to these crimes and unruliness and, at long last, decide to disallow every request for divorce brought to its attention. In voting against these bills, I feel that I am doing my duty and contributing to Canada's moral well-being.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. PIERRE GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, may I add a word to support what has been said by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) regarding the bills before us.
I do not intend to make a long speech. In addition to the statistics given us by the hon. member there are two reasons why the thought of divorce is increasingly prevalent among the people. First obscene literature, second, the movies.
Under the Quebec law, children may not enter movie houses until they are sixteen. I am happy to say that I supported' that act of the legislative assembly of Quebec, under the Taschereau administration, as member for the county I now represent in this House of Commons.
Pictures showing a husband philandering with the maid or a wife with her chauffeur, scenes we witness nearly every day in the American films, are bound to corrupt our young people.
The province of Quebec is often criticized because of this act, which is believed to infringe upon the freedom of the individual. However, it does nothing of the sort, but merely curtails the liberty of those who cannot exercise it wisely, that is, of all young people under sixteen years of age.
I therefore subscribe to the hon. member's remarks, and I suggest that authorities do everything in their power to prevent young people in other provinces taking advantage of
those laws which allow youths of all ages to go to the movies. Salacious and obscene literature should be banned more particularly, along with anything that may tend to make our young people consider divorce as a very normal thing and suggest to them the well-known saying: "How can it be so bad, when everybody is doing it?"


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
(Text):


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a word or two in connection with these divorce bills. I have previously expressed my view that something should be done to find another way of handling the matter than putting these cases through parliament as hundreds of individual bills.
It is my own view that one solution would be to provide, in respect of Canadians who do not have the opportunity to sue for divorce in their own province, that jurisdiction in this matter be given to the Exchequer Court of Canada. However, the government has not seen fit to act on that suggestion, and I do not intend to speak on that point at this time.
I did rise rather to make a suggestion which I think would meet with the wishes of all members of this house and which would save considerable time and money. Perhaps some means might be found of carrying it out.
I have before me the divorce bills and the minutes and proceedings and evidence which have come to my desk this session.


An hon. MEMBER:: It makes nice reading.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have not read it. I read one or two a few years ago and I find that they are all the same; if you read one, you have read them all. However, this year I have saved them all, and I may say I have not collected1 any copies that have gone to other members to make the pile any higher than it actually is.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mine go into the waste-paper basket.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So will mine when I have made the point I am now making. Here is this pile of bills, minutes of proceedings, and evidence, eleven inches high. There are 245 members and 96 senators, when they are all there-a total of 341. Multiply 341 by eleven inches and it comes to 312 feet. In other words, we have had printed for us in this session a pile of this material, which is almost of the pornographic kind mentioned, this afternoon, 312 feet high. That is higher than the peace tower. The peace tower itself
Private Bills

is only 291 feet high, and here we have an accumulation of this printed matter 312 feet high, almost up to the flag itself.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that no members would miss anything and it would not have any effect on the proceedings and the bills that go through parliament if some means were found whereby we could obviate the printing of such huge quantities of these bills, minutes of proceedings and evidence taken before the senate committee. Surely one or two copies in some office, for reference if necessary, would be sufficient.
I hope my suggestion will be taken into consideration by Mr. Speaker, or by the officials of the house, and that some way will be found to save all this paper and printing. On other occasions we have been told that the printing bureau has so much printing to do for parliament that some important matters have to be delayed. Perhaps my suggestion would not solve the problem in its entirety, but it would be a help, and I offer it in the hope that it will be considered.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I do not see what we can do with these bills except to pass them. This is the ninety-ninth day of the session and we should be getting on with the business of parliament. These bills originate in the other place. The fee over there is $200, and there is a fee of $500 for private bills that come before this house. I repeat, there is nothing that we can do, as far as I can see, but to pass these bills. The government has no policy in relation to them. They are private bills, and the parties affected have paid their fees.
I may say, sir, that I am a member of a church that has made an extensive inquiry into the question of divorce. An important investigation into this question was presided over by the Archbishop of York, and attended by the Right Rev. Bishop Wand of London. They have submitted a report to the Lambeth conference in England, which meets on the first of July for six weeks. The report widens somewhat, for the first time in 300 years, the grounds of divorce. The Church of Scotland is looking into the question of divorce and so are other churches in the old land. The whole question is under consideration by these bodies.
In view of these facts, surely we can pass these bills now, and perhaps next year some method can be proposed in parliament by which the problem of divorce can be handled, so far as legislation here is concerned. I see no purpose to be served by holding up these bills now on this the ninety-ninth day of the session. There is no other course open to us than to pass them.


William Ross Macdonald: Is it the pleasure of the house that these bills be read the second time?


Mr.   G A GY OX@: On division.
Motion agreed to and bills read' the second time.


William Ross Macdonald: Mr. Croll moves, seconded by Mr. Golding, that these divorce bills be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 137, to incorporate Rinker Finance Corporation-Mr. Dechene-Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Some lion. MEMBERS: Explain.
William Henry Golding: Shall the section carry?
Some lion. MEMBERS: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 151, to incorporate the National Insurance Company-Mr. Rinfret-Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Mr. RINFRET:: In connection with this bill I will ask the hon. member for Rimouski to move an amendment to section 1, provided that I have the general approval of the committee. Unless I have that approval, I shall have to outline the procedure I intend to follow. That will be, before third reading is given, to ask the house to recommit the bill for restudy or reconsideration of section 1. With the general approval of the committee,
I will now ask the hon. member for Rimouski to move the amendment.


Mr. BELZILE moved:: ^That Bill No. 151, an act to incorporate the National Insurance Company, be amended by adding in the title and at line 13 of section 1 between the words "National" and "Insurance" the words "Fire and Casualty"; and at line 14 of section 1, between the words "Assurances" and "hereinafter" the words "Incendie et Ris-ques divers," the name of the company to read "The National Fire and Casualty Insurance Company," and in French, "La Nationale Com-pagnie d'Assurances Incendie et Risques divers."

Penitentiary Act


Arthur Leroy Smith: The _ hon. member is moving to recommit the bill, is he?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It will not be necessary if I have the general approval of the committee. We will reconsider section 1.


An hon. MEMBER:: You have it. Let us
get on.


Douglas King Hazen: The hon. member for Rimou-ski took exception to the name of this company as it appeared originally in the bill.


Gleason Belzile: No, I did not.


Douglas King Hazen: I should have said it was the hon. member for Bonaventure.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I understand from the hon. member for Bonaventure that the new title will be satisfactory to his company.


Douglas King Hazen: I rose to ask if it was satisfactory to him.


Mr. ARSENAULT:: It will be absolutely satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 2 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title as amended agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Amendments read the second time and concurred in.
Bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 212, to incorporate Canadian Co-operative Processors Limited-Mr. Maybank-Mr. Golding in the chair.
William Henry Golding: The last time the committee was dealing with this bill, I believe we were considering section 4. Shall section 4 carry?
Sections 4 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On section 9-Annual return.


Thomas Langton Church: I find that this is largely a provincial bill. I do not see why they come to this parliament, because I cannot see that by any stretch of the imagination it is anything but a provincial bill. It relates largely to agriculture, which is a matter under concurrent jurisdiction. Some of the health officers have been opposing the use of horse meat and all that kind of thing. I fail to see where there has
been any demand from the province of Ontario for it, inasmuch as I believe that some of the head health officers of the cities have opposed what is suggested. I suppose, after all the horses are eaten, as a friend of mine said the other night, there will be no horses left for the Woodbine races.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) moved the second reading of Bill No. 206, to amend the Penitentiary Act, 1939.
He said: There are just three clauses to this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to get the opinion of the responsible minister on it. The first section of the bill provides that a grand jury, members of parliament and others may inspect these institutions. The object of this section is to give jurisdiction to the grand jury and members of parliament to examine into complaints made, and to make presentments without expense to the country. These institutions are managed by the crown, and it is the intention of the bill to afford the people some reliable and definite knowledge of the conditions prevailing in them. The practice recommended here is intended to serve the public interest, and is in no way to be deemed a criticism of the existing system of inspection. On the contrary, the object of the bill is to assist in satisfactory administration. It is a well known fact that these institutions are inspected only by crown officers, and it was one of the cardinal principles of Magna Carta that the people themselves should take a large share in the administration of these penal institutions. Rightly or wrongly, they are now managed by crown officers and no one knows what is going on in them. I believe that in the public interest this situation should not be permitted to continue. Just in passing, let me say that, in the provincial realm, in one of the asylums under provincial authority two sane people were found; and that should not be. There are no visitors to these places.
The second section of the bill gives permission, as has been recommended by some judges, for inmates of these institutions to visit a dying relative. It is felt that this would be a good change. This section is intended to meet cases which occasionally arise when
Penitentiary Act
[Stage Direction]
urgent requests are received from relatives of prisoners for permission to visit dying parents or dependents. A recent case of this kind received wide sympathy.
The last section is designed to ascertain what has been happening in regard to real law reform in this country. We are miles behind the old land in this regard. There people are allowed time in which to pay their fines. They have broadened the summary offenders act, and as a result half the prisons in England have been closed. We shall never make any headway in this regard unless all the provinces get together. We are living in an age of conferences, however, and that should be possible. This section deals with offenders under the age of nineteen, who should not be admitted to these institutions. The provinces should provide places for them. If that were done I believe we would have some real law reform.
I should think more hon. members would take an interest in these matters, in view of the money we spend in the upkeep of these institutions. However, it seems we have very little time to devote to this problem, which is one of the most important we have to consider at the present time. If no other hon. members wish to speak, probably the minister will have a word to say.
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice):: I should like to express my appreciation of the interest taken by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Church) in penitentiary matters and in the proper treatment of those convicted of offences. He has made this proposal in the house on other occasions. To some extent the matter was discussed last year, and at that time I started to express the opinions of the Department of Justice, and my own opinions, on the merits of the bill introduced at that time, which is being introduced again this year by the hon. gentleman.
This bill contains three sections, to which I shall have to refer to some extent in what I have to say tonight, though ordinarily one does not refer to particular sections in dealing with a bill on second reading. The first of the three sections of the bill provides for the inspection of penitentiaries by grand juries. Last year I tried to point out that this provision would have very limited application, for the reason that in many of the provinces of Canada there are no grand juries. Indeed there are only two counties in Canada where grand juries would be eligible under the bill to inspect federal institutions. One is the county of Westmorland, New Brunswick, where Dorchester penitentiary is situated; the other is the county of Frontenac, Ontario, where two penitentiaries are located, one at Kingston and one at Collin's Bay. There are no grand [Mr. Church.1
juries in the province of Quebec or in the western provinces, where the other penitentiaries are situated.
There does not seem to be any good reason why this parliament should endow the grand juries of these two counties in Canada with this inspectional function. It must be borne in mind that grand jurors have no particular or special training in inspectional work. They have no particular knowledge of criminology or anything of the kind. For this reason, among others, one of my predecessors in the justice department, Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, opposed a similar bill introduced by my hon. friend in 1930. In my remarks on this bill last year I started to quote what Mr. Lapointe said at that time. I was interrupted because the time devoted to public bills had expired, and I was unable to finish the quotation. I should like to finish it now, because Mr. Lapointe stated why this proposal should not be accepted, in very much better language than I could improvise at the moment. He said:
May I point out that such an inspection of a penitentiary as is proposed by this bill would occupy the activities of a grand jury working ten hours a day for several months? May I also mention the fact that the grand juries are composed of excellent men indeed, but they are men with no especial experience in criminology or the handling of criminals, or the management or care of such institutions. Moreover, grand juries are selected and appointed* by provincial governments and they have therefore no authority whatever in dominion government institutions. Penitentiary officials are not permitted to inspect provincial institutions, nor is it considered desirable that this should be so, notwithstanding the fact that there are confined in mental disease hospitals of the various provinces a number of inmates of penitentiaries, the care and maintenance of whom are paid by the penitentiaries branch. There is already in the penitentiary law all that is required in the matter of inspection. Penitentiaries are inspected in detail by the superintendent, three inspectors, the auditor, the parole officer, the chief penitentiary engineer and the structural engineer. Such inspections are made continuously throughout the year. In addition to that, the following persons are entitled to visit and inspect a penitentiary during business hours: the Governor General of Canada, although I admit that he does not avail himself of that opportunity; the lieutenant-governor of any province of Canada: any member of the king's privy council of Canada, any member of any executive council of any of the provinces, any member of parliament of Canada and any judge of any court of record in Canada or in any of the provinces; and such inspection is invited.
May I say in that regard that the condition and the management of our penitentiaries have been favourably commented upon, indeed have been commended by visitors from other countries connected with various organizations, the judiciary or the police forces, and that our penitentiaries compare favourably with such institutions in any other country in the world?

Penitentiary Act
The citation. I have just read is to be found on page 277 of Hansard of March 4, 1930. Since that time, there have been developments of a beneficial nature in penitentiary administration. Since last year, when the act appointing the commissioner and two deputy commissioners was proclaimed there has been considerable improvement in the penitentiary system, and I think what Mr. Lapointe said in 1930 about the administration and the inspection of a penitentiary would have even more force at the present time. The bill came up later in the session of 1930, and Mr. Lapointe is reported on page 365 of Hansard of March 6, 1930, as follows:
Parliament in the exercise of its powers has established a system of inspection of penitentiaries which is to be found in the sections of the Penitentiary Act that I mentioned' the other night. Some if not all the provinces in the exercise of their powers have authorized grand jurors to inspect provincial prisons. Parliament has done what it considered wise in its field, and the provinces have similarly provided a system which they consider advisable in thedr own field. It would be just as illogical for a province to pass a bill authorizing inspection of provincial institutions by inspectors of penitentiaries as for parliament to adopt this bill. If parliament is of opinion that the present system of inspection which it has authorized is not sufficient or should be improved, its duty is to amend its existing provision so as to provide a better system of inspection under its own direction and control, but from a constitutional point of view it "would be a very bad precedent if parliament were to surrender its control of the inspection of these federal institutions and to entrust that control to a body of men appointed by the provinces for provincial purposes. That is with regard1 to clause 1 of this bill.
I am sorry that I have to take up the bill clause by clause, but it is necessary to do that because it is not possible to sum up the principle of the bill as a whole without referring to the individual sections. Section 2 of the bill reads:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this act or any other statute or regulation, the Minister of Justice or Solicitor General or a judge of the supreme or county court of a province, in special, urgent and important cases, may, on such terms as are defined in each ease, permit a prisoner, under escort, to pay a brief or temporary visit to a dying parent, wife, child or other near dependent.
The power to grant a temporary ticket of leave in appropriate cases is already within the right of the Solicitor General. It is suggested that the extension of such power to supreme and county court judges who have no facilities for obtaining full knowledge of all the circumstances of the prisoner might result in serious administrative difficulties. The section does not define the conditions under which such permission might be granted or by
whom the expenses involved would be paid. It would be impossible to make penitentiary officers available for such duty without disrupting the normal administration of the institutions. The proposal would also be open to representations as to illness and relationships which would be most difficult to verify. Those objections to the proposal were recognized when the matter was being discussed by Mr. Lapointe on the occasion to which I have referred, and this is what Mr. Lapointe said:
The officers of the penitentiary branch, men who have the experience, who have been in control of penitentiaries for many years, are strongly opposed to any such provision. They submit that it would be a very dangerous procedure to adopt, and one that would undoubtedly be abused if introduced. Exaggerated claims as to the degree of illness of relatives or other near dependents would continually be made and would be used as a means of securing the inmate's return for some other cause. Illness of fake relatives or fake near dependents would be a common occurrence if such a bill should become law. Many foreigners, particularly orientals, I am informed, incarcerated in Canadian penitentiaries, claim so many parents, wives, children or other near dependents that should the bill become operative it would call for a considerable expenditure of money and keep the guards busy delivering them to the homes of parents, wives, children or other near dependents. In one case alone within the past year nine orientals presented themselves at a Canadian penitentiary, all claiming to be close relatives to the one incarcerated.
Mr. Stevens:	They are all cousins.
Mr. Lapointe:	Probably. The necessity for
strict enforcement of the law in all its aspects in connection with the criminal is more apparent today than at any previous time in the history of Canada, because there is an unprecedented increase in the number of convictions for serious crimes and consequently a tremendous increase in prison population. I admit there are some cases which may evoke sympathy, but this provision would lead to such dangers and serious abuses that I do not think it would be desirable to bring about the change suggested. There was a case-and probably it is the one my hon. friend mentioned in his explanatory note-that came to my attention some time ago. The man made and pressed an application for permission of this kind which I could not grant, but what I did was to refer the matter to the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) who is in charge of the administration of the Ticket of Leave Act in order to see whether that convict could not he released under ticket of leave if circumstances would permit his release so that he might visit his parent who was sick. But unfortunately that was a bad ease, one in which it was impossible to grant a release. That man had a very bad criminal record and could not be released under the circumstances and under the practice as it exists. This clause also, I submit, should not be adopted by parliament and the law relating to incarceration should remain as it is.
I have no knowledge of the facts or the circumstances referred to by Mr. Lapointe in
Penitentiary Act

that passage; but the conclusion that he comes to with regard to the general principle of delegating this power of release of convicts under those circumstances to supreme and county court judges is one with which I agree. The position that he took with reference to that proposal was, I believe, a sound one, and I am afraid that I shall be unable to accept the proposals of the hon. gentleman in that regard.
There is still another section of the bill, which reads as follows:
No person under nineteen years of age on his or her last birthday shall be admitted to or be confined in any penitentiary or other penal institution under the control or administration of the parliament of Canada, notwithstanding any law, usage or custom to the contrary and the provisions of any statute applicable to an offender under sixteen years of age shall apply to such person.
The manner in which that was met by Mr. Lapointe when he was minister of justice, was as follows. It may very well be that the conditions which he described are not quite applicable to the present day, but at any rate I am sure that his statement will be of interest to the house. He said this at page 366 of Hansard, of March 6, 1930:
My hon. friend said the other day that he is pleased that we are going to have preferred institutions for young convicts. As a matter of fact, this is now being worked out. The properties have been secured and the building will be erected during the course of the next fiscal year, and when that is done all the young convicts will be segregated and will have no contact with the old, hardened criminals. While this is being worked out, I do not think that this bill should be passed. My hon. friend does not indicate where these young offenders should be placed. If he suggests that they should be sent to the provincial jails. I do not think that there is anything to commend that course. As a matter of fact, evidence has been taken quite recently by the big brother and child welfare representatives as to conditions in the various jails, and it would appear from their report that they certainly would not support such a change. There is not the close supervision in the provincial institutions that exists in the penitentiaries, and there are in the provincial jails old, hardened criminals who have spent their life in jail and who are associating with the juvenile offenders with a good deal less supervision than in the penitentiaries to prevent them from placing their imprint upon all those with whom they come in contact. These old criminals have more opportunities in the jails than they have in the penitentiaries to exert an evil influence on the young delinquents. This change, therefore, would certainly not be desirable while the new system of preferred institutions is being erected.
There was some further discussion of this particular provision, all of which will be found in the report of the debate in Hansard of March 6, 1930, and the debate was adjourned,
I believe, after this discussion took place.

The report that I have from the officers of the penitentiaries on this proposal of my hon. friend is not favourable to its adoption. The objection taken by them is that the section, indeed the bill, does not state what disposition is to be made of persons under the age mentioned, that is the age of nineteen, who have been convicted of serious crime and have been sentenced to two years or more. The bill also proposes that the provisions of the Juvenile Delinquents Act shall apply to such persons. The suggestion of the penitentiary officials is that it is better to leave to the discretion of the sentencing judge or magistrate the decision as to where the youthful offender should be sent, since the facilities available for their incarceration vary in the different provinces.
I think that is probably all I should say with regard to the bill before the house. It serves the useful purpose of bringing forward the whole question of penal reform, in which there is a very great interest in this country, and when the penitentiary estimates are reached I shall be expected1, of course, to say something about what has been done during the past year and what our plans are with regard to the future. It would appear that the particular objectives sought to be attained by the enactment of this bill are likely to be better attained in another way, by the adoption of other machinery.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker-


William Ross Macdonald: I must inform the house that if the hon. member for Broadview speaks now he will close the debate.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the minister has said about the bill, and I also appreciate the fact that he has done a great deal for law reform since he has been minister. I think he will leave 'behind him in the house the record of an unselfish life unsparingly devoted to the -welfare and happiness of his fellow countrymen.
There have been a good many complaints about these institutions. The report made by Mr. Justice Archambault and his colleagues referred to the lack of inspection of the penitentiaries, and all that kind of thing. Certain gentlemen have been appointed, and they are very good men, military men and otherwise, but they have had no practical experience in this particular work. You cannot learn the police business in a day. A chief of police cannot learn his business in a day. These new officials learn it only by experience, and that is one of the things found wanting in these institutions.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
Consider the vast sum of money that is spent on the penitentiaries; yet nobody ever goes into them to inspect them. Members of parliament, senators, lieutenants governor and others are appointed as visitors, but not one of them ever enters the doors of these institutions. That should not be. I should like to see the minister, before he leaves the house, arrange for some better system of inspection and appoint businessmen or others to visit these institutions, as was recommended in the report of Mr. Justice Archambault. Since it is now nine o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

William Ross Macdonald: When the committee rose at six o'clock wTe were considering item 440, departmental administration.
HO. Departmental administration, $272,600.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Is the minister now prepared to make the statement for which I asked?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I made a statement on ERP to the best of my ability, and if my h.on. friend would like further information and would ask questions I shall be glad to answer them. But I cannot see that the length of a statement adds anything to the information it contains.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister will remember that just before we rose at six o'clock I indicated several subjects upon which I thought the committee would like to hear the minister. I thought I specified them quite clearly. Apparently the minister does not wish to make a statement. I can only say that it is another example of the disgraceful flouting of this house that the minister embarks upon so often.


William Henry Golding: Order. I do not think the hon. member should use that kind of language to another hon. member. I hope he will withdraw it. '


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Mr. Chairman, I am
unaware of the particular language to which you refer as being unparliamentary. I can only say, in other words, that perhaps the minister does not pay the respect to this house that it deserves. Perhaps that expresses my view in language which would be acceptable to you, sir.
I am particularly interested in the minister's refusal to make a statement, because I just heard the Minister of Justice say that when we came to his estimates on another matter
he would be expected to make a statement as to what he had achieved and what he proposed to do in the future with regard to that subject. I commend the attitude of the Minister of Justice to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, because I think it is more in keeping with the duty of the right hon. gentleman to the House of Commons. I want to ask the minister why he will take the trouble to make quite an extensive statement to the Rotary club in Montreal, which he did on May 11 last, but refuses the same privilege to this house. I wonder what the Rotary club has that we have not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I happen to have the speech to the Rotary club before me. I shall be glad to make it; it will take only forty minutes. I think I gave all the information contained in it in about ten minutes. I thought that this house would consider its time more important than that. This house is not a luncheon club. I think my hon. friend is apt to confuse himself with the House of Commons. He has made a statement about my flouting the house. All I have refused to do is to make a speech every time he asks me to do so. If he will ask me to make a statement on any subject whatever relating to these estimates I shall be glad to do so; but ask the questions one at a time. I can make only one statement on one subject at a time. Perhaps he had better reconsider his position. I have not heard any universal demand from the committee for me to make speeches.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I never knew the minister to refuse; he takes every opportunity, and some of the speeches are bad.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I asked the minister to make a statement on what he had achieved and what he expected to achieve in respect of Canada's trade during this year. I specified four particular heads of subjects upon which I thought the committee would like to hear him. As I understand it, the minister now tells me that he does not propose to do so. I do not want to hear him read his forty-minute speech to the Montreal Rotary club, because I have it here.


Arthur Leroy Smith: They did not like it either.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I shall read to him one or two little extracts from his own speech and ask him whether he will elaborate them a little further in connection with ERP.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Dispense.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Supply-Trade and Commerce
Do I understand that to ibe for a period of one year or for five years? Perhaps the minister can answer that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The budget of 85,300 million was for fifteen months, and the off-shore purchases mentioned were also for fifteen months.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Can the minister say by how much that estimate has been reduced by -the recent action in Washington, or is likely to be reduced?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The house of representatives has made a cut. As my hon. friend knows, the senate must take parallel action, and if there is a difference between the two houses there must be a compromise. At the moment the appropriation stands as $5,300 million for fifteen months.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Can the minister give the committee any idea of how much he expects to get of ERP funds in the year 1948 or for the fifteen months' period?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend asks, "How much do we expect to get?" We expect to be contributors to ERP, not get from ERP. I think my hon. friend had better amend his language and be a little sensible. He is talking about the recovery program.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister knows what I want. I do not imagine that his language is any purer than mine. Perhaps the minister will make an estimate of the total expenditures of ERP funds which may be made in Canada during the fifteen months' period. When he answers me, perhaps he wall not be personal about it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We sell goods to ERP countries, which number some sixteen. We do not know whether we shall get any ERP dollars or some other dollars. Payments are not segregated. All we know is that we are paid in dollars. We know that the United Kingdom makes purchases in the United States in excess of the allocations to it from ERP funds. We think that is probably true of other countries. In addition to ERP funds, there are dollar earnings of those countries. We cannot segregate the money that is paid-out of ERP funds-the money paid from dollar earnings and the money paid from reserves. It is all paid on the same purchases.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I am most surprised to
hear the minister say he cannot make any estimate of the amount.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not say that.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: That is what I asked the minister to give the committee. If the minister did not say that, perhaps he will give the figure.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend asked me how many dollars we expected to get from ERP funds. I pointed out to him that we do not know whether the dollars we get come from ERP or from dollar earnings of the countries or from gold reserves, from gold production, and we are not particularly interested. If he wants to know the amount of our sales to ERP countries I may be able to give him that. Does he wish to know that?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: That may be very interesting; but I asked the minister to make an estimate of how much he expected to get. He told me-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not given to guessing.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I understand that he will not or cannot make that estimate. Is that correct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. I said I could not because I do not know whether the funds will be ERP funds or other funds. I do not think anyone cares except my hon. friend.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I am most surprised to hear the minister say that he cannot make such an estimate. I would have thought it would be one of the first things he would want to know in connection with this program. He told the Rotary club in Montreal, as I understand it, that but for the European recovery program off-shore purchases our exports would have declined inevitably, and that now we may hope, not that shipments will be greatly increased, but that they will be maintained at least at the level of 1947. Did not the minister have some sum in his mind that he might expect of ERP funds when he made that statement in Montreal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Last year's total exports were $2,750 million, and I expect that this year's export will be somewhat in excess of that amount. They are running considerably in excess of it at the moment. I am sorry that my hon. friend cannot grasp my meaning, that exports are exports and that they are paid for in dollars. No one cares, except my hon. friend, whether they are ERP dollars or some other dollars.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Despite what the minister says, I imagine there are quite a few people who care considerably. I have here a figure which suggests that our favourable balance of trade with Great Britain and continental Europe last year was $885 million, and I understand that it is not the intention of the government to supply any further export credits. Can we take it, then, that in the minister's opinion, between ERP dollars and gold and other sources of United States exchange we

Supply-Trade and Commerce
shall get from Europe S885 million in United States currency and gold this year? Is that his opinion?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Last year we exported to the United Kingdom alone-I do not know where my hon. friend gets his figure-$751,200,000, and as I say, we expect to ship considerably more than that this year.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: One more question. The minister mentioned a table of availability of ERF materials. Would he put it on Hansard?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not care to do that. It is confidential. However, I can give a rough idea of the items on it. I certainly would not put it on Hansard.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Can the minister give that rough idea?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. It is understood that I am not tabling this document if I read from it. Is that understood or not?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend did not say so. I will enumerate some of the items: bread; grains; coarse grains; fats and oils; oil cake and meal; meat; fish; cheese; canned milk; dried milk; eggs; dried fruits; pulse; fresh fruits; other foods; tobacco; nitrogen; agricultural machinery; coal mining equipment; timber; iron and steel; trucks; freight cars; steel manufacturing equipment, timber equipment, electrical equipment; aluminum; copper; hides, skins and leather; lead; newsprint; vehicles; woollens and worsted; zinc; machinery, n.e.s.; livestock; purebred livestock; seeds; seed potatoes; hay; footwear; leather footwear; rubber; pulp; miscellaneous automotive parts; asbestos; aircraft and parts; general manufactured products; rubber-sole slabs; rubber sundries; nickel. That gives a general idea.


Douglas King Hazen: What kind of machinery?


Clarence Decatur Howe: All kinds.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to refer to these estimates and to point out certain matters in connection with the Department of Trade and Commerce. In my opinion, this is the most important department of the public service today. The policies adopted by this government have had the effect of throwing clean overboard the old and well tried trade policies that have proved such a sucess in the prairies and throughout the country generally. I would invite the attention of hon. members to the international trade exhibition which is now in progress at the exhibition grounds in the city
of Toronto. That exhibition will give them a very good idea of what has been accomplished in the past, and what under proper policies can still be achieved in the future by the Department of Trade and Commerce, for the promotion of the trade of this dominion, the fifth trading nation of the world. Hon. members have only to visit that exhibition to see the results of the old policies in connection with trade and commerce which we had in Canada before the new ideas were put into effect. These new trade ideas that we have today do not work for the benefit of Canada.
As I have said, the department whose estimates are now before the committee is one of the most important in the Canadian public service, but its possibilities do not seem to be fully recognized. We are sending ambassadors and consuls general and other dignitaries of that kind all over the seven seas, but they do not accomplish what the trained officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce can. There is no department that means more to the Canadian businessman than this department, which has been efficiently operated, as the trade exhibition shows. When we turn to Geneva, however, and examine all the pacts which are now written into the estimates at pages 68 and 69, exports and imports, we find that the whole situation has been changed, so much so that the Canadian businessman does not know where he stands, with all the forms that have to be filled out.
This department has done splendid work, and its representatives throughout the world are the men who bring business to this country and who build up Canada from coast to coast. They find trade for us. They find outlets for our products of sea, soil, forest and mine, and altogether they have done a magnificent job in the past.
I hope that you, Mr. Chairman, and other members as well will go and see that trade exhibition. It is on for another week, and a great many people are going to Toronto, to Sunnybrook, on the twelfth instant. I urge all hon. members to go and get a bird's-eye view of what trade means to this country and what the Department of Trade and Commerce can do to further that trade.
There are within the sterling area many countries that can contribute to the building up of Canadian trade, and the fact is that in the past we have always depended upon the sterling area and the mother country in particular. She has been a steady customer for all our farm products, wheat, grain and flour, and for manufactured goods of all kinds. We have had a steady market there and she has undoubtedly been our best customer. It is not
Supply-Trade and Commerce

a market that is here today and gone tomorrow. Unfortunately, however, it has been largely interfered with by what has been done at Geneva.
I might refer to industrial development and one or twro other matters coming within the industrial division, because some new divisions have been added. We have the exports and imports division. When the government comes to a stock-taking in the next trvelve months it will find what the present policies have meant to this country. The government has by Geneva, turned down our best customers. One of the ministers has gone to Ontario, and he predicts that the government will throw overboard the finest customer we have ever had for our cattle overseas, and allow our cattle to go to the United States. The district represented by the hon. members for Davenport, Spadina, Trinity and Parkdale, and all the area north of Queen street, were built up by the great agricultural industry of Massey's and the cattle business to Britain as well. But now, as I say, our best customer has been thrown overboard.
Let hon. members visit the exhibition to which I have referred and they will see with their own eyes what the sterling area has meant in the past to this country, and can compare the results of the past with what we are likely to have in the years to come.
I am a firm believer in the old two-party system. One of my hon. friends the other day was referring to the song "Hail, hail, the gang's all here", but there was no reply as to his Yale cry from the government. I can say that in my experience I have found that west of the great lakes-I have visited that part of the dominion two or three times-the best policy has been found to be this: Depend upon your best customer always. Further, I would suggest that west of the great lakes our two old parties should end the union governments in Manitoba and in British Columbia and return to the old two-party system, Conservatives and Liberals, because, if they do not, the only alternative is to elect my hon. friends to the left, the C.C.F., as Yale showed the other day. The two old parties have served this country well, and governments under both parties have conducted a Department of Trade and Commerce that has been a credit to the Dominion of Canada. Trade has advanced by leaps and bounds. When you compare the value of this department to the country with that of some of the other departments in which there is duplication such as the Department of External Affairs and others, it will be found that the work is being done by this department which gets the cream of the business and

means something to the trade and commerce of the country. What I think we want in this House of Commons is more of the politics of principle and progress and less of the politics of peanuts and party. I believe that motto could be applied to many departments, especially the Department of Trade and Commerce, when we find that, after the progress and success this country has had, we are to toss it to the four winds of heaven and introduce a new trade system.
I shall now go on to refer to some other matters. The first is the bureau of statistics. I should like to see this department now expand. Let us have some proper survey made of the accidents that happen. Today you cannot tell how many people have been killed on the highways. The situation is better with regard to level crossings, but you cannot tell the loss by fire. I would point to the large number of fires occurring in Ontario, and to the fact that you cannot tell what has been the loss of lives in houses that are burnt down. There is no way of telling that. I hope the bureau of statistics will bring that matter of deaths and those injured for all Canada up to date, and get us an up-to-date report, so that every year we shall have a statement along that line. They have done a great deal of good work in this connection. The returns are not made to them by the provinces, but I think the bureau might expand the work to the extent I have suggested.
In connection with the Canada Grain Act, I am sorry to see what is going on in the department and in the country. We have tossed aw'.ay our best, customer. Our markets were overseas and not north and south. It is an east and west industry and always has been. The markets have always been the markets of the world, Britain, France and her allies. That was a steady market and it has been thrown overboard.
In connection with the tourist business. I may say this is a presidential year, and I doubt if we shall have fulfilled the rosy picture in this travel bureau which is forecast. I venture to say that if we had every year an exhibition such as the one I referred to a moment ago, we might get some trade. But with provincial elections on, the high cost of living, the cost of travel and the lack of hotels, apart from one or two of the big conventions I fail to see where we are to get all these millions of dollars in tourist trade we hope for during this year.
Another matter I should like to refer to is the standards division, administration, and electricity and gas inspection services. I think the time has come when that should be done

Supply-Trade and Commerce
voluntarily by the government. At the present time we need a national policy for cheap light and power. Canada has a potential of forty-six million horsepower, of which only one-sixth or one-seventh is developed at the present time. Some of it is only seasonal. I believe that what we need at the present time is some national policy or measure to deal with the situation in the maritimes, the Northwest Territories, and all Canada. We need a vast national policy with regard to cheap light and power. I was surprised the last time I was in British Columbia some years ago, to find that the richest province of all in water power did not have a cheap light and power program. I believe the government would be well advised to carry out this electricity and gas inspection itself and charge it up to some other branch of the department.
I do not know that I can say anything further. I compliment the minister who is a hard-working one. His predecessor was also a most excellent minister. The trade exhibition of both ministers is one of the finest things I think this country has ever seen. I wish the minister every success in his work, but I am fearful of what will happen in the days that are to come when today we toss, via Geneva, our trade policies overboard and lose our best customers.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: The minister a short time ago gave us a glimpse of what was called his program of availability. He did not table the whole schedule of figures, but it is a strange thing that although we do not get those things in the House of Commons, the press seems to get them. I have in my hand here a clipping of May 14 last which reads as follows:
The Washington blueprint is contemplating an expenditure of approximately one billion dollars in Canada by the participating countries, but in the fifty-three categories are some items where Canada's share has been placed .actually above estimated capacity to produce and others in which this country has been left out entirely or cut in on quantities less than she might have expected.
I do not pretend to hold the minister to those figures or to those fifty-three categories that are mentioned there. But as this has found its way into the press, I think the minister ought to tell us something more about the amount of money that is likely to be used with respect to this program. I should like to read just for a moment from the speech which the Minister of Finance made on November 17 last in which he said:
The United States government has now recommended to congress that it should authorize the use of funds voted for aid to Europe in making purchases outside the United States. In the expectation that this policy will be implemented,
we are ascertaining what supplies can be made available from Canada for this purpose. A program of this bind would resemble in many respects the Hyde Park agreement that proved to be so effective and constructive during the war.
As a matter of fact, in my district of Park-dale, apparently representatives of the Department of Trade and Commerce are calling on industry and are saying, "What have you available? What can you do?" I shall not mention the name of the officer, but I am reading from a letter which I should be glad to show the minister. One paragraph reads as follows:
We had a recent visit from Mr. Blank-
I will not give his name.

of the Department of Trade and Commerce who inquired as to our production capacity providing Canada gets orders from the ERP. We appreciated his interest in getting a share of this business for us.
I think the minister ought to take us into his confidence, since this is a Canadian plan -this is our share in ERP-so that we might know what is being done by the Department of Trade and Commerce in this regard and what we may expect. A good number of the commodities in the list which the minister spoke about were in the category of food. On reading excerpts from the speech the minister made in Montreal on May 11 last, I find he made it clear that Canadian industry and Canadian producers were to have to suffer certain sacrifices. I should like the minister to tell us, if he would, what those sacrifices are to be. He is reported as follows:
The Reconstruction Minister said', however, that the recovery program for Europe meant that Canada would be able to carry on export trade at about the same volume as before, avoid a "radical reorientation of industry, and maintain higher levels of investment and income than would otherwise be possible."
He mentioned that there were to be sacrifices by the producers and the consumers in this country before the benefits of the plan would be felt. I gather that in respect to manufactured goods we were to lose some of our markets, and that it would not be possible for us to keep those markets which we had built up over the last three years by reason of what they called our own little Marshall plan of credits. That seems to be perfectly so.
As we know, Canada and Newfoundland are the only two members of the British commonwealth who do not belong to the sterling area; and by reason of that fact we find it difficult to sell our goods in the sterling area. I know the minister has before him particulars showing how our trade with the sterling area is falling down at the present time, and how we are losing those markets. For instance, my
Supply-Trade and Commerce

information is that, because of a world shortage of United States dollars, many currencies are no longer convertible, and a European balance of payments with the western hemisphere is unobtainable. The consequent threat to Canadian prosperity shows ominously in the decline of British imports from this hemisphere from 49 per cent in 1946 to a prospective 34 per cent this year. This figure was 31 per cent in 1938.
I know the minister has received representations from manufacturing concerns and exporters in Canada who have shown that their exports to sterling area countries have fallen off 90 per cent, 95 per cent and in some cases 100 per cent. These industries are asking the minister and his department to carry out the fullest possible investigation in respect of all possible reciprocal trading arrangements with the sterling area countries. Surplus goods are waiting in Canada to be moved to the sterling area, and it is a question of setting up the machinery for the exchange of such goods.
In that respect, and having regard also to the Marshall plan, this afternoon I believe the minister told us that Mr. Pierce, the Canadian representative, was in Paris. We would like to know what sort of blueprint Mr. Pierce has with respect to the movement of these goods and commodities from Canada to Europe. After all, we know the Department of Trade and Commerce considers the United Kingdom and western Europe our natural market. For the time being we have lost that market, and it is necessary that something be done to restore it. Having regard to the fact that we are dependent upon the minister and his department to lead us in this-


Arthur Leroy Smith: Paper chase.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Yes, this paper chase, if you choose to call it that. Certainly when you make sacrifices you want to know what they are. So I should like the minister to explain the plan of which the Minister of Finance spoke in such glowing terms on March 17 last. I have some other questions I should like to ask, but for the moment I think I shall stop there. When we first heard about ERP it was the bonanza that would solve our export problems. Then we heard that it would enable us to hold our own, and that we would be lucky if we got what we did in 1947. Now we are told that it will be a case of making sacrifices. We can make the sacrifices; but industry, the exporters and the general public would like to know what those sacrifices are. I believe the minister is in a position to tell us.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am very much interested to hear that we have lost all our trade with the sterling countries. I have before me the figures

of our exports to the United Kingdom for the first three months of this year as compared with the first three months of last year. In January, 1947, we shipped $50,500,000 worth of goods. In January, 1948, we shipped $64,900,000 worth. In February, 1947, we shipped $44,900,000 worth of goods; in February of this year, $51,700,000 worth. In March, 1947, we shipped $47,600,000 worth of goods, in March, 1948, $59,200,000 worth. Or if my hon. friend would like a comparison as between the shipments for the first three months of this year and the shipments pre-war I can tell him that the average exports from Canada to the United Kingdom in the years 1935 to 1939 for the month of January were $25,500,000. This year they -were $64,900,000, or two and a half times as great.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: But, Mr. Chairman-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let me get this on Hansard; you brought up the subject. For February the average from 1935 to 1939 was $23,600,000; for February of 1948, it was $51,700,000. The average during those years for March was $26,-
400,000,	as against $59,200,000 this year. For anyone to rise in his place and say our trade with the sterling countries is gone, is just ridiculous.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: I did not say that. I said we were losing our trade.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no evidence of that.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: I will correct myself in this respect. I was not talking about the United Kingdom alone. I was talking about the other nations in the sterling area as well. The figures that have been given me-and they must be in the hands of the minister and his department-indicate that the sterling area countries have had to put on import controls, as we know; and since Great Britain is the banker for the sterling area countries, they are restricting trade with other parts of the world, including Canada, so that little by little our trade with those countries other than the United Kingdom is dropping. If I am wrong in that the minister may correct me, but those who prepared these figures think otherwise. I believe representations have been made or are to be made to the minister to the effect that these people wish him to do something in that regard; otherwise trade with these dependencies and dominions which form part of the British empire will drop to a point where it will not be funny for Canadian business.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Might I ask the minister if it is not correct that the figures he gave for January, February and March of this year include considerable purchases by the United

Supply-Trade and Commerce
Kingdom under Canadian export credits which it is government policy not to extend from now on?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Included are credits of
$15,000,000 a month, or $45,000,000 in all, which is not a large sum in proportion. The point is that our exports are not dropping. The credits ended in the middle of April, but since that time there has been no reduction in exports.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Why not separate it and tell us what it is?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Separate what from what?


Arthur Leroy Smith: You have so many millions, and you have credits of
S15,000,000 a month; then you have this great increase. What did it? What did we sell that we did not sell before, or what did we sell more of than we sold before? The thing is simple; you have all your information there.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In these three months we sold goods to the value of $175-8 million, of which $45,000,000 was credits. The rest was paid for.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What were the goods? Where is the increase?


Clarence Decatur Howe: You want the list?


Arthur Leroy Smith: No, just roughly. Let us quit fooling about it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The largest items are foodstuffs. The biggest, is wheat; the next is meat; the next is cheese, and the next is eggs.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The Minister of Agriculture told us he put- on the pressure to get England to take these things, and that is what you are talking about.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nevertheless we are not talking about how we sold it, but about what we sold.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then your figures do not mean anything.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Then there is lumber, and aluminum and other ibase metals, a large item; agricultural machinery, which is a very large item, and various special types of maehineiy.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I should like to ask another question, which follows the first question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. We are told that under ERP the United States will spend 5-3 billion in the first fifteen months of the operation of the plan. Here is the simple figure that I want. What proportion, irrespective of whether it is ERP dollars or any other kind-they are
United! States dollars that are going to buy- will we get in United States dollars, irrespective of source?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think it would be most difficult to say what portion of the $5,300 million; I am sure I cannot say.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Cannot the minister give us some rough idea of what we shall gain in. United States dollars in the fifteen months' operation of the Marshall plan? That is all I want to know.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member means how much better off we shall be in United States dollars than we were when we started?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Regardless of whether it is the Marshall plan or anything else?


Arthur Leroy Smith: No, under the Marshall plan. I would like to segregate it. The Minister of Finance does the guessing on the rest of it with his three-pronged fork.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can answer my hon. friend's question if he would like an answer.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I would love it. It would be the first straight answer I have got from the Minister of Finance for quite a while.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The only effect which I presume the so-called Marshall plan will have on Canada is that it will help our customers to pay for some of the things they want to buy from us. We have no means of knowing how much of the purchases they make for us is paid for out of Marshall plan dollars.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Why have you not?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Because they are not paying by dollars.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You said you could answer me if I wanted an answer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have given an answer.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I know that last Monday was Monday and that next Saturday will be Saturday; to say that would answer me as well as you have, because you did not even address yourself to my question. Surely you must have some idea. We heard from you how this Marshall plan was being looked forward to, to help our United States dollar situation. Now- we have the Marshall plan; we have $5,300 million which is to be spent in fifteen months. You anticipated something if they passed it. We have it now. What was it you anticipated?
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I can answer it. My hon. friend somehow has the impression-


Arthur Leroy Smith: Are there any more of you who would like to join in this picture? I was taken away from the minister by the Minister of Finance and I am glad to be back again on your tender mercies.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Some hon. gentlemen opposite have the idea that the Marshall plan is for the relief of Canada. The Marshall plan was designed for the rehabilitation of Europe.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Let us admit that neither one of us is that dumb.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are asking what we are to get out of the Marshall plan.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What we shall receive for the goods we sell. Does that make it plain to you?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. We sell goods to Europe and we get paid for them in dollars; we sell goods to France and we get paid for them in dollars; we sell goods to Italy and we get paid for them in dollars. The presumption is that if those countries had no ERP aid we would not sell as many goods that we would get paid for in United States dollars. Perhaps my hon. friends can relate that to ERP dollars, but my department has no information as to what proportion of what we sell to those countries will be paid for in ERP dollars.
When one stops to reason that England gets so many ERP dollars to spend anywhere she likes, in Canada, in the United States or in any other dollar country, he can appreciate my difficulty in telling my hon. friend how many ERP dollars will be among the dollars Britain pays to Canada.


Arthur Leroy Smith: There would be an excess over what we are getting now. We know how much gold England has-


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, we do not.


Arthur Leroy Smith: -and we know how much gold other countries have. The Marshall plan will help us in our United States dollar position. I agree with you that it is nothing but rehabilitation, but we are perhaps selfish about the matter and will benefit by it in our United States dollar picture. What is the benefit we shall receive? You said you would answer and the Minister of Finance took his crack at the pussy and told me nothing. I would be delighted if the minister would help me and give me some idea. In those fifteen months will it be S200 million, $300 million or what? To me it is a matter of simple arithmetic. Consider that

these various countries will be buying; you know this is new money, new United States dollars which will help those countries to the extent of $5,300 million; by whatever route you take, how much of that will get back to this country in those fifteen months? Perhaps it cannot be answered.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Of course it cannot.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It certainly has not been as yet. The Minister of Finance shakes his head and says it cannot be answered. Perhaps it needs a shake of the head by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to make it unanimous.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The supporting of the United States dollar situation and balances of payment are, course, my particular concern. Perhaps I shall not be stating the obvious if I give my hon. friend some indication of how these balances of payment are met. Hon. members appreciate that countries have to settle their balances with us. In the case of the United Kingdom, they maintain balances with the Bank of Canada. Those balances are credited with the proceeds of the sales of British goods and services in this country. They are credited with transfers which are made by the British government from sources that are unknown to us. Insettlement of those balances, a cheque is in effect drawn on their balance with the Bank of Canada.
Canada has no means of knowing what ERP dollars, if any, that the British receive are transferred to Canada, but we do know as a general rule that if the United Kingdom or any other European country is furnished with a loan or if they receive United States dollars in some other form they will be available for the import of Canadian goods. It is not within our control to determine what dollars are used for what purpose. We know, speaking generally, that if they receive United States dollars they will be available to pay their bills with, but that is all we do know. Nobody can give my hon. friend any more information.


Arthur Leroy Smith: We know this simple thing, that $5,300 million extra United States dollars are to be spent-mark that word "extra"-to help in the rehabilitation of the devastated countries of Europe. We know that, so we can go that far together.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We read that in the newspapers.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That extra money, those extra United States dollars, will come back related in some way to

Supply-Trade and Commerce
purchases made in this country, purchases of goods which the ERP will supply to those devastated countries. If you say "yes" to this,
I am through. Is it the minister's statement, knowing those simple facts, that he has no idea of what proportion of that extra money, that new money, will come to the Dominion of Canada?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have none whatever; my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, may have, but I have none whatever.


John Lambert Gibson: How do these off-shore purchases work? Is a billion and a half of this $5,300 million handed to the European countries in cash, and then are they told that they can spend that for what and where they please, apart from purchases in the United States? Is that true?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. Certain allocations of dollars are made to certain countries. Those dollars are earmarked for special uses. The recipient country submits a list of purchases that it would like to make, what it would like to buy and where it would like to buy it. Those lists are either approved or not approved by the ERP administration. If they are approved and if on a list there are dollars earmarked for purchases in Canada, those purchases qualify for ERP funds and can be charged against ERP funds allocated to that country.


John Lambert Gibson: Are those lists prepared and approved now, or are they still in the formative stage?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are prepared from time to time. I understand that a quarter of a year is the unit for which lists are submitted. The lists are being made up now for the second quarter and are being studied. No doubt in due course they will be approved, after which purchases will be made.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Will the minister try to tell us as much as he can about this, instead of having us go at it by these prying questions? For instance, I think the Minister of Finance said there was no way of knowing how much money would come to Canada, and yet in his Montreal speech the Minister of Trade and Commerce said:
In short, we will 'be enabled, through the funds under the Economic Cooperation Act, to carry on our export trade in roughly the same volume and nature as before-avoiding a radical reorientation of our productive system

 and to maintain higher levels of investment and income than would otherwise be possible.
When the minister makes that statement in a public speech I take it that he had something to go on. I may be able to help him. We financed $499 million of our export trade 5849-306
last year by Canadian export credits. That was the figure given in the budget speech of the Minister of Finance. May we understand that approximately that sum, $500 million, will be available from this source, and if it is not available from this source, from what other source of United States dollars will it be available? How much has already been spent under ERP requisitions in Canada? I submit to the minister that if he would tell us all he can we would get along much faster and I think we would be all greatly benefited by the information.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry but I can only give the amount of exports from this country. We have lent this year about $52,500,000. Everything else has been paid for in dollars. I cannot tell the hon. member about ERP dollars, because I do not know and the Minister of Finance does not know, and I doubt whether anybody in Ottawa knows. I assure my hon. friend that the answer is not obtainable.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I would have thought it was the duty of the minister to make a forecast.


Mr. BRYCE:: I thought I did not know anything about ERP, and I listened hoping to find out something; but, after listening to this debate, I am satisfied that I know as much about it as anybody else.
I think the Department of Trade and Commerce never gets the credit that is coming to it. I have travelled quite a bit in my life and in any city you visit abroad you will find a representative of the trade and commerce department. We can send any old defeated politician to be an ambassador, but you cannot send anybody who does not know his business to represent the trade and commerce of this country. I have had an opportunity of attending meetings of the united nations in three successive years, and I found that even our external affairs people needed the representatives of the Department of Trade and Commerce to guide them before they could make agreements. The importance of this department is not sufficiently recognized. Looking over these estimates, you find that they are mainly for salaries for people who are rendering service to the different communities in which they reside and to the trade of this dominion.
I have one complaint. Our goods are not ' advertised enough in other countries. I was over in the old country in 1938 and 1945. We can send lots of Nova Scotia and British Columbia apples to Great Britain, and they are well liked there but they are not sufficiently advertised. We must do some good
Supply-Trade and Commerce

advertising. I took up with the previous minister of trade and commerce the question of advertising our bacon, but I found that that cannot be done under the regulations. But just as soon as possible I hope that the department will put on a real advertising campaign in other countries. Everybody would benefit from it from the top right down to the bottom, or from the bottom right up to the top, whichever way you like to take it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What about the middle?


William Scottie Bryce: You pass that going up or down.
I support what the hon. member for Humboldt said and urge that the minister help to make our Manitoba seaport at Churchill boom this fall. With modern equipment we shall be able to have a longer season there. I have been in touch with captains who sail that route and they say it is much easier coming in by the Hudson bay route than coming up the St. Lawrence river, because you can set your ship on three or four courses to the port of Churchill, whereas you have to change your course several times coming up the St. Lawrence river.
Might I, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, say something about grain? Would the minister make an announcement about what is coming to the farmers? I think it was a mistake on the part of the government to throw grain on the open market on October 22 of last year. I have received many letters from farmers wanting to know what adjustment they will get, and I have also grain companies wanting to know what will happen to them. The small grain companies which buy in small quantities, just a few carloads or a few thousand bushels, which they have to turn over immediately, will never be able to pay what the large companies can, which have huge elevators and huge storage facilities. These larger companies will be able to pay a much greater return to the farmer than the little company, with less capital, which has to have a quick turnover.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What about the wheat pools?


William Scottie Bryce: They are the big companies; they will pay, and some of the other grain companies will pay.


Arthur Leroy Smith: They have not paid yet.


William Scottie Bryce: I do not think any of them have paid yet.


Mr. HARKNESS:: Several independent
companies have paid.


William Scottie Bryce: You make your speech when the time comes.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: We just wanted to help you.


William Scottie Bryce: You are not helping me, or you would not be sitting there. I would ask the minister to make a statement and tell us what the policy of the government is with respect to this matter. I think you fellows made an awful mistake when you threw the grain on the open market. The people did not want that.


An hon. MEMBER:: They know that now.


William Scottie Bryce: Yes. Prosperity goes to a man's head and he forgets conditions in the 1930's. The farmer will never have prosperity until he has stable prices for his products, based on the cost of production and taking into consideration the prices he has to pay for what he has to buy. I hope the minister will make an announcement, so that I can reply to the people in the constituency of Selkirk and the grain companies that are writing to me to know what the government intends to do in the matter.


William Henry Golding: I still think it would be wise for the committee to stick to the item before us. Item 458 has to do with the Canada Grain Act, and so forth. If we were discussing that item the minister would have the proper officials before him.


William Scottie Bryce: I asked your permission before I started, Mr. Chairman.


William Henry Golding: I still think we would make more progress if we deal with the items as we come to them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend was very courteous in asking his question; and, since he said nice things about the department, I think I should answer his question regarding the port of Churchill. I saw Mr. Dalgleish, one of the operators of the line of steamers which has been serving that port since the elevator was built. He told me that he had more inbound freight for Canada this year than ever before. I spoke to the board1 of grain commissioners. They are filling the elevators there. The principal question will be the lateness of the crop. This year's crop promises to be a late one. As my hon. friend knows, we have practically no carryover; we have no store of wheat to move to the port until the new crop of wheat arrives. Therefore it may be a poor year in

Supply-Trade and Commerce
wheat, simply because there is no wheat to ship; but we do expect a good year of inbound cargo.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the elevator empty now?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is being filled now. The grain is moving to Churchill. The elevator was emptied. I think the elevator was filled at the opening, but I am not sure of that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It may be filled, waiting for ships.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; grain is moving in there now.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It has never been filled in its history.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Filled?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly, filled almost every winter.
As far as the payments on coarse grains are concerned, we have been waiting for the private grain firms to settle. Some of them have settled. I believe the pools have not settled, and some private firms - have not settled. We feel that for the government to do anything before the private settlements are made would be to disturb the situation, but we do hope that something can be done shortly.


William Scottie Bryce: Is there any prospect of a pooling system, so that everybody will be paid alike?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, that is quite impossible. If there is a payment, it will be a flat over-all payment.	.


William Scottie Bryce: It would be the fairest way.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: Before this item passes, I should like to support some of the requests made by the hon. member for Humboldt and by the hon. member for Selkirk, and made earlier in the session by the hon. member for Churchill, and by other hon. members, regarding the greater use of the port of Churchill. I make special reference to the utilization of the port in transporting grain at a cheap rate to the maritime provinces. That suggestion has been put forward at different times. The Minister of Agriculture has approved it, and I believe the hon member for Davenport has as well. It is requested that the grain should be shipped from the west through the port of Churchill and Hudson bay by water in order that we in the maritime provinces may obtain feed grains that we have required for so many years, at a cheaper rate because of cheap water transportation. Grain elevators should be built at points in the 5849-306J
maritime provinces such as Pugwash, which has a splendid port; in Prince Edward Island, on the south shore of Nova Scotia and on the bay of Fundy, also on the New Brunswick side, in order that the people of the maritimes might get the benefit of necessary cheap feed grain. I hope that, under the marshland project which has been approved, and which will take some years to become fully effective, we shall be able to produce a larger proportion of feed grains than we have ever done before. Over a long period of years it has been necessary to transport feed grains to our provinces from the west. The Minister of Agriculture has definitely approved the use of the port of Churchill and the Hudson bay route, in order that grain might be transported to the maritime provinces.
I have never been enthusiastic about the soundness of the large expenditures which have been made in building the Hudson bay railroad and developing the Hudson bay port, but perhaps I am not the one to judge. However, expenditures of $50,000,000, $80,000,000 or
S100,000,000 have been made. The results of those expenditures are there for the benefit of all Canada. Hon. members of the committee will agree that the people of the maritime provinces are as much entitled to the benefit of the use of this port as any other part of Canada, if not more so. It has been said in this house many times past in my hearing that grain has been exported from Canada by the cheap water export rate to European countries, and could be brought back to Nova Scotia cheaper than the freight rates on grains sent directly into the maritime provinces from the west. During the last few years we have had the benefit of a subsidized freight rate. We are very grateful for that, but I should like to ask the minister to give special attention to the practicability and desirability of using this route and these facilities to which I have referred, and to build elevators for storage, so that users of feed grain in the maritime provinces may get advantage of these facilities.


Mr. QUELCH:: What are the conditions that a nation has to meet in, order to get aid under ERP? I ask that question, because statements have appeared in the press from time to time that certain limitations have been placed upon the industrial output of some of the nations getting help. For instance, it was said that certain limitations have been placed upon the shipbuilding industries of England, and similar statements have been made about other nations. If that is true, of course it would have a direct bearing upon our trade

Supply-Trade and Commerce
with these nations. I should like to know whether or not the minister has that information.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The countries receiving ERP assistance are the countries of Europe outside the iron curtain. I can assure my hon. friend that the purpose of ERP is to stimulate production. I would be shocked to learn that any limitation on production is imposed by the program.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to bring to the attention of the committee some facts in connection with asbestos, and to ask the minister some questions concerning the matter. There are two companies, one in Calgary and the other in Vancouver, engaged in the manufacture of building materials from asbestos and cement. These companies make fireproof wall board, shingles, siding, corrugated roofing, coloured tile, sheathing, pipe, eaves-troughing, and a considerable number of other building materials, using as the chief material asbestos fibre and cement. The difficulty at the present time is that these companies cannot get the supply of asbestos fibre. They are depending for that on the two large asbestos producing companies in Canada. As I understand the situation, these companies have never actually refused to ship asbestos and so forth to these two companies. They just put them off, with the result that these building construction materials plants are forced to run very much below capacity, and at times to close down altogether. That is the situation of those companies manufacturing building materials which are in such short supply, which supply the minister has informed the house on numerous occasions he is trying to increase. The fact these companies cannot get the asbestos fibre which they need seems to me absolutely inexplicable.
I have here a copy of a publication put out by authority of the minister-in fact, one has to pay ten cents for it-which gives the figures in regard to asbestos production and exports from the country, and in 1947 production was 661,815 tons, and exports, 636,000 odd tons. In any event, exports were 96-24 per cent. These exports were made up of crude asbestos, 953 tons only; milled fibres-and it is milled fibres which these companies making these building materials require-223,693 tons; waste and refuse, shorts and so forth, of which they can use some 412,000 tons.
In spite of the fact that Canada is a very large producer of asbestos, the way the thing is running at the present time 96% per cent of all asbestos produced is shipped out of the country; and our own plants, particularly in western Canada, where we need building ma-

terials badly, and where we need industries, are unable to get a sufficient supply to maintain production.
The situation is the more peculiar, I think, in the fact that these large asbestos producers ship this material to a large extent to the United States. It is there manufacured into the very building materials these two companies make, and these materials are shipped back to Canada and sold with a consequent considerable loss of United States exchange, wdiich we are trying so hard to conserve at the present time.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the situation as far as these two companies are concerned, and as far, also, as the general running of the asbestos business goes. I understand, further, that the companies to which this asbestos is shipped, where it is made into wallboard, are affiliates or subsidiaries of big producing companies in Canada. Furthermore, at least one of these companies is now7 in the process of building a plant of its own in Montreal to make these building materials, and these two small companies in the west are a little suspicious that they are being denied a supply of asbestos so that they will not build up too big a business and be too hard to compete with when the time comes for the big companies to get their own plant in operation in Montreal. That is as it may be; I do not know. At any rate, this situation exists and it could be cured; it could be eased very readily, I believe, by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I have been writing to the minister on the matter for the last two months. On April 12 I w7rote him a letter pointing out how he could readily cure the situation, but nothing has been done about it, I have had a considerable number of letters which have produced no results. They have not got me anywhere, and it is for that reason that I raise the matter now.
This situation could be prevented, and these companies could be assured of a sufficient supply of asbestos fibre to meet requirements, simply by the minister writing a letter to the companies concerned. That would cure the whole situation-just a simple letter. Apart from that, if it did not produce results, all that would be necessary would be to refuse these companies export permits. Everything that is exported from the country at the present time requires an export permit; and if these different asbestos producers will not supply our own local companies with the asbestos they need, which is a very small amount-it would not amount to one-half or one-quarter of one per cent of what is shipped out of the country-if they are not willing, on the basis of a request from the minister,

Supply-Trade and Commerce
to supply these companies, then I am quite sure the thing could be fixed up simply by refusing them an export permit, so that the small amount of asbestos could be supplied to our Canadian users first.
The situation that exists is absolutely ridiculous. I cannot comprehend how it has continued, and I would ask the minister to explain to me why nothing has been done to correct it. I also ask him to take steps along the lines I have suggested, or otherwise to ensure that these companies making building supplies get a sufficient supply of asbestos fibre to keep them going.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot imagine what branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce would be expected to intervene in the case mentioned. My hon. friend is, I assume, an advocate of free enterprise. Why, therefore, he wants the government to step in and control asbestos for the benefit of a plant in Calgary, which surely is able to trade with another private enterprise firm, is beyond my comprehension. He is quite mistaken when he says that export permits are required for asbestos. Products in ample supply are not subject to export control and never have been. Only materials in short supply are subject to such control.
My hon. friend says that the asbestos plants in Canada have associated plants in the United States. That is not true in the case of the largest producer of asbestos and, as far as I know, that company is willing to sell to any purchaser who is willing to pay the current price of the product. I suggest that my hon. friend may explain to his friends that, since they are operating in a free enterprise country, business should be able to look after itself.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have one or two simple answers to that. This is a supposedly free enterprise country; but under the present government it is far from free in enterprise, for practically everything in the country is controlled. I am not asking the minister to control this thing. All I ask is that he write a letter. I think that would be enough-


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has a stenographer and a pen. Why does he not write a letter?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is no good my writing a letter. I have no control over the trade and industry of the country as the minister has, and a word from me means nothing. A word from him would mean a lot to these people. He knows that as well as I do. All I ask is that, first of all, he write a letter requesting them to supply these firms in the west. I am quite sure that is all that would be required. If asbestos
does not require an export permit, it is one of the few things, as far as I know', that do not. The minister says it is in ample supply. It is not in ample supply, or these companies could get it. They are willing to pay more than the market price for it, but the big supplying companies will not give it, or they have failed to give it so far.
The minister evades altogether one of the most important features of this matter, and that is increasing the supply of building materials in the country. He evades altogether the point with respect to the loss of United States dollars. He tries to circumvent it by saying: You are a free enterprise party; why don't you write a letter to the man yourself? That answer is ridiculous, and I am surprised that the minister makes it. It is a disgrace that this situation continues, and the minister will take no action to correct it. Instead, he tries to make anyone bringing up the question appear ridiculous.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It was I who suggested to you, Mr. Chairman, that the committee be allowed wide latitude, and you kindly agreed. I think hon. members have availed themselves of it and brought out a good deal of information. Many of us will not be here on Monday, and there were one or two items-


An hon. MEMBER:: Where are you going?


John Ritchie MacNicol: There are eighty-two
members who should be here from Ontario who will not be here. We have to go home to vote. If, Mr. Chairman, you think now, and the committee is agreeable, that the first item be called-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would give me a better answer than he has given as far as asbestos is concerned. So far he has given me no answer at all, I wonder if he will not give some reasonable answer on the matter. Surely I am entitled to an answer which is reasonable.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I wish my hon. friend would explain to me what branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce exercises the function that he has asked me to exercise. Under what authority w'ould I do it?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I just asked the minister if his department does not issue export permits.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We do on certain commodities.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then the remedy is simple. It is right in the minister's hands. There is no difficulty about it as far as I can see.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is my hon. friend suggesting that we place asbestos under export control, when we are using less than five per cent of our own production?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am suggesting that the minister should request these firms to meet domestic requirements before they export all the asbestos from the country. They are exporting 96J per cent, I think it is, or they did last year, 1947. Surely they could afford to export only 95 per cent and supply Canadian requirements. I just cannot see where there would be any great hardship on the minister if he were asked to put a little pressure on those companies with a view to getting them to supply Canadian requirements first. That is all that is needed. If that fails I would suggest that he put on export control and look after the matter in that way.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: The hon. member for Calgary West was asking for some information with respect to the values of the exports of Canadian goods to the devastated nations of Europe that might be expected under ERP. The minister has not given us any answers, but some figures have been given in the press. I should like the minister, if he would, to do us the honour of commenting on those figures. This was what was said in the daily press of May 14 last:
In the case of base metals and timber the Washington blueprint has given Canada a substantial share of the European requirement. There is some doubt whether this country will actually be able to supply the $157 million in timber. The United States allotment is $96 million. This country will also be expected to supply the largest bulk of the aluminum and newsprint.
I am simply referring to the fact that it is said here that the requirements which 'will be expected of Canada in respect of timber will be $157 million. A little further on, the article goes on to say:
Total allotment for fish in the Washington plan is $40 million, of which Canada is to supply only $12 million.
I wish to ask the minister whether those figures are definite, or if they are near the mark. If they are the estimates that have been in the plan, will he please give us some idea of what actually may be expected to come out of this plan?
I notice that the minister-and I referred to this a while ago-said in his speech at Montreal that this plan would involve some sacrifices here in Canada. The comment in the press is this:
There will be an attempt encouraged by Washington to obtain more and more exchange of goods between soft currency countries.

The United Kingdom has already gone quite a step in this direction and as her prodnetive capacity increases she is likely more and more to shut out Canadian markets in Europe for manufactured goods. This applies, too, to some basic food products.
If that is the sacrifice the minister is talking about, I wish he would give us some idea of what he means is the burden which would be placed upon us here and which we are expected to take our part in bearing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I can illustrate by using lumber as an example. We sell all the lumber we can produce. We have been doing that; we are doing it, and we expect to continue to do it. We get paid for that in dollars. Is it important where it goes?


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: It is important, I suppose, if all our lumber is taken. That is the point I am trying to get at. Are we making sacrifices by giving what we really can not afford to give? If we give our full supply, of course we are doing ourselves a great injustice.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. We have a certain export quota for lumber. It is something like sixty or sixty-five per cent of our total output, That is all	sold	for dollars. We	sell	all	the aluminum	that	we can produce	and	we	sell it fordollars. I	have mentioned	fish	as	a difficultitem.	As	I said in Montreal,	and my hon.
friend has quoted me, one of the rules of ERP is that soft currency countries must buy all they can from other soft currency countries. These soft currency countries produce a great deal of fish. We have been selling our fish as food and have been selling it mostly in Europe. It may be difficult, to sell that fish in the future. In other words, the fish people may have to make sacrifices beyond what they have had to make in the past. I am thinking of an item like fountain pens, and I do not know why I choose them. We have been selling fountain pens to Europe and to soft currency countries and charging up the price against the loan. I doubt very much if fountain pens would qualify under ERP, although I am not sure. Suppose they did not.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about manufactured goods?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That would be a sacrifice for the fountain pen manufacturers. It is articles of that type to which I was referring. The point I am making is that we believe the general level of our exports will stay above that of last year, and payment will be made in dollars.


William Henry Golding: Shall the
item carry?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. I still have not had an. answer from the minister saying what he is prepared to do on the asbestos matter. As far as I am concerned, there is no use in his trying to laugh it off or to do anything else along that line. I want an answer that is definite either one way or the other; I want him to say either that he will or that he will not do anything. If he will not do anything, let him say so. If he is prepared to do anything, I should like to hear what it is.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend wants me to use my influence, I suppose as a politician or a public man or something-


Douglas Scott Harkness: As Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -to do something for somebody in his constituency which I have no right to do under any powers entrusted to me, I do not chose to do it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I said that there were two companies here, one in Calgary and one in Vancouver, which are making building supplies. I thought the minister was interested in getting an increase in building supplies. That is what I am interested in. I am not interested in his using his influence on behalf of one of my constituents. As a matter of fact, the people in this concern, as far as I know, are not my constituents.


Arthur Leroy Smith: No; they are mine.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes. I do not think they are in my constituency at all. Answers along that line are indicative of the fact that the minister is apparently not prepared to do the things which I think it is his duty to do as Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, no. Do not start calling "carried." As a matter of fact, I am prepared to talk here all night and all day tomorrow on this thing, until I get some satisfaction.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Hon. members can call "carried" as much as they like, but this is a serious matter. It is a matter which affects the employment of a considerable number of people in both those cities, who work in these plants. It is a matter which affects the number of buildings which can be put up and completed in those two cities and areas. If the minister has any real interest in that sort of thing, I should think he would take the necessary means to see to it that the small amount of asbestos fibre which they require
is retained in this country. I have suggested to him two things that he might do. He is apparently not prepared to do either of them. I really cannot understand the minister's attitude in the matter. To me he appears to be obstinate with regard to this matter and attempts to turn off any responsibility by answers which are not serious. That is what it amounts to.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I have learned that I have a new constituent, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to put it in this way. We have items that are in short supply, such as nails, though I am not going to try to take the place of the hon. member for Peterborough West. We do exercise controls, some of them obvious and others not so obvious. May I ask, is there any import restriction or duty on asbestos fibre?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not at all; it is duty free. Canada is the principal supplier.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then, where may asbestos fibre be purchased other than from these plants in this part of the country? It cannot be purchased anywhere else in Canada and, as far as I know, it cannot be purchased in quantity in the United States. The minister turns this back; and a lot of the boys applauded his very clever reply when he said: You belong to a free enterprise party; why don't you write them a letter? We do belong to a free enterprise party; but we have always said that when monopoly raises its ugly head, as it has here, we will take care of it. That is what we are suggesting to the minister, who also says he belongs to a free enterprise party. He has it in his power to handle this situation, but all he is doing in his replies to those people who are trying to start a business, to provide some employment and to furnish some necessary materials, is passing them off with a smart answer and giving them no help whatever; while in this same Canada-and if we are to make it a Canada we have to trade within our own country as much as we can-we have the asbestos fibre. Out there we have the plants, but the minister will not do a single thing to help them. Nor is he even sympathetic toward these people in the difficulty in which they find themselves. That is the simple position of the Minister of Trade and Commerce right now in this House of Commons.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, let us examine this situation a little further.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Yes, I think we had better.
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is suggesting that we have several producers of asbestos in this country who have combined to prevent a plant in Calgary from getting asbestos.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I did not say that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is my hon. friend's statement. Well, we have Mr. F. A. McGregor as head of the combines investigation branch-


Arthur Leroy Smith: I did not say that and I ask the minister to withdraw that statement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You said they just did not choose to sell asbestos to this plant. My hon. friend said they were trying to put the plant out of business so their United States associates could supply the finished product.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I never said that either.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Then your colleague from Calgary East said it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, I did not. I said these firms have never absolutely refused to sell asbestos to these people. They just keep giving them the run-around by shipping them asbestos in dribs and drabs every now and then, and never enough to meet their requirements.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Did my hon. friend not make the statement that a combine is raising its ugly head?


Arthur Leroy Smith: No; I said a monopoly was raising its ugly head; and I repeat it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is the same thing, if you are speaking of several firms.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the item carry?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Not while I am on my feet, surely.


William Ross Macdonald: I thought the hon. member had resumed his seat.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I had not, but I shall.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I should like to ask the minister to make another speech now on one of the other matters I asked him about before six o'clock. At the time the import restrictions and excise taxes were put on, or while they were being debated in the house, much was said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance about the constructive side of the program for the conservation of United States dollars. I might just start the minister off by a reference

to his statement that if Canadians made the building up of United States dollar exports a national objective we should be able to balance our. trade in a matter of months. I think the committee would be interested to hear a statement by the minister as to what progress has been made with the constructive side of the dollar conservation program, how far he has gone with it and what mechanisms he has used to further this drive toward this national objective, also what he proposes to do in future to make it a reality' so that the restrictive side may be abandoned.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, Mr. Chairman, the constructive side is showing itself in the trade figures. I could give my hon. friend details, but, without doing that, I can say the exports to dollar countries are stepping up each month in spectacular fashion, while imports from dollar countries are dropping each month in comparison with the same month last year. Exports are being stimulated by a formula worked! out particularly for plants using United States content. We are limiting the United States dollars that may be spent to a fraction of what was spent last year, but allow the plant to earn additional United States dollars to pay for imports by increasing exports. The result of that program has been quite spectacular, particularly in certain industries. Several industries have arranged to manufacture and ship into the United States market in a manner never contemplated before the program was put into effect. The over-all net result is that without counting loans, I believe we are about $150 million better off in our United States dbllar balance than we were when the program was announced, which I think is the best proof that can be offered that the constructive side is operating.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister mentions S150 million without including the loan. Will he say how much of that was the import of capital and how much was earned through increased export trade?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Obviously I have not the details on the balance of payments. The investment figures would be included in the amount I gave, but I doubt very much if the investments count very much one way or the other. They were moving against us for a time; probably they about balance now. We are over $100 million better off in our trade with the United States than we were at this time last year.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: As I understand it, the minister has given us only one mechanism he has employed, namely, by giving firms which can export an additional quota of United

Supply-Trade and Commerce
States dollars so that they can buy goods to remanufacture. Does that represent the total government influence on the positive side of this program? Is the minister not following any other policy to stimulate those exports? For instance, it is suggested in the Financial Post of recent date that the government has in mind a much wider reciprocal trade deal with the United States. The particular passage I have before me goes so far as to say: "The next step unofficially announced as government policy is to negotiate a much wider reciprocal trade deal with the United States directly." I should have thought there would be something more than relief from one of the restrictions as the positive side of this policy. I would ask the minister to comment on what I have said, and to say what is proposed for the future, if he has anything in mind.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Duties are adjusted from time to time. There have been reductions on base metals going into the United States. Nothing in the nature of a reciprocal deal has been worked out, but we are stimulating trade where we can, and stimulating exports where we can. I mentioned aluminum. A very large contract was made by the Aluminum Company of Canada to supply aluminum for the United States. Our nickel companies have large contracts with the United States. Both nickel companies are expanding their production in an endeavour to meet contracts that have been made in the United States within recent months. The point is that we are stimulating exports wherever we can and bv whatever means. Our program for curtailing imports is v'orking fairly well, and a combination of the two is producing United States dollars and is tending to pull us out of our balance of payment difficulty with the United States.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I understand that the minister could attempt to stimulate exports by exhorting the Canadian businessman to try to channel his trade that way-


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have not attempted to channel trade. Our efforts have been directed to obtaining more exports.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: To the United States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: To anywhere; it is all the same.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister might appeal to the Canadian businessman, and I would approve that, to try to find sources of raw materials in Canada which had previously been imported; but I have not heard the minister
say anything about any concrete government policy that he has adopted as part of a positive program. I remember when he was stimulating building materials he had the idea of double depreciation to those who increased the size of their plants producing bathtubs and things like that. Is the government taking any steps, by way of fiscal policy, if you like to call it that, to induce Canadian manufacturers to develop Canadian sources of supply or to set up new industries to supply wants which previously were supplied by other countries? Is there no thought of some definite government policy which would be of assistance in getting additional exports, or is it simply a matter of calling the seriousness of the situation to the attention of Canadian businessmen and hoping that they will, as they probably will, do a good job? Has the minister the details of any specific things the government has done?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will examine the act under which we work he will notice that we have the power to say whether a man can have his source of supply in this country or whether he may import his raw materials or semi-finished parts. We are using that power actively. A man must show good reason why he should import before he is given an import permit. If it is possible to get what he wants in Canada he is required to do so. Naturally the demand for new products is causing new plants to open. There has been a great expansion of parts manufacturing in the country, and expansion is still continuing. Firms which are large importers are constantly looking for new sources of supply.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: It really comes down to this. The minister is using his restrictive program to try to stimulate a productive program.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: That is the extent to which there is a positive program?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I wish my hon. friend would not put words into my mouth.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I was just asking the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have given several examples of what we are doing. We are finding new markets; we are inducing shippers to find new markets and we are aiding them in every way. The point I make is that it is working. I think that is disappointing to my hon. friend, because it was freely predicted that the program would not work. But it is working;
4834

Supply-Trade and Commerce
we hope it will continue to work, and we believe that we shall be out of the restrictive phase in a foreseeable time.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: A matter of months.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There have not been so many months. When my hon. friend says there is only one way, I tell him that we are acting in many ways.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Of course the minister is quite wrong in stating that I would be disappointed if he were not successful. As a matter of fact, I would be most delighted if he were successful. I will say to him that from the beginning of the session in December we on this side were sceptical as to whether there was a positive side to the government's program to conserve United States dollars. We heard vague references made in speeches of the Minister of Finance and of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the constructive side of the program, but we have never seen it in concrete form. I was giving the minister an opportunity to let the committee know what the concrete form of this constructive policy is.
I have asked the minister these questions, but he could have avoided any questions from me by making a statement on the matter. I think I was pretty close to giving a fair summary of the whole constructive policy in the conservation of United States dollars when I said that it sounded to me like being simply the use of import restriction measures to try to stimulate production in other ways. I think we see tonight that the government have no constructive policy for the building up of our United States exchange reserve and that our suspicions right from the beginning of the session that it was just a figure of speech are borne out.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Let me deal with the same subject in another way. In January, 1947, the Department of Trade and Commerce put out a booklet on foreign trade, a copy of which I hold in my hand. That received a fine reception from industrialists and manufacturers and exporters throughout Canada. I sent out quite a number of them to industries in my district and received some nice replies. However I think I should pass on to the minister one reply that I received.
They said there were a lot of pictures of commissioners, a lot of pictures of commodities and pictures of other parts of the world, but they wanted to know if it should not go a great deal farther. They wanted to know whether these commissioners in the various parts of the world should not be doing more to see that

their products were being sold in the countries in which they were located. That presents the other side of this control business.
As the minister said a while ago, one principle of ERP is that soft currency countries should trade among themselves; in other words, they should pull themselves up by their own boot-straps, that they should go into production themselves. We in Canada, not having our full share of United States dollars, should as much as possible trade with those countries and trade would thereby be stimulated. However we cannot get into a number of the sterling area countries which are dependencies and dominions of the United Kingdom, because they have import controls similar to our own.
The suggestion has been made by industrialists that our trade commissioners in sterling area countries should busy themselves to expedite the negotiation of reciprocal trade arrangements. The minister has stated that the principle of ERP is to expand trade among countries which cannot otherwise help themselves; and I should like to know what, if anything, has been or can be done by Canada to work out reciprocal trade conventions with those countries which have shut their doors to our products.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know what my hon. friend understands by reciprocal trade agreements. AVe are a party to multilateral trade agreements worked out at Geneva.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Geneva does not shut us out from bartering, as I understand it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Canada barters frequently. Canadian firms barter with firms abroad.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: I suggest that the Department of Trade and Commerce, who are in this thing up to their neck, ought, through their trade commissioners, to perform greater service, because whatever stimulus can be given to our trade will help us to get away from controls all the faster.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I did not get an answer to my question about the statement in the Financial Post to the effect that it is now officially government policy to negotiate much wider reciprocal trade deals with the United States directly. Is that or is it not government policy at the present time?
Mr. HOAA'E: AAre hope to do it in time, yes. I am simply pointing out that there is nothing to announce at the moment.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I would ask the minister a question with regard to the recent action of the United States congress in refusing to extend their reciprocal trade agreements act for a

Supply-Trade anti Commerce
period of three years and the rather restrictive way in which they dealt with the President's powers to reduce tariffs. I have a press clipping here from Washington-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, what has this to do with the Department of Trade and Commerce? Surely we have no control over the action of the United States congress.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: This is an important matter of trade.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We know about it, but what can we do about it?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: If the minister will allow me to ask my question, which is pertinent, he may understand. This clipping, after enumerating the changes made in the act, goes on to say that if the Republican party is returned to power in the forthcoming election-


William Henry Golding: Order. That has nothing to do with this item at all.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Mr. Chairman-


William Henry Golding: Order. It is entirely out of order to read the quotation on an item of this kind.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: With great respect to you, Mr. Chairman, you have not heard my point. It is necessary for me to read the quotation-


William Henry Golding: My hon.
friend knows it is not in order to read articles commenting on anything taking place in this house.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Mr. Chairman, this article docs not refer to anything taking place in this house.


William Henry Golding: If it has nothing to do with what is taking place in this house the hon. member should not read it. It is out of order.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I must say you have got me there, Mr. Chairman. But this press clipping does not refer to anything that is taking place in the house.


William Henry Golding: Order. I would remind the hon. member that I have sat in this house for a number of years, and 1 heard the then prime minister back in 1935 insist that no article or newspaper item could be read affecting the 245 members of the house, and the then Speaker ruled such quotations out of order. How can we make any progress in dealing with this item by referring to something taking place in congress or reading an article dealing with the action of congress? I 5849-3074
submit that we have had quite a long discussion on this item of departmental administration, and I am going to ask the committee if they want to carry the item. If one or two members insist that it should not be carried, the other members of the committee have the right to say whether it shall be carried or not.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: That sounds to me, with great respect, Mr. Chairman, like a closure rule.


William Henry Golding: Order. It is much worse for one member to insist on holding up an item and getting into an argument that is not pertinent than it is for me to submit to the whole committee whether it wants this item carried or not. Surely my hon. friend can see that that is the democratic way of dealing with the business of the house.


Calvert Charlton Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, surely you cannot insist on a vote being taken when the members have not exhausted their desire to speak on this question.


William Henry Golding: I can assure my hon. friend that that has been done. When one member insists that an item be not passed the Chairman can submit the question to the committee as a whole whether the item should carry.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Mr. Chairman-


William Henry Golding: Order. I am answering the hon. member for Portage la Prairie and pointing out that that is the situation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, not only one member but several members, four or five members right here, and I do not know how many elsewhere, want to discuss this item further.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I am afraid I shall have to be the judge of whether I am unduly taking up the time of the committee. I made it perfectly plain when these estimates first came before the committee that if the minister would do what we expected him to do, and what has been done by many ministers in introducing their estimates, that is, make a general over-all statement, we would not have to go through this tooth-pulling business to extract information, and I am quite satisfied to take my. own responsibility as to whether I am unduly delaying the committee.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
Business oj the House



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair and before the minister announces the order of business for Monday, may I repeat what I said a few moments ago that on Monday eighty-two members of this house will be or should be back home voting, and since I and a number of others would like to say a word or two about some of the items in Reconstruction estimates, may I ask the minister not to call that department on Monday?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: On Monday we shall take up the budget bills, the second readings of Bills Nos. 330, 331, 332 and 333, and then go into supply and take up justice, Secretary of State, and transport.


Thomas Langton Church: What about holding over justice?


Alphonse Fournier: I have tried my best to meet the wishes of the opposition to have justice taken up on Monday. If they cannot agree among themselves, I cannot do any better.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items -were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
309.	Departmental administration, $1;096,287.
310.	Post offices, including salaries and other expenses of headquarters and staff post offices and supplies and equipment for revenue post offices, $33;044,877.
311.	Inspection and investigation, $1,337,861.
312.	Railway mail service, $15,446,980.
313.	Air and land mail services, $18,443,630.
314.	Audit of revenue, money order, postal note and savings bank business; issue of postage stamps and postal notes. $2,105,284.
Pensions and other benefits-
315.	To provide for the payment of compassionate allowances to employees injured while in the performance of their duties or to other persons injured while performing duties in any way connected with the postal service, or in protecting His Majesty's mails, or to the dependents of such employees or other persons who may be killed while so engaged; payments to be made only on the specific authority of the governor in council, $5,Uou.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 7, 1948