April 27, 1949

LIB

William Ross Macdonald (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

When shall the bill

be read the third time?

Topic:   PIPE LINES ACT
Subtopic:   CONTROL OF INTERPROVINCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL OIL OR GAS PIPE LINES
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Now.

Topic:   PIPE LINES ACT
Subtopic:   CONTROL OF INTERPROVINCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL OIL OR GAS PIPE LINES
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Next sitting of the house.

Topic:   PIPE LINES ACT
Subtopic:   CONTROL OF INTERPROVINCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL OIL OR GAS PIPE LINES
Permalink
LIB

William Ross Macdonald (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Mr. Chevrier moves, seconded by Mr. Fournier (Hull), that this bill be now read the third time.

Topic:   PIPE LINES ACT
Subtopic:   CONTROL OF INTERPROVINCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL OIL OR GAS PIPE LINES
Permalink
SC

Solon Earl Low

Social Credit

Mr. Low:

No.

Topic:   PIPE LINES ACT
Subtopic:   CONTROL OF INTERPROVINCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL OIL OR GAS PIPE LINES
Permalink
LIB

William Ross Macdonald (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?

Topic:   PIPE LINES ACT
Subtopic:   CONTROL OF INTERPROVINCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL OIL OR GAS PIPE LINES
Permalink
SC

Solon Earl Low

Social Credit

Mr. Low:

No.

Topic:   PIPE LINES ACT
Subtopic:   CONTROL OF INTERPROVINCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL OIL OR GAS PIPE LINES
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

There were amendments.

Topic:   PIPE LINES ACT
Subtopic:   CONTROL OF INTERPROVINCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL OIL OR GAS PIPE LINES
Permalink
LIB

William Ross Macdonald (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

No amendments were made to the bill in committee. When amendments are made it is not customary for a bill to be given third reading on the same day on which it is reported from the committee. But quite frequently-I might say it is the custom -a bill is read the third time on the same day on which it is reported from the committee when there are no amendments.

Topic:   PIPE LINES ACT
Subtopic:   CONTROL OF INTERPROVINCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL OIL OR GAS PIPE LINES
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Coldwell:

May I just say a word? I am not interested in holding the bill over, but if the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) and his colleagues from Alberta wish to give consideration overnight to some of the replies which have been made, that courtesy of the house should be extended to them.

Topic:   PIPE LINES ACT
Subtopic:   CONTROL OF INTERPROVINCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL OIL OR GAS PIPE LINES
Permalink
LIB

Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Chevrier:

I am not going to object, but the point is this. I think my hon. friend is as anxious as anyone in the house that these five private bills gp through. If third reading is held over until tomorrow, then the private bills would likely be held over also. It would be far better if we could get third reading tonight. Then we would have some assurance that consideration of the private bills could be taken up in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and come back here for discussion, if that be necessary.

Topic:   PIPE LINES ACT
Subtopic:   CONTROL OF INTERPROVINCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL OIL OR GAS PIPE LINES
Permalink
SC

Solon Earl Low

Social Credit

Mr. Low:

I can assure the minister that, whatever we may submit to the consideration of the house, we shall certainly not be long.

[The Chairman.!

If possible, I should like to have third reading held over until tomorrow morning.

Topic:   PIPE LINES ACT
Subtopic:   CONTROL OF INTERPROVINCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL OIL OR GAS PIPE LINES
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

The private bills have not had first or second reading yet.

Topic:   PIPE LINES ACT
Subtopic:   CONTROL OF INTERPROVINCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL OIL OR GAS PIPE LINES
Permalink
LIB

William Ross Macdonald (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

When shall this bill be read the third time?

Topic:   PIPE LINES ACT
Subtopic:   CONTROL OF INTERPROVINCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL OIL OR GAS PIPE LINES
Permalink
SC

Solon Earl Low

Social Credit

Mr. Low:

Next sitting.

Topic:   PIPE LINES ACT
Subtopic:   CONTROL OF INTERPROVINCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL OIL OR GAS PIPE LINES
Permalink

THE BUDGET

DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE


The house resumed from Tuesday, April 26, consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell (Muskoka-Ontario), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.


PC

Charles Delmar Coyle

Progressive Conservative

Mr. C. D. Coyle (Elgin):

It is not my desire at this time to take more than a few minutes of the time of the house. I do wish, however, to draw to the attention of the government, as emphatically as I can problems of vital concern to those who sent me here to represent them in this House of Commons.

The county of Elgin, which I represent, is nearly seventy miles long and twenty miles wide, and lies along the north shore of lake Erie, where there are located such centres as Port Stanley, Port Burwell and others, which constitute some of the finest summer resorts in Canada. In addition to such industrial centres as the city of St. Thomas, which is also one of Canada's larger railway points, there are several other thriving towns and villages, as for example, Aylmer, with the largest tobacco receiving depot in the British commonwealth. There are also many other towns and villages such as Rodney, West Lome, Dutton-to mention only a few-where the stability and prosperity of our agricultural economy have a very direct bearing.

The county of Elgin has built up over the years a very efficient mixed agricultural economy, with considerable production in dairying, beef cattle, beans, corn and tobacco.

Although the agricultural economy of Elgin county is diversified, perhaps to a degree greater than many other areas of Canada, we also have our specialty fields; and our primary producers, like those elsewhere in this country, find themselves dependent upon export markets for the sale of their goods. This is particularly true of our most recent industry, the production of tobacco, which has experienced a very considerable development in the last twenty years, and which has contributed much to this country.

In the province of Ontario there are ten counties, including the county of Elgin, which have in the past twenty years built up at considerable expense to the farmers an efficient tobacco industry. Today in Ontario approximately 3,500 farms are devoted to the production of tobacco, covering an acreage in excess of 99,000 acres. Of this total there are about 725 of those farms located in the county of Elgin, with an acreage of approximately 19,500 acres. When this industry was in its infancy in this country a strenuous effort was made to improve quality and to secure for these producers an export market. These efforts over the past twenty years met with a large degree of success, and the industry was able, in addition to supplying the Canadian demand, to build up export markets, particularly in the United Kingdom. Today deep concern is felt about our ability to hold those markets, and what effect their loss may have on the tobacco growers in the future.

In 1947 Canada shipped to the United Kingdom market 22,233,110 pounds of tobacco in various forms, to the value of approximately $12,507,000. In 1948 that market was reduced by about forty-two and a half per cent when our shipments of tobacco to the United Kingdom were cut to 12,681,000 pounds, valued at $6,946,535.

It is quite true that circumstances in the United Kingdom have caused that nation to reduce their imports of tobacco, as well as some other goods, but the total reduction in United Kingdom imports amounted only to approximately 15 J million pounds in 1948 as compared with 1947.

Imports of tobacco from Turkey into the United Kingdom in 1947 totaled only 430,786 pounds. In 1948, when purchases from Canada were reduced by forty-two and a half per cent, purchases from Turkey increased from 430,786 pounds in the previous year to over ten million pounds, and these purchases were made at a price a few cents in excess of the cost per pound of Canadian tobacco.

A review of British import and valuation figures given in the Accounts of Trade and Navigation shows that the average price of imports from Turkey was 56-8 cents per pound as compared to 54-7 cents per pound from Canada. This will indicate that our inability to hold this market does not arise from any excess cost of Canadian tobacco.

We are told by the government that we are losing this market for tobacco because of a shortage of dollars. The tobacco farmers in my county understand that the shortage of dollars has been largely responsible for the 42'5 per cent reduction in the amount of 29087-168i

The Budget-Mr. Coyle tobacco purchased by the United Kingdom. They also know that the number of dollars available to purchase tobacco and other things is dependent to a large degree upon the extent of the sale of British goods on the Canadian market. Today, faced with a possible long-term loss of this market, the farmers are asking whether everything possible has been done to help the United Kingdom build up a supply of dollars through the sale of British goods in Canada. This would enable the United Kingdom to purchase tobacco and other Canadian goods.

It is also known that the capacity of the United Kingdom was seriously impaired during the recent war, but as this situation improves the farmers want to know whether the percentage of increase in exports to Canada has been as great as the percentage of increase in exports to other countries, and particularly those countries to which the United Kingdom is now turning for supplies formerly purchased from Canada. We fail to understand why the United Kingdom exports to Turkey, for example, in 1947 should increase approximately 100 per cent over 1946, while exports to Canada only increased approximately one-third. The people are asking, and with considerable justification, whether the government at Ottawa is doing everything to assist them in retaining these markets which have been built up at great expense over the years. The United Kingdom trade statistics fail to reveal a satisfactory answer. These statistics reveal that British exports of iron, steel and manufactured products to Turkey, from whom Britain is now buying huge quantities of tobacco, were increased from $2,688,000 in 1946 to $4,215,000 in 1948.

A further study of the trade figures shows why it is that, while Britain finds it necessary to cut her imports of tobacco from Canada by over 42 per cent, at the same time she increases her imports of tobacco from Turkey from 430,000 pounds in 1947 to over ten million pounds the following year. Britain was able to pay for that tremendously increased supply of tobacco from Turkey by exporting electrical goods to Turkey to the value of $5,252,000 in 1948 against exports of $2,347,000 in 1946, an increase of over 100 per cent. Those increased purchases from the tobacco growers of Turkey were also made possible by exporting to that country machinery of various classes which was in short supply in Canada. Of this class of goods Britain exported to Turkey in 1948 $5,250,000 worth as against $2,333,000 in 1946.

The examples which I have cited explain why the United Kingdom has had a favourable balance of trade with such countries as Turkey and today is turning to those coun-

2662 HOUSE OF

The Budget-Mr. McKay tries for goods formerly purchased from Canada, with the result that exports from Canada are rapidly falling. I mention this case of trade with Turkey because it is a very serious matter to the tobacco growers of the district I represent, as well as to the Canadian economy as a whole. It took many years of very careful marketing for the tobacco growing industry of this coifntry to establish a reputation for our tobacco in foreign markets. The taste for and satisfaction with Canadian tobacco was not built up in a year, and many of our producers fear that if we lose the British market for too long the demand for Canadian tobacco may be lost.

This is a matter of serious concern to the tobacco farmers and all who are directly or indirectly dependent upon this industry. They are asking the government to indicate by its actions that it is doing all in its power to retain and develop these markets for Canadian tobacco. It is hoped that some means will be found to enable the United Kingdom and other commonwealth countries to earn the dollars with which to buy our tobacco, bacon, cheese and many other things for which we have already built up a considerable market. We stand to lose this market unless some action is taken now by our government to meet the problems of the present and the future.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CCF

Eric Bowness McKay

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. E. B. McKay (Weyburn):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this occasion I feel I should first commend the government for its action in increasing the exemptions for income tax from $750 to $1,000 for single people and from $1,500 to $2,000 for married persons. For the last two sessions this group has been advocating an increase in exemptions and, while it falls far short of what we had hoped for, I feel that we should be thankful for small mercies.

I deplore, however, the fact that, while in some cases the nuisance taxes have been removed, the eight per cent sales tax, an indirect tax, still remains. Without any question this tax is a very heavy burden on the people with small incomes which in the past have been too low to be subjected to income tax at all. As a matter of fact about one-half of our population in this country is in that particular category. The eight per cent sales tax is placed upon most manufactured goods and it forms a very large part of the burden placed upon the homemaker who is attempting to maintain normal living conditions.

At the manufacturers' level this tax is only eight per cent, but retailers advise us that it actually runs from eleven to twelve per cent

at the retail level. If this is a correct statement, anyone can see that this indirect tax, while it may be an easy tax for the government to collect, is nevertheless contributing substantially to the increased cost of living. I am one who firmly believes that had this tax been reduced, or had the government seen its way clear to entirely removing it, it would have drastically reduced living costs for nearly all the Canadian people.

As I said a moment ago, there are many people who do not have incomes large enough for them to pay any income tax. Nevertheless, when they purchase goods in stores, all those people must pay the eight per cent tax which is, as I said, placed upon manufactured goods. This tax is placed on shoes that children must wear, upon their clothing, upon furniture that must be purchased for homes; and even in the case of little children, the penalty is imposed upon the toys that they require in order to have a happy life. It seems to me that it would have been a nice gesture on the part of the government, even if they did not have any particular regard for reducing the high cost of living, had they done something for the little children. It is obvious to all why the government took off the tax on chocolate bars and on pop. It is a tax everyone noticed. But it is much more necessary that the eight per cent sales tax should be taken off toys that little children have to play with, and from'household goods generally.

On the whole, I think this indirect tax, this eight per cent sales tax, is not being publicized widely enough throughout the country. I am satisfied that the government increased the exemptions-and I commend them again for doing so-because of public demand. Most of the public do not realize, I am quite satisfied, that the eight per cent sales tax is the one tax that is probably adding more to the cost of living than any other tax we have in the Dominion of Canada. The government of course will be hesitant about removing the tax without a great deal of pressure. I recognize, as do all hon. members, that the government must have money with which to operate. In many respects the income tax probably is the fairest tax that could be levied. But I believe that some consideration should be given-and if it cannot be done in this session, it should be considered in the next session of parliament-to the entire removal of the eight per cent sales tax. If the government find that they need the $400 million or so that this tax normally brings to the treasury, I would suggest that they reimpose the excess profits tax. I think I am fair in saying that the

excess profits tax rendered to the treasury approximately the same amount of money as the sales tax. If that were done, the government would still be getting from business the revenue that is necessary, and at the same time it would relieve the people in the lower income brackets who are finding it difficult to make ends meet.

I now want to say a word with regard to the necessity for railway construction in western Canada. I recently completed a tour of an area that for a number of years has been advocating the construction of branch lines of railway. The people in that area for twenty-five or thirty years have been waiting for loose railway ends to be completed. In instances where branch lines have not been completed, we have for cattle and grain shipments long hauls that could normally be avoided by the completion of a link of twenty-five or thirty miles of railway. I have in mind a railway in southwestern Saskatchewan one terminal of which is twenty-five miles from another one. People in either case have to travel back to a large centre a hundred miles before they can even start on the main part of a journey. These people not only have to pay extra money out in railway fares but they have to pay out that much more on their cattle traffic, their wheat and other commodities which they raise; and in turn, they have to pay more in freight on the goods which come in. The net result of this is that their cost of living is high.

I would suggest to the government at this time that they do something in the next session of parliament to see that these loose ends of branch line railways in southern Saskatchewan are completed so that the people in those areas will get a much more satisfactory service than they have had in the past.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

On motion of Mr. McKay the debate was adjourned.

Standing Committees STANDING COMMITTEES

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink

April 27, 1949