OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
EDMOND CLOUTIER, C.M.G., B.A., L.Ph., PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY 1948
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 11, 1948

Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. A few days ago many members, and I was one of them, received through the post office of the House of Commons a copy of the communist newspaper Combat. The envelopes containing that paper, like the one I hold in my hand, did not bear any post office mark, contrary to section 275 of the post office regulations, which reads as follows-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I would ask the hon. member to state his question of privilege.


Frédéric Dorion: I am about to do so, Mr. Speaker, but I submit that on a question of privilege we are entitled to explain why we raise the question. The section to which I refer reads:
Postmasters should be careful to postmark distinctly all letters, registered or ordinary, posted or received at their offices, and to effectually cancel all stamps thereon.
As the envelopes we received did not bear any postmark as required by the rules, we cannot identify the post office they were mailed at or where they came from.
It is stated in that newspaper that it was published in Montreal, but we cannot ascertain where it was mailed.
My point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is that our mail boxes are not rubbish cans and that they should be used only in accordance with the post office regulations.



DEBATES BRANCH-REPORT OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

James Horace King: I have the honour to lay on the table of the house a report of the civil service commission relating to the appointment of Miss M. E. Black to a permanent position in the debates branch of the House of Commons.



REPORTS OF COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGHES CLEAVER (Halton) presented the first and second reports of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and moved that the first report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Yesterday there was a question on the order paper by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) with respect to developments in connection with the possible entry of Newfoundland into confederation, and I asked that it be allowed to stand. As I understand that the Prime Minister has information to communicate to the house today, before that is done, I should like to table copies of certain additional questions that were submitted to the Canadian government by the governor of Newfoundland, and copies of the answers that were given to those questions.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I might give the house immediately the statement to which my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs has just referred.
We have been advised by the United Kingdom government that a statement is to be issued today in Newfoundland announcing that the people of Newfoundland will be given the opportunity shortly to vote in a referendum on their future form of government. Three questions will be submitted to the people: continuation of commission government for a five-year period; restoration of responsible government as it existed in 1933 prior to the establishment of commission of
Newfoundland

government; and confederation with Canada. If Ku lorm of government receives an absolute majority, a second vote will be held some time later on the two forms receiving the largest support.
I think it would be useful were I to remind the house of the recent steps preceding the present announcement. It will be recalled that last summer a delegation from the national convention visited Ottawa to ascertain what fair and equitable basis might exist for federal union of Newfoundland and Canada. A committee of the cabinet was appointed to meet with the Newfoundland delegation. Several meetings were held during the summer for the exchange of information and exploration of the many issues that would be involved1 in union. At the close of these meetings a comprehensive report was issued, copies of which were tabled early in the present session of parliament.
After due deliberation the government sent the governor of Newfoundland, for transmission to the national convention, a statement of terms believed to constitute a fair and equitable basis of union of Newfoundland with Canada should the people of Newfoundland so desire. In a covering letter under date of October 29 last to the governor, I said in part:
I feel I must emphasize that as far as the financial aspects of the proposed arrangements for union are concerned, the government of Canada believes that the arrangements go as far as the government can go under the circumstances. The government could not readily contemplate any change in these arrangements which would impose larger financial burdens on Canada. On the other hand, with respect to those matters which are primarily of provincial concern, such as education, the government of Canada would not wish to set down any rigid conditions, and it would be prepared to give reasonable consideration to suggestions for modification or addition.
The statement of terms transmitted by the Canadian government was discussed at length by the national convention in Newfoundland. The convention, however, voted 29 to 16 against recommending the inclusion of confederation on the referendum ballot. Subsequently many telegrams, bearing the names, it is said, of some 50,000 voters, were sent to members of the convention for transmission to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations requesting that the people be permitted to vote on the question.
The national convention was only empowered to make recommendations regarding the questions to be included on the referendum ballot, decision on the matter remain-
ing with the United Kingdom government. The dispatch from the United Kingdom government made public today in Newfoundland explains that-
-the terms offered by the Canadian government represent the result of long discussion with a body of Newfoundlanders who were elected to the convention and the issues involved appear to have been sufficiently clarified to enable the people of Newfoundland to express an opinion as to whether confederation with Canada would commend itself to them. In these circumstances and having regard to the number of members of the convention who supported the inclusion of confederation with Canada in the ballot paper, His Majesty's government have come to the conclusion that it would not be right that the people of Newfoundland should be deprived of an opportunity to considering the issue.
The decision to include confederation on the ballot having been taken by the United Kingdom government, the outcome will be watched with deep interest by the people of Canada. The question as to their future form of government is, of course, one for the people of Newfoundland alone to decide. Neither the government nor the people of Canada would wish to influence in any way their decision. Should the people of Newfoundland express clearly their will that Newfoundland should enter confederation, I am sure that the people of Canada will welcome them as partners in a larger Canada. Should they decide otherwise, this decision, I am no less sure, will be received with understanding and respect by the people of Canada.


Frédéric Dorion: Will the proposed arrangement addressed by the Canadian government to Newfoundland be submitted to this house before any agreement is concluded, in case the result of the referendum in Newfoundland is favourable to its entry into confederation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The answer is yes. That is part of the terms we are prepared to recommend.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Joseph Onfroy Pilon.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Thelma May Heggie May-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Molly Renetta Fry Bist.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Patricia Potter Parker.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Helen May Smith Saunders.-Mr. Maybank.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Bill No. 132, for the relief of Jean Duncan Girard.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Evelyn Sylvia Jones Bowen.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Joseph Eugene Bourbonnais.-Mr. Maybank.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. WEBB (Leeds):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I am sorry that I did not have an opportunity of sending him notice of it before the house opened. What decision has been reached with regard to the payment of funeral expenses and a pension to the widow and children of Doctor Bowie, who was shot and killed while doing his duty as a medical officer in, the employment of the Department of Veterans Affairs?
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I have been in touch with this case, and have just been informed at the noon hour that the grant to Mrs. Bowie must be placed in the department's estimates. We are therefore placing an item in the supplementary estimates for this year in an effort to speed up action in this matter. In the meantime I can assure lion, members that all steps will be taken that can be taken to make sure that the widow is not under any disadvantage.



FUEL OIL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Air. PARK MANROSS (London):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that some dealers are raising the price of fuel oil for domestic heating from 17J cents per gallon to 26 and 28 cents, will the minister make a statement as to whether anything can be done to augment the present supply so that existing contracts can be protected at present prices?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that neither the Minister of Trade and Commerce nor any other member of the government has any legislative authority to interfere with the distribution of fuel oil or to regulate the price. _ However, the good offices of the government have been exercised to see that no Canadian householder has been without fuel oil, and I think in that regard we have 5849-134-J
been successful. As far as the price is concerned, usually the difficulty lies with small dealers who took customers after the government asked them not to do so, and who did not contract for supplies sufficient to protect those customers. Those dealers must get fuel oil where they can. If there are extra transportation charges involved, the dealers must pay the charges, and I presume they must pass them on to their customers.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Good old private enterprise 1



VEGETABLES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. 0. PROBE (Regina City): I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) who is not in his seat today. If the parliamentary assistant can answer, I will appreciate it; if not, it can be taken as notice for tomorrow. Is the minister aware that certain fresh vegetables now banned from import to Canada from the United States are being flown into Canada daily from California by commercial aircraft? Will the minister explain to the house why these vegetables are being admitted when ordinary bulk vegetables such as lettuce and celery are barred from import into Canada?
Mr. R.W. MAYHEW (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance): I will take notice of the question and bring it to the minister's attention and see that it is answered as soon as possible.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. DROPE (Northumberland, Ont.):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether any control is exercised by the federal government over the distribution of nails. If so, has any order or direction been given under which priority provision has been established for government housing projects? If so, when was that order issued, and under what authority?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Under the priorities officer the department does protect veterans housing and low cost housing projects generally. That is the only priority exercised. It is exercised by virtue of the reconstruction and supply act and the emergency legislation authorized by the house last session.
Inquiries of the Ministry



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. DICKEY (Halifax):: Has the Minister of Labour any information with respect to recent communist activity in inciting unrest among Canadian seamen, and among officers, engineers and wireless operators of the Canadian merchant marine?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: In reply to the junior member for Halifax I would say that efforts have been in progress to bring about an agreement affecting the personnel of the deep sea ships. The [DOT]classes of personnel were unlicensed men and executive officers, engineers and wireless operators. The department has given conciliation service through the good offices of Mr. Justice McNiven of Regina, who for many weeks in Montreal endeavoured to have the parties concerned reach an agreement. I can only say that an agreement was reached as far as the unlicensed personnel were concerned, but unfortunately that has not been possible with respect to the executive officers, engineers and wireless operators.
I should add, Mr. Speaker, that as far as my knowledge goes, during those negotiations there was no evidence of communist activity. However, since the strike there has been picketing of ships which is hard to account for, because it is obvious that there are not sufficient officers involved to form the picket lines. This fact has led to the assumption by many people that there is a communistic activity, but I have no evidence at the moment that such is the case. I consulted the officials in charge of the R.C.M.P. and they have no evidence of communist activity other than the well known fact that the communist party has made statements in support of the strike.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. R. THATCHER (Moose Jaw):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question, of which I sent him notice earlier. In view of the unemployment in certain sections of Canada and the increased number of people on relief, has the government given consideration to paying a share of the relief costs, as was done prior to the war?


Humphrey Mitchell: 

LOANS TO OTHER COUNTRIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):: In the absence of the Minister of Finance I should like to direct an inquiry to his parliamentary assistant. On Wednesday of last week I asked the minister a question about the repayment of Canadian loans and credits to various countries. I repeated the question on Friday, when the minister said he would let me have an answer on Monday. I would appreciate it if his parliamentary assistant would bring the matter to the attention of the minister and ask if I might have an answer tomorrow.


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: The minister is absent today on official business. I shall bring the matter to his attention and try to get the answer for the hon. member tomorrow.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE-OVERPAYMENT UNDER WHEAT ACREAGE REDUCTION SCHEME

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: On February 27 I asked the Minister of Agriculture a question respecting certain regulations under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. At that time the minister indicated that he would reply at a later date. I wonder if lie is able to reply today.


Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: If I remember correctly the questions asked were the questions I stated

Inquiries of the Ministry
the other day had been referred to the Minister of Justice. As soon as I receive the final reply the question will be answered.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: I should like to repeat a question I have asked for the last two days, as to what has been done or what is the government policy with respect to the exclusion of known communists at our ports of entry. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was kind1 enough to tell me that when the Minister of Mines and Resources returned I would have an answer; but surely, sir, this must be a matter of government policy, and surely somebody can answer the question. This is Thursday; tomorrow is Friday, and then we go into next week. I should like to be sure I get an answer this week.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs):	Mr. Speaker, I did not prepare any special answer to the question, but I can say this much. The sections of the act and the regulations have been under review by the members of the government in the light of known conditions with respect to certain persons who could be described as known communists, who were believed to be coming to Canada for the purpose of exercising here activities which under the Taft-Hartley Act they can no longer exercise in the United States. The decision has been that the immigration officers are to be asked or directed to take the view that under the existing law and regulations such persons are not admissible to Canada.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then may I ask a supplementary question, to make sure I understand the position. My impression has been that we have always had the authority, by statute or by regulation, and' that there are now instructions that these shall be enforced. Is that the simple position?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The position is
simply that we have no more authority at the present time because of this view taken by the government than we had before, but that the present circumstances, known to us at this time, seem to make the law and the regulations applicable in such a way as to prevent the granting of entry to Canada to such persons.


Arthur Leroy Smith: In short, we have always had the authority but have not used it?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: We always had the authority if we had the evidence that the individual to whom it was to be applied came within the terms of the statute and regulations, and we now feel there are a number of persons with respect to whom we have that evidence.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Then I should like to a.-k a supplementary question. Has the government recently taken any steps to cancel ihe immigration permits of American communist labour leaders already in Canada?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am afraid that is a matter of departmental administration, and I would not like to speak from what is my general impression. I would wish to have that impression confirmed by the officers of the immigration branch. I will ask them for accurate information about it. I hope the minister will be in his seat tomorrow. If he is not I shall endeavour to obtain the information from his department.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You might include England; I am thinking of Pollitt.


Mr. ROWE:: In view of this question as to the entry of communists into Canada, would the minister tell us what types of communists, different from those already here, might be kept out?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I should not like to
express any opinion with respect to a comparison between individuals in Canada and those outside.



PENSION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved the second reading of Bill No. 126, to amend the Pension Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in submitting this bill for second reading I shall try this afternoon to confine my remarks to points related directly to the bill and of interest in general to all members of the house, since a more detailed examination will, I hope, be possible by the members of the select committee.
It is a biii proposing certain amendments. The general principle I think might be indicated as follows: a greater degree of compensation to those who have suffered on account of disability or death due to war services in the armed forces of our country. The bill is designed to increase that compensation and to effect other changes intended to improve the administration of the Pension Act.
Pension Act Amendment
[Stage Direction]
There is another subsidiary principle implied in the bill which was not recognized in the original Pension Act of 1916. In the middle of the old war one might perhaps guess that the terms of the original act were worked out in relation to the practice after former campaigns, campaigns in which a professional army went off, did its work, came back and was demobilized; and the scale for compensation for pension for various ranks was worked out bearing a direct relationship to the pay of those ranks when in the service.
Following 1916 the first upward adjustment of pensions was made in the year 1919. Then for the first time there came a recognition of new factors inherent in the make-up of a citizen armed force. Ever since then all ranks up to ex junior officers-here captains or equivalents-all received the same rate of pension, and all increases have been concentrated entirely upon that group of pensioners. That policy is continued in this bill.
I might say there that the proposed new basic scale of pension for disability and death is in excess of the rate being paid at the moment for captains. Following are the total numbers of awards payable at present to officers of the rank of major, or equivalent, and above. This is for both wars. The total of such officers now pensionable is 1,824 out of a total of pensionable all ranks of 199250. I might refer here to a little bit of ancient history on pensions. In accordance with recommendations of a special parliamentary committee as far back as 1919 a bonus of twenty per cent over the basic rate of pension then in force for the rank and file was authorized by the Pension Act of 1919. The cost of living index for that year was 126-5. In view of the possibility that in future years prices might recede, the committee was of the opinion that increases in pension should be in the main effected by way of a bonus to be continued until such time as the cost of living warranted its modification.
This bonus was increased to fifty per cent by the 1920 amendments to the Pension Act, and authorized in such a manner as to make the pensions for others ranks equal to that of lieutenant, or equivalent. The cost of living index for July 1920 was 150-6. The average for the year 1920 was 145-5.
The bonus as such was authorized each year until June 27. 1925 when schedules A and B of the statute were re-enacted so as to include the bonus in the basic rate of pension, and this has remained in effect notwithstanding subsequent reductions in the cost of living. The cost of living index was 119-8 in June, 1925.
[Hr. Gregg.]
Recently, questions have been asked me outside the house somewhat as follows: Is it the government's intention that this present proposed increase constitute a new basic scale of pensions, or is it intended that the increase slide up and down in direct relation to the future cost of living index?
The answer to that and similar questions is this: The government does propose in this bill an increase in the basic rate of pension and it is not intended that it should fluctuate according to the changing cost of living index.
I should like now to give the house a brief outline of the main proposals contained in Bill No. 126 to amend the Pension Act.
Amendment 1 can be dealt with by saying that it will be appreciated by hon. members that a member of the forces cannot be considered as an applicant for pension until his retirement or discharge from service is effected. After world war I some members of the permanent force were retired one day and retaken on strength the following day, and awarded pension for service disabilities. Many who served in world war II elected to serve with the interim force and continued with the active force. They have never been boarded for retirement or discharge from service in world war II. There appears no reason why their claims should not be considered, and the proposed amendment will rectify the situation.
Amendment 2: This amendment gives effect to the proclamation in the Canada Gazette whereby, for purposes of the Pension Act, the first day of April 1947 was declared as the date of termination of world war II.
Amendment 3: The amendment provides for an increase in the salary of the chairman, as recommended by the Gordon commission report of July 1946. It also provides for the deputy chairman and the commissioners.
Amendments 4 and 5: The explanatory notes are sufficient; I believe they are completely self-explanatory.
Amendment 6: This amendment provides for an equalizing increase in the scale of awards of helplessness allowance to officers of the rank of captain to lieutenant-colonel, or equivalent, inclusive, as otherwise they would have received less than the total pension payment to those of lower rank.
Amendments 7 and 8 are to provide for certain necessary administrative changes. Amendment 9 provides additional compensation to a parent. When a member of the forces died and left a widow or a widow and children entitled to pension, and in addition a dependent parent, the act provided an award of $180 per annum to such parent. In

Pension Act Amendment
1944 this was increased to $360 and it is now proposed to make a further increase to $480 per year.
Amendment 10 is a much needed amendment to meet a few special cases. I will give hon. members an example. A South African veteran in receipt of 100 per cent pension died but his widow was not eligible for an award under British ministry regulations. This amendment will establish equality for all Canadians who served with the Canadian contingents in the South African war on the same basis as those who served in world wars I and II.
In the case of amendments 11 and 12, the former is mainly administrative.
James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but on second reading of a bill only the principle should be discussed. I suggest that if the minister wishes to cover the amendments he just mention them rather than discuss them in detail.


Mr. BENTLEY:: If it is within the right of the house to give unanimous consent for the minister to continue to do what he is doing, I suggest that it be given.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I would like to have the minister proceed as he has planned to proceed, because he is doing a good job.


James Horace King: I suggest to the minister and to the house that the rules should be followed. There will be an opportunity in committee to discuss the bill clause by clause. Only the principle of the bill should be discussed on second reading, otherwise we shall be exposing ourselves to having discussion twice of the same subject.


John Horne Blackmore: Could not Your
Honour make an exception in this particular case, inasmuch as the minister is ready to make his speech?


Mr. GREGG:: I shall be glad to comply with your ruling, sir, and to resume before the parliamentary committee the giving of the information with respect to the amendments.


Mr. KNOWLES:: On the point of order, may I point out that it has been more or less agreed that once second reading has been given this bill it will be referred to the committee on veterans affairs, after which it comes back to the committee of the whole. As there is so much interest in this matter perhaps unanimous consent might be noted by Your Honour and the minister permitted to proceed.


William Earl Rowe: The Speaker's ruling is not debatable.


James Horace King: Hon. members will realize that if unanimous consent is given to do this the house will be exposing itself to a discussion of the clauses of the bill when it is up for second reading. I suggest to hon. members that as this bill is to be referred to a committee and then brought back to the committee of the whole house it would be preferable if the minister and the house would abide by the rules and discuss only the principle of the bill.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I think the situation might be met if in my further remarks I covered certain points which hon. members have in mind.
As intimated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the house on February 16, these increases will, to a greater or lesser degree, affect about 400,000 beneficiaries under the Pension Act, and with the co-operation of the house it is hoped to get the adjustment cheques in the mail by the end of this month.
The March pension cheque will be on the present scale and will be issued on the regular date. It is planned that the adjustment cheque will be a separate one and will practically be the equivalent of one month's pension. With that done as indicated, regular monthly pension cheques will be able to reflect monthly increases starting April 30 and continue in regular order from then on.
During the course of the debate last Monday the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) proposed that there should be a standing committee of the house on veterans affairs, and subsequent speakers endorsed the proposal. I know the suggestion is not a new one, but it is one which I as a newcomer would like to consider. In the light of the experience to be gained in the committee which is now set up I hope to be in a much better position to form an opinion later on in the session.
The hon. member for Weybum (Mr. McKay) stated:
Pensions and allowances still remain at the basic rate which was struck in 1926.
Actually the present pension scale was established in 1920 when a bonus of 50 per cent was added to the basic rate and the cost of living index for July of that year was 150-6.


Mr. BROOKS:: The minister says the cost of living index was 150; what was the basic year?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That was 1920.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What year was 100?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I cannot answer that question but I shall try to get the answer. The bonus was continued at the same rate until 1925 when it was included in the basic rate and it has remained unchanged.
Pension Act Amendment

The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) was satisfied that the terms of reference of the committee would be wide enough to permit all matters relating to my department to come before the committee. I have already given assurance that such will be the case. In connection with his observations relating to the present procedure of reducing pensions of veterans of world war I when examinations show a reduction in their disability, I will welcome a full inquiry by the committee at the appropriate time.
In the meantime I should like to refer to a few figures relating only to world war I. I am sure these will be of interest to the house. These include the period from January 1, 1947 to January 1, 1948 and cover examinations in Canada, a few in the United States and in Great Britain. The figures are:
Pensions increased	 2,274
Pensions decreased	 147
No change on re-examination	 2,913
Continued without change	 64,402
Total existing pensions in force as
at December 31, 1947	 69,736
During the same calendar year there were 191 new awards of pensions to veterans of world war I and 88 reinstated on pension, or a total of 279 new awards as at the end of the last calendar year.
In the course of his remarks the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) quoted figures supplied by my department regarding the number of cases wherein the Canadian pension commission had ruled an award of pension was not indicated because the condition claimed for was ruled to be pre-enlistment in origin and not aggravated during service. In so doing he stated that these men were "taken into the forces as fit and discharged as unfit." His assumption in that regard is not quite correct. The majority were not discharged as "unfit," but were discharged on "demobilization." Full details in that regard will be readily available to the members of the special committee. Every Canadian who incurred injuiy or disease resulting in disability during service is entitled to, and will receive, compensation in accordance with the assessment of the degree of service disablement as provided for in the Pension Act. That is mandatory, the responsibility of the Canadian pension commission, and is a trust which I know they endeavour to discharge with sympathy and understanding.
The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) asked about the report of the McCann committee. That report is available and was tabled in the house last Tuesday.

When the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) referred to the adjustment cheques he said: "Let us get them out now." I am glad to have the assurance of his co-operation in that regard. The staff of the pension commission and of the chief treasury officer who have worked long nights and hours of overtime in the preparation of these cheques will be gratified to know that their spontaneous voluntary efforts are so well appreciated. He also mentioned some widows and orphans of Canadian members of the ferry command "who are in much strained circumstances." I am advised all dependents were notified in writing of the provisions of part X of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act and I shall be pleased to have full inquiry made on behalf of any such case if the hon. member will send me the necessary particulars.
It was not my intention to speak at length, Mr. Speaker, but only to touch on a few of the major points relating to the bill which were brought out during the previous debate. As I stated at the close of that debate, "the record of Hansard will be studied and the points brought forward will be submitted to the committee." That discussion will not be limited. It may cover all phases of the Pension Act and of the various groups, merchant seamen, fire fighters, and so on, who are provided for in the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, which is subject, in many respects, to the provisions of the former act. I have pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in now moving the second reading of the bill.


Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the members of the steering committee of the veterans committee have more or less arrived at an agreement whereby all parties in the house will make every effort to facilitate the second reading of this bill. As far as this party is concerned we hope that the debate will be limited to one speaker, but if other speakers rise that is, of course, something that we cannot control. I assure the minister that there will be no attempt on our part to hold up or delay the second reading, because we want to see the bill go forward to the veterans committee.
The main feature of Bill No. 126 is its provision for an increase in the basic rate of pension. Other clauses of the bill are of importance, but the one in which all members of the house are most vitally concerned is the one providing for an increase in the basic rate.
I presume, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) who has introduced and is sponsoring this bill feels that

Pension Act Amendment
the increase it provides for is fair and reasonable and sufficient for the veterans. No doubt the bill has been most carefully studied by the cabinet, and therefore I take it that its provisions represent the opinion of the cabinet that this small increase is sufficient and is the amount to which the veterans are entitled. If I am wrong in that opinion, if the Minister of Veterans Affairs or any other member of the cabinet is not satisfied with the increase that is granted, we can only assume that it is the treasury board who are dictating the amount of the increase to be made in the basic pension rate.
No one will dispute my statement that this increase is long overdue. As the minister stated a few moments ago. no change has been made in the rate since 1925-26. despite the fact that today we are living in an entirely different world which has seen a huge increase in the cost of living and a great increase in the wages of all employees. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that during the war years a very large number of employees and wage earners in this country were granted cost-of-living bonus, but no such provision or allowance was made to the veterans who received a pension. I well remember when the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley), then minister of finance, announced on introducing his budget that the pension paid to a veteran would be taxed as income, and the veteran did pay tax on his pension. True in a later budget that tax was removed. But today, after all these years since 1925, no adjustment has been made in the basic rate of pension. After the veteran has been denied the cost-of-living bonus during all the war years, and after he has had to pay income tax on his pension, the Minister of Veterans Affairs now brings in a bill providing for a slight increase in the basic rate of pension which in my opinion is totally inadequate. If there are any members of the house who consider that this increase is adequate, just, fair and sufficient for the veteran, I should be glad if he would get up right now and say so. This country can well afford to pay a larger increase. When one remembers the proposals of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to beautify Ottawa and surrounding district as a national memorial to the veterans who gave their lives in world war II, one wonders how the government can undertake such an expenditure, running into hundreds of millions of dollars over the years which it will take to carry out this scheme, and yet hedge and quibble when it comes to raising the basic rate of pension. I wonder how many veterans, veteran organizations, soldiers clubs or associations have been consulted as to what kind of national
memorial we should have to the veterans who gave their lives in world war II. It has always been my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that any national memorial to the veterans of world war II should be in such a form that the veterans or their dependents would derive some benefit from it. I have suggested several times in this house that the awarding of a large number of scholarships spread across the country, open only to children of veterans of world war II, would over the years yield a return far beyond the cost and would not in any way amount to the huge sum which it is proposed to expend in order to beautify the city of Ottawa as a national war memorial.
The general public are keenly interested in this bill, and that has been indicated by the wave of protests from across the entire country after the announcement made by the Prime Minister during the session in December. Apparently the general public do not approve of this small increase, and we had to wait for nearly three months before the Prime Minister made another announcement when he raised the increase from $10 to $12 a month.
The government and all members of parliament have received many letters, briefs and resolutions protesting against this small increase. During the last two weeks members have received copies of many resolutions from municipal councils who have taken the matter up and passed resolutions urging that the basic rate for a 100 per cent disability be placed at $100.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs a few months ago referred to the way in which the increase in bonus was given in 1920 and following, up to 1925. I find in The Legionary of February 1948 an article entitled "Pension increases are not adequate", and in that article the writer sets out certain information as to how the 1926 or 1925 rate, whichever is correct, was arrived at. I should like to read a couple of paragraphs from it. First I should say that in this article the legion proposes a basic pension rate of $100 a month, and the article goes on to say:
Such a revision would be entirely equitable because it is based on the .approximate rise in the cost of living since 1926 when the present pension rates were established by incorporation of the existing cost-of-living bonus. The index then stood at 12T8; today it stands at 146. Anything less than a 25 per cent increase would simply lower the standard of living of the pensioner, who is unable to support himself by any other means, to less than subsistence level. There are indications that the cost of living will mount still higher, in which case some additional supplementation may be required later. Such supplementation, we suggest, should be in the form of a cost-of-living bonus.
2104
Pension Act Amendment

There is further justification for such an increase to be found in the wage scale of common labour. When the pension rates were established after the first great war they were based on the medically-assessed ability of a veteran to take employment in the common labour market. Thus there is a definite relation between the 100 per cent pension rate and the wages applicable to common labour. The average rate for such labour is somewhere between 50 and 60 cents per hour in rural areas and 65 to 85 cents per hour in urban areas.
A low average for the dominion would be 55 cents per hour. A monthly wage at this rate for an 8-hour day, 54-day -week, would be approximately $100. A 25 per cent increase over present rates would approximate this figure
That seems to me a very fair and reasonable comparison, and I would point out to the minister that at the time this article was written the index stood at 146. Today I believe it is over 150 and will probably go higher. I would also point out that the index as it is given out does not, in my opinion, represent the true increase in the cost of living. This article shows that wages in the common labour market were taken into consideration, and if today the minister, or whoever worked out this formula or basis for the increase, is using the same method or formula, I hope he will tell the house when he closes the debate.
I would also like the minister to put on Hansard, if he can, a table giving a breakdown of the $75 a month and a breakdown of the $87 a month showing how they are apportioned for the support and maintenance of the disabled veteran.
Among the many letters that members have received is one from the Native Sons of Canada. This letter set forth the whole problem in a plain and simple way. The letter is dated February 7, 1948, and I do not think any member of this house could state the problem any better than it is set forth here:
This is an open letter on what should be a closed question-the debt of Canada to her disabled veterans and their dependents.
The rising cost of living lias accentuated their plight and gained them the promise of a pension increase of $10 a month. But this crumb from the table of Canadian plenty is not nearly enough.
The whole approach to the problem is wrong. The veteran's pension is not a gratuity. It is the wages of war. It is the attempt to pay a debt that cannot be measured in dollars and cents-our liability for lives lost and bodies battered wherever Canada's men fought our fight. We cannot replace the war torn mind and body nor bring back life to the fallen. We cannot make blind eyes see, put back the arms and legs that have gone, heal all the wounds and ailments incurred in our defence. We cannot restore the son to his mother, the husband to his wife, the father to his children.
fMr. White (Hastings-Peterborough).]
What compensation then can we make? The very least w-e can do is to give these disabled veterans or their dependents the equivalent of their lost earning power-what as average Canadian workers they would receive in their pay envelope if war had not destroyed or diminished their ability to work. We should give these men and their families everything they would have had in the normal course of events had not the ruthless hand1 of war ripped them out of their accustomed place in civilian life in Canada.
The people of this country expect their elected representatives, before declaring a surplus and reducing taxation, to pay the debts of Canada. This is the greatest. For the honour of Canada -pay it!
One of the amendments to the act mentions the case of a widow whose deceased husband had a disability of fifty per cent or over. In such cases the widow receives a pension after the death of her husband. That is quite proper. But it has always appeared to me that there is a certain discrimination here because the widow of a veteran who had a disability of less than fifty per cent receives no pension after the death of her husband. Apparently the government has recognized liability and obligation to the widow. If so, why restrict this obligation to the widows of pensioners who had a disability of fifty per cent or over? No doubt the majority of pensioners have a disability of less than fifty per cent, and I think it is true to say that after the death of the veteran his widow then is probably more in need of assistance than during his lifetime. The only assistance which the widow of a veteran with a disability of less than fifty per cent can receive is under the War Veterans Allowance Act, and then she has to pass the means test.
I recommend to the minister that he give most careful and earnest consideration to an amendment to provide that widows of veterans in receipt of pension, with a disability of less than fifty per cent, shall receive a pension at least equal to the amount payable to widows under the war veterans act, without the means test. I would also suggest to the minister, inasmuch as he mentioned today the matter of veterans of world war I, that there should be some provision in the act to make it impossible from now on for the pension payable to any veteran of world war I to be cancelled or reduced; also an amendment by which all pensioners would receive automatic increases when they reach a certain age, irrespective of whether their disability is due to gunshot wound or not. So far as this party is concerned, Mr. Speaker, we are in favour of and advocate a basic pension rate of $100 per month for 100 per cent disability. This is no new statement on the part of this party, because it has been advo-

Pension Act Amendment
cated by our leader on many occasions and by many members in this house since the 1945 election.
With reference to the remarks the minister made about the sending out of adjustment cheques, I was not quite clear as to their import. I would ask him to state, when he closes the debate, if it is true that these cheques are now being made out and are to be sent out early in April; because if that is correct, it indicates to me that the government is firmly resolved that there is to be no further increase in the basic rate of pension.
The minister also mentioned the various scales of pension paid to privates, non-commissioned officers and junior officers as compared with the higher rates of pensions paid to the senior officers. As I pointed out only a few days ago when speaking on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, there is a tremendous difference there. A private receives $900. whereas a senior officer receives $2,700 a year; and now under the new rate the private will receive $1,044 while the senior officer will still receive $2,700. Why is there this great discrimination? Why the difference between the amount paid to junior officers and privates and the amount paid to senior officers? In world war II we found in the ranks men from every profession, station and walk of life. We found the same condition among the officers of world war II. How can the minister continue this unjust discrimination? A private may be receiving $900 a year and a brigadier $2,700; yet in civil life both engaged in the same occupation-bank clerks, labourers, teachers, or farmers. Why should we carry into civil life this class distinction which has no place in this democratic country? For I say to the minister that the payment of these large pensions to higher ranks makes it most difficult for the people of Canada to understand why (he department can approve them and yet quibble, chisel and grant an increase of only $12 a month to the privates, n.c.o.'s and junior officers. I for one am most anxious that the minister should make some explanation on this point. After all, the loss of a leg, an arm or an eye-or any other disability- should demand the same payment to the private as to the brigadier. There is no question that the private went through far more hardship than any brigadier, and each may have suffered the same pain or torture as a result of his disability.
The bill also provides for an increase in pay to the thirteen pension commissioners, $1,000 a year, from $7,000 to $8,000. The estimates tabled a day or so ago showed that the commissioners received in salaries for the 5849-135J
past year the small sum of $100,500. It is most unfortunate that the minister has seen fit in this bill to include an increase of $1,000 to the commissioners when in the same bill he is granting an increase of only $12 in the basic rate of pension. There are few in this house who will not agree that $7,000 is not a bad salary. A short time ago all county court judges in the province of Ontario received a salary of only $5,000 a year. A bill was introduced in this house by which the salary of county court judges was increased to S6.666 a year. Apparently the government thought that this was a proper and fair salary for a judge under present conditions. A judge is one who has had long experience in the law and who holds a high and important position in the community. He carries out the important duties of the judiciary which is the bulwark of democracy in our country. Even with the increase recently granted to judges, they are still below the present pay of the pension commissioners, which is $7,000; and it is now proposed to give them $8,000 a year.
In Ontario the magistrates receive from $5,000 to $7,000 a year. I think that the pay, work and responsibility of a judge or magistrate can be fairly compared with the pay, work and responsibility of a pension commissioner. Referring in this connection to the pensions advocate, my understanding was that it was his duty to protect the interests and welfare of the veteran; certainly the veteran needs somebody there to protect him. This important person, the chief pensions advocate, up until this year received the sum of $5,100 a year, but I believe there is an increase bringing him up to $5,680. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if the pension commissioners are worth $8,000, then the chief pensions advocate, who has all these thousands of cases across the country to look after, is worth considerably more than the amount he is receiving.
Up to 1944 the pension commissioners received $6,000 a year. Either at the end of 1944 or in 1945 they were granted an increase of $1,000 and were paid $7,000 for the years 1945, 1946 and 1947. Apparently the commissioners, or whoever were responsible, were able to convince the minister at that time that, owing to the increased cost of living and other conditions, they were entitled to an increase. I am not arguing about that. They received their increase. But at the same time I would point out that the poor veteran who had to bear the increased cost of living and everything else received no increase in. his pension. Now the commissioners are going to be granted another $1,000, which will make a total increase of 33J per cent over their
Pension Act Amendment

salary in 1944. How can the minister justify this further increase of $1,000 for the commissioners, and at the same time justify an increase of $12 a month to a veteran? Under the proposed new scale a totally disabled veteran will receive the huge sum of $1,044 a year; and I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that when the pension board declares a veteran a one hundred per cent disability he has to be practically dead. Yet here we are going to give the commissioners another $1,000, which is only $44 a year less than the total amount we give a one hundred per cent disability pensioner. I thick the house will be much interested in any explanation the minister can give justifying this increase, in view of the increase granted in 1945 and also in view of the miserly increase given the disabled veterans.
There are many matters which will come before the veterans affairs committee. I wish to mention only one, which was also mentioned by the minister today, when he referred to certain remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) as to the pre-enlistment condition. The minister questioned the figures the hon. member put on Hansard showing that some 85,000 young Canadians who were taken in as fit and discharged as unfit were unable to qualify for pensions. The minister thought that figure was wrong. That may be so, but I still say to the minister that there are far too many veterans who were discharged because of disability but who are not in receipt of pensions because the officials of the pension board have ruled that they were suffering from pre-enlistment disabilities which the medical officers were not able to find on enlistment. I would mention also the reaction of many applicants to the manner in which they were treated when applying for pensions. It seems to me every veteran is entitled to every consideration from the officials of the pension board. A veteran should not be shoved around and treated as a lead swinger. In far too many cases the veteran comes back from a pension board hearing embittered by his treatment, full of resentment over the technicalities that, have been raised against him, angry because no notice has been taken of the reports or findings of his family doctor or the local medical representative of the board; and even where a pension is granted, in many cases the amount is a mere pittance and not a proper recompense as far as the disability is concerned. The people of Canada are most anxious that every veteran entitled to a pension should get one, and at a proper rate.

I was very glad to hear what the minister had to say on the same point because, as I mentioned a moment ago, the public are not satisfied with the small increase in the basic pension. In every case the veteran should have the benefit of the doubt, which he does not receive today. He should be treated with respect and dignity in deference to the great service he has rendered Canada. I repeat that we of this party approve the legion brief, which proposes a basic rate of $100 per month for one hundred per cent disability.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would especially appeal to all veteran members of this house, irrespective of their party allegiance, and remind them that they have a special duty to perform to their former comrades. Today they are in a position of responsibility and have it within their power to see that a further increase in the basic rate is granted the veterans. I would remind them that veterans do not recognize race, colour, creed or political party. All veterans belong to the same fraternity. Let us who have these responsibilities not fail our former comrades whom we were so glad to have at our side in the days when the going was very tough. And remember, we may need every veteran again in the not too far distant future.
Mr. G. II. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton): Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to amend the Pension Act; to authorize, among other things, an increase in the basic rate of pension; to make statutory certain increases in the salaries of the pension commissioners and other officials, and in one or two minor details to make changes which the minister has said will increase the efficiency and wipe out some of the deficiencies of the old act.
The emergency of the present situation demands that the veterans affairs committee get to work and that this house do something with respect to increasing pensions as rapidly as possible. We are trying to co-operate in getting this bill before the veterans committee in order that they maj' make their report to the house and the bill may become law. so that these people will have some relief. I believe everyone recognizes this emergency. I think the people of Canada generally have been critical of the government for its failure to act rapidly in this matter. The rapid increase in the cost of living, particularly in the last three years, has made it almost impossible for a veteran in receipt of a pension to carry on. But in our haste to get this legislation through I think the house and the committee must be careful to see that the amounts to be paid are adequate, to see that they will really do the

Pension Act Amendment
job and make it possible for those who are dependent upon war pensions to live properly and decently, as they should.
It is not surprising that demands like these should be made, when the government has allowed the cost of living to go up by removing their controls. I understand the present basic pension rate was struck about 1926, and I think we all realize that at that time the legislators of this country believed that basic rate would guarantee a certain standard of living. But as soon as you allow the cost of living to get completely out of line with that basic pension, in effect you are completely repudiating everything you assured these people they would get. As it stands today the pension is completely inadequate. I believe the conditions which exist among the families of many pensioners right across this dominion, because of the inadequacy of the pension, are a disgrace to Canada. It is a blot on our record that these conditions should be allowed to continue to exist until March, 1948.
The inadequacy of this pension I think has been pretty well proved by the previous speaker, and I think even by the statement of the minister when he set out the basis upon which the present rates were set. As has been said already, today $900 a year is practically nothing. The increase from $75 a month to $87 a month far a one hundred per cent disability pensioner just does not mean anything. It does not meet the requests of the veterans themselves; it does not meet the requests of the veterans organizations, and it certainly does not meet the situation which now7 exists. We are hoping that when the bill as it stands today goes before the veterans committee a fight will be put up to see that the pension is placed on a proper basis, one which will meet the situation as it is today.
The government has gone on record as believing in decontrol, and therefore it would appear that it does not want to control the cost of living. If it does not, then whatever basic pension it sets can be easily upset within a few months.
The other feature we advocate and shall continue to advocate is that the basic pension be set high enough. I agree with a previous speaker who said that $100 a month for a 100 per cent disability is about adequate in March 1948. The needs of the veteran will not be properly met if we leave it at that. Some machinery must be brought into action within the act under which those who are responsible for administration can guarantee to veterans who are suffering, disabled and helpless that they will be permitted to live decently and well, and to know that they
have the form of security which the people of Canada would wish them to have.
It is necessary that there be geared to the pension some scheme by which a sliding scale would become operative, so that in the event of an increase in the cost of living the pension would automatically increase. There should be provision for either a cost of living bonus or a grant of some kind. It is our duty, and it is the special responsibility of the House of Commons, to see that those who have made sacrifices to save this country in time of war, and who as a result of their efforts are disabled, shall not suffer.
We must keep constantly in mind the needs of war veterans, discharged for medical reasons, a large percentage of whom are psychopathic cases. I believe that speaking generally the pension commission has ruled that such cases are not considered to be pensionable. Many of these veterans returned from the war suffering from nervous disorder. They have tried to carry on with their work,, but have been unable to do so. On occasions they have to lay off for weeks or months at a time, but they are not permitted to receive a pension from the government. Special consideration must be given to these cases. There are altogether too many of them, and I hope that when the committee considers revision of the Pension Act, and a revision of the regulations under which the pension commission operates, it will see to it that more is done for these deserving cases.
It is not right that men who have returned from war in a disabled condition, and who are unable to carry on in their work, should be denied a pension when it is clear that their disability has resulted from or been aggravated by their war activities. Not only are veterans and veterans organizations asking for this revision, but boards of trade, village and city councils and other organizations are stirred by the plight of many pensioners living within their midst.
It seems to me the farther we get away from war the more likely we are to forget the men who fought. In the report given this afternoon by the minister I was surprised to learn that in 1947 there were 147 veterans of world war I -whose pensions were decreased. Many pensioners of world war I who feel that their disability has increased and that they should make application for increased pensions fear that if an examination is held and they are at the mercy of the commission their pensions may be decreased. That condition should not exist.
The average age at the present time of a pensioner from world war I must be about 59 years. Surely pensioners who have suffered
Pension Act Amendment

disability from the first world war are more likely in later years to feel the effects of the disability they suffered in that campaign. Those men should not be deterred, by fear of the commission making a reduction in their pension, from making application for increases.
I believe the promise of the government is inherent in any basic pension scheme. Certain standards should be maintained. When the cost of living goes up, the promise of the people or the government is being repudiated and the pensioners are not able to maintain the standard of living to which they are entitled. If we look at it in that way we will see to it that these men are given a proper pension and some form of security which will assure to them that they, their children and their families will not have to suffer as a Tesult of their war service. I know of no other way in which that security can be guaranteed do them.
There are many other points which could be discussed and with which a committee of the house could deal when this matter is placed before it. We would like to see the bill go to the committee as quickly as possible. Naturally the committee will consist of a majority of government members, and as a result it will be difficult for members in the opposition to introduce amendments which would involve the expenditure of public money. Under the rules this is not permitted.
I can assure the government and all connected with it that we expect when the committee deals with this legislation it will bring back to the house a bill which can be considered adequate. If the bill is adequate to meet the situation, the support of this group will continue: if it is not, there will be opposition.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, in order to expedite the passage of the bill at this time, I should like to be brief in my remarks. Ever since the announcement by the former minister of veterans affairs in July last to the effect that the committee on veterans affairs would be set up at this session, veterans have hoped that the long overdue amendment to the Pension Act would be brought down. I am afraid the present bill will fall far short of their expectations.
In the first place, the increase in the amount of pension is considered too low. Second, none of the recommendations made by the committee on veterans affairs in 1946, passed unanimously-and later vetoed by the minister-has been included in the bill. Third, a

number of recommendations already made by the legion and the national council of veterans affairs have been ignored.
However, since it is desirable that the measure should pass as quickly as possible in order that the payment of these increases in pensions may be made, perhaps it is fortunate that very little of a controversial nature, in addition to the increase in pensions, appears in the bill. I should hope however that the Minister of Veterans Affairs is in a position to assure the house that this bill is not the last word in pension legislation for the present session.
All veteran organizations have urged that the increase in pension for all beneficiaries under the act should not be less than 25 per cent. The hon. member for Hastings-Peter-borough (Mr. White) quoted from The Legionary and built up a strong case for an increase of 25 per cent. Other organizations have emphasized' the fact that the increase should not be less than 33 per cent, and I have received a number of resolutions from boards of trade in my constituency urging that the basic rate for a 100 per cent disability pensioner be set at not less than $100 a month. The present bill provides for an increase of only 16 per cent and therefore falls considerably short of those recommendations.
The veterans organizations are asking at this time that the pensions of veterans of world war I be stabilized. I was glad to have the assurance of the minister that when the pension bill is before the committee a thorough investigation will be made of this whole question. I think all of us agree that it is a deplorable situation that veterans of world war I, whose average age is around 59 or 60 years, are called up before a board and told that, since their disability has decreased, there will be a reduction in their pension. Surely when a veteran of world war I has reached the age of 59 or 60 years he should be assured that no action will be taken to reduce the amount of his pension. The present rates should be stabilized as a floor and the only revisions in the future should be upward.
In 1946 the veterans affairs committee voted in favour of deleting the deadline of April 1, 1944, affecting widows, wives and children of veterans of the first great war, but the Minister of Veterans Affairs vetoed that action. It should be remembered that, after careful consideration, the committee unanimously agreed that the deadline should be struck out. I suggest to the minister that legislation should be brought down this year to take

Pension Act Amendment
care of that matter. I do not say that it should be included in this bill, because we want to get this one through as quickly as possible. The cost to the government would be insignificant, but on the other hand it would mean a great deal to many veterans and dependents who would benefit from the change.
It is also well to remember that in 1946 the committee voted in favour of inserting in the act a clause which would establish the presumption that an applicant's condition as recorded at the time of enlistment was in fact his true condition and that any subsequent deterioration be pensionable. While that received the unanimous approval of the committee, it was later vetoed by the minister. It has been argued by some that it would not make very much difference in the decisions of the pension commission. If that is true, and since various veteran organizations are keen to have such a provision in the act, I think the minister could very well see that the act is amended along that line. As I say, the members of the pension commission do not think it would make very much difference. It would give a certain assurance to war veterans if that were done.
War veterans allowances do not come under the pension administration but, since veterans who are unable to qualify for a pension have to seek help under the War Veterans Allowance Act, one might say that that act is the last resort. We feel that action should be taken this session to bring about a substantial increase in war veterans allowances and either remove the means test or permit additional income up to the amount of the income tax exemption.
I think the time has come when we should try to clarify the situation with regard to imperial veterans. Three days ago I had a case brought to my attention of a Canadian who went to the United Kingdom the latter part of 1913 because his father was seriously ill. He was living in England when war was declared and enlisted in the imperials. He was wounded and received a pension. After the war he returned to Canada and became domiciled in this country. His pension was stopped. Apparently he cannot get a pension from England, because they say he is now a Canadian citizen and that he was domiciled in Canada before the war and has been domiciled here since the war.
Apparently he cannot get any help under the War Veterans Allowance Act, because a veteran who served with the imperial forces must have served in the second world war to obtain a veteran's allowance. It is contended
that this man was not domiciled in Canada at the time war was declared, having gone to England a few months before. They stop his pension in the United Kingdom because *he was domiciled in Canada before the war, while in Canada they take the stand that he was not in Canada when war was declared. This man seems to fall between two sections. I bring this case to the attention of the pension authorities in the hope that the matter may be clarified. I hope that we shall be able to give the imperials a better deal than they have been given in the past.
I am not suggesting that blame rests with the Canadian government. I believe suggestions have been made by the Canadian government that they would be willing to give certain benefits to imperials if similar benefits were given to Canadians in England. That is, they are willing to act on a reciprocal basis. In the meantime, these imperials have to suffer. As I have said already, I want to expedite this bill and therefore I shall make what comments I want to make when the bill is in committee.


Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley) :: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word in connection with this bill in order that it may not be said 'that private members on this side of the house are not interested. I want to compliment the two previous speakers upon having approached this subject in a nonpartisan manner. I passed up a most important meeting this afternoon in so far as I was concerned, in order to be here to express my opinion on this bill. I want to say to the house, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I consider it our duty to see that this bill gets to the committee immediately. However, I want to say that I do not think the bill goes far enough; it is not adequate.
In my opinion the best speech that has been made on this matter during this session was that made by a non-veteran, the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Gibson). The hon. member said that if we in Canada could find the sinews of war and the sinews of peace; if we were able to pay the interest on bonds bought by those who stayed at home, surely it was no alibi to say that we could not afford to pay an adequate pension to those who fought and gave so much for their country.
The bill goes a long way but I do not believe it goes far enough. There is one thing about the bill to which I object strenuously. I am not here to criticize the salaries being paid to the commissioners because I believe the labourer is worthy of his hire, but I do not think this or any other government
Pension Act Amendment


Mr. PROBE:: Are you sure of that?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am sure of it, and a higher percentage of veterans living within our province.


John Oliver Probe: That is a different matter.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not want the people to think the private members of this house from British Columbia sitting on this side are satisfied with a $12 increase in the pension for a totally disabled veteran. I do not want the veterans of Canada to think we are satisfied with the present situation of the war veteran's allowance, with its means test. If the war veteran's allowance means anything, why apply a means test to a soldier who has reached the age and circumstances that entitle him to the allowance? That is something I cannot understand.
I believe that the veterans committee can do great work, and in closing I wish to pay a tribute to the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) who got up in his own branch of the legion in Kamloops and said not to blame the members from British Columbia who sit on this side of the house but that pension and allowance increases should be decided by the

house on an absolutely non-party vote, with each member free to express his own opinion. Anything that pertains to party should be left out of such a question, which should be decided entirely on its merits.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that it is desirable to send this bill to the committee on veterans affairs as soon as possible and I shall therefore take but a moment to express my views.
Looking at such a bill, one thinks generally in terms of dollars and cents, whether we can afford to take chances in taxing the people in order to pay higher pensions and allowances. I say that may be the general way of viewing a measure of this kind, but that is not how I look at it. I view it on the basis of what I consider a very valuable principle, and the principle I have in mind is that any individual who, in time of war, volunteers in His Majesty's forces and offers his life for his country and is fortunate or unfortunate enough to serve in an actual theatre of war, should be guaranteed, upon his return to civil life, economic security for the rest of his life in return for offering his life for his country.
What I am going to say I say upon my own responsibility. But holding that principle, I say that a volunteer who serves in an actual theatre of war should be given, for the rest of his life, a pension which is at least equivalent to the average income of a Canadian citizen. That is perhaps a very wide view to take; perhaps it is extreme, and it is quite likely that someone will take out pencil and paper, do a little figuring, and then say, "Hansell, that is beyond all reason." But my answer is this: Is Canada able, through its productive machinery, to produce enough to distribute to every veteran the equivalent of the average income of Canadian citizens? That is how I analyse the question, and I believe that Canada can do just that.
I make this further suggestion, and I do it in all seriousness because I believe it is a vital one. I believe that any individual who volunteers in His Majesty's forces and serves in an actual theatre of war should, upon his return to civil life, be exempt from all taxation. That may be a new suggestion; I do not know whether it is or not. But it does seem to me a preposterous and a very selfish thing that these men, after facing shot and shell, should, upon their return, be taxed mainly perhaps for the purpose of paying for the war which they helped and fought to win. I make that suggestion, I say, in all seriousness. I say these returned men should be absolutely exempt from paying income tax and all other taxes,-except perhaps in cases where they have

Pension Act Amendment
investments other than their homes. That is a suggestion which I hope the veterans committee will take into consideration, and with these words, Mr. Speaker, I take my seat.
I have some convictions on this matter. It is no light thing for a man to offer his life for his country. I had three members of my own family do so. I am not boasting at all, but it is no light thing, even for those who remain at home, to go through the strain and stress and worry of not knowing what will happen to these young men as they serve in an actual theatre of war. This country is vast enough and wealthy enough and has potential production enough to offer such men security for life, and in that case I go so far as to say that much of our veterans affairs department could be scrapped. There would be no questions asked. All you would have to do would be to look up the two conditions required: Did they volunteer their lives? Did they enter an actual theatre of war? You would not need a pension commission for that. You would simply need a good clerk to look up the record, and instructions would then go forth.


John Horne Blackmore: And you would not need any psychiatrist.


Ernest George Hansell: No psychiatrist, no means test, nothing of the kind.


An hon. MEMBER:: No parliamentary
assistant.


Ernest George Hansell: Perhaps you could do away with the parliamentary assistant and perhaps with parliamentary committees. I am not saying there would not be a great deal in connection with the administration of veterans affairs, because there would still be those who did not volunteer; there would still be those who did not see an actual theatre of war, and you would still have to conduct the veterans affairs department. But as regards those who volunteered and faced death, to them belongs a life of comfort from now on.


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak in this debate, but I must rise and express opposition to the unsound proposals made by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell). I am quite sure that the men who served the country did not serve in a mercenary spirit and do not want to be treated for the rest of their lives as mercenary troops. I believe that the men, and the veterans organizations that represent them, want to see that those who were injured receive adequate compensation. They want to make certain that
those who returned from the war shall have an opportunity to earn a decent living and obtain their security in that way. I also believe that they want the dependents of the veterans to be well cared for. Because of that, I support the remarks made by the various speakers this afternoon in relation to this bill. I will not repeat what many speakers have said. I think that is unnecessary. I believe, however, as the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) has pointed out, that this bill does not go far enough, and I trust that when it goes before the veterans affairs committee we shall be able to secure some further amendments to this bill.


James Horace King: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that the house would prefer that the various points raised by hon. gentlemen this afternoon should be studied carefully in detail when they are brought before the veterans affairs committee, but there are one or two points, as brought out by several hon. members, to which I should like to refer. One hon. member stated that veterans with 100 per cent disability were helpless, and another said that a 100 per cent pensioner is practically dead. I should like to correct that at once.
I happen to have an outline which bears on that; and of the high disability cases, including the 100 per cent, registered with the department, there are actually employed .11 per cent. I am not saying that is full-time, year-round employment, but they are employed at some times during the year. There are 34 per cent on treatment or under training for employment, five per cent unemployed, and seven per cent not accounted for.
I wanted to refute immediately the impression given that the high disability pensioner was a helpless case. It is not so.
Several hon. members spoke with regard to the incorporation in this bill of an increase for the chairman and members of the pension commission. The only comment I wish to make is that, before I entered this chamber, for the past two or three years, as hon. members know, there has been going on in all government departments, in co-operation with the civil service commission, under a special committee, an investigation into salaries from top to bottom, and that recommendations in this regard were not confined to my department but have been general. This was part of the whole and was partly put into effect, I believe, a year ago.
The hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White), if I understood him correctly,
Pension Act Amendment

made the statement that many pensioners' widows did not have a pension. All widows are pensionable when the death of the husband is attributable to his pensionable disability.
I think, Mr. Speaker, I should like to leave the case there for the present and carry it forward to the veterans affairs committee.


Mr. GREEN:: May I ask the minister a question? In his earlier remarks he questioned the figures I gave on Monday with regard to men who have been ruled out in their applications for pension on the ground that they had pre-enlistment disability. I could not hear distinctly what he said, but I believe it was to the effect that not all these men had been discharged from the forces on medical grounds. I should like to know whether that was the statement. If it was, could the minister tell us how many of these men were discharged because they were medically unfit? In that connection, I would point out to him that in each one of these cases-


James Horace King: Order. The minister has closed the debate.


Howard Charles Green: But I must clarify the question, Mr. Speaker. In each one of these cases there is admittedly a disability, and it is not a post-war disability, but the disability which the commission says existed is based on a preenlistment condition.


Milton Fowler Gregg: In my earlier remarks I did not question the quotation of the figures but rather the implication in the hon. member's statement on Monday, that all these veterans came out because they were unfit, whereas the great number of them came out under general demobilization. I will undertake to get a breakdown of those figures.


Howard Charles Green: But it is a fact, is it not, that the rulings against these veterans in each case were based on the fact that they were suffering from a pre-enlistment condition?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I think I may be right in saying no, but I will check that.


Howard Charles Green: The minister will find he is ibsolutely wrong if he checks up the statement.	,


James Horace King: Order. We are not in ."ommittee. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the special committee on veterans affaire.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, Februaiy 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, to authorize the board to provide pensions for members, officers and employees and to make provision for the increase of the fixed minimum price on wheat deliveries; to extend the control of interprovincial movements of wheat products and to empower the governor in council to extend the present system to oats or barley.
And the amendment thereto of Mr. Ross (Souris).
James Horace King: There is before the house an amendment moved by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), on which I desire to give a ruling. The amendment deals exclusively with procedure; it does not challenge the crown's recommendation for amending the Canadian Wheat Board Act. It is, however, lacking in a very important requirement. It proposes in the first paragraph to strike out certain words, but it does not say that these words are part of the resolution. Moreover, paragraph 6 of the amendment reads as follows:
That the words "Canadian Wheat" be substituted immediately before the word "board" in the third line of the resolution.
The word "substituted" is not the legal expression here, because a substitution cannot take place unless a certain thing is put in the place of another. On these two grounds alone, the amendment could be ruled out, but I shall not do so since I think the house is able to understand what the hon. member really had in mind. The amendment should not be turned down on mere technicalities. It purports to suggest that the governor general's recommendation, if accepted, be embodied in three bills instead of one.
The division of a bill into two or more bills may be permitted under our procedure, as may be seen in Bourinot, page 298 and May, page 530. It seems, however, that there are serious objections to doing this by amending a money resolution on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair for committee of the whole on the resolution. The house decided on February 16 to resolve itself into committee of the whole at a future date to consider the resolution which it is now proposed to amend. This decision precludes amendments to the resolution at the stage it is now in, because it mud be considered by committee of the whole in the very words in

Canadian Wheat Board Act
which the house orders it to be sent there. An amendment of such a wide import as the division of the proposed bill into three bills should not be moved with the Speaker in the chair after the house has already ordered consideration by the committee of a resolution recommending only one bill. The main object of the resolution is to approve the expenditure involved in amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. On that, a general debate may take place, and if the resolution is carried, it will be time to consider under proper procedure whether the expenditure should be embodied in three bills.
There are many precedents to justify this opinion. Beauehesne, third edition, reports at page 551 that Mr. Speaker Glen decided on February 19, 1941, that: "On the motion that the Speaker leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee to consider a money resolution, it is out of order to move an amendment to the resolution." He gave a similar ruling on February 23, 1942.
I have come to the conclusion that the amendment is out of order.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that our proposed amendment is a practical matter of modern common sense. I understand that your ruling is not debatable. If that is the case, I must respectfully appeal from it.
Mr. SPEAKER put the question as follows:
The question before the house is an appeal from the Speaker's ruling. We had before the house a resolution proposing to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) moved an amendment, which I declared out of order. I based my ruling on a ruling given by Mr. Speaker Glen on February 19, 1941, which may be found at page 551 of Beauehesne, third edition, and a similar ruling on February 23, 1942, that on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee to consider a money resolution it is out of order to move an amendment to the resolution. From my ruling the hon. member appeals.


Mr. JEAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain Your Honour's ruling.
(Translation):


Mr. BONNIER:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Bruee (Mr. Robinson). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain your ruling.
(Text):
Mr. RENE N. JUTRAS (Provencher): Mr. Speaker, I am mindful of the fact that the resolution now on the order paper has been there for quite a few days. Therefore I shall do my utmost to stay within the terms of the resolution and not deal with anything which is not strictly relevant to the matter. I must, however, express my regret that it had to be a rural member from my own province who in his effort to test the strength of the government, further delayed the resolution. I shall do my best in my most humble way to make up for any time lost by not referring in any way to the amendment which, until this time, has been before the house.
May I refer particularly to the first part of the resolution which contains these words:
... to make provision for the increase of the fixed minimum price on wheat deliveries.

With respect to that part of the resolution, may I quote what was said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), as reported at page 1677 of Hansard, where he sets the matter out clearly and concisely. These were his words:
It is the wish of the government that, if prices continue strong, the advantage shall not be withheld from the producer, and that steps shall be taken to pass on the benefits as quickly as the circumstances m'ay warrant.
And again, elaborating on this point, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said, as reported at page 1719:
We should be in a position, Mr. Speaker, not only once a year but at any time throughout the year, if the operations up to date have given them sufficient cash with which to make payments to the farmers-whether it is in the summer, in the winter or any other time-to determine that they are in a position to make those payments.
I think the principle of not mentioning the exact amount in the bill is a good one, and for many reasons. For one thing, it will eliminate a good deal of misunderstanding in the house. Every time a vote is asked on such a measure many members who are not fully familiar with the resolution, or the bill, are under the impression that they are actually voting money for western farmers, whereas, as a matter of fact, they are not voting any public money to anybody.
That is exactly the position now; and I think it should be made clear to all members that when they vote this amount they are not voting public money. I am referring to the initial price. From remarks made to me from time to time, I know this is a misconception common to many members. One cannot blame them, because they are told they have to vote for a certain amount of money to be paid to the western farmers when, in actual fact, they are only giving power to the Canadian wheat board to pay out another few cents, or some specific sum of money, which belongs to the farmers. For that reason, if for no other, this measure must commend itself.
Furthermore, the procedure of always coming back to the House of Commons causes endless delays in placing the money in the hands of the farmers. The principle involved is much the same as that in connection with the payment of dividends by a crown company. Naturally the commission or the administrators are the ones who know whether the financial position of the board or commission is such as to enable it to pay out any amount. What actually happens is that a payment is recommended. It is only right that if money

Canadian Wheat Board Act
is to go to the farmers the board should have authority to pay it out, as the minister said, whether the house is in session or not, whether it be in the summer, the spring or any other season.
So this is a much more expeditious method of dealing with -the matter, and one which is more practical. One must add that in the past, under the board which sat in 1935, and until 1943, it did happen that during certain years the initial price represented an amount of public money. In those circumstances there might be some justification for the view I have described. At the present time, however, no public money whatsoever is involved in these payments, and I think the giving of these powers is a practical method of doing things. May I commend the minister for having taken that step.
Without making further comment, may I refer to the third part of the measure which empowers the governor in council to extend the present system to oats and barley. Here I should like to quote the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce who, I think, sets out the matter concisely. He said:
The government is prepared to take whatever steps lie within its power to assist in establishing marketing arrangements that will help to maintain economic and stable prices for Canadian agricultural products. The government must, however, be satisfied that any given scheme for this purpose is a practical one, a constitutional one, a workable one. and one that will command the support of the interested groups concerned.
I think that statement sets out clearly the intention of the government and in a concise way it answers most of the criticisms. Most of the criticism can be divided into two main parts. First, it is charged that this measure is just a political manoeuvre and that the government has no intention of enforcing or promulgating it. The other criticism is that the powers granted by this bill are so compelling that the government is thereby imposing its views upon the farmer, whether he wants it or not.
As I say, I think the minister answered the first part of this criticism when he said that the government was prepared to take whatever steps lay within its power to assist in establishing marketing arrangements that would help to maintain economic and stable prices. In connection with the other point, I think it is important to trace the history of this demand throughout western Canada.
This is not a demand which started yesterday or the day before ; it is a demand which has been evident for the last thirty-five years. As a matter of fact, all governments, Liberal
and Conservative, have at one time or another had some kind of a board. We have had monopoly boards; we have had voluntary boards, and there have been periods when there were no boards at all. There is evidence throughout our history of a constant pressure by farmer organizations on provincial and federal governments to have some kind of marketing arrangement which would help to stabilize prices and conditions in Canada.
This is most important when we consider the charge that the government is trying to force something on the farmer. I think history shows clearly that the government has simply been acceding to growing demand. In 1917 we had a monopoly board. That was known as the board of grain supervisors, but in effect it was a wheat board with monopoly powers. Two years later, in 1919, we had another monopoly board. I think that board was really the origin of the Canadian wheat board. Those two boards were set up for entirely different purposes.
The next year, in 1920, there was no board. This parliament passed an act for the continuation of the 1919 board but it did not come into force. Immediately after the opening of the grain exchange in 1920, prices started to fall, and in this connection I should like to quote from the marketing service of the Department of Agriculture. The average price for 1919-20, the last year of the period when there was no open market, was $2.59. The next year it dropped to $1.99. In 1921 it dropped to SI.34; in 1922, to SI.10, and in 1923, to $1.04.
As prices fell, there was an increasing demand for the re-establishment of a marketing board for western wheat. In 1922 this parliament again passed legislation, but that legislation required that at least two of the three western provinces should put through concurrent legislation. As we know, Alberta and Saskatchewan did pass enabling legislation, but Manitoba did not. It is interesting to note that a resolution was moved in 1922 in the Manitoba legislative assembly, and I quote from the journals of that assembly for that year as follows:
Whereas, there is general dissatisfaction with the present system of marketing grain;
And whereas, the deplorable condition of the agricultural industry in this province is such that it demands the attention of the federal government to the need of national marketing of wheat and other grains;
Therefore, be it resolved, that this legislature urge upon the dominion government the necessity of re-establishing the Canadian wheat board under the former management, with wide powers to sell wheat and other grains.
Even then the demand was for a board to handle wheat and other grains.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Arthur Leroy Smith: The hon. member stopped about 1923 in giving the prices. Has he the prices for 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928 and 1929? Did the price not go up from then on?


Mr. JUTRAS:: Yes, but I was referring only to the period when prices fell because, as prices fell, the demand for a board grew from year to year. I was not quoting comparative figures; I merely wanted to show that during the four years immediately after the re-opening of the exchange prices fell rapidly and that during that time there was heavy pressure from farmers throughout western Canada for the re-establishment of a board.
I had referred to what happened in 1922. In 1923 the three provinces and the federal government found that there was no competent man available to manage the board and the whole matter was dropped for a while. As hon. members know, from then on we had voluntary co-operative marketing measures, but in 1929 the government was again brought into the wheat business because the three western provinces had to give financial assistance to the pool. In 1930 we had the first instance of the government trying to stabilize the market. I am sure that all members are familiar with the pool selling agency under the management of Mr. John I. McFarland. Without going into the success of that movement. I point out that this is where the government initiated more or less the movement to stabilize marketing, and it was done under very heavy pressure from western Canada.
In 1935, after a change ot government, a government bill was introduced creating, in effect, a monopoly board. The bill was referred to the agriculture committee, and the clause in the bill giving the board a monopoly of all grain handling was changed from a monopoly or compulsory board to a voluntary board. Here then starts the dual system of a board handling the wheat, along with sales on the open market. It is interesting to note that the minimum price set by the board was 87| cents a bushel Fort William, while the average market price on the exchange-I am referring to the cash closing price of the day, as given by the publication from which I have just quoted-was 84 cents, or a difference of 3J cents in favour of the board.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Is that a weighted average, having regard to deliveries per month or just a flat average?


René Jutras: It is the flat average cash quotation.
In 1936-37 we started the year with a board, but shortly after the beginning of the crop

year the board, in effect, went out of existence because, while its price was 87| cents only if the market fell below 90 cents, the market, shortly after the crop year opening, went over 90 cents and the board marketed no wheat at all.
I draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce to an interesting little incident that occurred in 1936-37. The board's price of 87| cents was effective only if the market fell below 90 cents. The decision of the government was announced on August 28; but early in the crop year, in some cases by August 1, some farmers had already sold their wheat to the w'heat board. Actually they had sold 617,655 bushels to the board. So that the board and the government gave them the choice of buying the wheat back or accepting the difference in price. Most of the farmers naturally bought their wheat back from the board and sold it on the open market, and in that way the treasury lost $49,574.88. The only reason I mention that is that it is a nice precedent for the government to follow in connection with what happened last October. I agree that there was some difficulty in the government announcing its decision very far in advance. However, it was announced in October and, as a result, many farmers lost large sums of money. I fully realize that some of the companies are endeavouring to pay back a certain amount of what the farmers lost in that way, but if the minister were to ask the treasury to assume a substantial loss this time I am quite satisfied that such a late announcement would not occur again in the future, but the announcement would always come by August 1. In my district particularly, our crop year is early, one of the earliest in Manitoba. We always harvest very early in August, and sometimes in late July, so that any government policy needs to be announced not later than August 1 to meet our requirements. I hope the government will do something about making good the loss that was taken by a great many farmers in my district last fall.
I now come to 1937-38, when we had the smallest crop in history, so that there was no marketing difficulty at all and no board required to take care of the crop.
In 1938-39 there were political uncertainties in Europe and we had a world-wide surplus, so that in that year the board took all the wheat. The board's initial price being 80 cents, and the average market price being only 62 cents, all the farmers sold to the board, getting thereby 18 cents more a bushel.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


René Jutras: Mr. Speaker, just before six o'clock I was attempting to prove two points. The first was that this demand for a marketing agency such as the wheat board, to market wheat more particularly and also coarse grains, was a demand which had grown constantly and persistently over the last thirty-five years. A further point was that this demand is not the result of prejudice but rather the result of more generous financial returns through the board than through any other agency throughout that period of time.
At six o'clock I had reached, in the analysis of the various years, the years 1939 and 1940; and I showed that the board, before the crop year 1939-1940, was able to pay out six cents more than the average market price. In 19401941 the board again marketed most of the wheat, although it was on a voluntary basis, and was able to pay two cents more than the average price. Again in the crop year 19411942 the board marketed 44 per cent of the crop of wheat and the trade 56 per cent of that crop. For that year the board paid a minimum price of 85 cents, while the average market price was 76 cents, and therefore the average price was nine cents over the average market price. In 1942-1943 the board marketed 68 per cent and paid out $1.02 a bushel, with a participation certificate, as against an average price on the market of 94 cents, which means that the board was able to pay eight cents more than the average price on the market.
In that, I believe, lies more or less the reason for this demand in favour of the board. I think it can be said that at the present time there is probably 100 per cent of agreement among farmers for a wheat board, not necessarily a monopoly board, but for a board to handle rvheat. I have not seen any resolution contrary to that.
We come now to the year 1943-1944. During that year we returned to a monopoly board. However, I wish to point out that a drastic and fundamental change took place in the wheat board in 1943. On September 27, 1913, the government itself assumed the primary responsibility in connection with wheat and the price and condition of sale. These three became directly subject to government policy. Furthermore, during the war, the wheat board acted more or less as agent of the wartime prices and trade board. In other words, it carried out many functions for the wartime prices and trade board. I would say
here that the sooner the board is relieved of these duties and removed entirely from them, the better.
So that actually this demand, if it is not the demand of an over-all majority, is neither the demand of just a few. This demand is not merely the result of prejudice but the result of better returns which the board was able to show. However, there have been many changes in the board since the first board that was set up in 1917. Therefore it is important, I believe, that the extension of the powers of the wheat board today to include coarse grains, oats and barley, should be viewed in the light of the wheat board as it is at the present time. I do not think we can say that we have yet received a conclusive expression of opinion from the various groups in western Canada on the inclusion of coarse grains in the wheat board as it exists today.
I have noticed, from resolutions, letters and telegrams, that a great many think of the wheat board as it was in 1935, and a great many think of the wheat board as the agent of a price-setting agency. There are others who think of the wheat board as it is today, and that is indicated in a great many resolutions. Therefore I do not think that at the present time we really have any definite or conclusive expression of opinion on this subject.
For myself, I wish to make it quite clear that I consider it most important that, whatever is done, the wheat board, which has always been known as and, in fact, always has been the marketing agent of the western farmer for his wheat, should retain that characteristic, no matter what happens. For that reason I think the best thing to do at the present time would be to give an opportunity to all groups, cooperatives, pools, farmers' organizations and the trade, to discuss this question in the light of present circumstances. I think it would be the logical thing to refer the whole matter to a committee here, so that all these people would have an opportunity to express their views on the subject. The reason, as I have said, is that the board has gone through many transformations over the last thirty years.
I do not propose to add very much to that, except to say that I think the government is wise in submitting the bill now and proceeding in the way it is doing. I am sure that everyone will have to agree that, no matter how we look at it, it is the most democratic way in which the subject can possibly be dealt with under present circumstances.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr Speaker, I made a note of the second last thing which the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) said, and that was taking averages and showing the difference in the price
Canadian Wheat Board Act

paid by the board, I mean to the advantage of the board, and the average market price paid by private concerns. I am glad he said that, because all that we on this side have ever said is that we believe in a wheat board, but we believe in an alternative system of marketing. If the wheat board can pay more money than the other concerns can pay, then the wheat board will get the business and justify its existence. So that the hon. member, in having given the figures he has in favour of the wheat board-which I favour and which we all favour-is in this position. If the grain trade cannot pay as much, they will not get any grain. But let us have both and give the farmer an opportunity of choice.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that neither you nor any other hon. member will think I am setting myself up as an expert in the marketing of grain. Frankly, I do not think such people exist. The changes which have taken place in circumstances throughout the world and throughout this country in the last number of years have made all persons who make prophecies look rather foolish. In short, the position is this. We are living in a world where things are now changing infinitely more quickly than they did in times gone by. Therefore the value of precedents has been narrowed or cut down in view of these fast-changing conditions. Tonight I intend, with the information which I have, to discuss all methods of the marketing of western grains; that is, of wheat and coarse grains. I will say nothing about flax or rye unless my C.C.F. friends to my left want to know something more about rye. They changed that the last time I was on this subject, but I have no intention of dealing with it unless they, in the exuberance of their verbosity and, may I say it kindly, of their ignorance of the private marketing of grain, suggest it. I have no intention of touching upon rye.


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member and I hope he will forgive me for doing so at this moment. But the hon. member realizes that we have before the house actually a resolution to go into committee of the whole which precedes a bill. In other words, the hon. member knows that whenever we have a money bill it must be preceded by a resolution. At this stage the discussion should be on the principle of the resolution. I wanted to intervene at this moment because, if I permitted the hon. member to discuss the opportunity to have a wheat board, the function of a wheat board, the marketing of grain and so on, I would be obliged to permit all other hon. members to do so if they wished, and we would probably have

a repetition of debate on the second reading of the bill. So I would ask for the co-operation of all hon. members on both sides of the house in abiding by the rules, so that we may proceed with the business of the house. At this stage we should discuss only the principle of the resolution which is before the house. When the bill is introduced, hon. members knowing what is in the bill and knowing that on second reading they can also discuss the merits of the bill, it will be possible for a more general discussion to take place. But I do not think at this stage I should permit a long discussion on the opportunity of having a wheat board, prices of grain and so on. I should like to have the co-operation of hon. members in order that we may proceed with the business of the house.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Turning to the resolution itself, Mr. Speaker, at the bottom of page 6 of the order paper I find the following:
Resolved that it is expedient to present a bill to 'amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
I intend to talk about nothing except the act and the amendment brought down in this resolution which seeks to amend the act. That being so, with the greatest respect and deference, sir, may I say I shall not depart from that and speak of anything except the amendment of the act. If perchance I, in my enthusiasm, do depart from it I hope that you will immediately interrupt me.
I repeat that I do not set myself up as an expert in the marketing of grain, but it is a subject upon which I have necessarily gained some information. I was born into the problem. My mother's parents occupied a homestead in pre-emption in the district of Foxleigh some twelve or fourteen miles north of Regina. We had no problems then about drought. Our only worry was early frost. Thanks to the research of a number of people, we have been provided with kinds of wheat which mature earlier, and the frost problem has not been a real one for a long time in western Canada. From that farm wheat was produced. It was No. 1 hard in those days. Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 northern had not, I think, yet been found at that time. I am not suggesting for a moment that we should revert to those days; but it is a fact that my grandparents on my mother's side from that half-section and with fifty-cent wheat, which was teamed twelve or fourteen miles to an elevator, were able to retire in Regina, build a little cottage and live there until they passed on.
Following on with the history-I hope the house will remember, because I am anxious

Canadian Wheat Board Act
that they should see this position-may I say that at that time line elevators, so-called, were not the prevalent places to which people went to sell. In the towns there at that time there was a country elevator; there was one which was owned perhaps by a grist mill and one perhaps owned by somebody else, to provide some opposition in the purchase of wheat.
Then we went to another stage, and I say this, because I think one should present both sides of a problem. I make this statement which will completely satisfy my hon. friends to the left, the C.C.F., because they know my attitude with respect to private enterprise, individual enterprise, or whatever you care to call it. We then had an agitation among the farmers-that was in the twenties-that they should join together and do something. That was done. Why was it done? I say this to the grain trade. It was done because of unfair practices carried on by the line elevator companies, particularly in connection with what we called street prices. Street prices were the cash prices paid for wagon loads or anything less than a carload, as grain was delivered to those elevators.
I could mention another instance where there was an agitation which brought results in connection with farming. That was not so much in reference to prices, but in regard to the conditions under which farmers purchased their implements. I have been practising law since 1908. I remember one of the jobs I had with a very large law firm; I was ashamed of myself then and I am still ashamed. The contracts under which farm implements were sold at that time contained some very fine print, which at my present age I could not read even with the aid of the largest magni-fj'ing glass in the world; and I was engaged in taking back implements from farmers who did not pay, who were perhaps unable to pay, implements which, in the early days of the introduction of tractors, perhaps were not worth paying for anyway. So another agitation arose. The result was that in Saskatchewan you had and still have what they call a statutory contract, while in Alberta it resulted in the passing of the farm machinery act to remedy the evil.
The point I make is that in those days movements like those grew. In any big movement in Canada, be it in agriculture, labour or anywhere else, if we probe to the bottom, no matter what names we may call individuals we shall usually find a sound reason behind it. Again I credit my C.C.F. friends that, on the economic side of the picture, their movement was born in grief, trouble and distress; and it was born in the city in which I live. But
there is a great deal of difference between that time and the present. Then information passed from neighbour to neighbour in chats over backyard fences, or at casual meetings in towns where purchases were made. Then we had a pretty fair idea; in fact we were sure and even yet we can be sure, that the grievances were real. However, we all know that a grievance, sound though it may be, may reach a stature and complexify which causes it to lose its first purpose. In western Canada today we have three wheat pools which have plenty of radio time, which publish newspapers, and so on; so that I do not take statements made by officers of those organizations on the same basis as the movements which began years ago.
It may interest you, Mr. Speaker, as it certainly has interested me, to notice the parallel that exists between two movements which have grown up in this country. I refer to organization among the farmers and organization in labour. I am not critical of this; I think it is inevitable, but here is what we have now. In both farm and labour organizations we have had such a growth that at the top they are operated by professional advocates. I say I do not criticize that. I think it was perhaps inevitable, but I do say that if you go to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture with a problem you will get an answer back the next day. You can do the same with the C.I.O. or the A.F. of L.; but I for one do not accept these quick decisions as being the judgment of those whom these people head up and represent in these central organizations. So I say that with respect to barley and oats-and I am coming back to it, and this is all I am going to say now-there is no majority demand in western Canada for the passing of this legislation.


Mr. BURTON:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I hear some groaning. I will give you a bit more.


Joseph William Burton: You are wrong.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I make that statement, and I shall prove it before I finish.


Joseph William Burton: Perhaps to your satisfaction, but not to mine.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Probably I could not prove anything to your satisfaction; you know I have my weaknesses as well as anyone else. Opinions in the west are not unanimous with respect to this matter. The Alberta pool at least are realistic about it; although they gave it formal endorsement, they are certainly well divided. Recently at
Canadian Wheat Board Act

Brockville the Canadian federation was also divided. There they debated a resolution requesting that the statement be inserted in this bill that it was designed solely in the interests of the grower of coarse grains. The meeting was divided, and the matter was hushed up. However, I shall leave that for the moment, but as I assured my hon. friend a moment ago I shall come back to it later.
I now return to wheat. I admitted1 frankly the grievance against the line elevator companies, the just claim and real grievance. Then what happened? Obviously there was an endeavour on the part of the farmers collectively to look after themselves. That is just history in its good common sense. Then we had the wheat pools formed. I have read and heard much as to who were the fathers of the wheat pool. Well, maternity is easily proved, but to prove paternity is still one of the most difficult problems in human endeavour. But I say I know the father of the wheat pools. He was a little chap from Chicago by the name of Aaron Shapiro. I was fortunate enough to be in Regina and attend his first meeting, and I heard him again in Calgary.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Who invited him there?


Arthur Leroy Smith: I can tell you that, too. He invited himself and you fell for it. You paid him, too, I am sure, because he has never done anything yet without being paid for it. After he got through with you, he went back to Dearborn and sued Henry Ford for libel damages in the largest amount ever heard of, and got the biggest settlement ever heard of for a libel action. Then he got into a little bit of trouble with the authorities in Chicago and sort of got the worst of the deal, perhaps for the first time in his life.
Well, then we had the pools. What is their history? I am not saying one thing against them; but it is history that in 1929, when they refused to use the existing facilities in Winnipeg for handling grain, they went broke. They were bankrupt. So they got the governments of the three prairie provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, to guarantee their indebtedness. May I quickly add that this indebtedness is either fully discharged or in the course of being discharged.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Their indebtedness was due to overpayment to the farmers.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Their indebtedness, as my hon. friend says, was due to

overpayment to the farmers; in other words, I gather he means due to the stupidity of the management.
That was the history up to that time. After that we had a wheat board, a voluntary board which, of course, I favour, always have and I trust always will. Here is something where I think my hon. friends will agree with me. The wheat board was constituted as an agency to help the man who grew the grain to get a price for his product. But what has happened in this country is this, that certainly since 1943, by action taken by this government, the wheat board has functioned not for that grower, but as a price fixing agency to hold down the price. I make that statement without fear of contradiction from anyone.
I now turn to some statements made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) when he spoke about this matter before the Christmas adjournment. He quoted what had been said by the hon. member for Provencher and, I think, was endeavouring to show that the Canadian farmer over a certain period of years had done better than the United States farmer in a similar position; or at least that he had done as well, or nearly as well. I do not know the minister's exact words, but I shall put it in that way.


James Garfield Gardiner: Within not more than thirty-seven cents in 1946.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was going to put it lower than that; but thank you so much for the admission. I can quite see that the minister is in a much more receptive mood than when last year he was sitting over there and I endeavoured to get him on my bandwagon-and he nearly came. But tonight he is pushing up the sawdust trail; he does not even need an invitation.
What they have done is this. Anyone who knows anything about the wheat business knows that in making comparison between wheat in Canada and wheat in the United States we must not overlook the fact that 80 per cent of the United States crop is soft wheat, and only 20 per cent is wheat comparable with that grown in this country; and 'that portion comes from the northwestern states.
The point I make is that it is incorrect- that is the word I shall use-to make comparisons with respect to individuals, from a total return, when the product is so entirely different. The only way one can make that comparison is to take a place on the international boundary line. The sections or quarter-sections on this side run from the 45th parallel, which is the boundary line. Here,

Canadian Wheat Board Act
on this side, we have a Canadian farmer, while on the other side we have a United States farmer with just the line between the two farms. They draw to a town of the same name, the one on the Canadian side being called North Portal, while that on the United States side is called Portal. These farmers draw their grain to elevators which are not more than 300 yards apart. The price the Canadian farmer receives is the only factor which is comparable with the price the other fellow gets, because they are growing exactly the same product. The difference in price received by those two farmers has been as high as $1.67 a bushel. So that when we are speaking of these things-


James Garfield Gardiner: It has not been as much as $1.67, difference in price, at any time.


Arthur Leroy Smith: On January 20 that was the figure.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member is comparing the advance with the price, and the advance at North Portal plus the deferred payments has never shown that much difference with the price at Portal.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I do not pretend to argue for one moment, because in my judgment the minister is the greater authority. Well, how would you like to add twenty cents, and then admit I am right? Would that be all right? Make it $1.47 or $1.30-I don't care-a very substantial amount of money. That is what I have in mind.
We have to bear this in mind when we are talking about these prices. In the northwestern states wheat is bought on a protein basis. This I know of my own knowledge, from a tour I took through the state of Washington. In the United States all the wheat goes to a chemist, who makes an examination of the protein content. On this side, on the other hand it is sold by grade. If I remember correctly-and I hope to be corrected by the minister, if I am wrong-No. 1 northern is a wheat where one out of every five kernels is red, hard and vitreous. It does not say anything about protein content. But it so happens that the kernels which are red, hard and vitreous have a very substantial protein content. And here we are still selling by grade, together with such [DOT] premium for cash wheat as may exist either in Fort William or Vancouver. In the United States conditions are entirely different. Cash wheat in Chicago is almost always at a premium. You see. what happens there is this. We will say that a miller buys his supplies on the futures' market. Let us say that he wishes to have
that wheat ahead of its delivery date. What he does, then, is to exchange his option with his vendor; and then he goes into the cash wheat market where it is sold, not on grade, but on sample. Cash wheat there is bought on a sample market.
So at times it is very difficult to make quick comparisons between prices, we will say, in Winnipeg and Chicago. And it goes to this extent, that when the United States government were seeking not so very long ago to get wheat out of the farmers' bins, to use in their commitments to Europe, they were paying a premium there as high a3 twenty cents a bushel on wheat.
That brings me back to something I intend to say now, for fear I forget to say it later in dealing with another phase of the matter, namely, that the farmers today, both United States and Canadian, are in the best bargaining position they have ever been in. I say that in connection with my advocacy of giving the farmer an opportunity to have alternative methods of sale, so that he may get the best price.
We who live out west know that nearly all the agreements for sale are gone; nearly all the mortgages are gone. It is not like the days of 19-cent, 25-cent and 30-eent grain where a man needed cash, and sold his grain so that he and his family could eat. Those days have gone, and that must make a considerable difference in our thinking with respect to methods of marketing.
I now turn to coarse grains, and I should first like to put on the record the history of what has happened in connection with barley. I shall not bother with oats. What I shall now state will show what has happened in connection with barley in 1947. At this time I am reading from notes. I know it is a bad habit, but there are a great many figures in here and I simply am not capable of remembering them. The first phase in 1947 lasted from the beginning of the crop year until March 17, 1947. Ceiling prices remained as they had been first established in 1941: 51i cents a bushel for oats and 64J cents a bushel for barley, with a ceiling of five cents a bushel on premiums for barley selected for malting.
Having used the word "malting", I think I should say something about malting barley. During the whole time that we have had ceilings, all barley was sold at ceiling prices. I am speaking broadly and I do not want to be corrected for one per cent or anything like that. As I say. all barley was sold at the ceiling, irrespective of grade and irrespective of whether it was malting barley. Many pounds and bushels of malting barley have
Canadian Wheat Board Act

been fed to hogs in this Dominion of Canada. All that time there was a market in the middle west of the United States among maltsters and brewers for malting barley at $2 a bushel.
We did not sell it. We could not sell it. Why? Although there was not a complete embargo; although you could sell under permit from the wheat board, the price per bushel for your permit followed almost exactly the difference between United States and Canadian prices. Of course that nullified any idea of exporting malting barley.


Percy Ellis Wright: Was not the object of that to supply bacon to England?


Arthur Leroy Smith: No, the object was not that. No one has deliberately fed malting barley to hogs.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes, we did.


Mr. BRYCE:: I have.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You did it because you could not sell it there.


Percy Ellis Wright: It was because Great Britain had to be supplied with bacon during the war.


Arthur Leroy Smith: At the moment there are between twenty and twenty-five million bushels of barley more than are required in this country. That is just sitting around on top of this thing, flopping here and flopping there, and so you have your price. I know hon. members want to talk about the fluctuations in the price of barley on the Winnipeg grain exchange.


Percy Ellis Wright: No.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You had not thought of that. All right; we will let that go. There is no free market now and, of course, you will have fluctuations; as long as there is a bar against exports of feeds to the United States, you will have the same thing. The sellers want to sell at once; the buyers want to buy at once, and there is no cushion or support from other export countries.


Percy Ellis Wright: Most farmers would have considered it a crime to have barley used to manufacture beer when Great Britain needed pork.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The hon. member has mentioned beer, so let us talk about that. Here is the situation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I rise to a point of order. I understand that the motion before the house is that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider a certain resolution. I always enjoy listening to the

speeches of my hon. friend the member for Calgary West, but I submit that his speech, as well as his debate with his hon. friends to his left have nothing whatever to do with the resolution. The position is that we have nine working days between now and Easter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: What is this, a steam-roller?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am just stating the position. In that time there is certain emergency legislation we shall have to deal with. We must pass this resolution this evening if there is any chance of having payments amounting to many tens of millions of dollars go out to the farmers before seeding. I just want to have it clear as to who is delaying this resolution. I do not want anyone to say that this government did not attempt to make those payments without delay.


James Arthur Ross: Several of us are going to say it.


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Calgary West, and I must say that as a member I enjoyed his remarks. However, I would call the attention of the house to the motion which is before it. It is that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider a certain resolution. Hon. members will realize that the resolution can be considered in the committee of the whole. A few minutes ago I called the attention of the house to the fact that if this were not a money bill we would not be considering this resolution. However, since it is a money bill it must be preceded by a resolution which gives authorization to the house to proceed with a bill, which will have to be read three times before being passed. What the house should do now is to consider the principle of the resolution. Then, if the resolution is carried, a bill will be introduced and it will then be possible to go into details.
May I say to the house, if the house will permit me, that in England they proceed differently with money bills. They introduce the bill first. When the principle of the bill has been accepted a resolution is presented to give the crown the power to get the money to execute the clauses of the bill when it will have become law. I really believe that we should not lose any time in going into committee of the whole in order to discuss the merits of the resolution.


Howard Charles Green: May I submit to Your
Honour that if you are giving a ruling of that type you are altering drastically the practice of this house and also are not following

Canadian Wheat Board Act
strictly the rules of the house. There is a right to debate this resolution with Your Honour in, the chair, and I submit that there is a perfect and unrestricted right to deal in that debate with the matters covered by the resolution. This resolution is broadly worded and I would read it to Your Honour. It reads:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, to authorize the board to provide pensions for members, officers and employees and to make provision for the increase of the fixed minimum price on wheat deliveries; to extend the control of interprovincial movements of wheat products and to empower the governor in council to extend the present system to oats or barley.
I submit that that covers a very wide field and that, as long as the hon. member for Calgary West is dealing with those subjects, he has a right to do so and cannot be confined.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Which one of those subjects has he been dealing with?


William Earl Rowe: With them all and nobody knows it better than, you.


James Horace King: Order. I should like to tell hon. members that I am not giving a ruling. I understand perfectly well that the wording of the motion covers what the hon. member has been speaking about.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: Why is he not in order,
Mr. Speaker?


James Horace King: Order. I called the attention of the house a moment ago to the fact that the motion was that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole to consider the resolution. 1 understand that the practice has been to allow wide latitude in discussing the merits of a resolution when the Speaker is in the chair. I do not wish to give a ruling that it can or cannot be done. I am simply trying to be helpful to the house, in suggesting that the same debate should not be carried1 on twice, in the house and in committee.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention-


James Horace King: Older. I will ask the hon. member for Calgaiy West to proceed.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I am speaking on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and it is this. From time immemorial when the government comes to the house and asks for money it has been the privilege of the members of the house to lay their grievances at the foot of the throne. The government is asking for money and that is where our opportunity comes in now.


James Horace King: The hon. member for Calgary West.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce a moment ago told me that there were only nine days left. Probably we both realize that there is a little less that that now, since we have not advanced very far.
I was endeavouring to confine myself to the latter part of the resolution, which reads.:
. . . and to empower the governor in council to extend the present system to oats or barley and on the proposed amendment thereto.
I was speaking about barley. I have a fair memory, but it does not extend over great periods of time and I have been quiet for so long that probably I have forgotten what I was talking about.
The first thing I say is this. I am entirely opposed to the introduction of those grains into any compulsory system, and I intend to explain why. I can understand the position of the C.C.F. They say: We believe in state control, production and distribution. They have a point of view, and there are many arguments which can be advanced for it. But I say this, that for those of us who have been giving lip service at any rate to private enterprise there is not one shred of excuse for bringing oats and barley into this picture. I go farther and say that the introduction of those coarse grains into this compulsory picture, this police picture -and remember the prosecutions with respect to wheat alone have been four or five hundred a year for the last few years-is without reason; no reason has yet been given why they should be brought under the marketing powers of the wheat board.
I say further that the wheat board a few years ago-and I know what I am talking about-were not in favour of and did not want power over oats and barley. I have the impression that they are still of that view. Perhaps one of the ministers might deal with that at an appropriate time.
What will happen to those who grow it, and I address myself particularly now to my C.C.F. friendls who come from the prairies? You put the wheat board and, through them the government, in this spot. Coarse grains are so much different from wheat. Our wheat is exported all over the world; the major portion of it goes abroad. Only a small percentage, practically none at all, of our coarse grains is exported from the country, and only twenty per cent, I think, goes to other provinces. Here you have the wheat board in this spot. Your western farmer wants as much as he can get for his coarse grains. Your eastern and your British Columbia feeder
Canadian Wheat Board Act

wants to buy his feed as cheaply as he can. You have the wheat board in the middle, and what are they to do about the matter? It means price-fixing from a spot from which it is hard to fix prices and so I say, not of this government particularly, but of any government, that you will have political price fixing and nothing else, because we know that the buyers outnumber the growers at least four or five to one. The C.C.F. party, who want to sacrifice their people out west to the eastern purchasers, have got something to explain to the growers of coarse grains in the west.
So we find ourselves in this position. This measure is not seriously asked for by anyone. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is divided on it; we know that. Yet we find coarse grains in the measure and), finding it there, I must assume that the government is serious about it. I do not think the matter can be left with the Minister of Trade and Commerce telling us practically that it cannot be implemented' anyway. I may be exaggerating what he said, but if I have exaggerated he will accept this as my opinion from the legal point of view that you will never get it. But the government have the provision there, and therefore we must assume that they mean what they say.
May I pause to answer the interruption made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce as to who will be to blame for delaying the payment of money to farmers. I say the blame can rest right in his lap. This house, as the hon. member for Swift Current said, in speaking so heartily in favour of the amendment which he voted against this afternoon-


Thomas John Bentley: I did no such thing. On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I voted1 in favour of your ruling. My vote had nothing to do with the merits of the motion before the house, and the hon. member knows it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: There are a lot of people I should like to quarrel with, but the hon. member is not one of them. He is one of the nicest chaps I know and one of the ablest because he has made a beautiful distinction without a difference which he did not mention in the speech in which he spoke to the resolution.
I come back to the resolution and make this simple statement by way of prophecy. The wheat board is a popular institution among the farmers of Canada, and justly so.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Do you want me to take you to school or what? I have only so much time. The wheat board is a popular institution. This legislation, if it is passed, can create nothing but friction between the eastern and the western farmers. That is inevitable. It cannot do anything else, and we all know that when a board or an institution, supported by the government, becomes unpopular, our psychology is such that it loses its effectiveness. And this is the best means that I know of, of effecting that end. It is unfortunate; but it is true nevertheless, that two of the most moving factors in human conduct are greed and fear. In the west we want all we can get; in the east they want to buy as cheaply as they can. The world has not yet advanced1 to the point where wre are all altruists, each man his brother's keeper, thinking of his brother more than of himself. Let us be realistic, because that is the situation in which we find ourselves.
I close with this, and perhaps some will be happy that I have said that. Here we have a measure for which there is no general demand. Here we have a measure which will completely socialize everything that the farmer has to sell, with the exception of rye and flax. Remember that in all the things that he does these charges are now fixed'-carrying charges, storage, everything. Everything is now fixed by the government, to put this where they want to put it, or where they suggest they want to put it, under the complete socialization of all farm products in western Canada.
Of course my hon. friends will vote for it. What do they care about the loss a man may suffer who is their neighbour out there, so long as they are able, by measures like this, to attain their objective, which is the control of the production and distribution of all these products? Why would anyone favour that? Why do farm organizations in certain parts of the west favour it? For this reason. There has been a propaganda conducted by radio and newspaper with one thing in mind, and that is to kill the Winnipeg grain exchange. I have told the house my view on that. I have no intention of repeating it tonight, but it does seem to me that the spread of that kind of thinking has gone so far that these pools and so on, with that object in mind, are content to have the farmers make sacrifices in order that that result may come about.
That is not new. We have propaganda agencies now which form public opinion rapidly and then go on to solidify it and make it cohesive. But that is not new in this world. Mob psychology-and I use that term most.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
respectfully-is not new. We can go back to another day when Pontius Pilate made a certain offer and the answer was, "Crucify him, crucify him", not because that was right, not for a moment, but because that was the way the crowd were thinking at that time. Some people-


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman again but he has exhausted his time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Let him finish.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I shall conclude very quickly, Mr. Speaker. While it is important, with respect to barley and oats, to the western grower and the eastern and British Columbia buyer, this thing goes very much further. The constitutional aspect I leave alone. I was never much of a constitutional lawyer, although I have read with great care the last case, that is the marketing case, where it is all reviewed by the chief justice and confirmed by the privy council. But here is my original point, and all I am trying to say; I put this in the form of an appeal to all members of the House of Commons. I do not think I have been partisan, or very partisan, in anything I have said; but there are many, many of us here, who give lip service to our present form of economy. I go farther and say that I think those of us who have done so really believe in that form and that the lip service I have mentioned was honestly given in support of that method of carrying on our business.
But, sir, with this particular thing, with this thing for which there is no universal demand, with this thing which must inevitably end in disunity, are we to be driven, to be forced by 'the advocates, the professional advocates, of some farmer groups, into taking from our farmers the last vestige of permission to bargain for their own products?
I understand the position of the C.C.F. They are logical. That is their belief. The rest of us have said that is not our belief; and so, sir, I say to you that I think it is time that those of us who believe in this economy, this economy which has given us the best standard of living in the world, this economy which produced so much during the war and which helped to win the war, should stand up boldly and be counted.
I mention two persons who, I think, must vote against this resolution: the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). May I read from page 868 of Hansard of Thursday, February
27, 1947. I do not think it is against the rules to read from last year's Hansard. I was speaking and I said:
There is another thing I wish to ask the government, and I think it has been fairly put to them by my hon. friends to my immediate left. 1 think the government should be as frank as I am. Do they favour the eompulsory handling of coarse grain by a wheat board? I have heard the ministers talk all around or over the question.
Mr. Ilsley:	I cannot speak on behalf of the
government, but I will say that, personally, I am not.
Then I go on:
May I say that I heard the answer of the Minister of Justice with the greatest of delight. 1 was sure he would say that. Now that we are holding this evangelistic meeting, there are two more ministers for us to hear from.
Then the Minister of Agriculture spoke and he said:
Even in a revival meeting I do not usually go very far beyond the present time. I wish to say that I am opposed to putting the compulsory clause as related to coarse grains into this bill, which is what we are dealing with at the present time. I am opposed to that, and I think that is about as far as one needs to go at the moment.
What has happened since that date, February 27, 1947, to have the minister change his mind and make such a speech as he did in this House of Commons not so very long ago in support of this bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Those who came to scoff, remained to pray.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then I went on. My old friend, the then Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), with his usual astuteness and that charming smile of his, disarmed me and I sat down without getting an answer from him. But knowing him as I do, and knowing the things he believes in, I am perfectly certain that if he votes in favour of this bill, he at least has the grace left to blush in so prostituting the principle which has made him the great man he is.


George Hugh Castleden: I am sure we all listened, Mr. Speaker, with a great deal of pleasure to the last speaker. He certainly made his position quite plain. He was quite frank in his statements, and I respect him for that. He talked long about the support that should be given to private enterprise such as the Winnipeg grain exchange. He knows the history of it, and he knows of the money which the grain exchange made out of the western farmers. That is probably why private enterprise supports it. But I say that
Canadian Wheat Board Act

in his whole talk he has yet to prove that the Winnipeg grain exchange justifies its existence by any useful purpose.
He referred to the stupidity of the pools, how they grew, and the officials of the pools. The organization of western pools, the cooperative enterprise there, has saved the western farmer millions and millions of dollars. Even those farmers who did not deliver any grain to the pools gained by the fact that the pools are operating. I listened to his eloquent remarks about this great economy which has given so much. It is a great economy under private enterprise where a group of people sitting in the grain exchange can extract their millions out of the toil and labour of the farmers of the western plains, where hundreds of thousands of fanners do their work and slave. Because of the very things that went on in the Winnipeg grain exchange, the mortgage companies and the machine companies, those farmers came out at the end of 1939 with about $688 million worth of debt around their necks. It ruined those farmers. They had no crop year after year. Those farmers have been staunch and firm in their determination that the Winnipeg grain exchange type of legalized robbery shall be done away with and that a co-operative, a non-profit-making organization, shall handle their grain.
As far as his story about the opposition of eastern and western farmers is concerned, the western farmer will know at least that he is not compelled to sell his coarse grain at a low fixed price and let the grain exchange boost the price up, have the feed companies in the east buy up that grain at a cheap price and use the inflated grain exchange prices on the open market to sell their high-priced feed to eastern farmers. No matter which happens under a proper wheat board, nobody will be making a pile of money out of it-that is, the middle man-and the farmers in the east and the west will be together on this point.
I was particularly interested in the legal aspect mentioned by the hon. member. I should like him to turn up-and I am sure he must have done this

the original act passed by the Tory government in 1935. They are the fathers, if he has any doubt about it, of the original Canadian Wheat Board Act. I should like him to read section 14, and I am going to read that section to the house. After section 13 which set up the board and outlined its duties and its privileges, section 14 states:
14. The governor in council may approve of the provisions of this act being made applicable to oats, barley, rye or flax produced in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta

and British Columbia, if the board recommends that such approval be given, whereupon the provisions of this act shall mntatis mutandis apply to such kind of grain as they apply to wheat.
It was not illegal in those days. It was not unconstitutional.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That was declared unconstitutional.


George Hugh Castleden: When?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Well, I will give you the citation.


George Hugh Castleden: In 1937. There is no constitutional difficulty about that. Apparently there is a constitution in this country which allows the government to go out and tax people without parliament even sitting, but it will not permit this government to go out and pay back to the farmers money which rightfully belongs to them. The payments which are to be made under this act are to be made, not out of the consolidated funds but out of the money made by the Canadian wheat board through the handling of the farmers' grain. It is their own money that is to be handed back to them.
We in this group want to facilitate the passing of this resolution and this legislation in order to get the cheques out to the fanners as quickly as possible. Members sometimes seem to forget, while they are sitting in this ivory tower, away from many of the realities of what the people are facing in the country, that a great many farmers in western Canada live in drought areas; that they did not get any return from their crops last year and need these payments on the 1945, 1946 and 1947 crops to carry on and put in their new crops, and that they want to know what is to happen with regard to barley, oats and rye. They wrant to know whether they are to be handled on the open market or whether they are to be handled through the grain exchange.
In anything we say here we shall be in support of putting this legislation through as quickly as possible. We are not delaying this bill. We are trying to facilitate it. I resent the charges made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) the other night when he said we were aiding and abetting the Tories in having this thing delayed by having three or four bills put up instead of one. We moved an amendment to have oats and barley, the coarse grains, put into this act in 1947, just one year ago. There were all kinds of constitutional difficulties at that time. Now the government wants to put them in. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that there are two parts to this bill or resolution which we have before us. One of them, I think, has the unanimous support

Canadian Wheat Board Act
of anybody who knows anything about the situation, and that is the one providing that the payments shall be made on the 1945, 1946 and 1947 crops. The other part is controversial, and I suggest that the proper committee, the parliamentary committee on agriculture, should deal with that part of it. I suggest that if we can get this legislation or the part that is non-controversial before the house this evening, it will pass through committee rapidly and the bill can go through. The second part of the legislation with regard to coarse grains can be adopted in the committee. We can get it through, bring it in here again and, if possible, get it passed through this house. But at any rate we shall not be holding up the money that is due to these farmers-a payment of their own funds. This money belongs to them because it was made out of grain which they grew and delivered themselves in those years.
This whole matter of coarse grains is of vital importance to the growers of western Canada, to the feeders of eastern Canada, to the consumers generally, to the feed companies and to the Winnipeg grain exchange; and quite rightly so. The life of the Winnipeg grain exchange depends upon whether or not they are to be allowed to handle these coarse grains and the other grains. On the other hand, the welfare of the Canadian farmer depends upon whether there is to be orderly marketing of his grain and his crop in this country and whether we are to have the old grain exchange. The Canadian people can make their choice. If there is to be orderly marketing, there must be the power within the Canadian wheat board, which operates and handles their grains, to control that grain. We cannot have part of it rambling out through the grain exchange and gambling on it here and there, and part of it sold through the wheat board. We think it should be settled, by a voluntary decision of the representatives of the people in this house, as to which they are to have. If the government is to decide on a policy of orderly marketing, I think this legislation should go into effect. I know it will have the support of the growers, because the growers know that under the wheat board if there is anything coming out of the sale of their grain, it will be returned to them. It is not costing the taxpayers of Canada anything. Of course there will be a big fight; those who believe in private enterprise, that is the grain exchange, naturally will oppose this legislation. We believe that the grain exchange should be done away with; that a government agency should operate, at no expense to the country, because the operations of the wheat board are paid for from the profits of their own undertakings and every-5849-136
thing beyond the cost of handling goes back to the men who grew the grain. If anyone is entitled to profits, certainly it is those who grew the grain and not those people who gamble in the wheat pit and, as far as has been proved to date, perform no useful function or at least no function comparable with the amount of money they get out of it.
Personally I am doubtful whether the present government believes this legislation will go through. If the Liberal party had been sincere in its belief that the Winnipeg grain exchange should be done away with and that there should be orderly marketing of the farmers' produce through a government agency without profit, they could have enacted this legislation long ago. If the Tory party had believed in it they could have brought in legislation, while they were in power, which would have done away with the grain exchange. The truth of the matter is that both parties have been in power, but the grain exchange is still carrying on. The biggest blow it ever got was when all wheat had to be handled through the wheat board.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Conservatives did bring in that legislation.


George Hugh Castleden: Yes, they brought in legislation but they did not implement it, and the grain exchange continued to operate. Last year, when we were considering amendments to the wheat board act, I moved an amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. McKay), which would have brought coarse grains under the wheat board. That amendment was declared unconstitutional. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said it would endanger the wheat board itself. The chairman of the committee asked me to withdraw it, but we said we would fight for it because we believed that commodities of this kind should be handled by the wheat board, in order to prevent the very thing that happened last fall. That is, coarse grains remained under control; the price the farmer would get was fixed; he got his 1947 price and delivered his grain at that low price. Then on October 21 the lid was taken off; prices went up, and the feed and grain companies had picked up the coarse grains. Farmers were not allowed to deliver wheat; the elevators were instructed to get out all the coarse grains possible, that they were needed immediately, and I believe they were. But the farmer was obliged to sell at low prices. The minister claims they did so with their eyes open. They did not. They did not know what would happen. As a result, the grain companies made profits. I do not know what profits the feedi companies made;
I do not know how much grain they bought,
Canadian Wheat Board Act

but it should be possible to find out. Now the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) tells us, "Oh well, the fortuitous profits made by those companies are being returned to the farmers." I do not know what fortuitous profits are, or how you separate them from ordinary profits. They are all profits anyway.
I can guarantee that the grain companies are not handling these grains at cost, which is what would have been done if they had been under the wheat board.
The position of this group is quite clear. We believe in orderly marketing, and we believe this requires that people should deliver their grain to the government agency. It is a nonprofit agency, and the principle behind it is good and right.
Not very many minutes ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce interjected that we had to get this thing through as quickly as possible. I agree; I think that is necessary. We want to get these payments out to the farmers as quickly as possible. In order to facilitate this legislation-because apparently that is what the government considers necessary before it can make any of these payments-we are going to move that this resolution be divided into two parts; that the non-controversial part be placed before this house, go to committee, and pass through as rapidly as possible. We will facilitate that. The other part, which is controversial, we believe should be sent to the proper committee, where it can be considered-. Then it can be brought back here and a decision reached, as the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) said, by hon. members standing up and being counted, to show whether or not we stand for the principle of orderly marketing. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member-


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may interrupt the hon. member, I understand that he is proposing to move an amendment to the resolution which, as he says, would separate one question from the other. As I said the other night, that would mean four discussions in the house, two on the resolutions and two on second readings of the two bills. The opportunity to do at the proper time what is being suggested is provided at all times under the procedure in this house. The resolution itself can be passed and the legislation brought before the house. That legislation has to be given second reading, which provides an opportunity again to discuss the whole principle. Then it goes to committee, where the different clauses can be discussed. If at that time, when we reach that position, the house indicates that these two matters should be separated, there will be an opportunity to do so. But to do it at this stage would simply slow down the

whole discussion on these matters so that we would take just twice as long to get them through the house.
As has been said by other hon. members, we are agreed on that part of it which provides payments to farmers, and this might be put through in a hurry. There is a reason why the other part should not be unduly delayed. Everyone admits that more than this legislation will be required to put oats and barley under the wheat board. That point is not a matter for discussion either inside or outside this house. There is no question about that among farm organizations, wheat pools or anyone else. It is agreed by everyone that, in addition to the legislation passed here, legislation must be passed by the legislatures before feed grains can be put under the wheat board. Those legislative bodies are now meeting; and1 the argument is that if we go ahead and refer this matter to the agriculture committee, if we discuss it back and forth here, and put ourselves in the position that we shall not pass it before Easter, there is no possibility at all of having coarse grains brought under the wheat board this coming year. So I would suggest that this resolution be allowed to reach the committee stage on the bill where at least we have the legislation before us and we can discuss the legislation rather than all these other matters we are talking about tonight.


George Hugh Castleden: To some extent I agree with the minister, but I do not agree that there would be twice as much discussion if we divided this into two parts. There will be almost unanimous agreement on the first part of the resolution. It could be put through tonight; the resolution could go through the house and committee stages and the legislation brought down. The other part may be more controversial. The minister says the other provinces will have to pass complementary legislation; that is, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I would point out that the government of Saskatchewan have already expressed their willingness to pass this legislation immediately. All they asked the government to do was send them some legislation which would meet the situation and, if necessary, they would have legal counsel here within forty-eight hours. Those provincial legislatures are now in session. If they are told that complementary legislation is necessary it can be brought down while their houses are still sitting. We do not want this delayed. As I said a few moments ago, we want to help the minister as much as possible, and we are trying to facilitate this legislation. However, we do see the possibility

Canadian Wheal Hoard Act
of a long debate on the coarse grains part of the motion, and we would like to avoid that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It may shorten debate if I say that at the proper stage when we are discussing the bill in committee, I will agree to separate the part concerning coarse grains and have that part sent to the agriculture committee for discussion, provided that such discussion will make it possible to expedite the remainder of the bill, which should be noncontentious. I am quite willing to do that. And if my hon. friend will delay the moving of his amendment until the bill is before us, and move it when we are considering the coarse grain section, I undertake to agree.


James Arthur Ross: May I ask the minister one question? Would he agree to referring the pension clause of it to the committee, too? There is general agreement on the payment of moneys belonging to the farmers; but there will be quite a debate on the contributory principle of pensions. If you wish to have the payments passed through quickly, and the money paid to the farmers, I suggest that you divide it up twice.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am willing to open the grain act twice. I know the fervour which overcomes certain members of the house when anyone mentions wheat, and1 I know that certain members, such as the hon. member who has just spoken, will speak on every such occasion, at great length. It seems to me that the matter of pensions is so much a part of the fabric of this country today that that section should not be contentious. I am not going to open the wheat board bill three times; I will open it only twice. I must say I will not open it three times.
If it is necessary to delay the payment of tens of millions of dollars because we cannot agree that the Canadian wheat board can pay pensions to its employees, then I think payments must be delayed. There is a limit to the patience of governments. There is also a limit of twelve months in the year. We can sit in this parliament for only twelve months; and I think we are booked with work for eleven months now.
I think the offer I have made is a good one, and I hope hon. members will feel disposed to expedite the bill so that the money can be paid out and so that a pension plan can be made effective.


James Arthur Ross: I had only suggested that it be divided two ways. Make the payments separately.


George Hugh Castleden: The minister gives his undertaking that, as the bill comes on, opportunity will be given to dividte it. I shall be pleased to hold back my resolution until that time. We want these payments put through as rapidly as possible, and that will facilitate it.
Motion agreed to on division and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Shall the resolution carry?


James Arthur Ross: On division.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Howe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 135, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


William Henry Golding: When shall the bill be read the second time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.


John Horne Blackmore: How in the world can we read a bill a second time, when we have never seen it?


James Arthur Ross: In all fairness, we should see the bill.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Golding in the chair.
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act and to provide:
1.	That on and after November 18, 1947, there shall be imposed, levied and collected an excise tax of twenty-five per cent (25%) on the following goods imported into or manufactured or produced in Canada: (a) the following electrical appliances, grills, waffle irons; hot plates, roasters; kettles; chafing dishes; food or drink mixers; juice extractors; coffee makers; toasters of all kinds; portable humidifiers; curling irons or tongs; hair dryers; permanent waving machines and spacers or clamps; rods and heaters therefor; razors and shavers; food choppers and grinders; irons and ironers; vacuum cleaners and attachments .thereof; garbage disposal units; floor waxers and polishers; (b) electric or gas refrigerators or freezing equipment, and coils, condensing, or compressor units, cabinets, boxes, evaporators and expansion valves therefor; air conditioning, cooling or filtering equipment, and complete parts thereof; oil burners and oil burning equipment; all the foregoing when adapted to household or apartment use or when for use in places of entertainment, amusement or recreation, including rinks, audi-toria, halls and clubs; (c) articles and equipment designed for use in golf, tennis, badminton.
Excise Tax Act Amendment
[Stage Direction]
squash, racquets, polo, billiards, pool, bowling and curling; fishing rods and reels; (d) firearms except for military or police purposes; (e) engines or motors for use in boats or vessels, except when the boats or vesesls are to be used exclusively in commercial or industrial enterprises; (f) outboard motors; (g) motorcycles, and all other two- or three-wheeled motor-driven vehicles including motors for attachment to bicyeles but not including vehicles designed for use by invalids; (h) musical instruments of all kinds, not including organs for churches; (i) projectors for slides, films or pictures designed for industrial or professional photographers' use; and (j) toilet articles of all kinds, including combs, mirrors and brushes except tooth brushes, not coming within any other item in schedule one of the said act.
2.	That on and after November 18, 1947, the rate of excise tax on automobiles adapted or adaptable for passenger use xvith seating capacity for not more than ten persons each, imported into or manufactured or produced in Canada be increased from ten per cent to the following rates, namely, on automobiles valued at $1,200 or less, 25 per cent over $1,200 but not more .than $2,000, 25 per cent on $1,200 plus 50 per cent on the amount in excess of $1,200; over $2,000, 25 per cent on $1,200 plus 50 per cent on $800 plus 75 per cent on the amount in excess of $2,000.
3.	That on and after November 18. 1947. the rate of excise tax on phonographs, record-playing devices, radio broadcast receiving sets and tubes therefor, be increased from ten per cent to twenty-five per cent.
4.	That on and after November 18, 1947, the rate of excise tax on cameras, photographic films and plates, projectors for slides, films or pictures, except those designed exclusively for industrial or professional photographers' use, be increased from ten per cent to twenty-five per cent.
5.	That on and after November 18. 1947, electricity and gas used in dwellings be exempt from consumption or sales tax; and
6.	That on and after November 18. 1947. the excise tax of one per cent per pound on sugar, grape sugar, glucose, sugar syrup, corn syrup, etc., be repealed.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN; We have amendments by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Shall these amendments carry?
Some lion. MEMBERS: Carried.
William Henry Golding: Shall I report the resolution?


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: What was that you said, Mr. Chairman?


William Henry Golding: We have amendments, moved by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I asked if those amendments would carry.


Mr. HAZEN:: What amendments are they?


Mr. ABBOTT:: They were moved a week or two ago.


William Henry Golding: If the committee wishes, I shall read them now.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Dispense.


William Henry Golding: It was moved by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner),
That the resolution to amend the Excise Tax Act now before the house be amended as follows:
1.	By deleting from paragraph (a) the following:	"grills; hot plates; food or drink
mixers; food choppers and grinders; irons and ironers; vacuum cleaners and attachments therefor; floor waxers and polishers;"
2.	By inserting the following paragraph immediately after paragraph (a) as paragraph
(b)	: "(b) The following electrical appliances when adapted to household use; food or drink mixers; food choppers and grinders; irons and ironers; vacuum cleaners and attachments therefor; floor waxers and polishers;"
3.	By relettering paragraph (b) as paragraph
(c)	and deleting therefrom the following: "air conditioning, cooling or filtering equipment, and complete parts therefor; oil burners and oil burning equipment;"
4.	By deleting paragraph (c);
5.	By deleting paragraph (e) and relettering paragraph (f) as paragraph (e);
6.	By deleting paragraph (g) and substituting therefor the following:
"(f) motor cycles and all other two or three wheeled motor driven vehicles, including motors for attachment to bicycles, hut not including vehicles specially designed for carrying goods or for use by invalids;"
7.	By deleting paragraph (h) and relettering paragraph (i) as paragraph (g);
8.	By deleting paragraph (j) and substituting therefor the following:
"(h) Toilet articles of all kinds (including combs, mirrors, and brushes other than tooth brushes or shaving brushes, the duty paid value or the Canadian manufacturer's selling price of which combs, mirrors and brushes is more than twenty-five cents each,) and which items do not already come within any other item in schedule one of the said act."
Shall the amendments carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. We were dealing with this the night before last.
Mr. ABBOTT; We are just continuing at this time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When the house adjourned, the minister was to give us certain information as to what the last four months had shown with respect to taxes collected and the amount of United States exchange being saved.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yesterday afternoon I was asked to give an estimate of the increase in collec-

Excise Tax Act Amendment
tions as the result of the proposed new excise taxes. In the case of automobiles, the total tax collected from November to February inclusive was $10,449,779.03, and the estimated increase as the result of the proposed increased taxes is $2,263,977. On cameras, projectors and the like, the total for the same period November to February was $358,105.97, the estimated increase being $214,863. On phonographs, radios and the like, the total tax collected, again for the same period, was $2,766,195.84, with an estimated increase of $1,659,717. In the case of electrical appliances there was no tax previously, and the estimated yield is $1,544,499.46. On firearms the estimated yield of new tax is $55,830; on outboard motors, $56,773, and on motorcycles, $68,366. The estimated total increase is $5,863,995.46.


Mr. McKAY:: Would the minister indicate the total?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Subject ,to corrections in the addition which I have made rapidly, total tax collections for the various excise taxes, including taxes which were imposed on articles not subject to the tax before, during the period I have mentioned is $15,299,519.30.


Mr. JAENICKE:: I listened with great
interest yesterday to the minister's explanation for this tax, but I did not get an opportunity to ask some questions I should like to ask now. The minister told us that this tax is one of the measures necessary to conserve United States exchange. He told us that the first measure was the prohibition and restriction of imports. Then he went on to say, and I quote from page 2089 of Hansard:
Another is the imposition of excise taxes, which is the measure we are now considering, to accomplish two things. The primary purpose is to reduce the consumption of articles in this country . . .
What is the second thing? I understand that these taxes are being imposed to reduce the consumption of these articles, because they are either imported from the United States or their make-up is largely of United States manufacture. The minister mentioned that there are two things and I should like to know what the other thing is.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As I said, the first is to reduce the consumption of articles which contain either high United States content or substantial United States content. The secondary purpose, if I may so describe it, is to reduce the consumption of articles in this country which, for the time being, we can do without. I think I explained yesterday afternoon that if we are to continue to export to the war devastated countries of Europe we must reduce consumption in this country, whether the things we consume have a United States content or not. In other words, we must create what I refer to and what the economists refer to as an over-all current account surplus. I think the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario agreed that we must do that, although we may differ as to the methods of achieving that end. I submitted to the committee that one of the recognized methods of reducing consumption, and incidentally the one which I favour as being the appropriate one, is the fiscal method.
It seemed to me that the only valid criticism which could be directed against this proposed excise tax measure was that it did not cover a wide enough field, that we should have covered more territory, taken in more products and, by imposing a tax on those, endeavour to reduce consumption of some of these other commodities. That may or may not be valid criticism, but that is one which could be made.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I thank the minister for the explanation. He mentioned that yesterday but he did not refer to it as being the second reason or cause.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is one of a number of other reasons.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: On February 23 the minister also spoke, and he told us why certain things had been taken off the first schedule. These were items which we were exporting to the United States, and I quote the minister's words, as reported on page 1539 of Hansard:
Under this procedure the amount of such a tax as our 25 per cent excise tax is added to the value otherwise subject to duty, with a consequent increase in the total duty payable. On. balance, as a result of this procedure in several instances we stood to suffer a loss of exports to the United States, and it is for this reason that I am proposing that the tax be not imposed in the case . . .
And he went on to name certain articles. It appears that the United States, in valuing for import duty purposes, added on this 25 per cent excise tax, but I maintain that is against the provisions of the Geneva treaty. Has the minister made representations to the United States authorities in that respect and. if so, with what results?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The position is this. I think I would agree with my hon. friend that it would be contrary to the Geneva agreements. Representations were made to the United
Excise Tax Act Amendment

States authorities, and they agreed that it should be done, but it requires legislation by congress before they can do it. That legislation has not yet been passed. So for the time being the present United States customs law is to apply and the 25 per cent is to be added. That is the position the Canadian exporter is in until such time as congress passes the appropriate legislation to implement the undertakings in the Geneva agreements.


Mr. CASE:: The minister said that the excise tax was intended to slow down the purchase of certain goods in Canada.


Douglas Charles Abbott: To reduce the consumption of certain goods; that is correct.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: On the evidence given this evening, $15,299,000 of excise taxes have been collected.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Some of that was collected under excise taxes in existence before this proposed amendment. The estimated increase is between five and six million dollars.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Is the minister convinced that that amount has slowed down purchasing in Canada and, if it has, has it not also reduced production?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would answer my hon. friend in this way. If the people who have purchased these articles which are subject to the increased excise tax have done so because they prefer these articles to others they have, speaking in terms of economics, less purchasing power to spend on something else, and to that extent the tax is accomplishing the end we have in view.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Eventually you hope to draw off purchasing power by the tax?


Douglas Charles Abbott: To some extent.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Would this tax be refunded if the bill failed to pass?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Those who have paid the tax would be entitled to claim a refund.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Does section 1 mean that electrical appliances such as grills, waffle irons, hot plates, roasters and so forth are not to be taxed if used in restaurants?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct. We decided to remove from the operation of this taxing measure articles which went into commercial operation. Those are dealt with under part III of the import control restrictions. For that reason we decided to restrict the tax to articles which go into consumer use.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Am I to understand that I, as a member of this house and a
[Mr. Abbott.1
veteran, am supposed to justify Mr. Weston and Mr. E. P. Taylor, who have taken over most of the restaurants and everything else in Canada, not having to pay any tax on the toasters and other appliances they use in Honey Dew and other places, while the returned veteran who is trying to set up house has to pay a 25 per cent tax on these same articles?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Toasters are taxable, no matter who buys them. But in the case of commercial users, we get after them in another way.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Am I to understand that Mr. Weston and Mr. E. P. Taylor owning Honey Dew and practically a monopoly in many lines of business, can buy grills, hot plates, food or drink mixers, food choppers and grinders, irons and ironers, vacuum cleaners, without paying the 25 per cent tax? Am I to understand that the minister expects me to justify that to the veteran who has to pay a 25 per cent tax on these articles when he is trying to set up house, while Mr. Taylor and Mr. Weston have not to pay? I did not think my good and genial friend the Minister of Finance would have the audacity to bring in such a ridiculous measure.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The principle we have been endeavouring to follow is this. We are not imposing taxes on goods which go into the cost of producing other articles or into the cost of carrying on business. The taxes which it is proposed to impose under this amendment to the act are taxes imposed on. consumer goods. We are not tlying to single out Mr. Taylor or anybody else for the imposition of taxation. The dividing line of principle is this: We are not imposing this tax on machinery which goes into the cost of operating a business. Those taxes are imposed in another way. This tax is in essence a consumer tax, intended to slow down the purchase of consumer goods until such time as we are in a better position to afford them. There is no intention to discriminate between one group in the community and another. This is simply differentiating between consumers and the industrial or commercial user of machinery or equipment. It is a clearly defined line. That is the only reason for excluding from the operation of this tax machinery or equipment or appliances which are going into factories, restaurants or other commercial enterprises.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If anybody has done more for Canada than the veteran who has returned and is trying to set up house I should like to know it. I cannot follow the argument of the minister at all. If a tax should be put

Excise Tax Act Amendment
on restaurant equipment, ail right; that should be a separate tax. But why the veteran who is trying to set up house shoulcf have to pay a tax on articles on which the restaurant does not pay a tax is something I cannot understand, and if the minister tries to tell me that Honey Dew is more entitled to get a toaster than the veteran I disagree with him entirely.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Toasters are not in it. My hon. friend perhaps has not received a copy of the amended list in manifold form. The amendment excludes hot plates, grills, food or drink mixers, and so forth.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have had a little legal advice from some members on the same side of the house as the minister, but if the minister can make it perfectly clear to me that the veteran is not subject to this tax, possibly I shall be satisfied.


Douglas Charles Abbott: A few minutes ago the chairman of the committee read the amendment to the committee, but it was pretty difficult to follow. The amendment summarizes the deletions and alterations which have been made in the resolution since it was first announced by me on November 17. The proposed amendments are the results of discussions we have had with representatives of industry, consumers and others interested, and the amended resolution now comprises what we believe to be a fair list of articles which should be taxed. In its amended form it now excludes such things as toasters, grills and hot plates.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am glad the minister has gone as far as that and I hope he will go farther, but I will ask him again: Is there any reason why Mr. E. P. Taylor, Mr. Weston, the Honey Dew or somebody else is more entitled to have a chafing dish or a waffle iron than a veteran of this war?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Let me say that we do not draw our legislation with a view to Mr. E. P. Taylor or anybody else in this country but to everyone in Canada. We have not Mr. Taylor or any other individual in mind when the taxes are drawn.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then, if the minister has not them in mind, why does the amendment not cover coffee makers, toasters and other things for the veterans? Is the veteran not entitled to exemption from taxation exactly the same as Mr. E. P. Taylor or anybody else? The minister is apparently ill advised by some of his brain trusters. Let me read it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The minister knows it pretty
well.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He may or may not. Take electric or gas refrigerators. I will ask the minister this question. Did he ever hear of a place called Cariboo? It is not in my district. The only refrigerator they can get is a gas or a kerosene refrigerator, but so far as any article for commercial use is concerned, for the benefit of Mr. E. P. Taylor and Mr. Weston, they are to be exempt. I for one wish to take strenuous exception to that. With all deference to the minister, and my compliments to him, he has been ill advised by some of his so-called bureaucrats, who have no sympathy whatever for the veterans of Canada.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I think the minister has contradicted himself in what he has submitted to the committee. He says, first of all, that the taxes are to discourage production. That is the main thought he has in mind.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not to discourage production, to discourage consumption.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What is the difference? It is discouraging production. On the other hand, the minister says there are no taxes on machinery for the production of these consumer goods. How can he reconcile these two positions? First of all, he says he is going to discourage consumption, which means that he will discourage production, and what does that mean? That means loss of employment. I would point out to the minister that once you start a depression, once you start unemployment and get the skids greased with a 25 per cent tax, you discourage buying more and more, and you are in a dangerous position. This whole situation that we have today, this attempt to balance things up, only emphasizes the necessity, which the government should have realized, of devaluing our dollar. The whole thing could have been done easily in that way and it could have been done overnight. There is no doubt about that. What are the results to date? We have an average loss of United States currency of something like $70,000,000 a month.


Douglas Charles Abbott: A net gain last month.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Seventy millions a month. The minister, in other words, is in the position of someone trying to trim the Christmas tree. He takes a little off this side and he finds that, to balance it, he must take a little off the other. Then, when he has taken some off the other side he finds that he is forced to take a little more from some other part. The result is that he has nothing but a skeleton left. The minister said this was to discourage consumption of such commodities as copper, aluminum, lead, zinc and things of that sort. I wonder if the minister has any
Excise Tax Act Amendment

idea as to what was the copper production of these things, or the consumption of these things, or what the exports were? How much does the government hope to save? I should like to know something about that, and I think it would be interesting to the committee to find out. I am sure the committee would like to know what the situation is in connection with these products. Can the minister tell us?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not those figures available at the moment, but they can readily be obtained in a number of government publications. I could get them. Our production of copper, lead, aluminum and other base metals is well known and our exports are known, so that if one were to subtract the exports from the total production, one could arrive at the domestic consumption. I have not the figures this evening.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What is the consumption of these various articles such as vacuum cleaners and radios? Take radios, for example. Most radio receiving sets made in this country today have something like 80 or 90 per cent Canadian content. What shall we save in that direction by reducing the production of radios and by a reduction in the consumption of this commodity? What effect will that have on investigation and research which is going on in connection with that industry at the present time? How will it affect that industry? I know the minister has had1 an interesting brief from the radio people and they have been turned down flat. What is the reason? It would be interesting to know something about reduction of employment in that business, and the same with vacuum cleaners and refrigerators. Can the minister give some estimate of the reduction that is likely to take place in the production of these articles?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not those figures, but they are all on record. I gave figures earlier in the debate, but I have not them at the moment, as to the number of radios produced domestically and the number imported. From memory I would say that the larger proportion of radios purchased in Canada are domestically produced, while the proportion imported is relatively small. On the other hand, domestically produced radios contain in some cases a considerable proportion of imported parts, and even those which contain-


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Ten per cent.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Even if they did not contain one per cent, on the thesis I developed earlier this evening, we should reduce our consumption of radios if we are to continue 
to extend aid to the devastated countries. We should do so even if they did not have five cents' worth of United States content.


The CHAIRMAN:: It has occurred to me that the committee might be prepared to carry the amendment and then it could consider the resolution as amended.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That would be helpful, and the committee would see what is covered, by the proposed tax resolution, but I am in the hands of the committee.
Mr. MACD0NNE'LL (Muskoka-Ontario): Is this amendment merely to give effect to what the minister told us had already been decided, namely, that the articles originally put in were many of them now taken out?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Some were taken out and the provisions of the resolution rearranged. That is correct. The original resolution as tabled by me on December 19, or whatever the date was, is amended by removing from it a number of articles which it had previously been intended should be subject to the tax. That is the sole effect of the amendment. It is to narrow the scope of the proposed tax.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Before I am asked to vote on the amendment, I should like to ask the minister a question somewhat along the line of the questions asked by the hon. member for Fraser Valley. With regard to these things now appearing in the amendment, will tax refunds be made to the people who made purchases, if they are veterans or otherwise? With regard to all these articles on that list, and on which you are collecting taxes, if this amendment carries have we your assurance that refunds will be made to the purchasers?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That really has nothing to do with the amendment. The situation will be this. This proposed tax is being paid now by the manufacturers or on importation. If parliament refuses to approve this tax, they will have the right to claim from the dominion government, and will receive, a refund of the taxes which they have paid. The purchasers of the articles which are subject to tax will have paid a purchase price for them which will not be segregated so far as tax is concerned, and it will be within their right to claim, from the person from whom they have purchased the article, a proportionate reduction in the price for such portion of that price as may involve the tax content. That may be complicated from the point of view of the original purchaser, but I do not think that eventuality will arise.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is impossible.

Excise Tax Act Amendment


Thomas John Bentley: I wanted to ask the minister a question also arising out of his reply to the hon. member for Fraser Valley. He saidi that those people who had' purchased those things which were on this list and! who are in the business of producing consumer articles as opposed to those who are producing for service, receive them tax free.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That has been, broadly speaking, the principle we have decided to follow in connection with this tax. In essence, it is intended to be a tax on consumer articles, not on producer articles.


Thomas John Bentley: I want to follow this up. What measures are the government taking to prevent some of these people in that category, who can buy these articles tax free, from also setting up a side line on the black market? If these things are to be scarce and people are willing to go out and pay black market prices to get something they want, what is to prevent some of these people in the category mentioned, who can buy them tax free, from buying them for friends and eventually creating a black market?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The articles which are
referred to, I am advised, are articles which are adapted to commercial use, not to household use. That is the language of the resolution.


George Alexander Cruickshank: In pursuance of the question asked by the hon. member for Grey North, I think it is the duty of the minister to put this on record so that the people of Canada will know what the situation is. If a man has paid that tax, can he demand its refund?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; and the only man who will have paid the tax will have been the manufacturer.	.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Pardon me.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: And the retailer.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. Again the minister has been ill advised by some of his advisers. Individuals have paid that tax, through their retailers who, I presume, paid it through their wholesaler on these items. If the minister wants that to be proven to him, I shall be glad to do so. I want the minister to put it on record that the dominion government orders those retailers or wholesalers to refund any of those taxes which have been collected.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If this tax is not imposed- and I do not think for one moment that par-5849-137
liament will not approve this resolution; but suppose it were not-then anyone who has bought an article which is subject to this new tax is entitled to go back to his retailer and say, "Refund me the portion of the price which represents taxation."


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: How can he do that without a cash sales slip?


Mr. LOW:: I wanted to ask two or three questions following the speech made a moment ago with regard to radios. It occurred to me to ask the minister if there is an export market for Canadian-made radios that would be sufficient to take up the saving in Canadian consumption effected by this bill, so that Canadian manufacturers of radios would not be forced out of business.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am told that there is at the present time no substantial export market for radios. There is some export market. When I say export market, I was thinking particularly of exports into the United States. We export radios to a variety of countries in other parts of the world, such as the Azores, Afghanistan-I see in looking at this list- Cuba, Guatemala, Haiti, Iran and so on. The total value of radio receivers exported in the period of the first eleven months of 1947 totalled $1,500,000 odd, and a long list of countries was covered. Just looking at it quickly, there appear to me to be some forty or fifty different countries. But the export volume of completed radio sets is not substantial at the present time; nothing compared with the domestic consumption.


Solon Earl Low: May I just finish that? Would it not be advisable for the government to assure itself that its measures under this act will not force out of business manufacturers of that type in Canada, because I think the minister admits it is a good thing to have Canadian manufacturers continue to supply the Canadian market with their own products?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My information is that, notwithstanding the imposition of this proposed tax, Canadian radio manufacturers will sell every radio receiving set they have produced this year.


Solon Earl Low: Just one other question and I shall be through, Mr. Chairman. The minister laid some emphasis on the slowing down of consumption in Canada through the effect of this measure which I can quite understand. But I wonder if the government ha3 given careful attention to the alternative; that is, measures to bring production to the point where it will be possible for a great many more things to be exported beyond what
Excise Tax Act Amendment

Canadians want to use. I am afraid that not much evidence has been given to the committee to convince us that that avenue has been explored to the end. The minister mentioned yesterday that we had full or nearly full employment; but that does not mean to say, by any means, that we have our industries working at anything like 100 per cent efficiency. It seems to me that the minister should give us some assurance that the government, before it imposes this tax, has investigated this other alternative and has satisfied itself that it has given every assistance and leadership in trying to bring up the efficiency of the manufacturing industries in this country to the point where they just cannot get any more production.


Douglas Charles Abbott: To answer my hon. friend's question, as I said yesterday afternoon, there are two ways in which we can re-create this over-all current account surplus that I have been discussing, and that is by increasing production and by reducing consumption; either or both of those methods. We are now operating apparently under a condition of practically full employment. Our production is away ahead of anything it has ever been before in this country. No doubt it could be increased by lengthening hours of work, by improving methods, and perhaps by a variety of other ways. There is this point to be borne in mind, however, that increased production in this country, particularly in the industrial field, involves increased imports of such things as steel, fuels, petroleum and so on from -the United States. So I must say I do not believe the cure for this situation, namely the creation again of this over-all current account surplus to which I have been referring, can be achieved entirely by an increase in production. I would hope that we could increase production to some extent; but I think it has to be achieved in the volume we need by some reduction in the level of domestic consumption, either in the capital or in the consumer field.


Mr. FLEMING:: There is a point in connection with this amendment which I think the minister has not adequately explained. We are dealing with a group of amendments which generally have the effect of reducing the list of articles in respect of which the excise tax is to be imposed. But some of these amendments have already taken effect. The minister undertook to levy this tax illegally and, according to his statement tonight, without any colour of right, legal or constitutional, has extorted from the people of Canada between $5,000,000 and $6,000,000 under the tax

announced by radio on November 17. The same minister, as it has pleased him from time to time, has undertaken to remove this illegal tax from certain articles. For instance, on November 9 we read that the tax had been removed from pianos.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What date?


Donald Methuen Fleming: January 9. Then on January 21 we read that oil burners and sporting goods had been removed from the list. On January 23 we read that the tax had been taken off air-conditioning equipment. The minister has not yet explained-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, he has. It was one of the few occasions when my hon. friend was not in his seat.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The only occasion during the course of this debate when I have not been in my seat was yesterday afternoon when for one hour I was fulfilling my duties in the prices committee.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This was a week or ten days ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can tell the minister I have read everything he has had to say during the course of this debate. I ask him to say what has been collected on each of these items he has purported to remove from the illegal tax, and exactly what he is proposing to do with the money that has been brought into the public treasury by his illegal act and which now, with the removal of the tax, certainly has less business staying there than it had to begin with, and that was none at all. I ask the minister if he will give the committee a clear picture in that regard. I am speaking now only of the amendment which has been proposed to the original resolution. I have something more to say on the resolutions as amended, but I am confining what I have to say now to the amendment. I ask the minister if he will give the committee a complete picture of what has been done or what is to be done with respect to the articles originally included in the list of November 17, but which since have been removed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I went into this in some detail one evening not long ago. I cannot give the date, because I have not had a chance to look at Hansard since my hon. friend commenced to speak, but in reply to a question by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario I gave the considerations which prompted me to remove the various specific articles from the list of those subject to tax. As to what was done when those were removed, of course that action followed repre-

Excise Tax Act Amendment
sentations from those who were particularly interested; and the Department of National Revenue notified those interested in the trade of the proposed changes in the tax resolutions. I am informed that the manufacturers, who, after all, are the ones on whom the tax is imposed and who remit it to the Department of National Revenue, have, in order to protect their own position, taken appropriate credits in their monthly tax returns, or whatever it is, for any tax they may have collected. I am informed that is the case, by an official of the Department of National Revenue who is sitting before me at the moment. Of course I have not the figures in that regard. I shall inquire as to whether they could be made available; but, broadly speaking, that is the procedure which was followed. In most of these cases the tax was withdrawn before it had been paid to the department and passed on to the purchaser next in line, or so I am informed. Obviously the longer one waited to make changes, the more complicated the situation would become. I do not suppose my hon. friend wants me to repeat tonight the reasons I gave the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario as to the broad principles which motivated our decision to remove certain articles from the proposed list.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not quarreling with the removal of those articles from the list. I do quarrel with the minister to this extent, however, that I wish he would go further and remove the rest of the articles; that is all I ask. But my question was directed toward the disposition of the moneys which have reached the hands of the department under a tax which was levied by ministerial action.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The position is that manufacturers, who are the collectors of this tax, make monthly returns to the Department of National Revenue with respect to their excise tax liability. In cases where they would have remitted the tax on some pianos, let us say, to use that as an example, and then following representations it was decided that the tax was not going to be imposed, in their return for the following month they would take credit as against the gross tax liability for that month for the tax they had remitted the previous month with respect to three or four pianos, perhaps. That is the method which was followed. Or alternatively, it is pointed out to me, the manufacturer could make formal application for a refund.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does that mean that the removal of the article from the list was dated back to November 17, in all cases?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct; in all cases. I am glad my hon. friend brought that out. It is just as though the tax never should have been collected.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Let us speak about the tax on sporting goods for a moment. On November 17 the minister put this tax on sporting goods, and about two months later took it off. I would like him to tell me exactly how the retailer could get that tax back to a person who bought sporting goods in the meantime. Every sale which is made does not show the name of the customer. Probably when a customer buys merchandise he tears up his sales slip, and there is no possible way in which the minister or anyone else can get the tax back to that consumer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am informed that the retailer would apply to his wholesaler and the wholesaler to his manufacturer for a refund of that tax, and would receive it.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: But the consumer has not the slip. He has torn it up, and it is absolutely impossible for the consumer to get the tax back, whether or not parliament passes this legislation.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is possible that in a limited number of oases the retailer will have derived a benefit. It is open to the consumer, if he sees fit, to go back to his retailer and say, "I bought a badminton bird," or whatever it was-and remember this tax did not cover all sporting goods-or "I bought a tennis racquet" or a golf club, "and I paid the tax. I want the tax back."


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: But he has not the sales slip for it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He would have to argue that out with the retailer. I say there would be relatively few cases-


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: There would be thousands and hundreds of thousands of cases.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Hundreds of thousands? Nonsense.


Thomas John Bentley: I want to follow this up, if I may.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Go and see the retailer; that is my advice.


Thomas John Bentley: All right; I am going to ask this question. A customer goes to see the retailer. I think the minister or anybody else will admit that, as the hon. member for Moose Jaw said, there will be thousands of these cases. It may be the fault of the purchasers; I am not going to argue that point
2138
Excise Tax Act Amendment

now. But there will be thousands of these cases, where individuals who purchased from retailers will have no documentary evidence upon which to make claims for refunds. If that is so, who owns that money?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The position is this: I do not know whether the retailer charged the tax on stock on hand.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: They did; I can tell the minister they did.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Some did and some did not; because I have seen advertisements in papers with respect to some articles which are subject to tax, and those advertisements have stated, "On our stock in hand we are not charging the lax." Some retailers did and some did not. I do not quarrel with that, since the standard practice in connection with the imposition of a tax at this time is that the dealer can collect the tax with respect to stock which he has on hand; because, when the tax comes off, he is, of course, subject to whatever loss he may sustain. That is standard practice. But I have been told that in the case of this particular proposed impost it has not been the general practice of retailers to add1 the amount of the tax to the stock in hand. I have been told that that is so, and I believe that it is so.
In the case of the particular articles to which my hon. friend referred-sporting goods-that would apply to only a limited field. It applied to such things as tennis racquets and golf clubs, but it did' not apply to articles for hockey, baseball or skating, or any of these other winter sports. So that I would doubt if there were any substantial amount of tax collected by retailers on sporting goods before the announcement was made that this tax was not to be placed on such commodities.
I know my hon. friend is in the electrical business, and he no doubt knows whether or not he collected this tax on the stock which he had in hand. I do not know whether he did or not, but I would not blame him if he did. If he did, that is all right; he knows that better than I do. I know some dealers did not.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to get into this again, because I happen to be a customer of the hon. member for Moose Jaw. If my recollection serves me correctly, I understood the minister to say over the radio on November 18 that as of that date the tax became effective.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Unconstitutionally.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I shall not argue that point now. But the minister did say that. I happened to be purchasing certain articles from my hon. friend from Moose Jaw.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: And at wholesale, incidentally.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, I asked for it. Yes, I purchased it at wholesale. But that is all the more reason, we should have price controls, because if the price I paid was wholesale, then heaven help the man who paid retail.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: There was the eight per cent sales tax and the 25 per cent excise tax.


George Alexander Cruickshank: But, to be serious about the matter, I happen to be a friend of the hon. member for Moose Jaw. I go to him, and if he had to refund it, he would refund it to me. But, as he says, what about the young man in. the middle of Saskatchewan? He has not the same chance, because he does not know the hon. member personally who sold the goods. I happen to know him, and he knows me; but he does not know all his customers.
I say it is most unfair; and it can be carried through in respect of many items, not just on one item concerning sporting goods. It can be carried through on the whole list of items. Either this tax is legal, and the federal government must stand back of it, stand behind it, or it is not legal. It is one or the other. If it was collected illegally, then in my opinion it is the responsibility of the federal government to see that it is refunded.
Then, as it is getting near eleven, o'clock, there is one other thing I should like to say. It is all very well to say that these are small items, but the minister has not yet given me a satisfactory explanation. And, incidentally, I did not get this information until tonight, when I asked a boy to get me one off the table of the house. One is expected to put these amendments together tonight. I say, when a minister or anyone else brings in an amendment, every member of the house should have a copy of it, at least on the morning of the day it is to be introduced.


Mr. LESAGE:: You had it for a week.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Listen, my young friend from Quebec, if you do as good a job in trying to attend to price control, and bring down the price of bread and other things, you will be doing a very good job.
I had intended to speak particularly about refrigerators. If the minister can change the rates simply by bringing in an amendment, I cannot see why he could not bring in an amendment which would concern refrigerators particularly. I refer to those which are operated by kerosene and gasoline in rural districts. It is all very well for those who have

Excise Tax Act Amendment
the privilege of living in Westmount, or some such district as that. But those people who live in the rural parts of Canada do not have those privileges.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Kerosene refrigerators are not taxable.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Thank you. I have done something tonight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a brief word to say. Once again tonight the Minister of Finance has tried1-and unsuccessfully I think -to belittle the problem set forth by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, the hon. member for Grey North, and others, namely the difficulty of getting this tax, which was put on and then taken off, back to the purchaser of the goods. I suggest to the minister the fact that only a few may have been involved, or that it is only a few cents here and there, is not a satisfactory answer. What this whole thing does is to underline the fact that it was a bad piece of business to fly in the face of the constitution. I suggest again that the arguments which have been made from this side of the house and, in particular, against the way in which this was done, have been well taken. We have been attempting to get members of a Liberal government to have some respect for the constitution which, after all, does have some validity.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister indicated that certain wholesalers who had remitted the tax between November 17 and the date upon which the particular articles on which they paid it were removed from the taxable list, have made claims in one way or another for rebate. Could the minister give the total of those claims to date? I do not suppose for one moment that the list is complete, because delays in returns and in calculations are bound to occur. But it would be some guidance to the committee to know the total claims for refunds to date.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be glad to see what we can get on it. I do not wish to give too firm an undertaking because, for reasons which my hon. friend will appreciate, it may mean going through monthly returns from a considerable number of manufacturers and wholesalers to see what they had claimed by way of credits on their monthly statements, or specific claims for refunds. I shall ask the officials of the Department of National Revenue to see what information can be given.
For instance, the announcement was made with respect to electrical stoves on December 12, and I am informed that no tax was paid
to the crown with respect to those particular articles, which were originally included1 in the list.


Mr. JACKMAN:: The purchaser paid it, though.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I doubt it. I am told by officials of the Department of National Revenue that few purchasers paid a tax on
stoves.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I assume that when the original resolution was compiled and announced over the radio on November 17 there had been prepared by or for the minister an estimate- of the revenue that was expected to be yielded by the 25 per cent tax on each of the items. Will the minister give to the committee the estimate for each item so that we may have some appreciation of the whole revenue picture?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That question was asked before, again by the hon, member for Mus-koka-On-tario, and I told him that I had asked the same question of my officials and was told that it was absolutely impossible to attempt to make any estimate of what the revenue would be from the imposition of this proposed new excise tax, particularly because the taxes were being imposed, not for the purposes of obtaining revenue but to discourage consumption. My officials told me that they could not give me anything which would be really an accurate estimate.
We were able to estimate with a considerable degree of accuracy the amount of revenue which would be lost as a result of eliminating the tax on the domestic consumption of electricity and the removal of the one cent tax on sugar. If my memory serves me aright the estimated loss in the full year from those two taxes was something around the order of $19,000,000.
It was pointed out to me that the restrictive program under schedule III of the emergency import control act had not been worked out at that time, so that it was not possible to say with any degree of accuracy how many of these articles would probably be produced in Canada during the coming year. Taking all these different factors into consideration, my officials tell me that they could not give me anything that would, be even a reasonably accurate estimate of what the tax yield would be from the imposition of these proposed taxes, and therefore I am sorry I cannot give it to the committee.


Park Manross: Organs are not mentioned in this amendment, so that I suppose the tax has been dropped?
Excise Tax Act Amendment


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right. It was really off early in, the game.


Park Manross: I would not be a bit encouraged over the minister saying that kerosene refrigerators are not mentioned1 in this tax. There is no tax on kerosene refrigerators because they are prohibited under schedule I.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have told hon. members that the question of whether a quota can be placed on those articles is now receiving serious consideration.


Park Manross: If a quota is given they will not be taxed?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


Park Manross: If we pass this amendment to the resolution tonight could we have a re-written resolution when we come back at this thing tomorrow?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Earlier in the game I did provide a consolidation of the resolution in mimeographed form. That included the amendments. However, we have been taking this resolution in bits and pieces and I am afraid the original supply may have been exhausted. I will see that copies of the consolidation are made available.


Park Manross: I have the original one.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The mimeographed copy is a consolidation, including the amendment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I realize the task the minister has in attempting to conserve foreign exchange and I am not going to discuss the constitutional aspects of the matter. However, I submit that there is an element of discrimination in this act in addition to the one mentioned by the hon. member for Fraser Valley. The minister has said that the purpose of these excise taxes is to slow down consumption.


Douglas Charles Abbott: One of the purposes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think it is logical to assume that it is the consumption of the lower income groups that will be slowed down to the greatest extent. It will not slow down the consumption of the middle-income groups or of well to do people. They will buy refrigerators and other things as they wish, but we shall be slowing down the consumption of the majority of the veterans in this country and the consumption of the majority of the lower paid working people. Does the minister not consider that to that extent these taxes are a discrimination against a large number of veterans and against a large section of the working classes of this country? Second, has considera-

tion been given to a system of rationing to make it possible for these commodities to be distributed at least fairly?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I suppose any tax of this kind is bound to involve some measure of discrimination; it is inevitable that it should. My hon. friend is perfectly correct in saying that the well-to-do and the wealthy will be able to go ahead and buy refrigerators in spite of the tax. But they will pay the tax, and the lower income group will have kept their money and will be able to buy refrigerators a little later on when they are not as expensive to the extent of 25 per cent.


An hon. MEMBER:: When will that be?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot say when that will be. This is the adoption of a fiscal measure in order to reduce consumption. As I said the other day, I think a valid criticism which might be directed at this tax is that it does not cover a great enough field of commodity and that it has singled out certain commodities which perhaps-I do not admit this-it is unfair to single out. To that degree there may be some discrimination. To some extent I am a believer in the fiscal method of accomplishing these things rather than in an attempt to set up a rationing system whereby one tries to determine, by the decision of some body here in Ottawa or of some official in Vancouver or somewhere else, who will get a refrigerator, who will get an iron and so on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is exactly what you are doing.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friends may interrupt and interject as much as they like, but I assert again that the fiscal method is a well-recognized method of accomplishing what we have in mind. It is a method which is accepted and approved by some of the ablest economists in this and any other country, and they are not socialists or followers of any other kind of ism. I assert today, as I did yesterday, that this is a perfectly well-recognized, legitimate method of reducing consumption for the purposes which I indicated yesterday, namely, creating an over-all current account surplus.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: If you believe that, why did you not devalue?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member may make his own speech w'hen he gets a chance.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister has said that this was in part for the purpose of cutting down consumption, but I notice that he stated earlier in the

Excise Tax Act Amendment
evening that Canadian radio purchases, or, at any rate, production was still at the highest level.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that; I am informed that it is.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That raises a question which I think is important. Will the minister let us know just what indication there is to date as to whether the tax is having that effect? I know the minister will say that in a general way it is bound to have some effect, but I think we have a right to ask how much effect can be ascertained up to the present time.
I want to come back to what the minister said as to the main purpose of this tax, because I think we are apt to forget it. The minister said in his opening speech that the main purpose of the new excise taxes was to save United States dollar exchange. We have had nothing up to the moment to show how much dollar exchange has been saved, and I submit that that is a thing on which we should try to get whatever information is available before we take a vote on this measure.
In the first place, it seems to me the minister should tell us how much of .the taxes, the figures of which he gave us earlier in the evening, were levied on United States parts. I take it from what the minister said that the only effect which this measure has, as distinct from Bill No. 3, the embargo measure, on the saving of United States exchange, is on the importation of parts, and in order to find out what the saving is on parts may we know what amount of tax has been collected on these parts since the measure came into effect; what was the amount of parts coming in before that time, and particularly what tax has been levied, so that we can in that way get at the amount which is being saved?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I gave the estimated amount of tax which had been collected on radios, among other things, as the result of this proposed tax. There is no tax imposed on parts as such but on the finished radio set, on the manufacturer. For the reasons I have given earlier I cannot say what the effect of this particular section of our over-all program to conserve dollars has had, but, as I told the committee the other evening, our reserves of United States dollars at the end of February were $527 million as against $514 million at the end of January, and that is exclusive of the $50,000,000 we have drawn from the export-import bank loan. I think, with due reserve-and I am essentially conservative in these estimates-the program in its over-all
aspects seems to be accomplishing the purposes we had in mind. We are not only holding the line but, instead of dropping $70,000,000 to $75,000,000 a month of United States exchange we were in February $13,000,000 up. I do not attach too much importance to that. I know that inventories were built up and the pipelines were full, and I say frankly that the results so far are better than I expected. I do not know whether it will last indefinitely. I would expect perhaps to see a downward trend, nevertheless in its over-all effect the program is doing what we set out to do. I cannot tell the committee what part is due to the discouragement of consumption as a result of the proposal to impose this tax, or what part is due to prohibitions on imports, or what part is due to quotas, or what part is due to the discouragement of capital investment under schedule III. I cannot break it down that way, and I do not think anybody else can. I can only give to the committee the over-all results to date. I should like to give my hon. friend further information but I just cannot do so.


William Henry Golding: I wonder if the committee would agree to carrying the amendment tonight?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I suggest on the question you have just asked, Mr. Chairman, that possibly if the minister would place on Hansard in consolidated form the original resolution as amended the committee might accept it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It will be available tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It ought to be on Hansard.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It would have to be by consent of the committee. I have to move an amendment to the original resolution which I moved on December 19, but I think it would be of great convenience to the committee to have placed on Hansard tonight the consolidated resolution which incorporates the changes and deletions. I would be very happy to do that, because I think it would facilitate discussion.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I had not finished my question. I want to read to the minister one thing he said, because I do not think he has given me his final answer. Referring to the goods excluded, he said on December 16, as reported at page 336 of Hansard:
The import of practically all these goods in finished form has been prohibited or placed
Excise Tax Act Amendment

under quota restrictions and substantial savings in United States dollars are expected to result from this action.
Then he goes on:
The savings, however, would be considerably reduced if domestic production of the same type of articles were to expand to fill the gap in the supply, since this would involve further substantial imports of parts and components.
The amount of United States parts that goes into these goods is perfectly well known. The figures are available. They may not be easy to get, but this was put forward as the main feature of this measure, and surely it is not too much to ask for this information.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We can possibly get the amount of radio parts imported and probably automobile parts; but when we get down to which part of an electric toaster is imported, I do not know, even if we had the information, just what practical advantage it would be. However, I shall ask my officials to try to get whatever information can be obtained as to the importation of parts of articles which are subject to this tax. I want to add this, that even if an article does not contain one cent's worth of imported content the chances are that it does contain, metal, such as aluminum or copper or something else, which we could export to dollar markets and sell for dollars. In addition, I suggest that the consumption of these articles should be reduced.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to complete my question.


William Henry Golding: I want the permission, of the committee to do two things. In the first place, has the minister leave to put the proposed amended resolution on Hansard?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is as follows:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act and to provide:
1.	Effective on and after November 18, 1947, an excise tax of 2,5 per cent is imposed on the following goods:
(a)	The following electrical appliances: waffle irons; roasters; kettles; chafing dishes; juice extractors; coffee makers; toasters of all kinds; portable humidifiers; curling irons or tongs, hair dryers; permanent waving machines and spacers or clamps; rods and heaters therefor; razors and shavers; garbage disposal units;
(b)	The following electrical appliances when adapted to household use: food or drink mixers; food choppers and grinders; irons and ironers; vacuum cleaners and attachments therefor; floor waxers and polishers;
(c)	Electric or gas refrigerators or freezing equipment, and coils, condensing or compressor units, cabinets, boxes, evaporators and expansion valves therefor; all the foregoing when adapted to household or apartment use or when

for use in places of entertainment, amusement or recreation, including rinks, auditorI a, halls and clubs;
(d)	Firearms except for military or police purposes;
(e)	Outboard motors;
(f)	Motorcycles, and all other two- or threewheeled motor-driven vehicles including motors for attachment to bicycles but not including vehicles specially designed for carrying goods or for use by invalids;
(g)	Projectors for slides, films or pictures designed for industrial or professional photographers' use;
(h)	Toilet articles of all kinds (including combs, mirrors and brushes other than tooth brushes or shaving brushes the duty paid value or the Canadian manufacturer's selling price of which combs, mirrors and brushes is more than twenty-five cents each) and which items do not already come w'ithiu any other item in schedule one of the said act.
2.	That on and after November 18. 1947. the rate of excise tax on automobiles adapted or adaptable for passenger use with seating capacity for not more than ten persons each, imported into or manufactured or produced in Canada be increased from ten per cent to the following rates, namely, on automobiles valued at $1,20(1 or less, 25' per cent; over $1,200 but not more than $2,000 , 25 per cent on $1,200 plus 50 per cent on the amount in excess of $1,200; over $2,000 , 25 per cent on $1,200 plus 50 per cent on $800 plus 75 per cent on the amount in excess of $2,000.
3.	That on and after November 18, 1947, the rate of excise tax on phonographs, record playing devices, radio broadcast receiving sets and tubes therefor, be increased from ten per cent to twenty-five per cent.
4.	That on and after November 18, 1947, the rate of excise tax on cameras, photographic films and plates, projectors for slides, films or pictures, except those designed exclusively for industrial or professional photographers' use, be increased from ten per cent to twenty-five percent.
5.	That on and after November 18, 1947, electricity and gas used in dwellings be exempt from consumption or sales tax; and
6.	That on and after November 18, 1847, the excise tax of one cent per pound on sugar, grape sugar, glucose, sugar syrup, corn syrup, etc., be repealed.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member for Brant has been trying to get to his feet and I should like to give him that opportunity.


Mr. CHARLTON:: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The minister said some time ago that he did not blame retailers for collecting the tax on all inventor}' stock. Am I to assume from that, that a retailer who had a stock of radios would be able to collect the tax on a radio and stick the tax in his pocket and not send it in to the dominion treasury? By the same token, would a man who had a $4,000 car in stock on November 16 be able to collect in the same way $3,000 as a pure profit? Is that right?

Business oj the House


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right, and that is standard tax practice. When a tax is imposed in this way there is no refund made to a retailer if the tax is taken off. If his stock consists of tax-paid inventory and the tax is taken off, the automatic effect is that the value of his inventory falls by the amount of the tax. So what the dealer gains when the tax is put on he loses when the tax comes off. That is standard tax practice. It has been the practice in this country ever since tariffs and taxes were imposed, that the holders of inventories benefit when a tax is put on and lose when a tax is taken off. I have had delegations come to see me within the last two months from wholesale grocers in connection with the removal of the tax on sugar. They say that they have had substantial losses by the removal of the one cent tax on sugar. With a sympathetic look on my face I had to tell them that that is unfortunate, but that is what happens when a tax comes off. They gain when the tax goes on but lose when the tax comes off.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is the intention to call tomorrow resolution No. 3 on the order paper today, dealing with the Geneva trade agreement, for the purpose of referring it to the committee on banking and commerce.
Mr. BRACKEN:: That is, without approving it at this stage?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: With nothing more than merely referring it to the committee on banking and commerce, hoping that further debate upon it can be had when the information will have been obtained in the committee on banking and commerce. Then the Minister of Justice would like to move his resolution, which is No. 17 on the order paper, having to do with the bill to provide for the continuation of certain orders and regulations of the governor in council for a limited period, and to make a statement as to what there is left to which the bill will apply, so that over the week-end members may have that information and know just to what extent this bill for prolonging the emergency powers would go. He would hope that the resolution might be adopted and that-the debate upon the propriety of continuing some or all of these measures could be had
after the bill is distributed. But even if that were not possible tomorrow afternoon, if the house were not prepared to adopt the resolution after short debate, the debate might be adjourned; but hon. members would have on Hansard the minister's statement as to what the bill will refer to. Then we shall proceed with the second reading of the bill to amend the wheat board act and, after that, return to the resolution dealing with these excise taxes.


John Bracken: With respect to the wheat board act, I understand that the minister is having that brought forward in divided form.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: My understanding is that it will have to proceed to second reading andi in committee of the whole in the form in which it is. The question of procedure is being considered by the minister and by the Clerk, but it seems that the only way to get the benefit of what has been done up to the present time will be to strike out of that bill the part which deals with coarse grains and carry it on only with the remaining provisions, and introduce another bill to deal with coarse grains. That is something which could be done in committee of the whole. In committee of the whole the new part dealing with coarse grains would not be passed and1 the bill would be reported without that part, so that it could go forward and be adopted without undue delay.


John Bracken: The minister has said that the resolution moving discussion of the Geneva trade agreements will be brought forward tomorrow in order that it may be referred to the committee before being approved by the house?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


John Bracken: And then come back to the house. Is the minister in a position to say he will do the same thing with the resolution with respect to the exchange of letters regarding the abandonment of the British trade preference?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. I am not in a position to say that, and I can say that it is not regarded as being as urgent as the others.
It being seven minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.



Friday, March 12, 1948