[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government and I am sure the Canadian people were shocked and grieved to learn this morning of the death of Jan Masaryk, foreign minister of Czechoslovakia. As the son of the late president-liberator, Thomas Masaryk, he bore one of the greatest names in Czech history; indeed, one of the great names in world history.
Jan Masaryk had seen his father's work crowned with success by the establishment of the republic of Czechoslovakia in 1918. He devoted himself to the service of that state and of the liberal democratic ideas it embodied for the twenty brief years of its independent existence. When Czechoslovakia was occupied by the nazis in 1939, Jan Masaryk, with that courage and resource which always characterized him, carried on the struggle from abroad until Czechoslovakia regained that democratic freedom which she has once again so tragically lost.
On behalf of the Canadian government and people, I wish to express to the family of Jan Masaryk and to the Czechoslovak people our deep sympathy in their great loss. His contribution to the effort to establish a peaceful democratic world of free and friendly peoples will not be forgotten.
In making this reference to that great patriot in this house, lest there be any misunderstanding I think I should take this occasion to say that in my view the Canadian government and the Canadian people at large associate themselves in every respect with the declaration about the tragic events in Czechoslovakia which was made by the three great powers on February 26 last.
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members will wish to associate themselves with the minister in the statement he has just made. It has been the privilege of some of us, with many members of the government,
to have been acquainted with Jan Masaryk and to know something of what he was trying to do for his country. As the minister has said, the son of a great patriot of Czechoslovakia was trying to serve his country in the footsteps of his father. We not only regret the circumstances which have brought about his death, but we sincerely regret the event itself. On behalf of my associates I wish to join with the minister in the statement he has made in extending our sympathy to that nation in the loss of this great man.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with what has been said. Those of us who knew Jan Masaryk and the ideas which always guided his political life were shocked to find his name among those who were included in the new government two weeks ago. We could not understand what had happened. Perchance when the curtain is lifted we may understand and realize that he took the step in order to do something further for his country, and having failed to do so, not being satisfied to live under a regime which he thought would destroy those democratic principles for which he stood, somehow he met his death. One day history may tell us how and why.



REPORT OF COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthern) presented the first report of the select committee on veterans affairs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: At the request of the leader of the opposition I now wish to lay on the table a copy of the international wheat agreement in English and in French. Perhaps I could amplify the answers I gave the leader of the opposition at the last sitting. The agreement is open for signature until April 1. Fifteen governments had authorized their representatives to sign on March 6. The remaining
Hong Kong Inquiry

twenty-one, mostly small importers excepting Australia, were still awaiting instructions from their government to sign. All of them expected their authorizations to sign before April 1. In addition to signature, the agreement is subject to formal acceptance by the thirty-six governments by July 1. Adjustment in the guaranteed quantities is provided for in the event any minor countries fail to formally accept, and for the agreement not to come into operation if one of the major countries stays out.



HONG KONG


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the Prime Minister's statement of February 24 and the order of the house the following day, I now beg leave to table the evidence in the Hong Kong inquiry. I shall be glad to show the leaders of the different parties the originals of the various cables to verify the fact that the paraphrasing that is required has been made without changing the meaning in any way, and so that they may see also the four cases in which references of a confidential character have been made to units or individuals not forming part of the Hong Kong forces.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence arising out of the statement he has just made. The minister intimated that he was going to table the evidence, and I gathered that was done. May I ask how many copies of the evidence are available?


Brooke Claxton: There is only one copy.


John Bracken: In view of the fact that there were two battalions there, the Winnipeg Grenadiers and the Royal Rifles, why is the evidence tabled only in one language?


Brooke Claxton: The royal commission
heard all the evidence in English, and the evidence that has been tabled and the exhibits that have been tabled are the same transcripts of evidence and the same exhibits that were used by the royal commissioner himself.


John Bracken: The minister, then, does not intend to provide us with more than one copy of the evidence. That is all we are to have. Is that correct?


Brooke Claxton: There is only one copy.



PAYMENT OF HONORARIUM OR EXPENSES TO MEMBERS PARTICIPATING IN BROADCASTS

Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question affecting the privileges of the House of Commons and of many members of the house. It has to do with a matter arising out of ihe Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which from time to time pays an honorarium or expenses to members of the House of Commons for participating in broadcasts and the like put on by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. A number of members are affected by this, sir, and I therefore bring it to the attention of the house with a view to securing an opinion from the Minister of Justice as to whether or not, under the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act, the. acceptance by a member of the House of Commons of an honorarium or expenses results in his being placed in the position that his seat is thereby vacated and thenceforth his election is null and void. It is, sir, a matter which I know affects a great many members in all parts of the house, and it is one respecting wdiich there is considerable doubt.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: They didn't pay me anything.


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice):: One or two members have spoken to me about this matter, and my reply to them was the same as the reply I shall have to give to my hon. friend, and that is that the Department of Justice or the Minister of Justice cannot give official opinions as to the liability of the members. The duties of the Minister of Justice, as set out in the Department of Justice Act, do not include the giving of opinions of that kind either to the members of the house or to the House of Commons itself. His duties are of a different character, such as advising the government and the departments, but not the House of Commons or members. This is a matter on which members will have to get such advice as they see fit and take their own responsibility. Perhaps the hon. member's purpose has been served by bringing the matter to the attention of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the uncertainty, would the minister consider an amendment to remove the possibility of doubt in this connection?


Mr. REID:: They do not have to take the money.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will bring that suggestion to the attention of my colleagues for their consideration.

Questions



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved:: That the name of Mr. Bradshaw be substituted for that of Mr. Lockhart on the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills; that the name of Mr. Fulton be substituted for that of Mr. Harkness on the special committee on veterans affairs; and further, that the name of Mr. Richard (Ottawa East) be substituted for that of Mr. MeOubbin on the select standing committee on public accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	How many employees now -working for the Canadian National Railways are making payments toward a supplemental pension in addition .to the basic pension of $25.00 per month to which they will be entitled on retirement at age 65?
2.	How many employees now working for the Canadian National Railways will be entitled on retirement, according to their present status, to only the basic pension of $25.00 per month?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	The number of employees making payments toward a supplemental annuity is 31,858.
2.	There is no record of the number of employees who on retirement will be entitled to only the basic pension of $25 per month.


CANADIAN ARMY
Mr. FULTON:: 1.	What is (a) the authorized strength of the Active Canadian Army? Has this been amended and if so, tvhat is the effect of the amendment; (b) the present actual strength of the Active Army?
2.	What is the distribution, by commands, of Active Army personnel presently on strength?
3.	Of the personnel in each command as shown in the answer to question 2, how many are (a) effective fighting forces; (b) administrative, service and desk troops?
4.	(a) What is the present authorized strength in officers and other ranks respectively of each unit or part unit of all arms and services (giving names), which comprise the brigade group forming the field force of the Active Army? (b) What is the actual number of officers and other ranks respectively presently on strength in each unit or part unit covered in 4 (a)?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The hon. member has agreed to drop parts 3 and 4 of the question. Parts 1 and 2 are answered.
1. (a) 26,329-subject to the total actual strength not exceeding 20,079 at the present.
(b) 15,409.
2.	Army Headquarters	
1,925Eastern	Command	
1,081Quebec	Command	
2,096Central	Command	
5,203Prairie Command	
2,093Western Command	
2,798Special Duty and Courses	
213Total	15,409


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-PENSIONS
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of only the basic pension of $25.O0l per month?
2.	How many receive the basic pension of $25.00 per month plus a supplemental pension?
3.	How many of said supplemental pensions are (a) less than $20.00 per month; (b) $20.00 to $29.99; (c) $30.00 to $39.99; (d) $40.00 to $49.99; (e) $50.00 to $50.99; (f) $60.00 per month or over?


Lionel Chevrier: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Pensions paid solely at the expense of the railway consist of either a basic pension of $25 or a service pension in excess of $25. The number of employees who receive only a basic
or service pension is:
Less than $25 per month		60 (old plan)
$25 per month	 2,584
$25.01 to	$29.99	per	month	...	875$30.00 to	$39.99	per	month	...	667$40.00 to	$49.99	per	month	...	365$50.00 to	$59.99	per	month	...	225$60 or over per month	574
5,350
2.	The number of pensions paid partly at the expense of the railway and partly arising from employee contributions is:
$25.01 to	$29.99	per	month	
470$30.00 to	$39.99	per	month	
1,994$40.00 to	$49.99	per	month	
1,305$50.00 to	$59.99	per	month	
873$60 or over per month	
3,509
8,151
3.	See answer to No. 2.
Questions


FOREIGN EXCHANGE-U.S. DOLLAR CONTENT IN EXPORTS AS MUTUAL AID, ETC.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	What is the value of the U.S. dollar content in the products exported from Canada by way of mutual aid, gifts or loans to the U.K. and European countries, up to December 31, 1947?
2.	What .amount of U.S. dollars has been recovered from the above exports up to December 31, 1947?
3.	Does the government propose to continue exports to countries on a mutual aid, gift or loan basis, of products with U.S. dollar content, and for how long, and without receiving payment covering U.S. dollar content?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	It is impossible at this time to determine the United States dollar content in the products exported from Canada by way of mutual aid, gifts, or loans to the U.K. and European countries during the last few years.
2.	It is not entirely clear what is meant by the query as to the amount of U.S. dollars recovered from these exports. It is true, however, that very substantial iamounts of gold and U.S. dollars have been received from the countries referred to during the period mentioned.
In the case of the United Kingdom, total receipts of gold and U.S. dollars for the years 1942 to 1947 were as follows:
Equivalent in
Canadian
dollars
Year	(millions)
1942		 23
1943		 143
1944	  55
1945		 33
1946		 150
1947		 505
All countries to which we have granted rredits under the Export Credits Insurance Act are, with one exception, required to pay for a portion of their purchases in Canada by the use of gold or U.S. dollars. Particulars are included in the various annual reports made to parliament under Part II of the act.
Receipts of U.S. dollars and convertible exchange from the European countries to which we have extended such export credits are estimated as follows:
Equivalent in Canadian dollars
Year	(millions)
1945	 70-4
1946	 44-2
1-947	 (Preliminary) 86-5-
3.	No assistance by way of mutual aid, gift, or loan can be given to any country except under authority of parliament. There is now no legislation authorizing the granting of aid 
to any country in respect of relief other than the appropriation of $20 million for post-UNRRA relief, and the appropriations for the Canadian contribution to certain United Nations organizations.
Of the loan to Britain, there remains available to be drawn only $246-5 million and, as has already been announced, present arrangements provide for using this credit in the amount of $45 million during 1948, this amount to be drawn during the first quarter.
In respect of the export credits to the other European countries, there remains unused $103 million. In the case of several borrowing countries which have substantial amounts of credit still available, arrangements were made during the latter part of 1947 that at least as much of their purchases in Canada would be paid for in gold or U.S. dollars as would be purchased out of the credits. Some commodities or classes of commodities.will only be sold for export for U.S. dollars or their equivalent.


ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY
Mr. FULTON:: 1.	What is (a) the authorized strength of the Royal Canadian Navy (active)? Have there been any regulations or orders changing this strength and if so. what is the effect of the change? (b) What is the present actual strength of all ranks now in the Royal Canadian Navy (active) ?
2.	What is the distribution, by divisions, of the personnel presently on strength?
3.	Of the personnel in each division as shown, how many are (a) effective fighting forces; (b) administrative, service and desk personnel (by divisions) ?
4.	(a) What is the present authorized strength, in officers and other ranks respectively, on ships in commission (give names) of the R.C.N.? (b) What is the present number actually on strength on the ships in commission?


Hugues Lapointe: Parts 1 and 2 answered; parts 3 and 4 dropped.
1.	(a) 10,375-subject to the total actual strength not exceeding 7,875 for the present.
(b) 6,782.
2.	Halifax, 3,523; Headquarters, Ottawa, 178; Esquimalt, 3,081.


ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE (ACTIVE)
Mr. FULTON:: 1.	What is (-a) the authorized strength of the Royal Canadian Air Force (active)? Have there been any regulations or orders changing this strength and if so, what is the effect of the change? (b) What is the present actual strength of all ranks now in the Royal Canadian Air Force (active)?
2.	AVhat is the distribution, by commands, of the personnel presently on strength?
3.	Of the personnel in each command as shown, how many are (a) effective fighting forces; (b) administrative, service and desk personnel (by commands) ?

Questions
4.	(a) What is the present authorized strength, in officers and other ranks respectively (giving squadrons, units, etc., by name or number), of the "field" force of the R.C.A.F.?
(b)	What is the present number actually on strength in the squadrons, units, etc., as above?


Hugues Lapointe: Parts 1 and 2 answered; parts 3 and 4 dropped,
1.	(a) 18,221-subject to the total actual strength not exceeding 14,191 for the present.
(b) 11,636.
2.
Air Force Headquarters	 552
Central Air Command	 4,920
North West Air Command	 2,735
Maintenance Command	 1,691
Transport Group	 1,614
Serving Outside Canada	 124
Total	 11,636


ROYAL, CANADIAN AIR FORCE-AUXILIARY
Mr. FULTON:: 1.	(a) What is the strength presently authorized of the auxiliary of the Royal Canadian Air Force? Have there been any amendments or regulations changing this and if so, what is the effect of such amendments? (b) What is the present actual strength of the auxiliary of the Royal Canadian Air Force?
2.	What is the composition of the auxiliary of the Royal Canadian Air Force by squadrons?
3.	Into what formations are these squadrons organized, giving names?
4.	What is the authorized strength of each unit or part unit as above?
5.	What is the actual number presently on strength of each unit or part unit as above?


Hugues Lapointe: Parts 1, 2 and 3 answered; parts 4 and 5 dropped.
1.	(a) 4,500-subject to the total actual strength not exceeding 3,121 for the present.
(b) 692.
2.	10 squadrons.
3.	401 (F) squadron; 438 (F) squadron; 400 (F) squadron; 411 (F) squadron; 424 (F) squadron; 420 (F) squadron; 402 (F) squadron; 406 (TB) squadron; 418 (TB) squadron; 442 (F) squadron.


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


Hugues Lapointe: Parts 1, 2 and 3 answered; parts 4 and 5 dropped.
1.	(a) 18,000-subject to the total actual strength not exceeding 4,400 for the present.
(b) 3,247.
2.	Officers, Royal Canadian Navy (Reserve) Active List. Officers, Royal Canadian Navy (Reserve) Retired List.
Ratings, Royal Canadian Navy (Reserve) Active List. Ratings, Royal Canadian Navy (Reserve) Emergency.
3.	H.M.C.S. Scotian; H.M.C.S. Queen Charlotte; H.M.C.S. Brunswicker; H.M.C.S. Montcalm; H.M.C.S. Donnacona; H.M.C.S. Carleton; H.M.C.S. Cataraqui; H.M.C.S. York; H.M.C.S. Star; H.M.C.S. Prevost; H.M.C.S. Hunter; H.M.C.S. Griffon; H.M.C.S. Chippawa; H.M.C.S. Unicorn; H.M.C.S. Queen; H.M.C.S. Nonsuch H.M.C.S. Tecum-seh; H.M.C.S. Discovery; H.M.C.S. Chatham; H.M.C.S. Malahat.


AGRICULTURAL PRICES SUPPORT BOARD
Mr. WRIGHT:: 1.	Who are the members of the agricultural prices support board?
2.	Do members of the board hold other government positions?
3.	If so, what are they?
4.	Has the board made iany written reports to the government other than, the annual report required by the Agricultural Prices Support Act?
5.	If so, .are these reports available to members of parliament?
6.	Have any commodity boards been set up under section 9, subsection (i) of the Agricultural Braces Support Act?
7.	If so, what are the names of members of such board?
8.	Have any .advisory committees been set up under section 9, subsection (j)?
9.	If so, what are the names of members of such advisory committees?
10.	How many meetings of advisory committees have been held to date?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Mr. J. G. Taggart; Mr. Erie Kitchen; Mr. J. A. Proulx.
2.	Yes.
3.	Mr. J. G. Taggart is director-in-chief, agricultural services, Department of Agriculture, Ottawa.
Mr. J. A. Proulx is chief officer for the Canadian farm loan board in the province of Quebec.
4.	The board reports to the minister.
5.	No.
6.	No commodity boards have been set up under the authority of the agricultural prices
Questions

support board. Commodity boards originally set up under the authority of the War Measures Act and continued under the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, and the Agricultural Products Act are available to act as agents for the agricultural prices support board.
7.	See answer to 6.
8.	Yes.
9.	H. H. Hannam, president, Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Ottawa-chairman.
J. B. Munro, deputy minister of agriculture for B.C., Victoria, B.C.
E.	J. Chambers, president, Associated Growers of British Columbia, Vernon, B.C.
0.	S. Longman, deputy minister of agriculture for Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
L.	E. Pharris, director of the A.F.U. and A.F.A., Magrath, Alberta.
M.	E. Hartnett, deputy minister of agriculture for Saskatchewan, Regina, Sask.
George Wright, president of U.F.C., and president of Sask. Federation of Agriculture, Borden, Sask.
W. J. Parker, president, Manitoba Pool Elevators Ltd., Winnipeg, Man.
F.	W. Downing, manager, Canadian Live Stock Co-operative (Western) Limited, St. Boniface, Man.
C. D. Graham, deputy minister of agriculture for Ontario, Toronto, Ont.
B. B. Warnica, vice-president, Ontario Beef Cattle Producers Association, Barrie, Ont.
J. A. Marion, president, Quebec Chamber of Agriculture, Montreal, P.Q.
Henri Dubord, department of agriculture, Quebec, P.Q.
J. K. King, deputy minister of agriculture for N.B., Fredericton, N.B.
Harry Crandlemire, director of N.B. Potato Growers' Council, Gordonsville, N.B.
F. W. Walsh, deputy minister of agriculture for NJ3., Halifax, N.S.
W. R. Shaw, deputy minister of agriculture for P.E.I., Charlottetown, P.E.I.
10.	Two meetings: April 15-17, 1947, and October 29-31, 1947.


FLAG ADOPTED BY QUEBEC LEGISLATURE
Mr. CAOUETTE:: To what individual or corporation have letters patent or patents been issued for the flag adopted by the Quebec legislature on January 21, 1948?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: There is no record of the issue of letters patent for the flag adopted by the Quebec legislature on January 21, 1948.


FILM BOARD
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Does the national film board own any motor vehicles?
2.	If so, how many and w-hat is the (ia) make of each; (b) style or size; (c) cost of each; (d) purchase date of each vehicle?
3.	What use is made by the national film board of these vehicles?
4.	Does the national film board pay full cost of repairs and maintenance of these vehicles?
5.	If not, what department does and what was the total cost for 1947?


Mr. WINTERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Nine-
(a), (b), (c) and (d).
Chevrolet, 1945, Van-2 ton, $2,323.00, May, 1945.
International, 1942, Panel-1 ton, $1,200.00, May, 1942.
International, 1939, Panel-f ton, $407.43, .Feb., 1947.
Chevrolet, 1940, Station wagon-J ton- converted to truck, $493.00, March, 1947.
Ford, 1938, station wagon-J ton, $1,200.00, June, 1941.
Ford, 1940, Van-Sound truck-1 ton, $646.20, June, 1946.
Ford, 1942, Van-Mobile Unit-J ton, $820.90, Feb., 1947.
Dodge, 1942, Station wagon-J ton, $561.26, Dec., 1947.
Plymouth, 1941, Station wagon-% ton, $522.00, Dec., 1947.
3.	One vehicle (1938 Ford station wagon) is unserviceable and has been declared to War Assets Corporation for disposal.
Four vehicles are used in and around Ottawa. One vehicle is used as a mail and delivery truck for deliveries between National Film Board buildings. Three vehicles are used for local and outside deliveries. These deliveries include cans of film, graphics and displays materials, supplies and equipment such as cameras, lighting equipment, etc. The trucks are also used' by various production crews when shooting on location where there is considerable camera and lighting equipment required and where it would not be economical to use a local trucker.
The sound truck is used by the Sound Department for recordings when production crews are shooting outside the city. This truck has been properly equipped for sound recordings and supplied with a portable generator unit.	.
The Mobile Unit truck is a used army vehicle converted into a Mobile Unit for the showing of 16 mm. films to audiences in the open air. It is widely used for showing agri-

20G1
Questions
cultural, health and other films of particular interest to rural audiences at fairs, conventions and other public gatherings, held during the spring, summer and autumn months, mainly in Ontario and Quebec.
There are two station wagons located at the regional offices in Toronto and Montreal. These are used army vehicles maintained by the National Film Board for the purpose of transporting projection equipment, supplies and films in and around these two cities.
4.	Yes.
5.	Not applicable.


FISHERIES COUNCIL OF CANADA
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Does any branch of the dominion government contribute to the funds of the fisheries council of Canada?
2.	If so, how much was contributed to the council by the government during the year 1947?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. NICHOLSON:: How many Chinese have been 'admitted to Canada since1 the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act in 1947?


Mr. McILRAITH:: Nineteen have been granted permanent status in Canada up to January 31, 1948.


Mr. PEARKES:: 1.	How many applications have been received for entry into Gamad'a of the wives and children of Canadian citizens of Chinese origin since the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act in 1947?
2.	How many entry permits have been issued?
3.	Is it necessary for the wives and children desirous of joining their husbands in Canada to obtain the approval of officers of the immigration branch, Department of Mines and Resources, in China before sailing?
4.	At what points in China are offices of the immigration branch maintained, and on what dates were they, if any, set up?
5.	Is there a Canadian immigration officer in Hong Kong? If so, when did he arrive in Hong Kong?
6.	At points in China where no Canadian immigration officer is stationed but at which there is a Canadian trade commissioner can the trade commissioner authorize the final entry permit to the wives and children desirous of joining their husbands or parents in Canada?
7.	How many wives and children have reached Canada since the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act in 1947?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	130 applications up to March 3, 1948.
2.	None.
3.	Yes.
4.	At Hong Kong. This office was closed at the outbreak of war in the Pacific. An officer is going forward this month and it is expected that the office at Hong Kong will be in operation in April next.
5.	See answer to No. 4.
6.	No.
7.	None.


HEALTH AND WELFARE DEPARTMENT-DOCTORS IN ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY
Thomas Reid: How many doctors are employed in an administrative capacity under the Department of National Health and Welfare?


Mr. MAYBANK:: Twenty-eight.


HEALTH AND WELFARE DEPARTMENT-INDIANS
Thomas Reid: What expenditures, by provinces, were made by the Department of National Health and Welfare on behalf of the Indians duriug the
year 1947?


Ralph Maybank: Province	Amount
Nova Scotia	$	85,654 63Prince Edward Island	
6.894	70New Brunswick	
69.741	00Quebec	
312,994	35Ontario	
622.089	54Manitoba	
821.589	61Saskatchewan	
347,732	52Alberta	
1,045,895	38British Columbia	
1,143,585	37Total-Provinces  	$4,456,177 10Northwest Territories	$ 175,658 10Yukon	
47,893 67


EMPLOYMENT IN PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. FLEMING:: 
George James McIlraith: Employees in the Civil Service of Canada, only:
Temporary-(a) May 1, 1945, 83,971; *Janu-ary 1, 1946, 108,761; *January 1, 1947, 121,673; January 1, 1948 (unrevised), 92,373.
Permanent-(b) May 1, 1945, 30.477; Janu-uary 1, 1946, 31,038; January 1, 1947 , 30,060; January 1, 1948 (unrevised), 32,503.
These include extra employees in the Post Office department taken on for the Christmas rush.
2062
Questions


TRAINING OF CHINESE PILOTS
Mr. BENTLEY:: What department of government has jurisdiction over the training of Chinese pilots?


George James McIlraith: Jurisdiction over the training of all civil pilots in Canada, irrespective of nationality, is exercised by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply under the authority of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder.
1.	and 2.
Months
Canada ____
January . February March ...
April ___
May _____
June ____
July ....
August .. September October . November December
Months Canada .... January . February March ...
April ___
May _____
June ____
July ....
August .. September October . November December
Canada	
January	
February	
March	
April	
May	
June	
July	
August	
September	
October	
November	
December	
Note:-Breakdown for 1947, not compiled.


BUILDING PERMITS
Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	What is the aggregate value of building permits issued in Canada, by months and by the year, in (a) 1945; (b) 1946; (e) 1947?
2.	How much of such aggregate value in each of the said months and years was for (a) residential construction; (b) commercial and industrial construction ?


George James McIlraith: 1945	Building Permits 1946	1917$	S	S197,187,160	383,596,698	373,231,2495,394.227	15.287.048	15,609,4827,224,439	16,572,116	16,791,87912,782,715	39,758,925	24,312,90917,847,235	56,733,095	41,291,66917,860,383	47,858,839	44,412,41219,567,802	32,255,113	38.273,54619,942,269	34,543,217	39,173,61423,281,549	29,496,441	30,112,19820,038,759	29,049,710	36,541,66719,643,473	33,630,991	39,702.98918.283,671	24,286,370	26.541,51715,320,638	24,124,833	20,467,367Residential	1945 Commercial	Industrial$	$	$117,888,831	23,094,399	31,891,7092,400,692	993,176	1,770,5353,449,565	969,925	2,480,2167,326,522	1,423,767	1,542,67610,893,368	1,723,672	2,541,92113,936,682	1,552.371	1,759,62213,157,758	1,693,459	1,711,65513,044,902	2,472,303	2,761,36611,529,218	2,529,504	3,687,43513,037,998	2,431,666	3,182,33612,646.947	2,257,140	3,076,1799,993,002	2,413,701	4,006,1486,472,177	2,633,715	3,371,620200,691,307	1946 100,265,381	54,761,6238.201,037	3,592,443	2,406,0788,058,996	3,234,332	4,924,46320,635.249	11,902,261	5,794,03331,286,048	15,763.909	5,672,62625,542,538	12,601.906	6,297,79819,744,398	7,286,158	3,879,70616,262,001	9,481,521	6.625,56717,780,770	6,249,189	3,219,55515,475,182	6,463.087	3,317.60916,548,331	7,923,864	5,629,91512,845,040	6,034,730	2,825,8268,311,717	9,731,981	4,168,447
Questions


INDIRECT TAXES-CLOTHING, ETC.
Mr. LOW:: What is the total amount of indirect taxes collected by the federal government, at all levels of their production and sale to the ultimate purchaser, during 1947, of the following 'articles:
(a)	men's hats in the $8-$l'0 retail class; (b) standard four-door Ford sedan equipped as it leaves the factory; (c) Canadian worsted men's made-to-measure suit in the $70' retail price class; (d) Can'adian-made men's shoes in the $8-$10 retail price class; (e) House of Lords cigars; (f) Player's cigarettes; (g) Laura Secord chocolate candy in the 90 cents a pound retail class ?


Mr. WINTERS:: The department has no information as to the exact amount of taxes paid! on the articles referred to in the question because of the variation in prices of different manufacturers of the same lines, and the difference in value and quality of merchandise, etc.
The following information as to the application of the taxes on the various articles mentioned is, however, supplied:-
(a)	Subject to sales tax only on the manufacturer's selling price to wholesalers or its equivalent;
(b)	Prior to November 18, 1947, subject to a 10 per cent excise tax and an 8 per cent sales tax on the manufacturer's selling price. On and after November 18 subject to an excise tax as follows:-
At $1,200 or less, 25 per cent;
At more than $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;
At more than $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; and to a sales tax of 8 per cent on the manufacturer's selling price.
(c)	Same as in (a).
(di) Same as in (a).
(e)	Cigars are subject to an excise tax of 25 per cent and to a sales tax of 8 per cent on the manufacturer's selling price to wholesalers or its equivalent. Cigars are also subject to an excise duty of $1 per thousand.
(f)	Cigarettes are subject to an excise tax of 2 cents for each five cigarettes or fraction of five cigarettes contained in any package, and to a sales tax of 8 per cent payable on the manufacturer's selling price to wholesalers or its equivalent. They are also subject to an excise duty of $6 per thousand.
(g)	Chocolate candy of this type is subject to an excise tax of 30 per cent and to a sales tax of 8 per cent on fifty-one per cent of the retail selling price.
If any of the goods mentioned were imported, the sales tax and the ad valorem excise taxes would apply on the duty paid value. The specific excises would be as stated.


IMPROVEMENT OF NUTRITION
Mr. LAURENDEAU:: What is being done by the Department of National Health and Welfare for the improvement of nutrition in Canada?


Ralph Maybank: Surveys have indicated that malnutrition is a condition not confined to any one particular part of the country or income group. It may be said that the three main causes of faulty nutrition are lack of money, lack of information and lack of interest. The Department of National Health and Welfare is taking active steps on all three fronts. The payment of family allowances makes possible the spending of a larger amount on adequate foods. Along with other agencies the department is active in combatting the lack of information on proper nutrition and in attempting to arouse interest in the subject.
The nutrition work of the department is greatly aided by the Canadian council on nutrition which meets twice yearly to plan future programs, ensure co-ordinated effort and eliminate possible duplication of services. The council is representative of provincial and private agencies and consists of scientists, home economists, doctors and others who give freely of their time to answer problems referred to them and also bring to the attention of the department any aspect of nutrition which they consider important and concerning which remedial action should be taken.
While several divisions of the Department of National Health and Welfare take part in efforts to improve the nutritional status of Canadians, the one most intimately connected with the problem is the nutrition division. Also co-operating in that field are such divisions as those relating to child and maternal health, dental health, civil service health, Indian health and family allowances.
The prime responsibility of the nutrition division on its formation in 1941 was to improve the health of war workers through encouraging improved nutrition both in the workers' homes and in connection with cafeterias and canteens operated by war contract plants. While the activities of the nutrition divisions were originally related mainly to the war effort, the end of hostilities has seen a continuation and broadening of its aims. In its objective to improve the health of Canadians through improved nutrition the department has sought and is receiving the active co-operation of provincial and private agencies.
Questions

For the past two years the nutrition division has conducted nutrition surveys, on request, in various parts of Canada; in particular in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia. Along with the surveys a special effort is made to discuss individual problems with the persons studied or, in the case of children, with their parents. The results show that in some sections one child in five has evidence of past rickets; in other sections one person in eight is definitely anaemic. There are evidences that nutritional levels are improving but improvement is achieved slowly. Much more needs to be done and, with the co-operation of various interested governmental and private agencies the work is proceeding.
All types of educational approaches are being used to assist Canadians in establishing good food habits. The nutrition division has prepared booklets, posters, films, filmstrips and teaching materials on various aspects of food and nutrition. Literature has been compiled on food budgeting, school lunches, the feeding of those in different age groups, the value and sources of particular foods and food elements, and on approved methods of cookery. A point of interest is that the nutrition division prepares the bulk of nutrition education material in use in Canada and distributes it free of charge, with most of it being channelled to and through the provincial governments. In the educational approach to nutrition problems the Canadian council on nutrition has played a very important guiding role.
Although inspection of food services in war industries stopped with the end of the war, many Canadian plants have continued to operate such services. Part of the work of the department consists of continuing to give advice on matters of food service to industries requesting it. Information and assistance in connection with group feeding is also sought by camps, hospitals and other institutions, and by other departments of the federal government. During the past year, in response to a request from the Indian health services, the nutrition division established a consultation and advisory service on food and nutrition in Indian residential schools across Canada. Many of these schools have been inspected by nutrition experts, and steps are being taken to improve the nutrition and health of our Indian population.
A result of the greater interest in food and nutrition problems has been an increasing number of inquiries received by the department on such subjects. In many cases such requests can be dealt with by forwarding litera-

ture on the particular topic. In other cases reference is made to the department's nutrition library in order to supply data on particular points. The information requested may vary from a very small item to a request for detailed plans for a provincial nutrition program or a request for assistance in planning a large scale food service and appropriate meals.


FILM BOARD-OFFICES IN OTHER COUNTRIES
Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: 1.	What offices had ithe national film board in (a) the British commonwealth; (b) the United States; (e) other countries as of December 31, 1947?
2.	How many persons were employed in each office and what were their classifications and salaries?
3.	How many films were (a) sold; (b) rented; (e) exhibited free during the nine month period April 1, 1947 to December 31, 1947, in each of the areas mentioned in first question?


Mr. WINTERS:: 
HEALTH AND WELFARE-FOOD AND DRUGS DIVISION
Mr. MacLEAN:: What w^as the purpose of combining the food and drug division, the advertising and labels division, and the proprietary or patent medicine division as the directorate of food and dirug division in the Department of National Health and Welfare?


Ralph Maybank: The food and drugs division, the proprietary or patent medicine division and the advertising and labels division of the department have been combined and organized as a directorate for the following reasons:
1.	Administrative reasons:
A. The work of the food and drugs division and the advertising and labels division overlaps because-
(a)	Both divisions were established to enforce provisions of the Food and Drugs Act. The Food and Drugs Act deals, among other
things, with adulteration and misbranding and false, misleading or exaggerated claims for foods or drugs. Its provisions cannot be completely and easily divided into two parts, one dealing solely with advertising and labels and the other with adulteration or health measures. The limits of the duties of the two divisions cannot, therefore, be clearly defined. Confusion from their activities can only be prevented through direction by a single authority.
(b)	The Food and Drugs Act was designed, as evidenced by its wording and arrangement as well as its history, to be administered by one authority, the chief dominion analyst, who is mentioned in the act. The food and drugs division under the chief dominion analyst was organized for this purpose and has the necessary laboratory and inspection services. Punitive or corrective action in respect to improper labels and advertising can only be instituted in many cases after collection of an official sample by the inspection services and analyses by the laboratory. Much of the work on advertising and labels must, therefore, be carried out through the food and drugs division unless parallel services were to be established in the advertising and labels division. Such a situation could be a potential source of confusion and conflicting authority.
(c)	The Food and Drugs Act necessarily places restrictions on trade. These restrictions must be uniformly enforced throughout the country, and those on advertising and label claims must be correlated with the composition of the products andi vice versa. Correlation and uniformity can be most efficiently obtained through one authority: i.e. by bringing the two divisions into one directorate.
(d)	Much of the work of examining advertising and labels in a locality must be carried out by the inspectors and1 offices of the food and drugs division; another case of overlapping work.
B. The work of the proprietary or patent medicine division is closely related to the work of both the food and drugs division and the advertising and labels division.
(a) The Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act deals with secret formula remedies. These contain ingredients which are under the authority of the Food and Drugs Act. It is necessary that claims made for secret formula remedies, on the basis of these ingredients do not exceed or be essentially different from those made for the same substances under the Food and Drugs Act. This requires a careful and close correlation of the work of the proprietary or patent medicine division and the advertising and labels division.
Questions

(b)1 The analysis of patent medicines is carried out in the laboratories of the food and drug division. The collection of samples of patent medicines for official examination is made by inspectors of the food and drugs division. These activities require correlation of the proprietary or patent medicine division and the food and drugs division.
2.	Reasons of economy:
(a)	1 Since both proprietary or patent medicine division and advertising and labels division require inspection and laboratory services and these already exist in the food and drugs division, the use of the existing services for all three divisions make for economy and efficiency.
(b)	Economies can also be effected in clerical staffs.
(c)	The inspection services of the food and drugs division require the supervision of a senior administrative officer and this function has been given to the chief of advertising and labels.
3.	Reasons of enforcement:
It is highly desirable that the trade and public have one closely knit group to deal with in the matter of food and drug laws and enforcement rather than three separate independently acting divisions.


SALE OF BUILDING IN MALTON, ONT.
Mr. MENARY:: 1.	Did the government recently sell a large building at Malton, Ontario?
2'. If so, who was the purchaser?
3.	Whiat was the purchase price?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Yes. War Assets Corporation sold building No. 13, drill hall, on October 27, 1947. This was the last sale on record at this location.
2.	The Lions Club of Weston, Bank of Nova Scotia chambers, Weston, Ontario.
3.	Building No. 13, drill hall, was sold to the buyer, as shown in answer to question 2, for $7,200. The building was sold as the result of tender negotiations; conditions-removal and restoration of site.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
Mr. MOORE:: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence purchase fuel oil, diesel oil ot gasoline from Brahien Petroleum Company of Canada during world war two?
2.	If so, what was the total amount of oil purchased and the total cost to the Department of National Defence?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
use of "canada" or "Canadian" in company


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	How many companies were granted charters whose names incorporated the use of the word "Canada" or "Canadian" during 1947?
2.	Is it now the policy of the department to refuse applications of companies desiring to incorporate the word "Canada" or "Canadian" in their company title, and if so, under what *authority is such refusal being made?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: 1.	One hundred and seventy-seven companies whose names included the word "Canada" or "Canadian" (English and French versions) were granted letters patent during the period January 1,	1947, to December 31,	1947,
inclusive.
2.	No.



VETERANS INSURANCE ACT

Mr. MILLER:: 1.	What is the total amount, by provinces, in dollars, of insurance itaken out by veterans under the provisions of the Veterans Insurance Act?
2.	What is the aggregate of such insurance for Canada?
3.	How many veterans, by provinces, have taken out such insurance?
4.	How many death claims (a) have been made; (b) have been settled?


Mr. GREGG:: Return at January 31,	1948:	(Figures
include insurance taken out by veterans, widows, pensioners, and members of civilian groups entitled by statute or order in council to contract for insurance, but exclude cases where the policy holder was resident out of Canada at time of application for insurance).
1 and 3.
No. of No. of Amount policy policies
Province	$	holders	Prince Edward Island	117,000	49	50Nova Scotia 	946.500	326	345New Brunswick 	904.000	322	335Quebec 	7,130,500	2,384	2,461Ontario 	15,870,500	5,084	5,339Manitoba 	3,409,500	1,214	1,258Saskatchewan 	1,757,000	606	628Alberta 	, 2,850.500	974	1.005British Columbia ...	4,955,000	1,695	1,771N.W.T.-Yukon 	, 43,000	9	10
2. $37,983,500.

Questions
4. (Figures include all death claims.)
	Number	Number
	of lives	of policies
(a)	71	75(b)	Claims approved 48	51Claims paid in full 31 Claims still in	31payment as annuities 17	20



RETURNED SOLDIERS' INSURANCE ACT

Mr. MILLER:: 1.	What is the total -amount, by provinces, in dollars, of insurance taken out by veterans under the provisions of the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act?
2.	What is the aggregate of such insurance for Canada?
3.	How many veterans, by provinces, have taken out such insurance?
4.	How many death claims (a) have been made; (b) have been settled?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Return at January 31, 1948:
1, 2 and 3. (Figures include insurance taken out by veterans and widows, but exclude cases where the policy holder was resident out of
Canada at time of application for insurance.) No. of policy		
Province	Amount	holdersPrince Edward Island	S 251,500	86Nova Scotia 	3,512,500	1,383New Brunswick 	2,172,000	882Quebec 	11,254,500	4,820Ontario 	41,042,000	18,637Manitoba 	8,527,000	3,904Saskatchewan 	8.746,000	3,501Alberta 	9,517,000	3,938British Columbia ....	12,713 000	6,103Yukon 	29.000	11Northwest Territories Aggregate 	IOjOOO 897,774,500	24.	(Figures include all death claims.)(a)	7.355.(b)	Claims approved, 7,212; claims paid in full, 6,490; claims still in payment as annuities, 722.



HEALTH AND WELFARE DEPARTMENT-HOSPITAL DESIGN DIVISION

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PINARD;
1. What assistance have the provinces requested of the hospital design division, Department of National Health and Welfare?
2.	Has the said division been consulted by bodies other than provincial departments?
5849-132J
3.	Is the said division assisting other federal departments in their problems relating to design and construction?
4.	In its advisory capacity, has the said division issued any publication?
Mr. MAYBANK:: 1.	Specific requests from the provinces have been for (a) advice on choosing a site for a mental hospital, and a general over-all plan for such an institution; (b) preliminary planning of provincial health clinics, laboratories and offices; and (c) consultation on specific small hospital plans; in short, the provinces have been requesting a consultation service.
2.	Yes, by the Catholic Hospital Council of Canada, the Grenfell Labrador medical mission, individual hospital boards and certain architectural firms.
3.	No. To date, assistance has only been requested by and given to other divisions of ths Department of National Health and Welfare, namely the civil service health division, child and maternal health division, research division, Indian health services directorate, laboratory of hygiene, quarantine immigration medical services and treatment of sick mariners, and the food and drugs divisions.
4.	Yes. At the request of the provincial health departments five articles have been produced on various aspects of hospital construction. These, as well as copies of articles and reports from other countries, have been circulated to the provinces.



CANADA-AS1A AIR TRANSPORT

Mr. BRYCE:: 1.	Have the Canadian Pacific Air Lines for Canadian Pacific Railway applied for the right to operate -aeroplanes over any route from Canada to Europe or Asia in the business of carrying persons, freight or express?
2.	Has permission or licence been granted to this company?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	No.
2.	Answer in No. 1.



FILM BOARD-PHOTO-FLASH BULBS

Mr. FRASER:: 1.	What quantity of flashlight bulbs did the
national film board buy during the year 1947 for their stills department?	_
2.	How many of these bulbs were of Canadian manufacture?
3.	Were any of these bulbs imported from the United States of America?
4.	If so, what quantity was imported (a) prior to November 18, 1947; (b) from November 18, 1947 to December 31. 1947; (c) from January 1, 1948 to March 1, 1948?
Questions

5.	What was price paid for flashlight bulbs bought in Canada?
6.	What was total cost of flashlight bulbs imported! during 1947?
7.	What was cost of flashlight bulbs imported since 1947?


Robert Henry Winters: 1. Type	Quantity	AmountPhoto-flash #25 white 	. 480	$ 68.16Photo-flash (super)	Wabash press #40 	. 3,240	517.05Photo-flash #5B 	. 1.800	309.59Photo-flash Sync Press #5.	. 9.600	1.114.35Photo-flash Mazda #22....	. 3,240	479.56Photo-flash #31 focal plane	. 258	57.5218,618	$2,546.232.	All.3.	No.4.	Not applicable.5.	$2,546.23.6.	Nil.7.	Nil.



NATURALIZATION-CHINESE

Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	How many applications for naturalization were received in the calendar year 1947 from persons of Chinese nationality resident in Canada ?
2.	IIow many naturalization certificates were issued to persons of Chinese nationality?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: 1.	Applications for naturalization (Canadian citizenship) received during the calendar year 1947, from persons of Chinese nationality resident in Canada, are as follows:
(a) Applications filed by Chinese aliens, but not yet approved by the courts, 1,578.
2.	Number of certificates of Canadian citizenship issued' to persons of Chinese nationality during the calendar year 1947, as follows:
(a)	Certificates issued to Chinese aliens 30
(b)	Certificates of proof of status issued
to Chinese born in Canada	 19
(c)	Certificates of proof of status issued to Chinese naturalized under prior
legislation	 44
Total	93



VETERANS PENSIONS-STATUS ON REMARRIAGE

Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	Is there a date after which, if veterans of the first world war marry or remarry, no additional pension is payable on behalf of the wife?
2.	If so, what is this date?
3.	If such a date has been set what is the reason for setting (a) any date; (b) this particular date?


Mr. GREGG:: 1.	Yes.
2.	May 1, 1944.
3.	(a) and (b) Decisions of parliament, as enacted by chapter 45, 23-24 George V, assented to May 23, 1933, and chapter 62, 10 George VI, assented to August 31, 1946.



AIR TRAINING PLAN

Mr. CHURCH:: Will consideration be given to re-establishing the empire air training plan for future defence purposes of the commonwealth?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1. Each of the nations in the British commonwealth has its own air force and arrangements for training and no commonwealth government has suggested a re-establishment of the British commonwealth air training plan. There is close co-operation and exchange of information, and a number of R.C.A.F. officers are in the United Kingdom and a number of R.A.F. officers are in Canada on instructional or staff work.
All matters relating to defence between the nations of the commonwealth will continue to be considered as occasion requires.



EMPIRE AND WESTERN HEMISPHERE DEFENCE

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Did the Minister of National Defence go to Washington to discuss with the President or Secretary for War of the United1 States, plans for joint defence of the western hemisphere, or of the two countries, Canada and the United States? If so, when?
2.	Has the Minister of National Defence held any conferences with the Secretary of State for War of Great Britain, on defence, or with the ministers of defence for the other dominions on the joint defence of the empire in future?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	The Minister of National Defence was in Washington from January 12 to 15, where he was received by the President, visited the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, and the War College and met the Secretary of Defence, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Air Force, the four Chiefs of Staff, the United States Section of the Permanent Joint Board on Defence, the liaison officers in Washington of the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and the Canadian Joint Staff Mission. In the course of these meetings there were exchanges of information on defence organization, training of officers, etc.
2.	Since his appointment, the Minister of National Defence has not been in the United Kingdom and none of the British defence

Questions
ministers has been in Canada. Discussions similar to those at Washington took place with the Minister of Defence, the three service ministers and various officials in Australia and also in New Zealand with the Minister of Defence, the chiefs of staff and other officials. There are continuous exchanges of information between the defence departments of the United Kingdom and other nations of the commonwealth.



POST OFFICES-NEW BRUNSWICK

Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	How many government-owned post offices are there in New Brunswick with a revenue less than $10,000 per year?
2.	Where are these offices located?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1. 21.
2. Atholville, Buctouche, Chipman, Gage-town, Hampton Station, Hartland, Hillsborough, Marysville, Milltown, Minto, North Head, Perth, Rexton, Richibucto, Rogersville, St. George, St. Leonard. Salisbury, Shediac, South Nelson, West Bathurst.



ALASKA FUR SEAL AGREEMENT

Mr. PEARKES:: 1.	What is the number of seal skins which have been delivered to Canada annually during the past five years under the Alaska fur seal agreement between Canada and the United States ?
2.	Where have these skins been cured?
3.	W'hat portion, if any, of the expenses connected with the killing, shipping, curing and sale of these skins is borne by Canada?
4.	What amounts have been received by Canada during the past five years for the sale of the skins?
5.	Has the sale of any portion of Canada's share in the total number of seals killed under the agreement taken place outside of Canada?
6.	If so, what revenue did Canada derive from such transaction?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.
1943		:	 23,433
1944		 9,530
1945		 15,393
1946		 12.905
1947		 12289
2. Skins were processed and dyed as follows: At London At St. Louis
1943	
9,454	13,9791944	
5.530	4,0001945	11,992	3.4011946	
3,230	9,6751947	
3,687	8.6023.	Killing-Nil.Shipping-Under	existing arrangements
United States delivers Canada's share, charges free to Seattle. Canada assumes shipping charges from Seattle. There was an exception in 1944 when U.S. government vessel was not available and Canada assumed its share of charter of commercial vessels. Canada also purchases barrels in which her share is shipped.
Curing (processing and dyeing)-All costs assumed. Blubbering costs on skins shipped to London are also payable. This charge is included in processing and dyeing charges by
St. Louis.
4.
1943- 44	$ 219,260 71
1944-	45	
374,743	201945-	46	
1,013.879	421946-	47	
866,721	271947-	48	
994,061	60	(to
Feb. 29, 1948)
5.	Yes.
6.
1943- 44	$ 97,222 42
1944-	45	
91,238	251945-	46	
319,047	421946-	47	
189,131	461947-	48	
66,450	31	(to
Feb. 29, 1948)
The difference between these figures and those shown in No. 4 represents the gross revenue from sales in Canada.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT, 1944

Donald Methuen Fleming: Up to December 31, 1947, under the National Housing Act, 1944 (a) how many contracts have been entered into under part I; (b) what is the total number of houses for which loans have been authorized under part I; (c) how many of such houses have been completed and are now occupied; (d) what is the total amount of the loans authorized under part I; (e) how many contracts have been entered into undeT part II of the act; (f) what is the total number of rental housing projects for which loans have been authorized under part II; (g) how many of such rental housing projects are low-rental housing projects; (h) how many of such rental housing projects have been completed and' are now occupied, and how many of them are low-rental housing projects, and where are .they located; (i) what is the total amount of the loans authorized; under part II; (j) how many limited dividend corporations have been recognized as qualified: to receive loans under section 9 of the act? What are they and where are they authorized to operate rental housing pro- [DOT] jects? Which ones are institutional housing corporations, and which are institutional holding companies; (k) which of such limited dividend housing corporations have received loans under part II; (1) (1) to how many municipalities have grants been made pursuant to section 12;
(2) what are the individual amounts of such
Questions

grants and what municipalities respectively received them; (3) what are the other terms, if any of the said grants; (m)	(X) how many
municipalities have applied for grants pursuant to section 12; (2) how many have been refused; (3) how many of such applications are still pending; (n) how many contracts have been entered into under part III; (o) (1) what is the total number of houses for which loans have been authorized under part III; (2) how many of such houses have been completed and are now occupied; (p) what is the total amount of the loans authorized under part III; (q) how many contracts have been entered into with manufacturers of plumbing and heating equipment or other component parts of houses, pursuant to section 15;	(r) how many payments have been made under part IV, and what is the total thereof; (s) what studies and investigations, planning and research have been carried on under part V; (t) what expenditures have been made pursuant to part V out of the $5,000,000 authorized by parliament in 1945, under section 27A?


George James McIlraith: Almost all the information asked for in this lengthy question is provided in the annual report which is tabled in accordance with the statute. That report should be coming forward well within the time provided by law. I suggest that the question be dropped and if there are any parts of the information being sought that are not provided by the annual report, those parts can be put back on the order paper as a question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I suggest that a better method, Mr. Speaker, is to leave the question on the order paper until we see whether the report, when tabled, provides the answer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dropped.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Stand.


George James McIlraith: I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that it is no function of a question, as I understand the rules, to anticipate an annual report provided for by statutes. As the question is now worded it merely anticipates and seeks to obtain information in advance of the report being tabled. The report will be ready within the time provided for by statute.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Stand.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I cannot consent to the withdrawal of this question, Mr. Speaker. The question is not simply in anticipation of the annual report. There is a great deal of information there, if this year's report is like the reports of other years, and it would take a great deal of time to isolate the particular information required. I am asking that this question remain on the order paper.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dropped.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Stand.


James Horace King: Is the parliamentary
assistant agreeable to allowing the question to stand?


George James McIlraith: I am not prepared at the moment, Mr. Speaker, to argue the rules of the house. But I suggest that the question ought never to have been received in its present form. However, if the hon. member for Eglinton desires to let it stand and proceed in that manner, I have no personal objection. It merely seems to me to be rather a waste of money.


James Horace King: Stand.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	During 1945 and 1946, did Canada export any war materials to Russia?
2.	If so, what amount has been spent by Canada for that purpose?
3.	Since the cessation of hostilities, has Canada exported other goods to Russia?
4.	If so, what is the total value of such goods?
5.	Has Russia repaid, wholly or partly, the war expenditure incurred by Canada to assist Russia?
6.	If so, what is the amount of such repayment?


NATURALIZATION
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	How many naturalization certificates were issued in the calendar year 1947, and how were they divided as to former citizenship?
2.	How many applications for citizenship were refused ini the same period?
3.	What are the chief reasons for refusing to issue naturalization certificates?


Colin William George Gibson: Return tabled.


RADIO BROADCASTING-LICENCES
Mr. REID:: 1.	What was the number of radio licences issued1, by provinces, for the fiscal year 194647?
2.	What amount of money has been expended by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in each province for the fiscal year 194647?


Colin William George Gibson: Return tabled.


EXPORT OF ARMS AND WAR MATERIALS
Mr. FLEMING:: 1. What arms, war materials and military aircraft and parts were exported from Canada in 1947 (listed according to categories, months and countries to which they were exported) ?

Motions for Papers
2. Who were the exporters and what was the amount of such material exported by each?


George James McIlraith: Return tabled.



FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SALARIES PAID IN QUEBEC PROVINCE

Mr. BERTRAND (Terrebonne):: What was the amount of salaries paid in the province of Quebec by the government of Canada during 1945, 1946- and 1947 ?



SUBSIDIES TO GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC PROVINCE

Mr. BERTRAND (Terrebonne):: 1.	What was the amount of subsidies or grants paid by the government of Canada to the government of the province of Quebec during 1945, 1946 and 1947?
2.	How much was paid by each department and for what purposes?



VETERANS AFFAIRS-HOUSING-LINCOLN COUNTY

Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	How many veterans have signed contracts to date for houses built under the V.L.A. at (a) Niagara Falls; (b) Welland; (c) St. Catharines?
2.	What are the names of veterans who have signed^ such contracts?
3.	What deposit was made in each case?
4.	Were the prices included in the contracts signed, above or below the prices indicated to the veteran at the time he took possession and paid the required deposit?
5.	Were there any price increases in contracts signed? If so, what was the reason for the advance in price?
6.	Are the 9eptic tank installations in the houses at St. Catharines unsatisfactory?
7.	If so, what is being done to correct same?
S.	Has any additional -work been done on
these V.L.A. houses at St. Catharines since January 1, 1947 to date? If so, at what cost?



VETERANS LAND ACT-STRATFORD, ONT.

Mr. BRADSHAW:: 1.	What was the unit cost of the houses constructed by the V.L.A. at Stratford?
2.	What was the cost of each house to the veteran ?
3.	What was the cost of alterations and repairs to these houses since construction?
4.	Is there special sewage disposal equipment for these houses?
5.	If so, what was the cost of installation?
6.	Is there any charge now being made for the operation of this equipment?
7.	If so, what is the charge and who pays it?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: For a copy of all correspondence and communications between the Minister of Mines and Resources, all officials of his department and corporations and/or persons concerning the
action now being taken by the minister and officials of his department to enforce the provisions of section 78 of the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, notifying owners of unsurveyed mineral claims in Yukon to have them surveyed by a dominion land surveyor within one year from the date upon which such notification is sent.



HONG KONG


[Stage Direction]
29, 1948
John Bracken: For a copy of all correspondence between the British and Canadian governments since and including January 29 last relative to any matter arising out of the Canadian expeditionary force sent to Hong Kong in 1941.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: When I saw this motion on the order paper for the production of the correspondence mentioned, I thought it advisable to secure the opinion of the Clerk of this house before giving an answer as to w'hat would be appropriate in the matter of producing the papers. I shall read to the house the opinion which the Clerk has given to me. I would remind hon. members that the Clerk is the recognized authority on Canadian parliamentary practice and the rules of the House of Commons. The opinion that I have received from the Clerk is as follows:
Motion No. 3 calls for all correspondence between the British and the Canadian governments since and including January 29 last relative to any matter arising out of the Canadian expeditionary force sent to Hong Kong in 1941. This motion does not take into consideration that there may be matters which, for some reason or other, it is not advisable to produce. If the motion is adopted, the government w-ill be bound to table even correspondence -which it is not otherwise free to make public. Redlich says, in vol. II, page 42c
"On the question of communicating diplomatic documents, every government must have a discretion as to what ought to be published and what suppressed."
Todd says, at page 356, volume I of Parliamentary Government in England:
"But a certain amount of discretion must always be allowed to the government in respect to communicating or withholding documents and official correspondence which may be asked for by either house of parliament."
And at page 454 Todd deprecates "the inexpediency of applications, for documents which the responsible advisers of the crown consider it imperative to withhold."
It is a well known rule that correspondence between our government and another cannot be tabled unless both agree to its production; and, moreover, none of the correspondence should be made public while negotiations are still pending.
Arthur Beauchesne.
Clerk of the House of Commons.
I must say that I agree with the opinion expressed by the clerk, Mr. Beauchesne. Therefore I feel that the papers asked for cannot be laid on the table.
Speaker's Ruling


John Bracken: Well, Mr. Speaker, here is the motion before us. What is your ruling?


James Horace King: As the hon. member knows, according to standing order 51 these motions are not debatable. If the hon. gentleman is not prepared to withdraw his motion I shall have to put it to the house.


John Bracken: I am not prepared to withdraw it, I am aware that it cannot be debated, but I must observe-


James Horace King: Under the rules such motions are not debatable. Therefore I must put the motion to the house.


Mr. HAMEL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BONNIER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Robinson). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.

Motions for Papers
(Text):



HONG KONG-MALTBY REPORT

John Bracken: For a copy of all correspondence, written communications or memoranda respecting oral or telephonic communications between (a) the British government and the Canadian High Commissioner's office in London; (b) the Canadian government and the British High Commissioner's office in Canada; (c) the British and Canadian governments, either through ministers of the crown or public office, relative to the Maltby report on Hong Kong made public by the British War1 Office on January 29 last.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I should like to read to the house the motion and then give my reasons for 'believing that the motion should not be accepted. The motion reads:
For a copy of all correspondence, written communications or memoranda respecting oral or telephone communications between (a) the British government and the Canadian High Commissioner's office in London; (b) the Canadian government and the British High Commissioner's office in Canada; (c) the British and Canadian governments, either through ministers of the crown or public office, relative to the Maltby report on Hong Kong made public by the British war office on January 29 last.
When I saw that motion I consulted the Clerk of the House, who is an authority on parliamentary practice and the rules of this house, and asked his opinion with reference to it. I now intend to read the opinion which has been given to me by Mr. Beauchesne, the Clerk of the House.


Mr. KNOWLES:: I rise to a point of order. On a similar motion a moment ago Your Honour ruled that it was not debatable. Would that not also cover remarks made by the Prime Minister?


James Horace King: The hon. member will realize that I put the motion to the house. It is a motion that an order of the house do issue for the production of certain papers. It is up to the government to decide whether the papers should be tabled, and if the government does not intend to table the papers the leader of the house should have an opportunity to say why. If there is no objection to the motion, the motion is carried, but practice always has been to permit the government to give its reasons when it feels that papers should not be tabled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My point of order is that when the Prime Minister goes beyond stating that he is opposed to the passing of the motion, is he not debating it from his side of the question?


James Horace King: I am pretty sure that if the government said that it was opposed to producing papers and would not give any reasons, the hon. member would be the first to object. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: On the point of order, surely if you rule that the Prime Minister is allowed to quote authorities pro a certain position, then other people should be allowed to quote authorities contra to that same position.


Lionel Chevrier: That has never been the practice nor the rule.


James Horace King: I believe I am fair in stating that it is the practice to put the question to the house; and when the government 'has no objection the motion carries, but if the government has any objection I believe it would be the wish of hon. members to have some reason given. That is why the giving of reasons has always been permitted. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I have been in this house a great many years and I cannot recall an occasion when the government objected to the production of papers that it was not expected that the government would give its reasons for objecting. All I am doing is giving the House of Commons the reasons why the government cannot accept the motion of my hon. friend. I might have given this opinion in my own words, but I thought it would carry greater weight with the house, certainly with some hon. gentlemen opposite, if instead of giving my view I gave the view of the recognized authority in Canada on parliamentary practice and the rules of this House of Commons. For that reason I am reading the opinion that I received from that source. If the house would prefer that it be regarded as my own view, I shall give it as my own view. I think, as set forth, it is concisely stated by an authority who cannot be questioned. It reads:
Motion No. 4 calls for correspondence between the British government and the Canadian High Commissioner's office in London, and also between the Canadian government and the British High Commissioner's office in Canada.
It is unusual that the house be asked to order the production of papers exchanged between the United Kingdom government and an officer of the government of Canada; or between the latter and an officer of the United Kingdom government. The house, by adopting such a motion, would ignore the government's authority over its officers. If such action were established as a precedent, .the result would be that the House of Commons, disregarding ministers' control over the members of their staff, could at any time resolve that, whether the minister or
2074
Motions for Papers

even the government approved it or not, letters or memoranda written by senior officers or clerks to the governments of other countries be disclosed to the general public. Section (c) of the motion is in that category inasmuch as it calls for correspondence either through ministers of the crown or public office.
All authors agree that so long as any existing government retains the confidence of parliament, it is unsafe and unwise as a general principle to interfere with them in matters of administration, a proceeding which must tend to destroy the harmony which should exist between the different powers in the state, and to transfer the executive authority from the hands of responsible ministers into those of persons who have not been sworn in to administer the country's affairs.
This opinion is signed, "Arthur Beauchesne, Clerk of the House of Commons." I think it is a true and correct interpretation of the rules and practice of this house, and for that reason I feel that the motion cannot be accepted.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege before you put the motion, I do not think anyone would expect the Prime Minister to refuse to agree to this motion without making a statement; I think that is the proper thing to do. But I do not think the Prime Minister should go beyond Beau-chesne's rules and orders and obtain a written opinion from the Clerk. That is not in keeping with the dignity of this house and with the position of Clerk.


Lionel Chevrier: Where is the question of privilege?


Angus MacInnis: That is the question of privilege. We should not have to listen to a statement written by the Clerk. I have a high regard for the Clerk's understanding of the rules, but if the Prime Minister did not agree with his interpretation of the rules he would not accept it. Consequently he should cite the rule as it is in Beauchesne's rules and orders. I am in perfect agreement with the Prime Minister at the moment and if the motion is put to a vote I shall vote against it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Answering my hon. friend on the question of privilege, if the Clerk of the House were not a recognized authority on the practice and rules of the house I would not have asked for an opinion from him. However, I know that many hon. gentlemen opposite take exception to practically everything I say, and I thought it was advisable in a matter of this kind-


Angus MacInnis: Not I.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not referring to my hon. friend; I am referring to hon. gentlemen immediately opposite.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: May I ask the Prime Minister if we are entitled to go to the Clerk to get an opinion when we want one?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I assume that that is what hon. members are doing from time to time; in fact I know they are.


Angus MacInnis: We never read them out here.


John George Diefenbaker: On a point of order, if as the Prime Minister has stated it is wrong for governments to ask the opinions of their senior officials and then submit them to parliament, is he not himself contravening and transgressing the very rule he enunciated a moment ago as being applicable to the House of Commons?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that the Clerk of the House is an officer of the house, not an officer of the government.
Motion negatived on division.



LOMOND, ALTA., IRRIGATION PROJECTS

Mr. HANSELL:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, contracts, tenders, and any other documents in possession of the government during the past ten years with respect to any proposal for any irrigation scheme in the district of Lomond, Alberta.



UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. It has to do with the question I directed to his attention four weeks ago, to be found at page 1125 of Hansard of February 12. The question was: Will the minister table copies of the recent agreement concluded with the United Kingdom with respect to beef, bacon, cheese and eggs? The minister was willing to do so but I am advised that the documents have not yet been tabled. Can the minister have them tabled at once?


Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have them tabled just as soon as they are completely signed and in shape to be tabled. These documents have to pass back and forth between here and the British representatives, and I do not think they are all completely signed. At the moment they are in process of being signed.

Inquiries of the Ministry



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: May I direct a question to the government based upon a news item of today which has assumed considerable prominence in the press. It appears that the Canadian representative on the temporary commission on Korea walked out of the assembly. I should like to have the Secretary of State for External Affairs clarify the situation so that we shall understand what are the underlying reasons which prompted that action by Canada's representative on this commission.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I got the notice from the hon. member for Peel and also a notice from the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar about their desire to have information in respect to that dispatch, and I am glad to be able to supply to the house this information. The situation in regard to the matter is as follows.
The united nations temporary commission on Korea, of which Canada is one of the nine members, decided in February last to consult the interim committee of the general assembly when it met at Lake Success on February 19 as to whether the commission, under the terms of the general assembly resolution of November 14, 1947, and in the light of developments in the situation with respect to Korea since that date, could or should assist in implementing the program for the holding of free elections and the establishment of a Korean government in that part of Korea which was occupied by the armed forces of the United States of America. That was the submission on which the commission desired to get the views of the interim assembly. The situation which made such consultation necessary was the refusal of the U.S.S.R., whose army occupied the northern part of Korea, to permit the commission to operate in, or indeed to enter, that area.
At the interim committee, the United States delegation introduced a resolution as an answer to the commission's inquiry, the operative part of which was as follows:
That in its (the interim committee's) view, it is incumbent upon the united nations temporary commission on Korea, under the terms of the general assembly resolution of November 14, 1947, and in the light of the developments in the situation with respect to Korea since that date, to implement the program as outlined in resolution 2 (of the general assembly) in such parts of Korea as are accessible to the commission.
The resolution referred to above is that of the genera! assembly, which empowered this commission on Korea and instructed it to observe elections in Korea and facilitate the establishment of a national government there.
The Canadian delegate to the interim committee opposed this United States resolution on the ground that the holding of elections in South Korea only could not be brought within the terms of reference of the commission as laid down by the general assembly. It would amount in fact to a partition of Korea. Our representative said in part:
I hope that nothing I have said will be interpreted as suggesting that my government are not anxious to see a free, united and democratic Korea brought into being at the earliest possible date. My government strongly supports that objective and feels that the policy of the U.S.S.R. in preventing its realization is to be condemned.
We do feel, however, that it would be unwise to seek to associate the UN with an effort to achieve this desirable objective, by asking its commission in Korea to do things that it has not, under its terms of reference, the power to do.
That, Mr. Chairman, is all I have to say at this time on this one subject, namely, the legal powers of the commission under the assembly resolutions setting it up. Our position is that the commission is not authorized under those resolutions to act in or for South Korea alone.
Before the vote on the United States resolution was taken, the Canadian representative said further:
If the resolution (the United States resolution) is voted upon, my delegation will have to vote against it. We do so on the understanding that it is, in any event, merely advice to the commission.
It was not framed as an order to the commission, but just as the opinion of the interim committee. I continue:
If the commission should accept that advice, and that is for the commission to determine, a new and serious situation would be created which would have to be taken into consideration by the governments who are members on the commission, and who feel that the advice from this committee is unwise and unconstitutional.
The United States resolution was approved by the interim committee. It appears that, on receipt of this information, the acting chairman of the commission in Seoul (the chairman had not yet returned to Korea from Lake Success) informed the United States commanding general in South Korea, in the name of the commission that it would accept the advice of the interim committee. An announcement regarding the date for elections was then made. Our representative on the commission, Doctor Patterson, was not consulted in regard to this matter. There was no
Inquiries oj the Ministry

meeting of the commission before the announcement was made. He was, therefore, instructed to seek clarification at the next meeting of the commission of the action of the acting chairman and to maintain the position taken at Lake Success, namely, that the commission should not accept the advice given to it in the United States resolution or associate itself with the conduct of elections in South Korea only.
Doctor Patterson was further instructed that, if the commission did not support the Canadian view on this matter, he was to state that he could not participate further in its activities until he had received further instructions from his government.
According to a press dispatch from Seoul, Doctor Patterson withdrew from the meeting of the commission yesterday. I have not yet received from Doctor Patterson a report of that meeting, but I expect one at any moment. We have asked him to dispatch it as quickly as possible. I am not suggesting that there has been any undue delay, because these messages come in cipher and he has to do the work himself. He has no staff there to assist him in doing it. If Doctor Patterson, confirms that the commission has, in fact, in this manner decided to associate itself with elections in South Korea only, he will be instructed by cable to return at once to Ottawa for consultation, so that the government will have the benefit of his first-hand information in deciding what its attitude should be in the light of the changed situation.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: May I ask a supplementary question? Another point I had in mind to>
ask the minister was whether instructions had been given to Doctor Patterson to walk out and not attend the next meeting. If so, it is to be noted that the Minister of Justice a short while ago criticized those of us who suggested we might walk out of parliamentary committee; he said that it would be following the Russian example.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There were no instructions given to walk out and to refuse to attend any other meeting; in fact the general tenor of the instructions would, I think, be interpreted as contrary advice. The advice was to say that he could not further participate until he had obtained further instructions from the government on the changed situation.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister a supplementary question? There were nine nations on the commission. Were we alone in taking this action, or were other nations acting in a similar way?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not know whether all the others were consulted by the vice-chair-

man before he made this announcement. Our representative was certainly not consulted. At the interim assembly our view was supported by the representative of Australia.


Gordon Graydon: He apparently did not walk out.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Well, I do not know that anyone has walked out. I have asked for a report from Doctor Patterson and I will give the substance of that report as soon as it is received.
POLICY OF CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RESPECTING PARTITION OF PALESTINE On the orders of the day:


Mr. ALISTAIR STEWART (Winnipeg North):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What is the present policy of the Canadian government with relation to the partition of Palestine as recommended by the general assembly of the united nations on November 29 last?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): The present policy of Canada was announced by the Canadian permanent delegate' to the united nations in his statement to the security council on March 3. He indicated that Canada regards it as a paramount necessity that the security council should make every effort toward conciliation under chapter VI of the charter before considering enforcement measures under chapter VII. I quote his words:
Even at this late hour conciliation in our view must be tried, for surely the realization must be growing upon both communities in Palestine that the present course of violence and .inflexible resistance against one another can only bring chaos and mutual destruction.
If conciliation efforts should fail it would then be for the security council to consider what action should be taken in regard to the recommendations of the general assembly of the united nations relating to the partition of Palestine. The Canadian permanent delegate stated in conclusion that the position taken by Canada was not to be interpreted as in any way repudiating or abandoning the recommendations of the general assembly. He intimated that this was a matter on which the council should not take a decision until the five permanent members had reported on the results of their conciliation efforts, in which vitally important work they should enjoy the greatest possible freedom without being restricted by any prior decision.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: May I ask a supplementary question? It is nine weeks until May 15, when the British mandate expires. Has any progress been made with regard to a solution?

Inquiries oj the Ministry
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I received a dispatch within the last couple of hours in which there is information that at the meeting of the permanent members not much progress had been made, but that though the meeting had been adjourned until tomorrow there were still consultations going on and that it was hoped some progress would be made, because the matter is on the agenda of the security council itself for an early day next week.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. A. KIDD (Kingston City):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It has to do with a question which I submitted on January 30 last and which will be found passed as an order for return, as appears on page 1102 of Hansard. It relates to foreign exchange control, the seizure of funds at the border. Will the minister make a note of the question I am now asking with a view to having the answer given?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: I will make a note of the question and see if I can give the answer.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE BILL- IMPORT REGULATIONS: KEROSENE REFRIGERATORS
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: I wish to direct two questions to the Minister of Finance. First, is it the intention of the government to proceed with Bill No. 7, an act respecting emergency payments to assist in meeting increased cost of production of gold? If so, when? Secondly, has a decision been reached with respect to amending the import regulations to permit the importation of kerosene refrigerators?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is the intention to proceed with Bill No. 7, respecting emergency payments in connection with gold, as soon as we can reach it, and that will be as soon as we conclude discussion of the excise tax measure. As to the second question, no decision has been reached with respect to amending the import regulations to permit the importation of kerosene refrigerators, but the matter is still under active consideration.



PRECEDENCE FOR GOVERNMENT NOTICES OF MOTION AND GOVERNMENT ORDERS

Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister with reference to the business of the house. Thus far this session we have been operating, first, under the terms of a motion passed on December 8 and more recently under the terms of a motion passed on January 26. The Prime Minister knows that both those motions set aside standing order 15 and revolved around the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Now that that debate is over, the question is, do we revert to the provisions of standing order 15, or is the Prime Minister going to bring in some other motion so that the business of the house will be quite definite? If I might add a further word, it seems to me that we should get to the position where each day's order paper indicates the order of business for that day. That has not been the case for some time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I happen to have with me the two motions to which my hon. friend has referred. The first one I have, passed on January 26, 1948, reads:
That the order for consideration of the motion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session be considered on Wednesdays and Thursdays until disposed of, and notwithstanding the resolution passed by the house on December 8, 1947.
As soon as the debate was disposed of, that particular resolution lapsed; it ceased to exist and to have any effect. The motion passed on December 8 reads:
That the debate on the address in reply to the speech of His Excellency the Governor General to both houses of parliament be the first order of business on Monday, December 8th instant, and that this order be followed by government notices of motion and government orders notwithstanding anything in standing order 15.
That motion continues to be applicable; it applies at the present time. I am very glad my hon. friend has raised the question of the business of the house, for the reason that it enables me to make clear that the impression that I am determining the order of the business of the house is not wholly correct. The house controls its own business. What I did at the beginning of the session, in answer to hon. gentlemen opposite, was to indicate
Inquiries of the Ministry

the order which I thought would facilitate the business of the house, and in so doing I indicated that we would take up first of all the emergency measures and then the speech from the throne. Later on it was arranged, a mat-,ter of general agreement here, that a part of the week would be devoted to the speech from the throne and a part of the week to the emergency measures. That was agreed to, and all I have sought to do, from that time to this, has been to hold the house to its own agreement in the matter of procedure.
I have not been trying to impose my will upon the house as to what business it should take up and what it should not. I have tried, where requests have been made with regard, for example, to veterans affairs and one or two measures of the kind, to further what I believed was in accordance with the general wish of the house. That is all I have been trying to do up to the present and will continue to try to do-to have the house take the order of business that will best facilitate the business of the house, and which will be agreed to by the house itself.
We are now through with the debate on the address, but not with the emergency measures. I think we ought to get through with these measures as soon as we can. When they are concluded we shall then be in a position, I think, to follow a regular order which will be in accordance with such procedure as will enable us to take up other measures than the ones I have referred to, and particularly to get into supply.
Some hon. members have expressed a desire to debate foreign affaire. I am not trying to stand in the way of the house having that debate, but I have to do one of two things. Either I must inform the house that we have decided to conclude certain business before taking up other business, or I must ignore that understanding and take up each question as hon. members opposite wish to have it taken up. This is difficult as they do not agree among themselves. The estimates have been tabled, and I would say to my hon. friends opposite that the government proposes, as soon as we get into supply, having regard to this prior obligation-that is to say, the emergency measures-to arrange for a debate on external affairs, to have this made the first subject of discussion in the house under estimates.
I might mention that there are one or two measures which I understand most hon. members wish to deal with immediately, notwithstanding the existing understanding on procedure. One is to get the bill respecting veterans pensions to the committee on veterans affairs. If it were understood that this

might not take more than half a day, and if hon. members are agreeable to that-of course, no one can say how long it would take, but assuming that we had reasonable grounds for believing that half a day would suffice-I would suggest at once that tomorrow a half day be devoted to getting that measure to the committee which has been set up on veterans affairs.
There is another urgent measure; it relates to further payments on wheat. Its early consideration was requested some little time ago. I said that I would try to arrange to have it brought forward at a convenient moment. Unless there is something more pressing, that might be brought up during the evening. We might then continue with the emergency measures on the following day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question? Does the Prime Minister recall that during both the previous debates on these motions he gave the assurance that it was not his intention that they continue in effect for the whole of the session?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He indicated that the time would come when he would propose another motion to re-arrange the business in the light of the circumstances that would then develop. I am not trying to dictate to the Prime Minister the order of business he should propose to the house, but I am suggesting, now that the debate on the address is over, that in all fairness to the house the government should present another motion superseding the motion of December 8 and regularize the proceedings. Day after day Mr. Speaker must re-arrange things on the order paper in accordance with an understanding. Would it not be better to have the procedure regularized by a proper motion of the house?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No one would be better pleased than myself to have everything made as well known in advance as possible. But I would point out to my hon. friend that what the house has already agreed to under this motion is that we would conclude the emergency measures before we would begin to take up others. There were two things, the debate on the address and the emergency measures. As soon as these are concluded, I will bring in a motion to meet what my hon. friend has in mind about proceeding in accord with rule 15.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Standing order 15.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I mean standing order 15. That is what I have intended all along.



194S

[Stage Direction]
Inquiries oj the Ministry
Stanley Howard Knowles: What are the emergency measures?


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Mr. Speaker-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot answer both at once. My hon. friend asks what the emergency measures are. They are the one that the Minister of Finance was dealing with yesterday, and the transitional measures act, and the gold bill. I think those are the only ones.


Mr. GREEN:: The agricultural products act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister? I have before me page 71 of Hansard of December 9, 1947. I interrupted the Prime Minister when he was indicating what the motion meant which the house had then passed. I asked if this would govern until the end of the session. While I must not read directly from that previous debate, the right hon. gentleman in effect said, no. The government can always, he said, with the approval of the house, rescind a motion or substitute another. The motion as it stood, and as it was subsequently passed, was intended to apply to the end of the year, that is to say, up to the Christmas season, or if we did not get through by that time, up to the end of the year. That is the point we are making. The understanding we had at the time was that the motion as it was passed- I think unfortunately-by the house was to govern until the end of 1947.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend is quite right. I had hoped we would get through the emergency measures before the year was out, but we did not get very far along with them. What I have stated about clearing up those two subjects is something I brought to the attention of hon. members and got agreement on. I shall be only too happy to see these emergency measures cleared up as rapidly as possible, and then get into the regular proceedings of the session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Bring in a new motion on the 1st of April.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Arthur Leroy Smith: Yesterday I asked a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in the absence of the Minister of Mines and Resources, as to what the government policy was with respect
to the admission to this country of known communists. He said he would consult the minister and let me have an answer today Apparently the minister has not returned. I am asking the question now merely in order that it may not be overlooked. It is a routine matter, and if we could hear about it tomorrow it would be satisfactory.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I immediately communicated with the private secretary of the Minister of Mines and Resources and had him make a note of it and to call it to the attention of his minister as soon as he returned from official duties which have taken him out of town.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Are the postal authorities forwarding first-class mail that is not marked or stamped "air mail", by Trans-Canada Air Lines between Toronto and Montreal and elsewhere?
Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: It so happens, Mr. Speaker, that at certain times we had such a load of mail that we were not able to carry all of it between Toronto and Montreal by rail, and in order to give the good service that we generally give, we loaded a few planes with mail at four cents a letter and delivered it in Toronto or Montreal. But this delivery of mail at some time like this is not guaranteed as an ordinary mail carrier service.



TARIFFS AND TRADE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, December 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King:
That it is expedient that parliament do approve the general agreement on tariffs and trade, including the protocol of provisional application thereof, annexed to the final act of the second session of the preparatory committee of the united nations conference on trade and employment held at Geneva from April 10 to October 30, 1947. together with the complementary agreements of October 30, 1947, between Canada and the United States of America and between Canada and the United Kingdom: and that this house do approve of the same, subject to the legislation required in
20S0
Tariffs and Trade
[Stage Direction]
order to give effect to the provisions thereof. And the amendment thereto of Mr. Green.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. members will recall,
Mr. Speaker, that on Monday I drew attention to the desirability of dividing in two the resolution that now stands on the order paper as item No. 3, and of substituting therefor two resolutions. It was agreed by all the leaders that that was desirable, and that the method I suggested of effecting this would be approved. I cannot amend my own motion. Accordingly I would ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) if he would move the amendment to this motion which would permit what I have requested to be done.


Lionel Chevrier: I desire to move that the amendment made by Mr. Green be amended as follows:
(a)	by deleting the words "referred to the committee of the whole house with instructions to divide" and substituting therefor the words "divided as to"; and'
(b)	by adding at the end of the said amendment the following: "the said resolutions to be expressed as follows:
1.	That it is expedient that parliament do approve the general agreement on tariffs and trade, including the protocol of provisional application thereof, annexed to the final act of the second session of the preparatory committee of the united nations conference on trade and employment held at Geneva from April 10 to October 30, 1947, together with the complementary agreement of October 30, 1947, between Canada and the United States of America; that the house do approve the same, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the provisions thereof.
2.	That it is expedient that parliament do approve the complementary agreement of October 30. 1947, between Canada and the United Kingdom relating to the general agreement on tariffs and trade; and that the house do approve the same, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the provisions thereof.


John Bracken: As I understand it, we are now dealing with two matters, the Geneva trade agreements and the exchange of letters between this government and the government of the United Kingdom with respect to the British preferences. The Prime Minister's motion on December 9 asked the house to approve both. When the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) came to speak he moved an amendment. He said these were two different matters, and suggested that they should go to a committee to be divided and brought back to the house as two separate resolutions. As I understand it the motion of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) accomplishes the

same end without having the matter sent to a committee. So the effect of the amendment to the amendment, if carried, will be that the resolution asking for the approval of the Geneva trade agreements will come here by itself, and a second resolution will come before us asking for approval of the exchange of letters regarding the British-Canadian preferences. Such a division is what was desired by the hon. member for Vancouver South, and that is what will be accomplished. We understand that these two resolutions will come back to us, and when they do we shall be in a position to support, oppose or amend each in turn. That is my interpretation of the motion now before us.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is correct.


John Bracken: With that understanding we offer no objection. We approve this step in the procedure.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: My understanding further is that the subject matter of the Geneva agreements will be referred to the banking and commerce committee before the house is asked to adopt the resolution. With that understanding I think this is a good way to deal with the problem.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is correct.
Amendment to amendment agreed1 to.
Amendment as amended agreed to.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: In order to keep the procedure regular I believe it will be necessary for some hon. member to adjourn the debate on the amendment.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I move that the debate on the resolution as amended be adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee of ways and means, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) 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 exiese 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

Excise Tax Act Amendment
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, 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 vessels 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 bicycles 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 (i) 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 with seating capacity for not more than ten persons each, imported into or manufactured or produced in Canada be increased from ten per cent to the following rates, namely, on automobiles valued at $1,200 or less. 25 per cent over $1,200 but not more than $2,000. 25 per cent on $1,200 plus 50 per cent on the amount in excess of $1,200: over $2,000. 25 per cent on $1,200 plus 50 per cent on $800 plus 75 per cent on the amount in excess of $2,000.
3.	That on and after November 18. 1947, the rate of excise tax on phonographs,_ record-playing devices, radio broadcast receiving sets and tubes therefor, be increased from ten per cent to twenty-five per cent.
4.	That on and after November 18. 1947, the rate of excise tax on cameras, photographic films and plates, projectors for slides, films or pictures, except those designed exclusively for industrial or professional photographers' use, be increased from ten per cent to twenty-five per cent.
5.	That on and after November 18, 1947. electricity and gas used in dwellings be exempt from consumption or sales tax: and
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 CHAIRMAN; I should like to make a brief statement. Last evening when the house was in committee I stated that a question of privilege could not be raised in committee. Probably that statement was too general. I should have said a question of privilege could1 not be decided in committee but would have to be decided in the house. I hope I did not mislead any hon. members.
Mr. CLEAVER:: Mr. Chairman, when the committee adjourned last evening I was in
the process of citing certain extracts from the speech of the leader of the opposition which indicated clearly, to me, in any event, that at no time up to the present had he made any attack on the constitutionality of what has occurred in regard to the Excise Tax Act. Overnight I had an opportunity to read the hon. gentleman's speech again, and I suggest that a careful re-reading of that speech confirms the impression I had already gained. I suggest to the leader of the opposition that a re-reading on his part of his own speech would even make him agree to the suggestion I have made. I now intend to read to the committee his exact words in regard to the constitution. I want to say at once that the first sentence of his remarks is undoubtedly wide enough to include almost anything. When one reads a statement so loosely worded in a pro forma charge of that kind one necessarily has to refer to the context to find what the speaker really had in mind. I now propose to read what he said and then read the context. My contention is that the attack in regard to the question of constitutionality was made purely with respect to the restriction on imports, purely with respect to Bill No. 3; that it had nothing whatever to do with the amendment to the Excise Tax Act; that this act was not mentioned at any point in the .portion of his speech in which reference is made to the "murdering of the constitution", as he called it. I now read the general remarks he made, which appear at page* 5 of Hansard.
Mr. BRACKEN; I rise to a point of order. The hon. member is referring to a discussion in a previous debate. My point of order is this. Is the hon. member in order in doing so? He did it last evening and was allowed to get away with it; now I am asking you, Mr. Chairman, if he is in order in doing so.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: It depends on which side of the house you are on.


Hughes Cleaver: Might I speak to the point of order?


William Ross Macdonald: Order. If I heard the hon. member for Souris aright his remark *would be a reflection upon the Chair, and I will have to ask him to withdraw.


James Arthur Ross: I certainly withdraw. I had no intention of reflecting on the Chair at this time at all.


William Ross Macdonald: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. member.


Hughes Cleaver: I am quite familiar with the rule which says a member may not refer to matters which took place in a debate already concluded; but I suggest I am not
Excise Tax Act Amendment

doing that. I am referring to a general statement, not made in debate, but a statement which was made on December 5, the opening day of the session. Therefore it does not come within the rules, and I am perfectly at liberty to refer to it.


William Ross Macdonald: The rule is that an hon. member may not refer to a debate on the same subject during the same session. I am sure this matter was not before the house in December. I have not a copy of Hansard before me, but if my memory serves me correctly this matter was not before the house at that time. The rule says it cannot be on the same subject. I think the debate in December was not on this subject, and I must rule it out of order.


John Bracken: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Hughes Cleaver: My criticism of the speeches made last night on the matter we are now debating was directed to the fact that the constitutional question had been permitted to ride along for nearly four months, before being brought up at all. I was referring to a speech which the leader of the opposition had made, not in debate. However, if I understand the ruling of the Chair correctly, I shall not pursue that matter further.


John Bracken: I rise to another point of order. The hon. member for Halton says that this was not in a debate. If he will refer to Hansard of December 5, page 4, he will see it was in a debate in respect of a motion made by the Prime Minister with respect to procedure.


James Arthur Ross: Which was voted on and disposed of.


William Ross Macdonald: I see no reason for changing my ruling. As the hon. member knows the ruling of the Chair is not debatable.


Hughes Cleaver: I understand the ruling, and I shall be pleased to comply with it.
Then, as to the suddenness with which this argument on the constitutional question has been brought before us, four months after the event, I have nothing further to add to what I have already said.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Will the hon. member permit a question? He refused last night because he had only ten minutes; but he would have time now. I suggest to him that I raised this identical question with the Minister of Finance-and if the hon. member cares to consult with the minister, I am sure he will agree-and that was long before Christmas. Do you admit I am right, or do you not?


Hughes Cleaver: If my hon. friend will give me the reference number in Hansard I shall be pleased to turn it up and read it now-


Arthur Leroy Smith: I do not wish you to read it into Hansard now.


Hughes Cleaver: -even though the Chair has ruled that I must not go on with it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You said last night that no one had raised it. I said I had. Am I right or wrong?


Hughes Cleaver: My answer is that I should like to have the reference.


William Ross Macdonald: Order; the hon. member for Halton has the floor.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Ask the Minister of Finance; he will tell you.


James Arthur Ross: And it is not four months ago, either.


Hughes Cleaver: If the hon. member wishes to be fair, and finds the reference, he can give it to me. The only two speeches I recall the hon. member making were in respect of the wheat board-an interesting speech which I enjoyed-and one in which he discussed the procedure parliament should follow in regard to debates. I have no recollection of anything else. However, if there is anything else, and if my hon. friend will give me the reference, I shall gladly now put it on the record.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The Minister of Finance will tell you; he was here.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member wants the reference?


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Halton has the floor.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thought he was asking for the reference. I am quite prepared to give it, if he wishes to have it.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is not asking you.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for Calgary West spoke on the question on December 16 in the house.


Hughes Cleaver: Page?


Donald Methuen Fleming: His remarks are found at page 358 of Hansard. He dealt with this particular question, and the Minister of Finance-*


Hughes Cleaver: I am not consenting to have the hon. member make a statement. I would be pleased, however, to have the reference, and I would call the attention of the house and the Chair to the fact that that speech was made in the debate on the foreign

Excise Tax Act Amendment
exchange conservation bill. That measure having already been passed, I cannot now discuss it. If the hon. member will refer to the actual line I shall be glad to read it.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I have ruled that a reference to a debate on another subject during this session is out of order. I thought it was only fair to allow the hon. member for Calgary West to ask his question. The hon. member for Halton has given his answer. That answer might not be satisfactory to the hon. member for Calgary West; but it is an answer. I think we should now proceed in accordance with the rules.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I observe


Arthur Leroy Smith: The reference is at page 359, second column.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And as plain as can be.


Douglas Charles Abbott: How many people are
making speeches?


Mr. GRANT:: How many leaders?


Hughes Cleaver: I do not wish to offend against the rules of the house. Am I permitted now to read into the record the statement to which the hon. member for Calgary West has called my attention?


William Ross Macdonald: So far as the Chair is concerned, the hon. member can do so only with the unanimous consent of the committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us get on with the resolution before the committee.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Hear, hear.


Hughes Cleaver: 1 am sorry I am not permitted to do so. I wish to assure the hon. member for Calgary West that I was not intentionally misrepresenting his stand. I hope hon. members will read page 359 of Hansard.
Coming now to the question under debate, I have already referred to what occurred on December 5. I have checked through Hansard, and I find from that day forward, until December 19, not one reference was made to the Excise Tax Act. When the matter was brought up on that day, and with the constitution at stake, one would have expected that at least a dozen members of the opposition would have been on their feet seeking to salvage it.


James Arthur Ross: Before the matter was introduced in the house.


Hughes Cleaver: What happened on
December 19, as it is reported at page 535
of Hansard? We find the leader of the opposition was not ready. This is what he said:
Mr. Bracken:	Mr. Speaker, we shall have no
objection to the Minister of Finance giving us all the information he can tonight, but we would be opposed to attempting to make any progress in discussion.
Surely if the constitution had been murdered, as has been suggested by the leader of the opposition; surely if a serious infringement of our constitutional rights had occurred, the matter would not have been passed off in that way.
May I now come to the actual question which has been raised? The hon. member for Lake Centre told the committee that he had conducted an extensive search in the library, as a result of which he regaled the committee with mediaeval decisions to substantiate a point of law which is not disputed by any member in the committee, that point of law being that only parliament can impose taxes. Apparently the best he was able to do was to refer to some very early cases. He was followed by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Jaenicke), who had also been to the library but who had better luck. He brought to the House of Commons a recent report appearing in 1913 Chancery, volume I, at page 57. That case also substantiated the rule of law which no member of this house disputes or ever has disputed so far as I know. I am reading from the headnote of Bowles versus the Bank of England, which states in part that a resolution by the House of Commons before the tax has been actually imposed by an act of parliament is not sufficient.
That is all the decision says. It is good law; it is law that no one has ever questioned. A tax is not imposed until parliament imposes it. I ask hon. members just to keep that in mind when I read to them statements by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbalcer) and the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) to the effect that this tax in question is already imposed. The court in chancery does not agree with my hon. friends on the other side of the house. I suggest to the hon. member for Kindersley, who produced this reference, that the reference goes no farther than the headnote which I have read, which is simpfy that parliament and parliament alone has the right to impose taxes.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise now to a question of privilege merely for the purpose of pointing out that the hon. member in his search did not read Hansard. If he read the authorities with the same care that he read Hansard the committee can judge as to the weight to be placed on what he said.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Excise Tax Act Amendment


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The hon. member is not raising a question of privilege. He merely wishes to make a correction in what the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) has said, and he will have an opportunity for doing that later on in the debate. I would refer hon. members to Beauchesne, third edition, citation 193, which reads:
Members often raise so-called "questions of privilege" on matters which should be dealt with as personal explanations or corrections, either in the debates or the proceedings of the house.
I would remind hon. members who wish to correct something that has been said that they should do so, not as a question of privilege but later on when they have an opportunity.


John George Diefenbaker: I raised the question in the fall session.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did also.


Hughes Cleaver: In case hon. members would like to check these authorities, I am pleased to inform them that there is no need to plough through dozens of volumes of old references and cases in order to find the law. If hon. members will refer to Halsbury's Laws of England, second edition, volume 6, page 452, they will find there a clear exposition of the law. They will find, too, notes on the mediaeval cases cited by the hon. member for Lake Centre as well as on the recent Bowles case cited by the hon. member for Kindersley.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Read it.


Hughes Cleaver: Since we are in complete agreement on the law and I do not think anyone will question that, let us now look at the facts.	What actually did happen?
What did the minister do? Did he attempt to take from parliament the right to impose taxation? Surely the best answer to all these questions is to read what the minister did say. I suggest to the committee that they should refrain from childish repetition of statements which are not factually correct, but should be content to read from the minister's own statement. This is what he said on November 17:
The government will ask parliament to place an excise .tax of 25 per cent on a wide range of these durable consumer goods, the purchase of which can normally be postponed.
Did the minister say he was going to impose taxation? Did he say the government was going to impose taxation? No. He said he was going to ask parliament to place an excise tax.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What did he do in the
meantime?


Hughes Cleaver: I shall come to that. I suggest to my hon. friends that they are only deluding themselves by repeating childish misstatements of fact and by keeping on saying to this committee that either the government or the minister imposed a tax. Nothing of the kind was done. The minister simply gave notice to the public of Canada that he would ask the government to impose a tax and he also gave notice that he would ask that that tax should be retroactive.
I think we are coming now to the point where we reach our real place of disagreement. What is constitutionally wrong in a minister of the crown telling the citizens of the country what he plans to ask parliament to do? I challenge any member of the opposition to tell me. The hon. member for Lake Centre can browse in the library from now to the end of the session, but I say he will not find any authority which states that it is constitutionally incorrect for a minister of the crown to advise the people of the country what he intends to recommend to parliament.


Mr. MacNICOL:: The tax is being collected now.


Mr. ROWE:: He has already taken the money.


Hughes Cleaver: I am coming to that.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Halton is presenting a legal argument in support of his contention and I think hon. members should allow him to do so without interruption.


Hughes Cleaver: My hon. friends take
exception to the fact that in making his announcement the minister also announced that he would ask parliament to make the effect of this measure retroactive. No member of the opposition contends that parliament has not the right to pass retroactive taxation measures. It is done every year in connection with the budget.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that constitutional?


Hughes Cleaver: I suggest that anyone who says there is anything constitutionally wrong with what has been done is driven to the point where he must argue that parliament has no right to pass a measure imposing taxation retroactively. There is no such authority; it is done every year. I come now to the remaining point raised by the opposition. It has been contended that what has been done is an insult to parliament.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Now you are bringing on the facts.

Excise Tax Act Amendment


Hughes Cleaver: I hope my hon. friend pounds his desk in the same way in about five minutes when I have concluded. He says that the action of the minister was an affront to parliament.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hear, hear.


Hughes Cleaver: My contention is that if an emergency really existed, instead of being an affront to parliament it would have been dereliction of duty on the part of the minister if he had not met the emergency.


An hon. MEMBER:: By calling parliament.


Hughes Cleaver: I concede at once that if there was no emergency, then a minister of the crown could be criticized for making a declaration as to fiscal policy in any place other than on the floor of the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why?


Hughes Cleaver: If the house was not then sitting. Was there an emergency or not? Let us discuss that. I have not yet heard one member of the opposition argue that there was not an emergency. I have heard them make many arguments as to who was responsible for the emergency, but I have not yet heard one member of the opposition aver that there was not an emergency. Our reserves of United States dollars dropped from $1,500 million to a little more than $500 million.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: In a year.


Hughes Cleaver: I suggest that there was an emergency. From the point of view of the constitutional issue-


Mr. HACKETT:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Hughes Cleaver: Yes.


John Thomas Hackett: Does the hon. gentleman consider the fact that Canada's fund of United States dollars dropped from one and a half billion to half a billion constituted an emergency which warranted the suspension of the constitution?


Hughes Cleaver: I will answer that question. My answer to that is this. When the United States dollar reserves position dropped from $1,500 million to a little over $500 million it certainly was an emergency which justified whatever measures were necessary to correct it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is where you are wrong.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No unconstitutional measures were taken.


Hughes Cleaver: I am not arguing it would justify anything unconstitutional. So far as I am concerned I cherish the constitution and my answer to that point would be no.
May I continue with the argument I am making? My point is this, that just as soon as my hon. friends admit that there was an emergency, then I say at the same time they are driven to admit that the minister was justified in making his announcement and meeting the emergency.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the reference on that?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the hon. member permit a question? He has been most kind in answering questions. I ask my hon. friend whether he will accept this dictionary definition of "an emergency," "A sudden juncture demanding immediate action." Can something that happens over a year be said to be a sudden juncture?


Hughes Cleaver: I have thought over that point, and I intended' to present to the house as clearly as I could a reasoned argument on that point. I will reach it in a moment or two, and after I have concluded it I think perhaps the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario may agree that there is something in my argument in that regard.


William Earl Rowe: You must have a new dictionary over there.


Hughes Cleaver: As to the question then of its being an affront to parliament, I repeat that the government and the minister would have been derelict in their duty if they had not taken the necessary steps immediately to meet the emergency; and I suggest, in any event, that the reason why the emergency arose does not strike at the essence of the issue. The issue is just one plain thing, was there an emergency? And if there was an emergency, then the minister was perfectly justified in making the statement he did.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the authority for that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Take your turn.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Hughes Cleaver: Coming to the question of delay-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Hughes Cleaver: I believe that is the point which the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario raised, the delay which occurred in steps being taken to meet this problem. As I
Excise Tax Act Amendment

understand it, the government believed that nothing should be done which would imperil the consummation of the trade agreements at Geneva. Just as soon as those agreements were consummated, the public announcement was made by the Prime Minister, and by the Minister of Finance, and parliament was convened. As to whether waiting for the consummation of the trade agreements was a good and sufficient reason, I do not expect all members of the opposition to agree with my viewpoint. To me it was a sound reason. I feel very strongly that nothing should have been done to imperil these agreements. However, there are some folk, and they are entitled to their opinions, who do not value international trade as this government values it.


William Earl Rowe: You prohibit it.
An lion. MEMBER: There is one for the book.


Hughes Cleaver: Those folk are entitled to their opinion but we do not have to agree with them. Knowing -the long-term traditional background of the Conservative party, I am not surprised that members of that party in this house would pooh-pooh the idea of-


William Earl Rowe: Prohibition.


Hughes Cleaver: -waiting until these
agreements were consummated, and would say, well, you were not running any risk, you were not losing anything of value anyway. I am not surprised that members of that party would feel that way-


James Arthur Ross: Who ever said that?


Hughes Cleaver: -and ridicule the idea that the government should have waited until the trade agreements were consummated, because I have not forgotten that, while the Progressive Conservative party has announced a new trade policy, in the last twenty years the only leader of that party who headed it long enough to have any appreciable effect on the policy of the party was the leader who was going to blast his way into the markets of the world, the leader who bitterly opposed the reciprocity agreement with the United States, the leader who was not interested in reciprocal trade on friendly terms, and all that sort of thing. Therefore I say, notwithstanding the announcement of the new trade policy of the Progressive Conservative party, in view of what has happened in the last few weeks-


Mr. FULTON:: They did not put embargoes on exports and imports.


Hughes Cleaver: I would suggest to my hon. friends, if they want the general public to take their new trade policy at par value they

had better change their attitude in regard to brushing aside in such a carefree fashion the Geneva trade agreements and the value which those agreements will ultimately be to Canada. I suggest in all sincerity to my hon. friends, let us stop wasting the time of the house-[DOT]


John George Diefenbaker: Hear, hear.


James Arthur Ross: Hear, hear.


Hughes Cleaver: Forget about the smoke screen of constitutionality and let us get down to a study of the actual terms of this measure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was wondering whether the hon. member could direct our attention to the provision, if any, in the Geneva trade agreements which requires that the Minister of Finance should impose excise taxes on Canadian-made commodities being sold to Canadian consumers and announce these taxes over the radio before parliament is in session, and impose the taxes before parliament has even had a look at them.


Hughes Cleaver: In response to my hon. friend all I can say is this, that if any hon. member, knowing all of the facts back in September and October last when the Geneva trade agreements were in their final stages, would have been prepared to risk the consummation of these long-term agreements, well, I cannot agree with his point of view.


Thomas John Bentley: Mr. Chairman, I do not suppose that members on this side will condemn me if I do not attempt to deal with what the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) has said. In my opinion it is not worth discussing.


John Bracken: Would the hon. member permit me to ask a question arising out of what the member for Halton has said?


Thomas John Bentley: I would not mind if it did not provoke another speech from the hon. member for Halton. We are in committee and the leader of the opposition can put his question to the hon. member when I have finished in about eight or nine minutes' time. I dislike to be discourteous, but I am afraid of what he might provoke. It has been reiterated that there is no tax yet imposed. Mr. Chairman, this reiteration is just plain nonsense to ordinary people like myself. On the purchase of any of the articles listed in this resolution, twenty-five cents out of every dollar spent leaves the buyer's pocket; so far as he is concerned it is gone, and in most cases he will never get it back again, even if this measure were defeated.

Excise Tax Act Amendment
I am not going to do as some hon. members have done. I shall not assail the minister personally because of what is called his facetiousness. I am rather glad he is not a sour-puss, that he is genial in his replies.
I hope he does not wisecrack too much and make light of the matter, but certainly he is better the way he is. Neither would I ask for the minister's resignation. I would prefer to see sufficient members stay in the house on this side, without pairing and absenteeism, so as to assist some day in defeating the whole government over there and giving the people an opportunity to say what they want to have done. I have laid no charges against any party on this side. I simply express a personal wish and say what I should like to have happen, that is, the defeat of the government, in whom I have no confidence.
However, the aspect with which I wish to deal is somewhat different, and that is the effect of this measure upon the people. In my opinion it is an unfair system of rationing, whether it is designed for that purpose or not. On page 1543 of Hansard the minister is reported as having said that the particular articles which are included in this list are not, in their essence, necessities of life.
I say a statement of that kind is an indication of the utter callousness of the government. Electric toasters, refrigerators and gas refrigerators are a great necessity in a great many apartments occupied by lower income receivers in our Canadian towns and cities. Curling irons and tongs are a necessity to women who are unable to afford the advantages of the beauty parlour but who, nevertheless, are just as anxious, and have just as much right, to be neat and attractive as their more fortunate sisters. Combs and mirrors are just as necessary to poor people as to anyone else.
Has a government any moral right to apply a tax that rations the lower income groups out of the right to have, shall we say, waffles, if they like waffles, by withholding from them waffle irons?
The minister expressed regret that he had received no commendation for the abolition of the tax. that is the consumption and sales tax, on electricity and gas used in homes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And on sugar.


Thomas John Bentley: After all, while that would gratify those who are equipped with all these appliances, or maybe the people who buy these appliances in spite of the excise impost, yet many of the people I have mentioned will receive no advantage if they are not able to buy these articles and use them.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We all eat sugar though.


Thomas John Bentley: I will come to that. The abolition of the excise tax of one cent a pound on sugar is acceptable, but I submit that it can hardly be called significant enough to cancel out the new excise impositions. I repeat what has been said so many times, that this tax is unjust and unnecessary and has been applied without proper authority. It makes the poor poorer and hurts the middle-income group. It is very likely that some of the industries engaged in the manufacture of some of the articles listed here will have a considerable amount of unemployment if this tax goes into effect on all the articles mentioned.
On the constitutionality of it, much has been said by learned gentlemen on this side.
I am not going to try to deal with that. I do not believe it is constitutional to tax over the radio but, as I say, I am not going to argue that. Certainly, however, the argument that has been put forward over here as to the constitutionality of the measure and the imposition of this tax, which is certainly a tax that is being collected, has not yet been effectively answered by the other side of the house, which is responsible for it, and I think the committee is entitled to a reply in that regard so that we can see what the actual constitutional position is from two different points of view.


John Bracken: Early in his remarks the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) referred to something I am represented as having said in the house on December 19. Would the hon. member give me the reference?


Hughes Cleaver: I read a statement which the leader of the opposition made, as reported at page 535 of Hansard, at the foot of the page:
Mr. Bracken:	Mr. Speaker, we shall have
no objection to the Minister of Finance giving us all the information he can tonight, but we would be opposed to attempting to make any progress in discussion.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to add to what has been said by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley). First of all, I wish to endorse all that has been said on this side of the house, especially in the debate last night, against the constitutionality of this procedure. If anyone will read the circular sent out under date of November 18 to all customs and excise collectors, being series D, T.C. 242, No. 898-C, he will see that it instructs all collectors that from that day on they are to begin collecting this tax, and it has been collected every day since that time. That should dispel further argument as to whether the tax is collected or not. I have never read, in the history of any democratic country, of such a procedure having been taken to tax the people
Excise Tax Act Amendment

of a country, as was done by the minister in his broadcast over the air that night, when [DOT]parliament was not in session. Added to that, there was some discussion this afternoon about the emergency and how it came into being. That emergency was pointed out in the previous session by several speakers of this party before that session came to an end. I wish to refer to something that happened last fall, in the months prior to November 18, in connection with the foreign exchange control board.


Hughes Cleaver: I am going to ask you, Mr. Chairman, to rule on the point of order. I was not allowed to discuss foreign exchange control.


James Arthur Ross: This is under foreign exchange control.


Hughes Cleaver: We are not discussing foreign exchange control.


William Earl Rowe: We are discussing austerity.


Hughes Cleaver: We are discussing the excise tax, and I am asking for a ruling of the Chairman.


James Arthur Ross: As I understand this whole procedure, it is to conserve foreign exchange. Am I right or wrong? I have here a pamphlet issued by the government of the day in February, 1918, and it is rather strange. It deals with the marketing of grains and so on.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I cannot see that there is any objection to referring to some other act in this debate, if the hon. member is only going to refer to some other act.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We covered quite a wide field. This resolution is the ordinary budget type of resolution preceding the introduction of an act to amend the Excise Tax Act. I do not believe we should go into too great detail; in fact, we should not go into detail at all as to the operation of the foreign exchange control board or any other government board. The resolution relates solely and exclusively to the proposed excise taxes and an amendment to the Excise Tax Act.


James Arthur Ross: The words that the minister himself used, as reported at page 336 of Hansard, are:
Now I have emphasized that the main purpose of the new excise taxes is to save United States dollar exchange rather than to produce more revenue.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right. So what?


James Arthur Ross: That is what I want to make reference to.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But we are in committee.


James Arthur Ross: Certainly we are in committee.


William Ross Macdonald: I cannot see that the hon. member is prevented from making reference to it, but he should not debate foreign exchange.


James Arthur Ross: No, I am not.


William Ross Macdonald: I understand that he is merely making reference to it.


James Arthur Ross: Yes. I wanted to say this. According to government statistics issued and received in yesterday's mail, of the rye crop produced in the province of Manitoba in 1947, 205 per cent has been marketed in the first six months of this marketing year. Why? Because millions of dollars of United States funds were advanced by the foreign exchange control board under the finance minister of Canada to purchase this excess rye in the United States, which was the rye brought into Canada and exported to European countries on our own credits which the Minister of Agriculture said the other day would never be repaid. That has been bringing about this situation and has caused to some degree part of the emergency which we have had developing for those many months. I just want to make that reference.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What nonsense!


James Arthur Ross: As to the actual items mentioned in this resolution, I have another pamphlet put out by the government which, according to their surveys, points out that in the three prairie provinces only four per cent of the .people have any electrical motors or appliances in their homes or on their farms. We realize that there is not any shortage of electrical equipment of this nature. Refrigerators are referred to. We have many veterans who have become married since the war. They have their gratuities. They want to buy some of these things. Only yesterday in the mail I received a letter from an important trading centre within my riding, and that fellow points out to me that he has requests for 250 refrigerators in that trading centre. That is brought about in this way. In the past year or two we have had a great hydro expansion in rural Manitoba. As a result of that expansion by the hydro, we now have a demand by the farmers alone, to say nothing of those towns and1 villages, for many thousands of Frigidaires as well as electrical motors and equipment of all sorts, such as equipment for the chopping of feed for livestock and so on. I could enumerate all sorts of articles listed in this resolution. Is it fair, for instance, with regard to these Frigidaires, that these farmers, after

Excise Tax Act Amendment
having subsidized] the consumers of this nation on food] products as they have done since 1942, by a measure such as this should be asked to pay $50 to $100 extra in the matter of excise tax for that one piece of equipment? That is what has been done to them. I want to add my humble voice in protest just as strongly and as loudly as I can against that sort of legislation at this time.
I agree with the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I hope enough of us can be here to defeat the government on that sort of thing. I am receiving letters daily complaining about this matter, not only from dealers but from the people themselves who had been saving up a bit of money in difficult times to purchase that sort of equipment, to which they are certainly entitled in their homes at this time. I want to make that point. I hope the request made this afternoon by the hon. member for Kootenay West will be met, and that the minister will be able to release the tax on, I think it was a kerosene Frigidaire, because many people in the outlying points are able to get great use and comfort out of that equipment where hydro electric power has not been extended. I cannot understand the reasoning of the government at all. Certainly anything the minister has ever said has not proved to anybody in Canada why an excise tax should be imposed upon these articles listed in there as they are today. The people are entitled to something altogether better from the government of the day.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not taken much part in this committee debate so far. We have been getting a series of speeches, and I think it is appropriate that I should say a word just at this time, because I want to try to put before the committee, if I can, some of the facts of life in connection with our overall current account position which is the fundamental reason for our exchange shortage. The position is this. We are taking certain measures to endeavour to correct our exchange position. One of them is to impose import restrictions to cut down on imports from the United States. 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 which are either imported or contain a high import content. Canada's position is this. We have been producing at a high level, and we have been exporting substantial quantities of goods and merchandise to other countries.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Giving it away, really.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a point I am coming to. We have been doing that in a large measure on credit. A country can do that on credit, provided that it has a surplus of its production over its consumption to lend or to send to other countries. That was Canada's position up to about the end of 1946. Up to the end of 1946 the people in this country still were producing something in the order of $400 million worth more of goods and services than they were consuming. But that position changed in 1947. In 1947 we consumed in this country just about what we produced. Nevertheless we continued to export to foreign countries, in order to assist in the reconstruction of those war-devastated countries, substantial quantities of goods. We did that on credit. We were able to do that by digging into our cash reserves, but we seriously impaired those cash reserves. If we are to continue to play our part in assisting in the reconstruction of these devastated countries, we can do so only in one of two ways. We must either increase our production in this country or we must reduce our consumption. It is just as simple as that. Unless we can re-create what the economists refer to as an over-all current account surplus, which we have not today, we cannot continue to do what we have done in the past. If we in this country want to live in a lush atmosphere with a high standard of living, with everybody buying all the refrigerators, hair curlers, toasters and automobiles they want to buy, well and good. But when I was speaking in Montreal not very long ago, I had occasion to say I do not believe that Canada can continue to live in an era of prosperity in the midst of a starving world. That is what this measure is intended to do-to reduce consumption. In my judgment the real criticism or the sound criticism of this measure would be that it does not go far enough. We should have covered a far wider field in an endeavour to reduce to some extent consumption in this country. That may not be a pleasant thing to say, but that is the position we are in. If we are to continue to play our part in world reconstruction, that is just what we have to do; we must increase our production or decrease our own consumption. Perhaps we can increase our production. At the present time we are operating under relatively full employment. People might work longer hours, of course; that is a possibility, or we might become more efficient. Speaking generally, however, I think it fair to say that both in the agricultural section of the economy and in the industrial we are operating nearly at full capacity.
Excise Tax Act Amendment


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would the minister permit a question?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would allow me to finish. Therefore, if we are to continue our exports to these countries, as I have said we must reduce our own consumption. One way of doing that is to use the fiscal method. Hon. members may differ as to that method, but it is a method which is generally recognized by economists and others of repute to be a proper and sound method of accomplishing that objective; and that is one of the weapons which the government has decided to use in this situation. That is one of the reasons this tax is being imposed. The list of articles selected, as I have said, includes articles which, speaking generally, are not the most essential. But, as I haive said on other occasions, in the world as it is today we in this country are living beyond our means, not beyond what we can produce ourselves but beyond the means of our customers, and the purpose of this measure is as I have stated.
It is very easy to rise in one's place and criticize a tax measure. I know that. I know taxes are not popular. When these measures were brought in I was under no illusion that they would be popular, or that I would become a national hero because I brought them in. But I came to the conclusion, and the government came to the conclusion, that they were necessary if we are to continue to play cur part. And that, I think, needs to be said.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Now may I ask the minister a question?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Certainly.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have not wasted much time in this house, nor do I usually ask foolish questions, but I should like the minister to answer this. As a means of cutting down our exchange difficulties, has the government considered the production of our own coal requirements, for example? We have the coal here; we have one-fifth of the coal in the world. Why was some move not made to produce Canadian coal to meet, the Canadian need, and cease importing the $125 million to $150 million worth of coal we bring in each year from the United States?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That does not come within my particular field; it is more in the field of my colleague the Minister of Mines and Resources or the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I understand, however, that constant attention is being given the possibility of increasing the utilization of Canadian coal. On another question raised last night by my hon. friend in connection with our petroleum

resources, I think we are all tremendously encouraged by the success of the new field in western Canada, which bears all the earmarks of becoming a very large producer and which, I am told, will soon likely be able to produce enough to supply all the needs of western Canada. That will be a great thing; it will save millions of dollars in United States exchange and make us just that much more independent.


Mr. THATCHER:: I should like to ask a question bearing on what the minister said a minute ago. He said this measure is intended to save United States dollars, and I think we can all agree with that. But he said the imposition of this excise tax was one way of doing it. Could we not have accomplished the same purpose by utilizing Bill No. 3, which we adopted two weeks ago, by putting all these things under a quota; that is, these parts for washing machines, refrigerators and so on?
'Mr. ABBOTT: I am afraid perhaps my hon. friend did not follow what I meant by my reduction of consumption argument. I did say in previous speeches, in my radio address and others, that the end purpose we are trying to achieve would be defeated if we prohibited the importation of certain articles from the United States, such as motorcars, refrigerators and the like, and then allowed our domestic production to expand to fill the gap. I repeat, because it is the crux of this whole exchange difficulty we are in, that what we have to try to do is to re-create that over-all current account surplus as between exports, imports and consumption.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I am afraid the minister did not follow me. Could we not have rationed the parts imported from the United States? In other words, could we not have allowed in only so many parts for refrigerators, washing machines and so on? Would that not have accomplished the same end?


Douglas Charles Abbott: But there is a substantial metal content in articles like refrigerators, such as copper and aluminum, which we can sell in export markets for United States dollars. I come back to this fundamental principle I am trying to explain. It may sound a little theoretical, but actually it is not. We must create again this surplus of exports over wliat we consume, a surplus of what we produce over what we consume. Otherwise we simply cannot continue to do our job. '


William Earl Rowe: I have listened with considerable interest to the Minister of Finance, and I find myself in agreement with much of what he has said. I think we are all fully or at least

Excise Tax Act Amendment
partly aware of the terrible world situation. We realize that conditions overseas are critical, and perhaps in a general way we can agree with what the minister says is his objective. I was also interested in the question asked by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, and I find myself in agreement with his suggestion. If our only purpose was to keep United States goods out of Canada, why not put them under quota, or, for that matter, prohibit them as you have prohibited many other articles? But why the excise tax? It is recognized that the government does not need more revenue. It almost boasts of the surplus of five or six or seven hundred million dollars it anticipates, so that surely we do not need more revenue. I agree with the minister when he says that when these conditions arise we must adopt fiscal methods to correct them, but I do not find myself in agreement with the statement of the hon. member for Halton that this emergency came up very quickly. As the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has said, it certainly was not that type of emergency, unless there are two dictionary meanings of what an emergency is. As hon. members have already said today, several on this side pointed to the critical situation which was developing and repeatedly told the Minister of Finance and the government that it would continue to develop if they persisted in their fiscal policy. The hon. member for Halton harked back to the days when a leader of this party, a former prime minister, said he would blast his way into the markets of the world. Perhaps that was not the best way to put it, but I submit that it was much more graceful than to make no statement at all and then blast your way out of the markets of the world, as this government is doing.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Our trade has never been greater. Some blasting!


William Earl Rowe: I have been surprised at that myself. This must be a strong country to be able to withstand the weaknesses of this administration.


Mr. HARTT:: Don't tell us about Mr. Bennett.


William Earl Rowe: You were not here when Mr. Bennett was here.


Maurice Hartt: No, but I know all about him, and I know all about you, too.


William Earl Rowe: And I know all about you. I can only say, Mr. Chairman, that if we are to deal with fiscal matters I am sure no one on this side needs to offer any apology for the fiscal policies enunciated by ourselves or our predecessors. If I were a new member like
the hon. gentleman who has interrupted me, and had lived with the Liberal party in this house for only a short time, and if I knew as much about it as he pretends to know, I would be almost ashamed to mention fiscal matters. These are the great champions of free trade. These are the people who, away back years ago, were going to have commercial union with the United States of America. These are the people who, for half a century, have heralded free markets of the world.
I can well recall hearing speeches along that line when I first came to this house in 1925. Many who spoke at that time have now passed on to their great reward. Some of them were fine gentlemen, on the other side of the house -and there are a few left in that category. I know that even one of the worthy predecessors of the present light-hearted Minister of Finance, the Hon. Mr. Robb at that time, and many others, spoke along that line. I listened to the Hon. Mr. Fielding, although at that time I did not hold a seat in the house. But I did have the opportunity to listen to him speak and I have heard many others talk about the free trade policy of the Liberal party, and tell how they would open the markets of the world.
I sat in parliament while the party opposite came to parliament with one trade agreement after another, between 1925 and 1929. Never did any party in so short a time negotiate more trade agreements with other countries of the world than did the Liberal party of that day. And never did a party in such a few years almost close our world markets; because in 1930 we found ourselves in a terrible condition.


An hon. MEMBER:: A Tory government.


William Earl Rowe: Yes; it was so bad that the country called in a Tory government to take over.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It must have been bad.


William Earl Rowe: And it is coming to that again, very rapidly.


Maurice Hartt: A pound of butter.


William Earl Rowe: And it was not only a pound of butter. I can well recall what happened in those years. All one has to do is to go back and search the records to find out how much trade we had in agricultural products with the United States, and compare the figure with our trade in 1930. The fiscal policy in those years was of a most haphazard and uncertain type.
We find that between 1921 and 1930 not only was the balance of trade unfavourable to Canada, but there were more people leaving this country and going to the United States
Excise Tax Act Amendment

than were being bom here or coming to Canada. And today we have a similar situation.
But those who have been maintaining almost every tariff enacted by the Liberal party have always worn the mantle of free trade, have always worshipped at the shrine of laissez faire in trade, and have said, "Sell where you can sell the highest, and buy where you can buy the cheapest." They have talked free trade in western Canada and maintained protection in eastern Canada during all those years. They have twitted our party for having a brick-for-brick policy in tariffs. But never before have we seen such prohibitory measures against international trade as those we have now been forced to adopt.
I am not going to review the exchange situation. But surely even the Minister of Finance, in some of his quiet moments in private-when he is not disturbed by having to watch those of us on this side of the house -must have had some doubts as to the wisdom of the fundamental reasoning of these developments in 1947.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The inability of our customers to pay us.


William Earl Rowe: None of us is infallible, not even the minister. But he must have had some doubts. There are many who have had more experience in business than either the minister or I, who express grave doubts. And I would ask him to consider carefully how we got into this mess. Whjr have we now austerity in the midst of prosperity?
I agree with the Minister of Finance when he says that if you are to have more to send out of the country you must either eat less or produce more. That is axiomatic; we can all agree with that. But I cannot agree that the minister can encourage production by the people if he proceeds to build up a huge surplus in revenue, and increase taxation.
Is there anyone who, by the widest stretch of the imagination, would say that the imposition of a 25 per cent excise tax, at a time when we are boasting about having a half a billion dollars in revenue as a surplus, will help production?
If the minister wishes to increase production in Canada, then I suggest several things that should be done. I would say, first, that, instead of putting on more taxes, he should remove the sales tax. It is a tax which multiplies and pyramids all along the line, until it becomes an enormous tax. Even the hon. member from Montreal would agree with that. No, I see he would not agree. There are none so blind as those who will not see. I know, and you know, 
Mr. Chairman, that we are carrying a burden of taxation in Canada which is almost crippling industry, stifling enterprise, killing initiative and dampening genius in our people who would embark upon new ventures in other lines.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Profits are higher this year than ever before.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do you admit that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Last year, I should have said.


William Earl Rowe: And you are taking more of them, too, than any government has ever taken before.
But that is not good enough. It is not enough merely to say that, in a time like this, when the world is starving, in a time like this when there is a shortage of consumer goods, profits are good. Certainly profits are good in many industries today. But do not let us fool ourselves. If we want more production in this country-which we do want-and if we want more United States dollars, then I say there are many things we can do. If the government intends to consider fiscal changes, then may I suggest that it lift the embargo on beef cattle going into the United States, and get a few dollars in that way. May I suggest, further, that you lift the embargo on malting barley going into the United States. May I suggest that you remove the sales tax, and do not proceed further with this excise bill.


Douglas Charles Abbott: How would that reduce consumption?


William Earl Rowe: How would it reduce consumption?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


William Earl Rowe: It would increase production.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I doubt it. I think we are pretty well at full employment now.


William Earl Rowe: There is plenty of employment down around the civil service branch. You have more civil servants than you ever had in the history of Canada.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; about 25,000 less.


William Earl Rowe: When one control is removed you have to put another on to cover up the errors in it. May I suggest that if the government wishes to increase production-and I agree with the Minister of Finance that we should-instead of putting more controls on, he should take more off and let the people know where they are going. Let the people find their own level. Let industry be governed

Excise Tax Act Amendment
more by the law of supply and demand. If there ever was any virtue in the old free trade doctrines of the Liberal party, then surely today that party is the farthest away from its free trade policy it has ever been since confederation. If there ever was any virtue in it, then surely there might be some virtue in it today, when the whole world is clamouring for foodstuffs. This is a time when we need international trade, and when we should not allow ourselves to get into a position where we have to prohibit goods from that great customer, the United States of America.
We can well recall hearing the present Prime Minister state in the house that we must not provoke the United States. We could scarcely raise a tariff. But today we have the greatest number of changes, and have observed the greatest number of changes in the fiscal policy of the Liberal party that we have seen in the last twenty-five years.
I can remember when that party was going to have a policy of free trade. They said, "Buy your implements where you can buy them the cheapest; sell your products where you can sell them for the most"-total free trade. The Liberal party in western Canada called for free trade.


Ernest Bertrand: That was a
time when you could exchange money; but today you cannot do that.


William Earl Rowe: And Liberals, like my hon. friend from the province of Quebec, wanted reasonable protection for that province, and the city of Montreal, as many of us did for the industrial sections of Ontario. But the result was that in 1930 the fiscal policy of that party which has been everlasting in its condemnation of any degree of protection was such that a minister of finance, who preceded the one now in office, came in with countervailing duties. He chided us on this side of the house for having a brick-for-brick policy. He said, "We will not call it brick for brick; we will count it a countervailing tariff. If the United States puts on a tariff of ten per cent, we will put on the same tariff here". In other words, we have changed so often in Ottawa that we now leave it to Washington to decide what type of tariff we shall have. It is now said that in order to get more United States dollars and prohibit the importation of United States goods we shall put on a 25 per cent excise tax; we shall provide a long list of goods which will not be allowed into Canada.
I do not intend to go into any legal argument as to the unconstitutional part of it, because I have mentioned before what I
thought of it. This is the first time in my experience of a quarter of a century in this house that I have known of taxes to be imposed over the radio and have them collected long before they were passed by parliament. I listened to the hon. member for Hal ton and, being a farmer, I imagine it was difficult for me to follow him. However, as a farmer I could tell that, while he was trying to give a legal interpretation, it was simply a skilful legal circumvention of the real issue when he was saying that the minister was not in any way bound or was not acting unconstitutionally when he asked parliament for certain rights. Even the minister laughed at that and I am sure that would not need much argument. The people of this country know that this is another example of the usurpation of parliamentary rights such as we have not before experienced in the life of this house, all under the cloak of emergency of war, a war which ended two or three years ago. You will always have emergencies when there is this uncertainty in our fiscal policy which we have experienced in the last few years, especially of late years. The more emergencies we have, the greater the tangle will be.
I am not going to labour it any more than to say I regret that the government now finds itself in an economic tangle. Nobody is just sure how they got into it, and heaven knows nobody knows how they will get out of it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They explained how they got into it a few minutes ago.


William Earl Rowe: I urge upon those who have the great responsibility of fixing the fiscal policies of this country, such as the Minister of Finance or the minister who has control of our rapidly growing industrial expansion; I urge them when they are thinking over these fiscal matters to ask themselves whether they can get more production by putting on more taxes or whether they can get more industry by having more governmental controls. I urge them to ask themselves that in the quiet confines of the east block.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Can the minister tell us how much has actually been collected in the almost four months this tax has been on?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I could not give those figures because the returns from the outports do not segregate them. It is possible, of course, they might be obtained.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Could you obtain them?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall see if they can be obtained.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You admit that the tax has been on for four months?
Excise Tax Act Amendment


Douglas Charles Abbott: We probably could make a fairly accurate estimate. For instance, the automobile situation is this: from the 1st to the 18th of November is was 10 per cent, and then it was increased to 25 per cent. The figures could be broken down and probably an estimate could be made.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Like the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, I agree with the minister when he says that if we are to do what I am sure everyone wants to do, that is not only live ourselves but help to meet the needs of others, we must have an over-all current account surplus. But that does not commend this taxation. I might just remark in passing, without labouring the point, that there are certain other measures which we think the government might have adopted but which they have decided not to adopt. Therefore we are forced back on this measure.
As I pointed out last night, and I do not intend to labour it further, this measure really has four aspects. The saving in United States exchange which it is hoped to achieve may be quite trifling, Along with the hon. member for Moose Jaw, I think we must have some idea of the amount involved before we can reach any intelligent judgment on the bill. Like the hon. member, I hope the minister will give us a breakdown, not only as to what we might be saving in United States exchange but other details as well. As I read the minister's speech of last December, the only sawing in United States exchange that we shall make is the saving of United States parts of Canadian articles which are being kept out.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And the reduction in the consumption of things that we can export.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That brings us back to the minister's point of the current account surplus, with which I agree, but it does not necessarily mean that that is the way to get it. Therefore I think
we on this side are entitled to look critically at this bill. I believe the minister in his heart must recognize the fact that it is extremely difficult to understand it because it seems to go off in four directions. This measure originally came to us as a means of saving United States exchange and I think we are entitled to have some idea of how much United States exchange has been saved. We are also entitled to know-this may be more difficult to get-how much our own purchases have been cut down.
It is perfectly open to all of us to say that this is not the best way of doing this. Certainly there seem to be a great many flaws in it. Certainly it seems as though the people who are singled out here to make a sacrifice are not the people who should necessarily make it.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The business tomorrow will be as announced earlier this afternoon by the Prime Minister. In the afternoon we shall take up the second reading of Bill No. 126, to amend the Pension Act. That is No. 19 on the order paper for today. That will be done in the hope that it can be given second reading in the afternoon and be referred to the committee on veterans affairs. If that is done before six o'clock we shall go on to the resolution providing for an amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act to provide for further payments to producers of wheat. In any event, we shall take up the resolution concerning the Wheat Board Act at eight o'clock if it appears that second reading of the pension bill will not be completed within a short time. If both those items are disposed of, we shall go back to the resolution dealing with the excise tax.
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.