REPORTS OF COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre) presented the first and second reports of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and moved that the first report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

United Nations


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker,
I beg leave to table an official communication received from the Secretary-General of the United Nations Organization, Lake Success, by the Department of External Affairs on May 15. It is a resolution reading in part as follows:
Whereas the general assembly of the united nations has been called into special session for the purpose of constituting and instructing a special committee to prepare for the consideration at the next regular session of the assembly a report on the question of Palestine.
The general assembly resolves that:
1.	A special committee be created for the above-mentioned purpose, consisting of the representatives of Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia;
2.	The special committee shall have the widest powers to ascertain and record facts, and to investigate all questions and issues relevant to the problem of Palestine;
3.	The special committee shall determine its own procedure;
4.	The special committee shall conduct investigations in Palestine and wherever it may deem useful, receive and examine written or oral testimony, whichever it may consider appropriate in each case, from the mandatory power, from representatives of the population of Palestine, from governments and from such organizations and individuals as it may deem necessary;
5.	The special committee shall give the most careful consideration to the religious interests in Palestine of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity;
6.	The special committee shall prepare a report to the general assembly and shall submit such proposals as it may consider appropriate for the solution of the problem of Palestine;
7.	The special committee's report shall be communicated to the secretary-general not later than 1st September, 1947, in order that it may be circulated to the members of the united nations in time for consideration by the second regular session of the general assembly.
The communication contains this further paragraph:
Report of first committee as approved by general assembly contains paragraph relating to composition of special committee which reads as follows:
The committee associated itself with the views expressed by the representative of Venezuela that the states, members of the special committee, should appoint persons of high moral character and of recognized competence in international affairs, and that those appointed would act impartially and conscientiously, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the charter of the united nations.
I have pleasure in informing the house that Mr. Justice I. C. Rand, of the Supreme Court of Canada, has accepted the task of representing Canada on this committee. He will be accompanied by Mr. Leon Mayrand, of the Department of External Affairs.

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

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many (a) Hollanders; (b) Belgians, have been accepted for immigration to Canada [DOT]since the first of January this year?
2.	Of those accepted, how many have arrived in Canada as of this date?
3.	How many doctors whose duties are to physically examine prospective immigrants to Canada are engaged by the Canadian government in (a) Holland; (b) Belgium; (c) France; (d) United Kingdom?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	Information not available.
2.	Information in form asked for not available. 264 immigrants of Dutch origin and 63 persons of Belgian origin were admitted to Canada from overseas between January 1 and March 31, 1947. Figures for April, 1947, are not yet available.
3.	Holland, 1; Belgium, 1; France, 1; United Kingdom, 4.


MOUNTED POLICE-DR. BRAITH WAITE
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	When did Dr. E. A. Braithwaite first join
the force of the N.W.M.P.	_
2.	For how many years was Dr. Braithwaite on the force and/or on the payroll of the NW.M.P, the R.N.W.M.P., and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
3.	What positions did Dr. Braithwaite hold in connection with the above?
4.	On what date was he finally retired?
5.	Is he on pension?
6.	If not, for what reason?
7.	Has he applied for pension? If so, what steps have been taken to grant same?
Mr. ILS'LEY:
1.	May 7, 1384.
2.	(a) Actually in the force from May 7, 1884, to May 6, 1892. (b) He then became a medical doctor and later was appointed a contract surgeon to the force, during which time he had a private practice. He was on the pay roll as a contract surgeon from March 1, 1894, to December 31, 1931.
3.	During the period shown in 2(a) he was a staff sergeant. During the period shown in 2(b) he was a contract surgeon, but in recognition of his long and faithful service he was appointed an honorary surgeon by order in council of November 16, 1911.
Questions

4.	December 31, 1931.
5.	No.
6.	He was not an actual member of the force, except for the period shown in 2(a) and is therefore not eligible for pension. Furthermore, he was not a contributor to the pension fund.
7.	Yes. No steps taken by the government to grant pension as it has no authority to grant pension.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION -INSURANCE COMPANIES
Mr. LENNARD:: What are the names of the insurance companies operating in conjunction with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Mr. McILRAITH:: As of May 20, 1947, the following: Canada Life Assurance Company, Confederation Life Association, Continental Life Insurance Company, Crown Life Insurance Company, Dominion Life Assurance Company, Equitable Life Insurance Company of Canada, Great-West Life Assurance Company, Industrial Life Insurance Company, London Life Insurance Company, Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, Montreal Life Insurance Company, Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada, North American Life Assurance Company, Northern Life Assurance Company, Prudential Insurance Company of America, Sovereign Life Assurance Company of Canada, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, T. Eaton Life Assurance Company.


JAPANESE CANADIANS-SABOTAGE
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Were any Canadian citizens of Japanese racial origin who were resident in Canada during the period of the war with Japan (a) charged with, or (b) found guilty of acts of sabotage? If so, how many were charged and how many were found guilty?
2.	Were any persons of Japanese racial origin who were not Canadian citizens but who were resident in Canada during the period of the war with Japan (a) charged with, or (b) found guilty of acts of sabotage? If so, how many were charged and how many were found guilty?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1. (a) Not so far as the government is aware, (b) Not so far as the government is aware.
2. (a) Not so far as the government is aware, (b) Not so far as the government is aware.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	How many cases have been reported to the government where Canadians visiting in (a) Germany; (b) Italy, prior to world war II, were either induced to renounce their Canadian (British) nationality voluntarily or under duress ?
2.	Of the above, how many ex-Canadians have applied to have their Canadian citizenship renewed?
3.	Of the above, how many had their holdings taken over by the Alien Property Custodian?
4.	Of the above, how many have (a) returned to Canada; (b) indicated a desire to return to Canada?


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



WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL, MIDDLESEX COUNTY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East);
1.	How many employees at Westminster hospital, county of Middlesex are on a temporary basis?
2.	What number of years has each of them been temporarily employed?
3.	How many are on a permanent basis?
4.	How many employees of the dominion government in the county of Middlesex, other than Westminster hospital, are on a temporary basis?
5.	What number of years has each of them been temporarily employed?
6.	How many are on a permanent basis?


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend The Judges Act, 1946, to change the title of the superior court judge in and for the province of Quebec, who is appointed to perform the duties of the chief justice in the district as constituted for the Court of King's Bench sitting in appeal -within which the chief justice does not reside, Montreal or Quebec, as the case may be, to "The Associate Chief Justice"; and to provide a salary for an additional judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Mr. CHURCH:: The same principle should apply to the senior judge of the county court of York, Ontario, who does similar work.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Mr. Ilsley.l

Inquiries of the Ministry


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill respecting industrial relations and investigation of industrial disputes and to make provision therein for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of the remuneration and expenses of the members of the boards and commissions and the officers, clerks and employees appointed or engaged by or under the authority of the act.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend The Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939, to provide that the two schedules of payment now provided under the emergency year section and the crop failure section be merged and become payable in any year without specific authority from the governor in council and without requiring that a minimum number of townships be eligible before the crop failure schedule of award is payable; that the restriction in respect to the payment of awards to farmers with a certain minimum production of wheat may be removed; and that certain provisions be clarified in order to facilitate administration.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: In answer to questions asked previously on the orders of the day, I should like to make a statement.
The question whether the principles of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act should be extended to all Canada by legislation this session has been up on a number of occasions
during the session. As previously stated in answer to questions by members, the government has been considering the matter. I am now authorized to make the following statement of present policy.
The present Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act will be continued as applicable to the established P.F.R.A. area in the three prairie provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
This act was passed in 1935 and amended in 1937, 1939 and 1941. It provides that works may be undertaken to rehabilitate certain areas in the prairie provinces even though the constitutional position is that such works are the responsibility of the province or municipality. There were, however, a number of special circumstances which justified P.F.R.A. Included in these is the fact that the dominion government administered the lands and resources of the area during its period of settlement and the further fact that there was reason to believe at that time that a very large area was subject to drought so severe and of such long duration as to make permanent residence difficult if not impossible without conservation and distribution of water. The experience prior to 1935 tended to substantiate that belief. The dominion government therefore set up P.F.R.A. under which the settlers are assisted to rehabilitate the area.
The act provides that on the advice of committees set up under authority of the act and to obtain certain results the minister may expend such money as is voted by parliament and authorized by the governor in council for "the development, construction, promotion operation and maintenance of any project or scheme under or by virtue of this Act, or enter into agreements with any province, municipality or person with respect thereto."
The organization set up by the Department of Agriculture has been operating under this act since 1935. The money voted has been spent to conserve and distribute water, to organize submarginal lands into community pastures and regrass areas within these pastures and to finance experimental work intended to stop soil drifting. The money spent to conserve and distribute water has been spent on dugouts, small dams and small irrigation projects.
The government provides from one-third to one-half of the cost of providing dugouts and small dams. The individual or the individual and the municipality provide the balance.
The government builds the dam and main distribution ditches in the small irrigation
Inquiries oj the Ministry

projects. The individual pays for the water delivered at a designated point and organizes and finances his own irrigation district under provincial legislation. The government has assisted in levelling land.
The government fences, regrasses and provides capital expenditure to put water on community pastures. The individuals pay fees to place stock in the pastures.
The whole programme is one in which the dominion government cooperates with the individual in rehabilitating the area. The individual does much of the work and either contributes to the cost or pays for services received. In many cases, both for the construction of pastures and for irrigation projects, farmers have been required to make their land available to the government and receive in return the value of the land unimproved by the project or other land in exchange.
We have now reached the time when larger irrigation projects are being proposed to P.F.R.A. The government has provided funds with which to proceed with the construction of a dam on the St. Mary river in Alberta. This is an international stream, and the total cost of this dam is being provided by the dominion government.
The objective of the whole programme is to make it possible for settlers who were induced to enter the area to remain and to 30 develop its possibilities of water conservation and use as to greatly increase the number of persons who may live in Canada's largest agricultural area.
It has been suggested that because of the benefits already apparent in the area to which P.F.R.A. has been applied, the principles of the act should be extended by legislation to all other parts of Canada,
In view of the constitutional relationship between the dominion and the provinces the government has decided that such legislation should not be recommended. It is held that the same obligation does not exist in other parts of the prairie provinces or in the remainder of Canada as in the drought area of the prairie provinces.
It is considered, however, that there are certain works outside the drought area whicti if undertaken -would be of assistance to all Canada through making possible increased development of farm lands which if left to provincial or municipal responsibility might greatly retard Canada's development. With regard to these the dominion government would be prepared to discuss with the provinces concerned plans under which development could proceed over a period

to be agreed upon, sufficiently long to bring about the desired results, but not to exceed five years.
Among these projects are:
1.	The dike or marshlands of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick;
2.	Certain projects related to farm lands in British Columbia, and
3.	Certain projects related to lands all across Canada which have not previously been utilized as cultivated farms but which, if developed, would provide increased employment and home building possibilities.
Any expenditure of money on these projects will be brought before parliament and legalized through an item on the estimates.


Mr. FULTON:: I will ask the minister to tell the house whether the discussions with the provinces, which he intimated the government would be ready to undertake, are now in progress, and if so, what has been achieved, or whether a date has been set on which these discussions will commence?


James Garfield Gardiner: No discussions are under way at present resulting from this decision of policy. No doubt we will be hearing from the provincial governments immediately after this statement is made public, and we shall be prepared to meet them at any time.


Mr. BENTLEY:: Would projects such as those up around the Elbow and South Saskatchewan rivers be included in those coming within the third category the minister mentioned?


James Garfield Gardiner: All the area in Canada outside the P.F.R.A. district is covered by the third portion.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Mines and Resources; and I should like to say that I am sure we all regret the illness of the minister. In view of conflicting reports regarding the conditions under which one hundred Polish girls are being brought to Canada, and because of the membership of Canada in the intergovernmental committee on refugees, which apparently is involved in the matter, will the government inform the house with regard to the contracts under which these girls are being admitted for employment in the textile industry of Canada?

Inquiries oj the Ministry
And will the government table all communications, memoranda, copies of agreements, et cetera, which relate to this matter?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Acting Minister of Mines and Resources):: The first part of my hon. friend's question deals with the matter of immigration, and I shall see that an answer is submitted tomorrow as to that portion. I shall also confer with my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), to whom the second portion of the question refers, and I am quite sure he will add the information requested.



INTERNATIONAL TRADE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce dealing with a different subject. It arises from a dispatch from London, published in today's press, to the effect that Canada may join Britain and other countries in drastically cutting imports from the United States. I would ask the minister if this report is correct and, if so, whether he is in a position to advise the house with respect to the progress of the negotiations.


James Angus MacKinnon: I have very little comment on the question asked by the leader of the opposition. This is a newspaper story. If an announcement is to be made on this subject it will be made by someone representing the government.



EMPIRE DAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: I should like to direct the attention of the Prime Minister and the other leaders in the house to the fact that tomorrow, May 23, is known and celebrated throughout the British empire as Empire day. We have missed observing this day in this house in other years. My suggestion is that on the opening of the house tomorrow tribute should be paid by all the leaders to what the empire stands for. Elaborate programmes have been prepared in the schools across Canada, and it is only meet and right that we should do the same in this parliament. As Burke says of the empire, "We should elevate our minds to the greatness of the trust to which the order of providence has called us," and this is more necessary now than ever before.
If no reply is to be given am I to take it that the government and the house are in favour of this scuttling policy? The empire seems to have few friends in this house.



CUSTOMS TARIFF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax): Because of the need of accelerating the production of coal in Nova Scotia, and the need of new machinery to suit our mining conditions in order to bring our productivity more in line with that of other coal producing areas, I wish to ask the Minister of National Revenue the following question. Will the government consider as exempt for custom duties purposes all machinery and equipment imported into Canada for use exclusively in connection with the production of coal?
Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):: Some machinery and equipment for use in connection with the production of coal is already provided for as free of duty under the customs tariff. Tariff items 410, 410j, 410m and 410o provide for free admission of this type of machinery and equipment. A number of other items provide for free admission from the United Kingdom, but dutiable from other countries. It would require a tariff change to provide for the free admission of all machinery and equipment as suggested.



STORAGE OF BULLION BY MCINTYRE-PORCUPINE MINES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance, of which I sent notice. In view of suggestions made in the house for the devaluation of the Canadian dollar or an increase in the price of gold, and Canada's need of American exchange, what action does the government propose to take regarding the storing of large amounts of gold bullion by the Mclntyre-Porcupine Mines, Limited, or other mining interests who may be adopting a similar policy?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: I received notice of my hon. friend a
The Budget-Mr. Wylie

question just before coming to the house. I shall give it consideration, and will endeavour to make an answer as soon as possible.



INQUIRY AS TO HOLIDAY FOR STAFF ON VICTORIA DAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, last Monday I asked the Prime Minister whether the government would consider giving the staff of the house a holiday on Saturday next, May 24.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Robert Fair: At that time the Prime Minister said the government would be glad to consider any suggestion. I wonder if he could make an answer today.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The house is master of its own actions, and responsible for its own personnel. I would say to my hon. friend that I think we will be helping the civil service of Canada and members of the public service generally if we do not make too many requests on their behalf for holidays. I have no doubt that in all departments the right course will be pursued by those in charge.


Robert Fair: I was not dealing with the civil service; it was the staff of the House of Commons I had in mind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was speaking of both.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 21, 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 amendmeht to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. W. D. WYLIE (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, rising to take part in the debate I am reminded of what was said the other evening by another hon. member, that no matter how much we spoke it would not change the budget one iota. But I am also reminded of what the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) says so often in the house, that this is a free and unfettered parliament. So I am going to accept his advice and take part in the debate. I am always glad to hear the Minister of Veterans Affairs speak 	.
with his rich Scottish brogue, because I too was born in Scotland, where we did have freedom. And let me assure the house that I shall uphold freedom at any time, in support of the minister in that respect.
It is customary on an occasion of this kind to compliment the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) upon his budget. I therefore offer my congratulations upon his clear delivery and and his genial manner of presentation. On many occasions it is most difficult for us in this section of the house to hear what is said by cabinet ministers, but I can assure hon. members that we heard every word the Minister of Finance uttered, and his effort to make himself heard is deeply appreciated.
However there is very little upon which I can compliment the minister in his budget speech. I am sure most Canadians expected that the budget would contain many more tax exemptions. It was our expectation that those exemptions would be increased, especially in respect of the income tax. It is my view that there was no reason why the exemptions should not have been increased at this time.
May I say a word on behalf of the wage-earners, and those in the salaried group? During the war we did not mind deductions at the source, because the government required money and by having these amounts deducted at the source from month to month we were assisting the war effort. But now, with the war over for two years, I feel it is time the government gave consideration to discontinuing this practice. When I say that I have in mind this procedure as it affects members of parliament, and perhaps I might be permitted to state the situation as it applies to me. Last year $769 was deducted from my indemnity, in August, if I remember correctly, and the government had the use of it until April 1 of this year.
I received no interest on that money, although I was entitled to the use of it for six or seven months, and to the use of some of it for a year. I did not have that use. But if we happen to be even one day late in sending in our cheques at the end of the year we are penalized to the extent of five per cent.
Now, what about those working on a straight salary who may not be receiving as much as I receive? Before deductions were made at the source one who had a salary of $150 or $175 a month got that amount each month. But what happens today? The government steps in and takes ninety per cent of the amount it expects to take, and these people do not have the use of that money for a year. I contend this is an invasion of the rights of the individual. It is the money which belongs to the man who earned it, and

The Budget-Mr. Wylie
he should have it. The wage earners and salary earners are suffering discrimination in this respect.
Business men and farmers are not required to submit their income tax forms until the end of the year. Why not put the wage earner in the same class? I see no reason why we should discriminate against anyone just because he is working for a salary or wages. In my opinion that is unreasonable.
I think our wage earners are just as responsible as anyone in business, and I am sure that at the end of the year they will recognize their responsibilities and pay the government what is coming to them. It may be argued by some that they do not feel it when a few dollars are taken off every month, but the fact remains that all taxpayers should be treated alike. In my opinion deductions at the source should be discontinued now that the war is over and we are again in a period of peace.
When the minister presented his budget I expected that there would be reductions in the indirect and nuisance taxes, the taxes that we have to pay every day. One impost which has been referred to in this house on several occasions is the tax on soft drinks and chocolate bars. I have received many letters from small bottlers, and I have one here from the Shamrock Bottling Works in Medicine Hat which I think I should read to the house because it is really worth while. High school students and others of our younger people are going on strike against buying soft drinks and chocolate bars; they are going on strike against other things, and I think that is entirely wrong. We have too many strikes today, and in my opinion the government is forcing the younger generation to go on strike against these things. They may not get any reduction in the price of chocolate bars or soft drinks, but it is being instilled in these young minds that by going on strike they can get something. I submit that the government is doing something it should not be doing when it taxes soft drinks and chocolate bars. There are many persons in the lower income brackets, and their children are just as much entitled to chocolate bars and soft drinks as the children of people in the higher brackets or those who are well off. This is what Mr. Millensifer, the manager of the Shamrock Bottling Works, says in his letter:
Soft drinks must be sold for the same price as candy, gum and ice cream, et cetera, otherwise it is a serious deterrent to our business.
The retailers are fed up with high priced soft drinks and odd penny transactions which puts their bread and butter business in jeopardy.
The public feel that their daily wants should not be the subject of high taxations. Soft
drinks are part of the Canadian way of life, are the wholesome beverages of children, teenagers, workers and veterans. Such a temperate custom should be encouraged, rather than penalized by special war excise taxes during peace years.
That man is quite willing to sell his coca-colas at five cents a bottle. I also have a letter from Reverend V. A. Hall, minister of the First Baptist church, Medicine Hat, reading in part as follows:
Today, we as ministers and social workers are called upon continually to do everything we can towards overcoming the terrible juvenile problems. With the increase of emphasis upon wholesome gatherings for youth I feel strongly that it would be a great help in the right direction if the government would see fit to drop the two-cent tax on soft drinks. It would assist the work being done and would also bring the soft drink into a different price field than beer.
How true those letters are! It is up to the government to discontinue these nuisance taxes, not only on soft drinks but on many other items.
There is another matter I have in mind, and it affects many of the people in Alberta. I refer to the eight per cent tax on gas and electric bills. There are about 50,000 users of natural gas in Alberta, located in about 32 cities and towns and they must pay this eight per cent tax while those using coal do not pay a tax. This is another example of discriminatory taxation. We are fortunate in Medicine Hat in having our own gas, but when we pay our bills at the end of the month we have this extra eight per cent to pay. Efforts have been made to have this tax removed, but so far without success. This is just another of the many taxes that should be discontinued.
I am sorry the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is not in his place this afternoon, because I wanted to say a few things about old age pensions. Any time old age pensions are discussed in this house it seems to get under his skin; it appears rather hard for him to sit still. I should like to say a few words about old age pensions this afternoon despite the fact that a bill is to be brought down in the near future. This legislation should have been brought down long ago. I have sat in this house now for three sessions and I can see no reason why that bill could not have been brought down the first session I was here.
During the debate in the house the other day the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) was speaking and a few words passed between the hon. member and the Minister. The hon. member had this to say, as reported on page 3034 of Hansard:
And the point was this, that if the provincial government had given more than that there would have been difficulty, because there is a federal regulation whereby, if more than $425
The Budget-Mr. Wylie

is received by the pensioner, the federal government's contribution would be cut down. So that it was unwise for the provincial government to give the pensioners more, with one hand, only to have the federal government take it away from them with the other.
. Mr. Martin:	The hon. member knows that
is not so.
I should like to know who is right.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: I am, of course.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I quite believe that. I have had a lot to do with old age pensions, and that is exactly the way I have found it. If it is not the way, then we should be told. I am sure that is the way the pension boards in the various provinces consider it should be done. It is up to the minister to straighten out this matter and tell us what are the regulations. I know he brought down some regulations the other day, but all I have to go by is the statement he made. I hope there will be some relaxation of the restrictions.
I have received through the mail many signed cards, as other hon. members have, asking for certain social security and pension benefits. They are not the cards mentioned the other night by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage). I do not think there was any money made on these cards. The ones he referred to were cards which he claimed were made for perhaps less than one cent, and they were sold for five cents. All I have to say about that is that if the Union of Electors can sell their cards for five cents, and people will buy them, they should be free to accept that five cents, because it is known where their campaign funds are coming from, and that is more than the hon. member can say about his party. I would ask him to get up and tell this house where his campaign funds come from. The cards I am discussing now are entirely different from those cards. They are the same shape and about the same size. They urge social security and a retirement allowance of S60 a month to men at the age of sixty and to women at the age of fifty-five without any means test. That may be a little too much to ask; I do not know, but I certainly would like to see the old age pensioners get a little more than they do now.
What the minister said the other night reminds me of a letter I received from an old age pensioner seventy-six years old. This gentleman had been a school teacher all his life, and when we were short of school teachers in Alberta he returned and taught school. When I say he taught school, I should explain that what he did was this: the papers were forwarded from the department to the school and this gentleman 
marked them. By doing that he earned something like $400 in one year. But because he earned that money his pension was discontinued for one year. The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) said that there were no old age pensioners who had children. This is one man who had one child still going to high school in Medicine Hat, and he was responsible for her; no one else was responsible for her. But his old age pension was cut off for one year because he did something for the children in that area.
I noticed an item in the press the other day which surprised me very much. We all know of course that a short time ago the Liberal party had a big convention in Toronto. I imagine that most of the aspirants for the leadership of the Liberal party in Ontario were responsible men, but when I saw one of them trying to play politics with the old age pension I certainly could not wish that party any luck in their next election.


Mr. GRANT:: What are you doing now but playing politics?


Mr. BLACKMORE:: He is doing what he came here to do-looking after the common man.


Thomas Vincent Grant: The other fellow was doing the same.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: This is what one of the aspirants for the leadership of the Liberal party of Ontario said, according to a report in the Ottawa Citizen of May 16:
During the policy report debate, the convention turned down a suggestion that the party go on record as favouring a $40 a month minimum old-age pension. Mr. Lamport, chairman of the public welfare committee, said this was not the time to "give away the dynamite of the Liberal campaign for the next election."


Mr. GRAYDON:: What dynamite?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: A minimum of $40 a month for old age pensioners. I was very much surprised to read that in the press, and I certainly hope that the party will never be in power to carry that out,


Gordon Graydon: You are as safe as a church on that.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: What I mainly rose to discuss was irrigation, but after listening to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) this afternoon I do not know that there is very much that I can say. We do have a problem in the west in the drought area for which irrigation is the only solution. I often think that one-half of Canada does not know how the other half lives. In discussing problems pertaining to western Canada I do not think

The Budget-Mr. Wylie
I should be classed as a nationalist at all. I have a devotion to those drought areas. I am reminded of a trip I was privileged to take about two weeks ago, sponsored by the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Ross). On that trip I saw areas I had never seen before and got to know many members with whom I had never before been intimate. It made ms realize that when you get to know one another and understand their problems, things are much easier.
In the west, according to the last report of the Department of Agriculture, there are in Saskatchewan 1.541 townships which averaged from eight bushels per acre down to zero; 750 townships averaged five bushels or less to the acre. Those 1,541 townships affected 42.592 individuals, and they received a total amount of a little more than $12,000,000. In Alberta there were 890 townships, 442 of which averaged five bushels or less to the acre, and 448 eight bushels or less. Those 890 townships affected 18.244 individuals, who received a little over $4,000,000.
When you tell people in the east that we have yields in the west averaging sometimes four bushels or less to the acre, they seem unable to realize it. They think it just cannot be so. That is why I say that people in eastern Canada should see the conditions in that large area in western Canada, especially around the first of July. Just imagine a man with 480 acres of land, 400 acres under cultivation. The general practice would be to put 200 acres each year under crop and 200 under summer-fallow. That means that he would thresh 800 bushels of wheat, and at $1.35 a bushel that would bring slightly over $1,000. In other words, his income for that year is slightly over $1,000, and out of that he has to meet all his expenses. The Prairie Farm Assistance Act has done wonderful work. He will receive $500 from the government through the P.F.A.A., and if it were not for that he would be on relief. But he has 80 acres more, and some people may say, he still has 80 acres of pasture. Well, in the drought area 80 acres will carry only two head of cattle; that is the recognized number of stock that will be carried in such an area, 40 acres per head. The provincial government leases the land on that basis, and as a matter of fact in some areas only three head of cattle per quarter section, or 160 acres, can be taken care of. It is hard to realize that. Well, there is only one solution to that, and it is irrigation.
I realize that the dominion government has started on the St. Mary-Milk river dam, which will hold 270.000 acre feet of water and will supply water to another 345,000 acres of land, and partly to another 120,000 acres.
That is only one dam, but we have many others. We have the Red Deer diversion scheme, which the hon. member for Acadia often speaks of. When you think of what can be done in the way of irrigation in that area you will see the significance from the standpoint of population. We sometimes wonder why we are having a redistributian in the matter of population. The population in those areas can be increased by thousands if we make use of natural resources. The dominion government and the provincial government, of course, have come to an agreement over the conservation of the watershed on the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains, and I am sure we are all glad to see that. It is badly needed. That is our only protection to supply water in the future for our drought area.
I notice some of the eastern papers are taking up the question of irrigation, and I refer particularly to the Globe and Mail, which at times rather surprises me. They must have a western writer on that paper, and I have one editorial here in particular which is very good. They explain what the Lethbridge area produces. It produces $100 million worth of goods, $70 million in agricultural produce, and that is produced in an area which, before irrigation was used, was producing very little. It tells of Saskatchewan's problems and the way the population has decreased in that province. It tells what can be done by more irrigation in that area and it has this to say:
Twenty years ago the population of the Lethbridge northern irrigation district, for example, was 1,500. Today it is HO,000. The dry land farms in the west support an average of 3-5 persons per square mile; irrigated farms 30 per square mile. Average returns per acre throughout Alberta is $12. In the irrigated sugar beet fields near Lethbridge it was $411 in 1946.
That just shows what irrigation can do when it is in an area such as we have in southern Alberta. But the writer entirely spoils the editorial in his last paragraph. I am going to read that paragraph because so many people in Ontario do not quite understand what irrigation means to the west. The writer says:
Also, if Alberta is fully appreciative of the values of water control, nothing like the same degree of understanding has been evinced by Ottawa or, for that matter, by the federal members of parliament representing those western areas most susceptible to drought. Up till now the lone parliamentary voice, which for long cried in the wilderness, has not been that of a western member nor even of a farm member, but that of a Toronto manufacturer. It would be appropriate about this time, we think, if there was something heard from representatives of those areas vitally concerned with this question.
The Budget-Mr. Wylie

That last paragraph spoils the whole editorial. I agree that the member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) has done a lot in advocating irrigation and letting people know the results, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that any time the hon. member wants to come to Medicine Hat he will get a hearty welcome. But there have been others in this house who have discussed irrigation, before the hon. member sat here. I refer particularly to Doctor Gershaw, who is now a senator. Since 1935 we have had the member for Acadia here, the member for Battle River, and the member for Lethbridge. Will anyone try to tell me that they have not discussed irrigation in this house? Surely not. The former member for Medicine Hat, between 1935 and 1940, made many speeches on irrigation. I suggest to the editor of the Globe and Mail that he read Hansard a little more and inform himself before he spoils a good editorial by adding a little politics at the end of it. The hon. member for Davenport has done much to sponsor irrigation in the west, and I hope he will be back to see us.
In Alberta we have many other areas that can be put under irrigation. As a matter of fact, we have 976,000 acres that have already been surveyed, which can be put under the ditch. That means that we shall have an additional 10,000 farms. What does that mean in its economic effect, not only on Alberta but on Canada as a whole? It means that we shall have 976,000 additional acres under irrigation, and 9,590 irrigation farms would be created. Assuming that each irrigation farm would support five members of a family, the rural population would be increased by 47,950 persons and the urban population would be increased by at least 39,000 persons. Assuming that each irrigation farmer spent approximately $2,000 on the purchase of farm implements, it can readily be seen that the agricultural machine manufacturing industry would benefit to the extent of $20 million in orders for assorted implements. In addition to the purchase of farm implements, the need for sundry processed goods, fabrics, utensils, clothing, et cetera, would be approximately twenty per cent of the total annual farm production, to the benefit of transportation and eastern manufacturing concerns. These are just a few figures.
I could discuss the irrigation problem for hours and still not exhaust the subject, but I cannot deal with it fully in forty minutes. In fact, I sometimes think that forty minutes is too long for any member to speak in the house, especially if we are to get through the business outlined yesterday by the Prime

Minister. But no matter how much we talk about irrigation, there is only one way to do it and that is through action by the government. We found all the money we wanted during the past war, and I see no reason why we cannot find just a little bit more to satisfy our own people and keep them contented. We have wonderful opportunities in that southern area for the rehabilitation of many of our veterans and the farmers who are already there. Let us give them just a little better deal. Let us get busy on irrigation. Let us have a little more action and less talk.
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, the budget remarks of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) had about them elements of both inflation and deflation. In the picture he drew in advance of his actual announcement of his budget proposals there were strong elements of inflation. But when he proceeded finally to announce the fiscal changes he was actually proposing, I think all members must have realized-or must realize now if they did not do so before- that a process of deflation was at work having regard to the glowing promises which preceded the actual proposals.
Any decrease in income tax is necessarily welcome to a tax-burdened people. The decrease which the Minister of Finance announced is welcome, but it is not adequate. To most of the people who are affected, it is trifling in amount. I submit that it cannot be regarded, in most cases, as more than a token reduction. It will be accepted gladly, but only as the slender first instalment of reductions which must be made. The reductions, of course, are not fairly measured in terms of percentages but are fairly measured in terms of what the reduction means in dollars and cents to the man of small means, the man in the low-income bracket or lower middle bracket. To the average taxpayer, the married man with two children, with an income of $1,800 a year, it means that this year the reduction will be only $4; to the man with an income of $2,000, the reduction is only $16; to the man with $2,250 of income, the reduction is only $25; to the man with an income of $2,500, the reduction is only $32; to the man with an income of $2,750, the reduction is only $39; and to the man with an income of $3,000, the reduction is only $49. These reductions are entirely inadequate.
I have just one comment on the surplus. I am not prepared to offer any words of commendation to the Minister of Finance on the size of an alleged budget surplus when it reflects such inexcusably inaccurate budget-

The Budget-Mr. Fleming
ing as we have seen this past year. Actually the government has taken from the people of this country, on various accounts, $352,000,000 more than they actually needed to balance their accounts, and this at a time when the taxpayers have been suffering greatly under an excessively heavy burden of taxation. Fourteen per cent more was taken from the people in taxes than was actually needed to finance the government expenditures of last year.
If this is put before us as a surplus of $352,000,000 on current account, then I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is not an honest surplus. It has been brought about by the sale of government assets to the total of $372,000,000 so that actually on strict current account there is a deficit of $20,000,000. That is no more truly a budget surplus than it would be in the case of a man, we will say, with an income of $2,400 a year whose expenditure is running to $2,600 a year, who has made up his mind that he is not going to have a deficit, and who goes out and sells his motor car and refrigerator for $500, ends up with $2,900, and says that he has come out with a $300 surplus.
This budget is also woefully lacking in any attempt at an approach to the problem of spending. The government had an opportunity this year, relieved as it was to the extent of $900 million of expenditures on account of demobilization and reconversion, to grapple with the problem of bringing expenditure within the capacity of the people of this country to bear. On the contrary they have taken advantage of that relief from the burden of expenditure on demobilization and reconversion account to begin the upward spiral of expenditure in the majority of the departments of government. In seventeen out of twenty-eight departments expenditure for the current fiscal year is to be greater than last year. It is not enough for the Minister of Finance to say that the responsibility rests on parliament, unless the government is prepared to give parliament a really effective opportunity to review the estimates in detail. That cannot be done when the house is sitting in committee of the whole. There are too many here and it takes too much time. These estimates are chronically left until too late in the session for any comprehensive or thorough review. If parliament is to have any effective participation in the review of exnenditure, a different means must be found from that in vogue at the present time.
Furthermore, the habit of heavy taxation is a difficult one for this government to shake. The habit has become so deep-seated. Actually this year the Minister of Finance says that he is budgeting for a surplus of $190 million; and even in the unlikely event, under present
circumstances, of all the remaining provinces coming in and accepting the terms proposed by the dominion government in respect of an agreement, there will still be a surplus of $80 million, which represents an excess of taxation over the amount actually required to meet this year's expenditure.
The means resorted to by the Minister of Finance or by the government for accomplishing the reduction in the income tax is not a satisfactory or adequate method. Actually, as against reductions in taxation which for this fiscal year ending March 31, 1948, will amount to $160 million, the government has relieved itself of no less than $208 million in subsidies as compared with the past fiscal year. Let us leave out of consideration entirely those forces which are at work at the present time to increase the cost of living, and just put this problem on the basis of the amount which the dominion government contributed last year in the form of subsidies to help reduce the cost of living. The dominion government has now relieved itself of that grand total of $208 million as compared with last year. As against that they offer reductions in taxation for this fiscal year of only $160,000,000. That is a poor sample of a reduction in taxation which will offer any net benefit to the people. Actually the government has been offering $160,000,000 with one hand and with the other taking away $208,000,000 in terms of the cost of living of the people. What do these trifling token reductions in income tax mean to the married man, with two children, whose income is $2,000? As I mentioned a moment ago, his reduction in income tax this year is just $16. How far will that go to meet the increased cost of many articles which are staple household necessities and to the cost of w'hich the government formerly contributed by way of subsidies? As a matter of fact in the case of most families that reduction of $16 will not cover the increased cost of one of these staple necessities of life, let alone all of them.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I turn briefly to the related subjects of trade, exchange and the plight of the gold mining industry. Our fiscal relationships with the United States have reached very serious proportions; and because of the difficulties the countries in the sterling area are having in converting currency, the situation affects us in our external commercial relations in almost every quarter. In the year 1946 we had a trading deficit with the United States of $603,000,000, by a very wide margin the highest in our history. Compare that with the figures for some earlier years. In 1938, the last full year of peace, our trading deficit with the United States was
The Budget-Mr. Fleming

$149,000,000. In 1941, when we were making substantial purchases of war materials in the United States, our deficit was $318,000,000. In 1946 it jumped to $603,000,000, and it has not stopped there. As a matter of fact the tempo has quickened, and in the first quarter of this year our trading deficit with the United States amounted to no less than $204,000,000. The situation is approaching alarming proportions.
Consider this in relation to the gold mining industry, which in those dark days of the thirties did so much to carry this country through the depression. We were very glad then to have an industry for whose product there was always a market, especially a market in the United States to help reduce our trading deficit with that country. In 1941 gold production in this country netted us $205,000,000. In 1946 it dropped to half that figure, $103,000,000. Today it is nothing short of tragic to see what is happening to this great Canadian industry. Apart from some of the big producing mines, which in times like these can fall back upon their higher grade ore bodies and stop mining on their lower grade stopes, the gold mining industry has reached a critical position. Exploration work is at a standstill. The marginal mines are a.t a standstill. The w'hole industry, apart from a few very large mines, today is faced with nothing short of ruin, and this government has not offered anything in this budget to save that industry from destruction. The need has been there for any government with its eyes open to see; but it stands back with arms folded and watches this industry proceed to ruin.
The difference between the Canadian dollar and the United States dollar on the unofficial market in the United States; or, if you like, the difference between the Canadian dollar ruling at a discount up to June last and the United States dollar as it ruled at that time in terms of premium, represented in great mining areas in Canada, not confined to one province alone, the difference between valuable ore bodies and heaps of rock. That is just what the reduction in the price of gold has meant, and this situation cannot be redeemed apart from an increase in the price that gold produced in this country is able to fetch in the United States. If some encouragement were given the gold mining industry it could contribute mightily to redressing our unfavourable trading account with the United States, and I urge the Minister of Finance to lose no time in addressing himself to this problem and at least offering the gold producers of this country a price equivalent to the price of the American dollar with relation to the Canadian dollar ruling in the unofficial market in the United States.
It is a matter of general regret, I am certain, that in the present budget the Minister of Finance has not done anything to remedy the injury he wrought last year to married women in respect of their income tax. Here we have the labour department boasting in a recent publication about the number of married women who are employed. They make this statement:
In 1946 twenty-one per cent of all persons gainfully employed were women, as compared with seventeen per cent in 1939 and thirteen per cent in 1941. Of all women employed in 1946 in industries other than agriculture, twenty-three per cent were married.
We need married women in those lines of industry in which they are employed today. The time has not come when we want to see married women retire from those lines of employment in which today they are filling a role which cannot be filled otherwise. I am thinking of nursing, of the needle trades, of domestic service, and a good many other avenues of female employment.
I turn now to the subject of indirect taxes. I suppose indirect taxes are always popular with governments because they are hidden and, not being known or appreciated by the people, they are thought by governments to be painless. It is like the dentist who gives a patient gas but takes out the tooth just the same. This government is certainly fond of levying indirect taxes. Of a total of $2,458 million in taxes raised by the government from the Canadian people last year, $1,436 million was raised by direct taxes and no less than $1,022 million by indirect taxes. Yes, indirect taxes are at the highest point ever reached in the history of this country. I wish to comment on several matters, and to say something in the first place about the way the sales tax is applied. What I have to say about the sales tax applies with equal force to all these indirect taxes, because they are consumer taxes. They bear no reference to the capacity of the taxpayer to pay, and therefore bear relatively much more heavily on the man with a small income, particularly if he has a large family or other dependents.
The pyramiding of the sales tax is a serious problem. Let me give you an actual case as an example. A wholesaler pays $10 a dozen for hosiery; the eight per cent sales tax amounts to 80 cents. His mark-up is 20 per cent, making the selling price by the wholesaler to the retailer $12.96. The retailer adds 50 per cent, again on the total, making a price of $19.44. In other words the consumer is not paying a sales tax of 8 per cent; by
FMr. Flpming.l

The Budget-Mr. Fleming
that pyramiding method he is paying a tax of 14-4 per cent. This is one example of many that could be cited.
I wish to refer also to the so-called luxury taxes. Actually, in terms of normal peacetime, this is a misnomer, and I think the Minister of Finance ought to be the first to admit it. It is not a luxurj tax. There may have been some justification for calling it a luxury tax in time of war, when it was deliberate government policy to siphon off manpower from certain avenues of production and concentrate it on the production of war materials, but that does not bear any relationship to the situation in peacetime. Let me refer to the way this so-called luxury tax is working out at the present time. It is full of anomalies, and it is time the government removed those anomalies.
Today a refrigerator is taxable, but an icebox is not. A vacuum cleaner is taxable, but a carpet sweeper is not. An electric range is taxable, but a coal range is not. Fountain pens, clocks, watches, plated and pewterware, trunks, bill pouches, shopping bags and things of that kind are taxable as luxuries, but oil paintings, oriental rugs and other items incidental to a luxurious or semi-luxurious living standard are not taxable.
Let us consider the way in which this tax applies, particularly to necessities required by young people who are setting themselves up in housekeeping. Jewellers, too, have a legitimate complaint on this score, as well as consumers.
Why should alarm clocks, knives, forks, spoons and glassware be classified as luxuries, and subjected to luxury tax? If one puts a $1,000 table on a $3,000 oriental rug in his home, those articles are treated as necessities and are not taxed as luxuries. But if he puts on that table a fork costing $1.50, the fork is treated as a luxury and is taxable accordingly. There is no sense in taxation of that kind. It simply does offence to reason. I believe the minister has admitted as much, because, writing to the Hon. Angus Macdonald, premier_of Nova Scotia, on April 21, 1947, he said this:
These taxes, along with a considerable number of other special taxes, such as those on gasoline, soft drinks, candy bars, luggage, clocks, jewellery, furs and the like, were imposed by the dominion during the war emergency. I imagine that most governments are more anxious to take taxes off than to put them on.
So far as the taxes to which I have referred are concerned, I say the people of this country would like to see a little action on the part of the government toward taking them off.
Is it realized that if one enters a florist shop today and buys cut flowers he will not pay luxury tax? But if he buys flowers in a vase he pays a tax not only on the vase but on the flowers as well! This is another anomaly. If one buys flowers in a vase, he pays a tax on the whole purchase-a luxury tax on the complete purchase. It is unjust.
Not only are these taxes working an injustice on the consumer, but I can tell the house they are working a serious injustice on a young Canadian industry. I refer to the ceramics industry. Before this tax, this industry was making some headway and employing a considerable number of people, but under present tax conditions it is faced with extinction. I beg of the minister to appreciate the seriousness of the problem this young industry faces, and to bring relief to it and thus bring relief to the consumers who are buying these commodities. If I had time I could give examples showing reductions of employment in the numbers of persons engaged in the ceramics industry. These reductions have been made recently, when the industry has been feeling the full weight of the tax. In some instances the reductions run up to 60 or 75 per cent of the. numbers employed.
The amendment offered on May 6 by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macd'onnell) deplores the failure of the Minister of Finance in his budget to provide for the reconvening of the dominion-provincial conference in order to complete a satisfactory agreement with the provinces and a dominion-provincial programme of social security, health and public investment.
Let us not for the moment be too confused over figures, but rather realize fully the realities of the situation. Somehow a way must be found to reach agreement with reference to taxation fields, social security and public investment as between the dominion and the provinces. It is a fact that there cannot be that over-all agreement which is so essential unless there be a dominion-provincial conference. But the dominion government, which alone can call such a conference, refuses to do so, and demands that Ontario and Quebec yield and, in advance of any conference, accept terms offered previously by the dominion government. All the provinces are asking that the conference be reconvened, but the dominion government refuses to convene it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, they are not.


Mr. FLEMING:: I say the time has come when this nation demands that the conference
The Budget-Mr. Fleming

be reconvened. The party of which I have the honour of being a member believes that a way to agreement can be found. But we say this, that it will not be found by methods pursued in this chamber by some hon. members opposite during the course of this debate, by calling the premiers of Ontario and Quebec hard names. That will not bring about a solution of this problem.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And calling the action of the dominion government political blackmail will not help, either.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would remind the Minister of Finance and any other hon. members opposite who may be interested that these premiers are not speaking for themselves alone. They speak for the legislatures of their respective provinces. On April 1 of this year the Ontario legislature by a vote of 57 to 21 endorsed the position taken by the premier of that province in the course of these negotiations, and in connection with the offer made by the dominion.
In Quebec the legislature has recently enacted Bill 30, with the effect of authorizing the provincial government to negotiate a general basis of agreement between the dominion and all the provinces, but not on the terms that the dominion is insisting should be accepted. Before hon. members opposite go too far in calling the premiers of these two provinces hard names, I would remind them of what Mr. Godbout, the leader of the Liberal party in Quebec, had to say not sc long ago. Speaking in the throne speech debate in the Quebec legislature on February IS of this year, Mr. Godbout said this, as reported in the Montreal Daily Star of February 19:
Naturally, Mr. Godbout proceeded, the preservation of provincial autonomy is the first prerequisite. The province cannot, under any pretext, sacrifice any of its sacred rights and privileges.
And further down:
But as regards the Ottawa proposals, Mr. Godbout said-
And, by the way, these were the latest proposals made by the dominion government- -he could not say that he approves them, or whether he objects to them.
And again:
Mr. Godbout claimed that, in the light of what he learned of the Ottawa proposals, he felt they could not be accepted in their entirety. For example, he was against the Ottawa government entering the succession duties field, 'because in his opinion that should be left exclusively to the provinces. Furthermore, he believed that a number of taxes of another nature, now collected by Ottawa, should ibe retained by the provinces.
The premiers of these two provinces not oniy are willing to meet the dominion and the other provinces in a general conference, but have implored the dominion to call a conference. And this has been going on ever since the conference was adjourned in May, 1946.
On January 23 of this year the Premier of Ontario wrote the Prime Minister a letter, at the conclusion of which he said:
I assure you that the government of Ontario jO* be ready to attend such a conference in Ottawa at any time and there examine and consider all proposals on their merits. We are most anxious to arrive at a settlement which
. b? Pst and fair to the people of every part of Canada.
And the Toronto Globe and Mail of May 7 leports a statement by Mr. Duplessis to the same effect, as follows:
Mr. Duplessis expressed his willingness to attend another plenary conference, but declared nis unalterable opposition to any secret meetings.
He continued:
Conferences, to the spirit of
secret or separate, are contrary the federative pact.
Mr- Drew is reported in the Globe and Mail of May 7 as follows:
We want an agreement with the dominion, but we also want an examination of the constitution so that our taxation system may be simplified, improved and made more efficient for the great years ahead.
The fact that the Premier of Nova Scotia entered into an agreement recently with the dominion government, apparently with a. considerable measure of reluctance as to the terms eventually settled upon, has not changed the position with regard to the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. We have statements to that effect. I have only time to refer to the one attributed to Colonel Drew1 which appeareo in the Globe and Mail of May 14, in wffiich he said, "Our stand is still"-that is after the agreement with Nova Scotia-"that a further inter-provincial conference is needed to discuss the situation."
I implore the dominion government to reconvene the dominion-provincial conference. The crux of this matter revolves around six minor fields of taxation. Having regard to the size of those fields and the revenues accruing to the dominion, is the dominion government justified in refusing to reconvene the conference unless the provinces forgo these fields except the gasoline tax? Here is a
[Mr. Fleming.}

The Budget-Mr. Fleming
list of the yields from these six taxes in the fiscal year ended- March 31, 1947, and I will give the figures in millions only:
Gasoline tax	 $36,000,000
Amusement tax	 14,500,000
Pari-mutuel tax	 2,500,000
Electricity tax	 5,000,000
Security transfer tax	 1,000,000
Succession duties	 23,500,000

The dominion has withdrawn from the gasoline tax field, so actually all that remains at stake are five fields of taxation with a total revenue of $47 million. When the Minister of Finance is budgeting for a surplus of $190 million this year, is he justified in standing firm for the retention of these fields of taxation? Having regard to the fact that the war ended two years ago, and that the war emergency which occasioned the entry of the dominion into these fields has passed, I submit that it is the primary duty of the Minister of Finance to withdraw from these fields of taxation. When he has budgeted for a surplus for this coming fiscal year I submit that he should eliminate these taxes and leave them to the provinces.
I have only time to make one or two hasty references to the agreements already signed. First, so far as this Progressive Conservative party is concerned and as its distinguished leader has said on more than one occasion, there will be no interference on the part of this party with agreements already signed. The leader of this party has said that if the Progressive Conservative party were in office today the provinces which have signed would get at least as good terms as those they already possess, or better.
Second, the terms offered by the dominion go far beyond the terms of the original offer upon which agreement was found to be impossible at the dominion-provincial conference in April and May, 1946. The actual advance in the total cost to the dominion is $100,000,000 per annum over the original offer considered at that time. A total of $225,000,000 is the estimated cost to the dominion this year if these proposals had been accepted by all the provinces.
In the next place, so far as the third and most recent bait offered to the provinces is concerned, it increased the cost by $26,000,000 and the minister made clear in this house on March 28 that the government will insist that this sum be taken into account when the dominion and the provinces sit down, if they ever do sit down, to discuss the problems of social security and public investment.
It is not enough to have individual agreements with some of the provinces. There must be a general agreement; there must be some attempt made to preserve the workability of our constitution by allowing uniform constitutional relationships to subsist between the dominion and the various provinces. Therefore the pursuit of secret agreements is essentially wrong in principle. There must be open negotiations


Douglas Charles Abbott: There are no secret agreements and there never have been.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -to which all the provinces must have full access.
I ask hon. members on the other side of the house who represent Quebec constituencies if they are prepared to go to their constituencies and say that they advocate the acceptance by their province of the lowest per capita rate of all the provinces. This is inherent in the latest dominion-provincial proposals by the federal government, because it would pay only $16.63 per annum for every person in Quebec, as against higher figures for the other provinces, $17.29 for Ontario and running up to $23.33 in the case of the most favoured province.
The nation wants an agreement. It wants the dominion and the provinces to sit down together. The nation demands that the dominion government call the provinces together. It was the desire of my leader to bring about an adjustment of the fiscal relationship between the dominion and the provinces on an equitable basis that led him to form his coalition government in Manitoba some years ago. The desire to see that accomplished was one of the things which led him to enter the federal political field. If the present dominion government will not move to reconvene the dominion-provincial conference in order to bring about an agreement between the dominion and the provinces, then it may be well assured that a government headed by the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) will do so at the very first opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, this brings me to the concluding passage of my remarks, which I should like to deliver in French, trusting that you will overlook my shortcomings. [DOT]
(Translation):
The Progressive Conservative party believes that a way can be found to bring about agreement between the dominion and the provinces on the important questions of fields of taxation, social security and public investment.


Gordon Graydon: Hear, hear!
The Budget-Mr. Fleming


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order! Before interrupting the hon. member who is speaking, I suggest that the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) should ask his permission to do so.


Gordon Graydon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This party affirms that compulsion on the part of the dominion government and unfair use of its vast powers to exert pressure on the provinces, are not the way to bring about agreement. It condemns such tactics as offending the spirit of the constitution.
This country was brought into being by agreement, embodied in the British North America Act-agreement between men of different provinces and of two great races and cultures. Destroy respect for that agreement, destroy the respect due to the constitutional rights of the provinces, and you destroy the basis of confederation itself. Our national well-being will never be advanced by doing violence to the constitutional basis of our nationhood.
I said that the Progressive Conservative part}'' believes that a way can be found to bring about general agreement between the dominion and the provinces. It can be done if the dominion government will stop treating the provinces as subordinates, and if it will cease its persistent efforts to centralize power in Ottawa at the expense of the provinces. Let it restore to the provinces those fields of taxation which the provinces have said they wish to retain in order to continue to be sovereign under the constitution, and the way will immediately be opened to reaching a unanimous agreement.
Agreement between the dominion and some of the provinces is not sufficient. If confederation is to remain a fact the constitutional relationships between the dominion and all the nine provinces must be uniform, always reserving the rights guaranteed under the constitution to the province of Quebec and its people.
Hon. Liberal members who during this debate have been deriding and attacking the premier of Quebec and the premier of Ontario are contributing nothing to a true solution of thq problem. If they really desire an honourable agreement between the dominion and all the provinces, let them refrain from their silly tactics of calling Mr. Duplessis and Mr. Drew names. Let them remember that these two honourable gentlemen have been honoured by the people of their respective provinces with their confidence, and that their policies on dominion-provincial relations have recently been strongly endorsed by the legislatures of their respective

provinces. These two men have a duty, not only to the people of their own provinces, but to Canada to protect the constitution, just as the dominion government has a duty to protect the constitution. Mr. Duplessis and Mr. Drew are the kind of men who will perform this duty, no matter how bitter and unfair be the personal attacks made on them by Liberal members in this house. Hon members would do well to remember that Mr. Godbout, the Liberal leader in the province of Quebec, when speaking in the Quebec legislature on February 19, requested that the dominion vacate the field of taxation which Mr. Duplessis, Mr. Drew and Mr. Angus Macdonald have said the provinces must possess exclusively.
Mr. Duplessis stated in Quebec city as recently as May 6, that he was willing to attend another plenary conference. The legislature of Quebec, by its Bill No. 30, has authorized Mr. Duplessis' government to enter into agreements with the dominion government. Mr. Drew has for months been urging the dominion government to reconvene the conference. The premiers of the other provinces have all been asking for the same thing. Under these circumstances, there can be no excuse for the refusal of the dominion government to reconvene the dominion-provincial conference.
I call upon the government to put aside petty partisan politics and to reconvene the dominion-provincial conference, and thus to open the way to negotiations and unanimous tax agreements, the kind of agreement by which the constitutional fabric of this nation may be strengthened, and prosperity and security won for all our people, not by bureaucratic centralization of power at Ottawa, but by achieving the maximum of provincial autonomy with a minimum of centralization.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Hear, hear!


Mr. J. ARSENE BONNIER (Saint-Henri):: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate
the hon. member who has just resumed his seat on his splendid handling of the French language. If 90 per cent of the members in this house did as much, it would promote agreement among the provinces and between the two great races which people them.
Mr. Speaker, I will devote part of my remarks to my constituency, which is, by the way, one of the largest in the province of Quebec, since it has a population of 80,000 numbering an electorate of 50,000. Needless to say, should the government act, in the

The Budget-Mr. Bonnier
interest of my fellow citizens, on any of their long standing requests, any such steps would surely be highly appreciated.
I also wish to point out that I represent the largest industrial county in the province for there are more industries within my constituency than in any other of the city of Montreal. Altogether, there are 160, some small, some large, but all fairly important. In that district, one finds, for instance the Canada Car & Foundry plant, which employs only men and numbers about 6,000 workers; during the war, one of its sections built airplanes and thus did great service to the country. There is also the Canadian Tube plant, just about on the same footing, since it employed some 6,000 men. Last year, it built a million dollar addition to its present establishment. I can tell hon. members opposite who are always talking about nails that we produce them in my constituency. If they care to pay us a visit, they may be able to buy a number of interesting things.
Dominion Textile have three branches and some 10,000 employees; many women and aged people, unable to find work elsewhere, are hired by this company. Imperial Tobacco, the important cigarette factory known to all, has a large staff consisting mainly of women. R.C.A. Victor also numbers many employees while Crane Limited, another important enterprise, retains a large staff as do General Steel Wares and the luggage concern of Eveleigh. Tooke Bros., big scale manufacturers of shirts, dressing gowns, ties, and so on, have a very flourishing industry in my constituency. Simmons Limited, manufacturer of iron beds and various iron supplies, ^number a great many employees. The important Robert Mitchell foundry also has a large staff while the Steel Company of Canada, manufacturers of nails and pipes, retains the services of a great many employees.
Mr. Speaker, it would take too long to list the 160 industries of my constituency. I have mentioned only a few. Would the house allow me, in order to save time, to put this table on record?
(Text):


James Horace King: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house to table the memorandum?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
(Translation):


James Horace King: The hon. member may
continue.


Joseph-Arsène Bonnier: The Budget-Mr. Bonnier

Turgeon, 78, Celtic Knitting Co., manufacturing hosiery.
St. James, 2200. Lowe Bros., manufacturing paint.
St. James, 2260. Bengalee Brand Co., manufacturing chemicals.
St. James, 2545, Solo Products Co., manufacturing chemicals.
St. James, 3151, E. Dinsmore Co. Ltd., manufacturing paper.
St. James. 3181, Beacon Products Co., manufacturing toileteries.
St. James, 3187. Crawford Candy Co., manufacturing candy, toffee.
St. James, 3451, London Paper Box Co., manufacturing cardboard boxes.
St. James, 3520, A. W. Reeves Co., manufacturing tarred paper.
St. James, 3550, Plants Machinery Co., manufacturing machinists' tools.
St. James. 3701, T. Lafond Enr., manufacturing vehicles.
St. James, 3737, Dominion Oxygen Co., manufacturing liquid air.	.
St. James. 3933, The Chrome & Plastic Co., manufacturing plastic products.
St James, 4237. International Mart Co.
St. James, 4351, Electro Maintenance Co., manufacturing electrical equipment.
St. James, 4501, Provincial Pest Co., manufacturing chemicals.
St. Antoine. 2,234, J. O. Lambert Co., manufacturing cough syrup.
St. Antoine, 3,158, Rex Oil Burner, manufacturing oil burners.
St. Antoine, 3,448, J. Martin Co., manufacturing pastries.
St. Antoine, 3,470, Stewart Bros., manufacturing soft drinks.
St. Antoine, 3.520, The Gart Co. Ltd., manufacturing pipes and radiators.
St. Antoine, 3,601, The Imperial Tobacco, manufacturing cigarettes.
St. Antoine, 4,001, Mufeo Corporation Co., manufacturing pipes.
St. Antoine, 4,271, Chic Junior Sportswear Co., manufacturing children's clothing.
St. Antoine, 4.271, British America Co., manufacturing tools.
St. Antoine, 4,271, Recoup Tools Co., manufacturing tools.
St. Antoine, 3.550, Electric Switch Co., manufacturing electrical appliances.
St. Antoine, 3.550, Industrial Distributor Co., manufacturing chemicals.
Atwater, 217. Montreal Iron Smelters Co., manufacturing foundry.
Atwater. 225, Rutherford Lumber Co., manufacturing doors and sashes.
Atwater, 703, John Millen & Son, manufacturing bicycle accessories.
Atwater, 821, Machine Shop Ltd., manufacturing tools.
St. Ambroise, 3,744, Page Hersey Tube Ltd., manufacturing pipes, etc.	_
St. Ambroise, 3,850. United Chemical Co., manufacturing chemicals.
St. Ambroise, 3,830, Electrical Products Co., manufacturing electrical appliances.
St. Ambroise, 3,830, Canada Fibre Co., manufacturing fibre.	_
St. Ambroise, 3,830. Universal Chemical Co., manufacturing chemistry.
St. Ambroise, 3.970, Dominion Textile Co., manufacturing cotton.
St. Ambroise, 5,022, Canada Malting Co., manufacturing brewery malt.
St. Ambroise. 5.070. Standard Chemical Comanufacturing alcohol.

St. Ambroise, 5,170, Montreal Dual Mixed Cement, manufacturing cement.
Workman, 2,115, Electric Tamper Co., manufacturing electrical appliances.
Delisle, 2,137, Canadian Metal Products, manufacturing metal toys.
Richelieu, 4295, Canadian Foundry Co., manufacturing foundry.
St. Augustin, 289 Autogenous Welding, manufacturing automobile springs.
Yinet, 120, Dominion Wadding Co., manufacturing mattress wadding.
Du College, 837, J. Eveleigh Co., manufacturing luggage.
St. Ambroise, 3975, Conant Co. Ltd., manufacturing paints.
St. Ambroise, 4110, Steel Co. of Canada, manufacturing steel.
St. Ambroise, 4211, Machine Shop Co., manufacturing tools.
St. Ambroise, 4394, Dominion Elevator Co., manufacturing elevators.
St. Ambroise, 4700, Simmonds Bed Co., manufacturing beds, etc.
St. Ambroise, 4741. Canada Fire Bricks Co., manufacturing stove bricks.
*St. Ambroise, 4790, Dominion Bleachery Co., manufacturing pillow cases, blankets.
'Richelieu, 4295, Canadian Foundry Co., manufacturing radiators.
Notre Dame, 2037, Sterling Upholstering Co., manufacturing mattresses.
Notre Dame, 2050, Grier Lumber Co., manufacturing doors and sashes.
Notre Dame, 2062, J. W. Hazlett Co., manufacturing hat ornaments.
Notre Dame, 2070, J. A. Kennedy Co., manufacturing chemicals.
Notre Dame, 2050, Canada Marine Works Co., manufacturing marine engines.
Notre Dame, 2060, Bonner Leather Co., manufacturing leather goods.
Notre Dame, 2060, C. Galibert & Sons, manufacturing gloves.
Notre Dame. 2110, St. Lawrence Flour Comanufacturing flour.
Notre Dame, 2117, Novo Plastic Co., manufacturing plastic wares.
Notre Dame, 2320, Steel Co. of Canada, manufacturing wire.
Notre Dame, 2358, Windsor Motor Co., manufacturing marine engines.
Notre Dame, 2449, Western Exterminating Co., manufacturing chemicals.
Notre Dame, 4030, Debonnar Dress Mfg. Comanufacturing dresses (ladies').
Notre Dame, 5092, Texal Products Co- manufacturing chemicals.
Notre Dame, 5157, Verrerie Lamoureux Comanufacturing glass.
Monk Blvd- 5733, Victor Cote, manufacturing skylights.
Monk Blvd- 5785, Canadian Plaque Ltd-manufacturing stoppers.
Monk Blvd- 5789 Peters Sportwear Reg-manufacturing sporting goods.
Briand, 5789, Arthur Beaudin Ltee- manufacturing cooked meats.
Allard, 2830, Victoria Cleaners Cie, manufacturing aprons.
Angers, 5955, Canadian Casings Corp- manufacturing sausage casings.

The Budget-Mr. Bonnier
Beaulieu, 6369, Rivest Enregistree, manufacturing candles.
Monk Blvd., 5639, Montreal Broom Cie, manufacturing brooms.
Monk Bird., 5705, Sivrais & Plouffe, manufacturing footwear.
Briand, 6592, Laiterie Saint-Alexandre, manufacturing ice cream.
Briand, 6824, Emile Paquette Enrg., manufacturing artificial stone.
Jogues, 6388, Lasalle Broom Ltee., manufacturing brooms.
Jolicoeur, 2650, La Cie Cayouette, manufacturing doors and sashes.
Le Caron, 1804, Anvil Shop Enrg., manufacturing tools and anvils.
Hamilton, 2714, Provincial Industries, manufacturing barrels.	.
Hamilton, 5847, Chs. Duranceau & Cie, manufacturing barrels.
Hamilton, 6374, Fereraft Cie, manufacturing tools, etc.
Jacques Hertel, 2747. Canadian Rhodes Mfg. Co., manufacturing scales.
Hadley, 5578, M. Milloy & Sons, manufacturing chalk.
Hadley, 5726, B. M. Engineering Co., manufacturing jewellery.
Hamilton, 5660', Supertest Petroleum Corp., manufacturing gasoline.
Hamilton, 5765, Canadian Tube Steel Prod., manufacturing steel and pipes (wiring).
Eadie, 5680, St. Paul Woodworks Co., manufacturing furniture.
Eadie. 5694, Aluminum Foundry Co., manufacturing aluminum ware.
Galt, 1962, Daigle & Paul, manufacturing doors and sashes.
Hadley, 5555, F. Martel Cie, manufacturing automobile axles.
Daragon, 5933, West End Iron Ornamental Co., manufacturing iron ornaments.
Daragon, 6876, Co-Operative DesOrmeaux, manufacturing pharmaceutical products.
Desmonts. 6600, Dominion Textiles Co., manufacturing cotton.
Denonville. 2549, Chadwick & Co., manufacturing soap and cosmetics.
St. Patrick, 3300, Imperial Co., manufacturing gasoline.
St. Patrick, 3500, Ottawa Valley Lumber, manufacturing doors and sashes.
St. Patrick, 3552, Harrisson & Crossfield, manufacturing fertilizers.
St. Patrick, 3590, Truscon Steel Co. Ltd., manufacturing wire.
St. Patrick, 3700, Congoleum Co., Ltd., manufacturing linoleum.
St. Patrick, 3800, Crane Co., manufacturing valves.
St. Patrick, 4000. Canadian Powder Boat Co., manufacturing boats.
St. Patrick, 4950. Welland Vale Co., manufacturing axes.
St. Patrick, 5010, C. O. Clark & Co., manufacturing bells.
St. Patrick, 5012, G. Gilmore Co., manufacturing drills (for rvood). ,
St. Patrick, 5120, Mountroyal Rice Co., manufacturing rice.
St. Patrick. 5130, E. A. Mahon, manufacturing steehvare.
St. Patrick. 5134. Excelsior Products, manufacturing packaging.
St. Patrick, 5170, West End Woodwork Co., manufacturing woodenware.
St. Patrick, 5290, Montreal Metal Products, manufacturing ornamental iron work.
St. Patrick, 5296, Montreal Blanket Co., manufacturing rugs and blankets.
St. Patrick, 5524, Dominion Cotton Ltd., manufacturing textiles.
St. Patrick, 5550, D. Cote Ltee., manufacturing tinware.
St. Patrick, 5555, Food Colours Ltd., manufacturing chemicals and flavours.
St. Patrick, 6000, Canada Packers Ltd., manufacturing fertilizers.
Saint Remi, 555, Hiram L. Piper Co. Ltd., manufacturing ship accessories.
Saint Remi, 595, Simonds Saw Co. Ltd., manufacturing saws.
Saint Remi, 617, Jenkins Bros. Ltd., manufacturing valves.
Saint Remi, 767, Autographic Register Co., manufacturing books of all kinds.
Dunn, 4805, Smith Transport Co., manufacturing trucking.
St. Patrick, 3437, Kingsway Transport Co., manufacturing trucking.
Canning, 741, Advance Machine Co. Ltd., manufacturing precision tools.
Saint Antoine. 1910, Davis & Lawrence Co., manufacturing drugs.
Saint Antoine, 1910, Oxo Ltd., manufacturing oxo (restorative).
Chatham, 618, W. Lunn Co. Ltd., manufacturing skates.
Des Seigneurs, 2 Canadian Paper Board Co., manufacturing pressed board.
Des Seigneurs, 12, International Cooperage Co., manufacturing barrels of all kinds.
William, 1980, Drummond McCall, manufacturing steel.
Hunter, 1911, Canada Dry Paint Co., manufacturing dry paint.
Canada Packers, manufacturing fertilizers.
Mr. Speaker, in our county, we need a tunnel under the Lachine canal, the Cote Saint Paul tunnel. Not only the present government, but all governments have recognized the great need for that tunnel. It was recognized in 1932 and \\ million dollars were then voted in that connection. Ottawa did not have a Liberal government at that time and there was no by-election in the offing yet the necessity for that undertaking was recognized. A request was also made in 1935 during the general elections. However, the member then elected, my predecessor, Mr. Mercier, was appointed judge and was unable to press the authorities for the construction of that tunnel. I must add, Mr. Speaker, that at the time of my election in 1938, not only the candidate but the government undertook to have that tunnel built. The latter recognized that it was urgent to pierce a tunnel at that point. The Hon. Mr. Rinfret and the Hon. Mr. Cardin both saw the need for it. They are no longer with us, but the present member for St. Henri is anxious to have those promises fulfilled.
The Budget-Mr. Bonnier

In 1938, a certain amount of money was voted and the site was chosen, after various difficulties had been overcome. As a matter of fact, due to certain drawbacks, the site was changed two or three times. Finally, it was agreed to pierce the tunnel at a certain spot, and soundings were taken. In 1938, there was a re-vote for that purpose, and another in 4939. Instructions were given to draw up plans. Everything went well until war was declared in 1939. At that time, plans were almost complete, but the government deemed fitting to suspend all operations during the war. I bowed to that decision, but last year I renewed my attempts. The housing crisis was so acute, however, that all building materials were required for dwelling purposes, and the government asked me to postpone my request until this year. Now, in 1947, I do hope that the government will fulfil its promise and vote once again the amount of money that was provided in 1938. I shall have to take up the matter with the city of Montreal, inasmuch as they contribute the land. I promise to go through all the necessary steps and to secure from the city of Montreal acceptance of the terms which I was granted as alderman for the ward. Let us begin to fulfil our obligations.
Reports were made in 1938 on the traffic borne by the Cote Saint Paul bridge. Statistical records were compiled very recently. They show that automobile, truck, pedestrian, bicycle and other traffic has doubled. If it were not asking too much I would again request permission to have this table placed on record. It is very long and would take some time to read.


James Horace King: I must remind the hon.
member that the house does not encourage members to place tables on record, lest Hansard become too bulky. He has been granted that permission once by the house and I wonder whether he would obtain it a second time.


Joseph-Arsène Bonnier: This document would be too long to read, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think that hon. members would take in every particular.
(Text):


James Horace King: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house to put the document on Hansardt


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.
(Translation):


Joseph-Arsène Bonnier: Here is the table in question.



LACHINE CANAL

[Stage Direction]
Traffic statistics, both w ays on Cote Saint-Paul bridge April 23, 24, 25-1947
North End from Saint-11 enri and elsewhere
-	Cars	Trucks	Pedes- trians	Tram- ways	Horse- drawn vehicles	Bicycle	Buses	Motor- cyclesApril 23, from 12 noon to 6 p.m	1,263	246	547	134	53	253	7	16April 24, from 12 noon to 6 p.m	1,653	888	516	143	27	176	7	12April 25, from 12 noon to 6 p.m	974	731	228	161	64	94	14	9
South End, from Ville-Emard, Cote Saint-Paul, Verdun, Lachine and country points
April 23, from 12 noon to 6 p.m	1,124	883	306	143	43	101	8	5April 24, from 12 noon to 6 p.m	1,368	824	232	152	39	63	4	8April 25, from 12 noon to 6 p.m	1,525	766	311	164	44	173	22	13
N.B. I would point out that April 23, being a Wednesday, the stores closed at 1 p.m. Friday, being market day, traffic was heavy. The report also shows the direction of traffic.

H. Hebert.

The Budget-Mr. Bonnier
Traffic tied up by April 23, 1947-
SS. Lakeshell, from 12.10 p.m. to 12.20 p.m.
SS. Cyclobrave, from 1.35 pm. to 1.46 p.m.
Engine C.P.R. 6926. from 2.05 p.m. to 2.12 p.m.
SS. Acadian, from 2.35 p.m. to 2.42 p.m.
SS. John A. McDougald, from 2.33 p.m. to 2.42 p.m.
SS. Captain Duguay, from 2.48 p.m. to 2.53 p.m.
Araeht Caroline, from 3.37 p.m. to 3.42 p.m.
Engine C.P.R. 6920, from 4.35 p.m. to 4.39 p.m.
Tug Glendouan and Barge Oka Sand, from 4.52 p.m. to 4.56 p.m.
Engine 6920, from 5.18 p.m. to 5.25 p.m.
April 24, 1947-
SS. Lakeshell, from 2.30 p.m. to 2.38 p.m.
Engine 7012, C.P.R., from 3.00 p.m. to 3.07 p.m.
SS. Burchion, from 4.00 p.m. to 4.06 p.m.
SS. Translate, from 4.51 p.m. to 4.57 p.m.
Engine 6920, C.P.R., from 5.15 p.m. to 5.21 p.m.
SS. Grainmotor, from 5.40 p.m. to 5.50 p.m.
SS. Penetang, from 6.00 p.m. to 6.10 p.m.
April 25, 1947-
SS. Keybar, from 6.40 to 6.47 am.
Tug Glendotcan and Barge Oka 10, from
7.00	am. to 7.10 am.
SS. Starmount. from 7.55 am. to 8.03 am.
SS. Meaford. from 8.15 am. to 8.22 am.
SS. Barrie, from 8.41 a.m. to 8.47 a.m.
SS. Keydon, from 9.22 am. to 9.27 am.
SS. Cedarton, from 9.59 am. to 10.05 am.
SS. Damia, from 10.33 a.m. to 10.38 a.m.
SS. J. A. McDougald, from 10.54 a.m. to
11.00	a.m.
SS. Trenora, from 11.14 a.m. to 11.20 a.m.
Now, Mr. Speaker, a few words on the subdivision of mv constituency. A chunk has just been cut out of it. The government enacted a very interesting measure giving the province of Quebec eight additional constituencies, four of which go to Montreal. These had to come from somewhere else, from other constituencies, here and there. As it has been necessary to take part of mine away, I must tell you. Mr. Speaker, that I have received a number of protests, besides having made one myself. A committee of the house has been set up to judge these matters and they have decided that some sacrifices were necessary. There is no part of my constituency I would like to get rid of. My electors are all workers, right-minded workers.
I have gathered majorities in all sections. If I lose any of it, the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) will be the gainer-
Douglas Charles Abbott: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Arsène Bonnier: -and my former constituents will lose nothing on the trade since the Minister of Finance will be their new representative.
In any case, if ever the former electors of my constituency, who were used to me and whom I have had the occasion to serve, wish to have recourse to my help, I shall always receive them sympathetically, their new position notwithstanding. The hon. the minister need entertain no fear about that piece of territory.


Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: He is not the timid sort.


Joseph-Arsène Bonnier: The members of the
Union of Electors are few in my constituency and the small group of about 10 or 15 are not in that section and I shall take care of them. I have a majority of close to 11,000 and my six opponents all lost their deposits. Although they call themselves the League of the Union of Electors, they are neither numerous nor dangerous. However, as a branch of the Social Credit party, they still advocate a $20 a month bonus for all citizens without increase in taxation. I repeat for the benefit of the minister, that, until the end of my mandate, that is, until the next general election. I will continue to take the interest of my whole constituency to heart and I wish to assure all my constituents that I am always at their service.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Thank you.
(Text):
Mr. D. J. MeCUAIG (Maple Creek): Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to the attention of the house and to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) and of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) what I think is unfair and unjust treatment imposed upon farmers and small businessmen in respect of income taxation. This applies especially to the part of the country from which I come, where there has been a series of crop failures. For income tax purposes the farmer was unable to carry his losses over from year to year prior to 1944. The income tax law was amended in 1946 in order to remedy this unjust situation, but it went back only to 1944. By this amendment the loss on tihe 1944 operations could be carried into 1945 and subsequent years. But this left huge outstanding losses on operating expense incurred in the years prior to 1944. I should, like to ask the minister: If this principle holds good back to 1944. why not be fair and go the whole way? The principle cannot be changed.
I will give an example in mv own district. In 1936 we had practically a crop failure. We just got seed out of it. In 1937 there was a complete crop failure. There was not one bushel threshed in our district. In 1938 the crop was spotty. In 1939 and 1940 we had the
The Budget-Mr. McCuaig

worst infestation of grasshoppers ever seen in western Canada. In 1941 there was a good crop and in 1942 there was the biggest crop we ever had. This is what happened. Hundreds of farmers were asked to make out income tax returns in the years 1943 and 1944 and to go back as far as 1940. Over the bad years there was a huge accumulation of debts-bank loans, machinery debt, repair bills, store accounts, doctor and hospital bills, back taxes and plenty of other things. The government, instead of giving the farmer a little encouragement, actually ruined the farmer's credit by not allowing him first to pay his debts, which I call his first obligation, to honour the trust and confidence which his fellow men, the Small businessmen in town, had placed in him.
In 1942 there was a quota on wheat. The farmer could sell only so much. The same was true in 1943 and 1944. In 1943 and 1944 income tax inspectors travelled all over the country. The income tax branch and its inspectors completely ignored those past operating losses and allowed only current expenses which came within the income tax exemptions for the one year under review. The farmer was taxed for money which was not his, but which belonged to local businessmen who trusted him, gave him credit and provided him with means to carry on over those trying years. He was taxed to the limit on the income of those years I have mentioned, while he still owed a large amount of money.
Furthermore, there is the matter of the $1,200 exemption. In the years when the farmer had little or no revenue, he could not take advantage of that $1,200 exemption. He went into debt for the necessities of living and cost of operation of the farm. When a better crop year came along, he got the $1,200 exemption for that one year only, but still carried an accumulation of debt from the bad years. He was not permitted to carry forward the exemption of previous years in order to help pay the debts of those years. I want you to see, Mr. Speaker, that the farmer was stuck at both ends of the game, going and coming.
Let me give another instance. The income tax branch ruled that if a car was proved necessary for the carrying on of farming operations, car expense would be allowed. Expenses were allowed but depreciation was not allowed. If depreciation was not an expense, I should like to know what it was. I call it just plain chiselling. I would ask the minister to make a note of that.
The farmer's wife and family put in long hours, before school and after school, working in the garden, milking cows, feeding calves and raising chickens. They were the busiest people on the farm, but they were not allowed one
dollar for their work. When it came to harvesting those things, they were required to give an account of every nickel, for income tax purposes. There was no thought or sympathetic consideration given to the appalling need for better homes, family needs, worn-out machinery and dilapidated buildings or, as was mentioned by an hon. member the other day, a well, which is a most necessary thing, for a farm must have water. After a farmer had spent long years wearing out tanks and wagons in drawing water, and had reached the stage when he had saved up a few dollars and could dig a well, the cost of the digging of this well was not allowed as an operating expense. This was what I call just more plain chiselling.
This is a far cry from the way our big business friends -were treated. Double depreciation was allowed in many cases and, after making huge profits during the war, many government-assisted and built plants were handed back to the big fellows for a mere song. The Crane people were given $400,000. The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) called it an incentive subsidy so that they would produce more. There was a large field ahead of this company; consumers were crying for more of their product and were likely to continue to do so for a long time. Why did this private enterprise industry not jump into it with their own capital or borrow money from the banks on their own responsibility, as the farmer has had to do? I think the government was pretty free with the taxpayers' money, money which belonged to the little people whom I am representing. Furthermore, no ceiling was put on the goods this company were making. They got the price they asked and they got subsidies besides; and do not let us forget that they had a complete monopoly on this product.
There is nothing needed more in the world today than food. People can do without bathtubs, but in order to live they must have food. Here we have, as a friendly gesture, $400,000 given to one firm with which to make bathtubs. Many times this amount was chiselled away from the tillers of the soil in income tax and subsidies, which subsidies should have been part of the selling price in the first place, but in my opinion it was called a subsidy so that it could be withdrawn and would not look so bad as would the reducing of prices. The farmers are not asking for an incentive; they are asking only for equity and justice. The most important industry in Canada should be treated on a par with other industries.
While this was going on, the Liberal government was deliberately taking the farmer's wheat and selling it to Canadian consumers

The Budget-Mr. McCuaig
at thirty cents a bushel less than he could get for it on the export market. The stockman got the same kind of deal. A floor price was put underneath his product when it was in the hands of the packer, but no floor price was put under cattle when they were in the hands of the producers. Why was the agriculturist, the humble tiller of the soil, treated in this way? I can only see it as a continuation of the spirit of the feudal lords toward the common man. The concern of our economy is not for the health and welfare of human beings, to provide better homes, better families, better bodies. The concern of our economy is for money, power and control. In the short space of ten years we have seen a lot of material things pass into history. For instance, Mussolini and his gang, Hitler and his gang, Tojo and his gang, all have passed into history. Why? Because there was no place in their philosophy for the teaching of the Man of Galilee: service and humility. Yet it would appear that we have learned nothing. This is the most damning indictment against our so-called democracy today, and I do not think we have the chance of a snowball in the hot place to build a Canadian empire under an economy of this kind. We educate thousands of our children only to have them leave Canada, a land of great potential wealth and beauty. At the present time thousands of our young people are getting married, and they say they are not going to have children; they say they cannot afford to have children.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. McCUAIG:: That is quite common, and it is not a laughing matter. It will have a serious reaction on Canada's population in the next twenty years. I have been among these young people, and one hears that said on every hand. The magnificent churches of our cities are only half-filled today; yet the beer parlours are overflowing with men and women.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Duncan John McCuaig: The drink bill is increasing at an alarming rate, and members laugh about it. We are selling millions of bushels of wheat to brewers and distillers, good food which is needed for millions of starving children. Juvenile delinquency, accidents and crimes are increasing, and we have not the accommodation to care properly for fifty per cent of our mentally ill people. A large percentage of our working people are living in homes without modern accommodation, such as bathtubs and toilets. These things are recognized by the public today, as is manifested by delegations, briefs and petitions brought before this government. Just recently a petition was presented in this house bearing the signatures of over a quarter of a million people praying for more humane treatment and care of our old people. The plight of the physically handicapped and war widows was brought to the attention of the government. Public opinion is aroused in Canada today as never before, for the adoption of social Christian principles as propounded by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation: humanity first.
To support this contention, Mr. Speaker, with your kind permission I shall submit some evidence, and from a corner of the house you would hardly expect it. I want to do honour where honour is due, in this case to an hon. member who, I think, is a conscientious and sincere gentleman. I quote from the speech of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), as recorded at page 3179 of Hansard for this session:
We cannot afford any longer to sit still here and take no notice of what is going on in Canada. The danger to our freedom is greater from within Canada than from without.
What is Canada's answer to all this? First, we should put our own place in order, overhaul the British North America Act and revise our parliamentary system and the other systems I have named. We should adopt some system of Christian socialism for the workers of this country, the white-collar employees, the artisans and the farmers. A system of Christian socialism-


An hon. MEMBER:: What is that?


Duncan John McCuaig: I will give the hon. member a copy of the C.C.F. national manifesto. Further on, the hon. member had this to say:
In the debate on constitutional reform on February 17, 1937, I referred to how the provincial legislatures were created, and I had a word to say in relation to industrial employment, contrasting the precepts of Christianity with the way in which our industrial workers are used. Personality counts as nothing; the dollar is all supreme. Modern life is machine life, soulless, a life of standardization, a high speed production, a highly efficient organization for the making of profits. Dividends are the chief objective; to get dividends, human beings are sacrificed. Wages were often below the level of mere subsistence, so that people were forced into other ways of life to eke out a precarious livelihood. I spoke of the long hours of work exacted, but reforms have been brought aibout in that. Senior employees, after long years of faithful service, were in many cases cast out without a retiring allowance to make room for younger people. I said that the law of Christ, that we should bear one another's burdens, was not being carried out.
Apparently the hon. member for Broadview knows the monopolistic bible. Two thousand years ago, Mr. Speaker, it was said, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" and "A contrite heart and humble spirit should lead them." I wish the hon. member for Broadview every success and the best of luck in his evangelistic work in the Tory camp.
The Budget-Mr. A. L. Smith

The espionage trials and other activities have led to a virtual campaign against communism and a spirit of hate against the U.S.S.R., not only in Canada but in the United States. Witch hunting and building capitalist bridgeheads around our democracies is the order of the day. The purpose of this is to prevent the communist ideology and philosopny from spreading farther into the western world.
As a practical man and a solid Canadian, who got his education in the hard school of trial and error, in practical application and results, I would say that we are starting at the wrong end and using an entirely wrong method to remedy this most dangerous situation between neighbours. The U.S.S.R. philosophy and their way of life is their own business, in their own country, and, if it is attractive to our people, we shall not stop it here by force, or government-sponsored subversive action. We can do it only by showing the world that we have something better-not in flowery words, but in the manner of practical application, in the utilization and distribution of all our great resources in the interests of all our people in Canada. This was the purpose of creation, and it is for the interests of mankind.
Let us put man on the pedestal, and show all the world that we glorify God's greatest handiwork-man in the image of his Maker. And let us do some straight thinking abouf this. If we do so we need not be afraid of any ism in Canada.


Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have not usurped much of your time during this session, and even though I push prorogation half an hour farther toward Christmas, I propose to make a few remarks at this time. I assure you that in dealing with the budget I shall endeavour neither to thresh old straw nor to advance any new economic ideology.
Having been in the house now for my third session of parliament, I thought I might usefully make some remarks concerning my observations of what we have been doing. I begin by complimenting the House of Commons. under your able direction, sir, upon the splendid tone generally maintained in our debates. I am not suggesting that in this respect we are all free from guilt. A week or so ago I saw my own name in the paper in connection with a short debate in which I took part in an exchange with one of the ministers. I assure you, sir, that I did not read with pride what I said on that occasion. I sincerely trust my adversary at that time would hold the same view concerning what he said.
Those were little things. But it seems to me the absolute low in political public discussion was reached here the other night in the maiden speech of the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Hartt). Speeches of that kind are not going to do us any good. However, you, sir, and hon. members have the satisfaction of knowing that if there is any change it must be for the better; it cannot be any lower than the bottom of the barrel.
I turn now to some matters concerning which I think there might be some improvement. I appreciate Your Honour's difficulty in dealing with questions asked when the orders of the day are called. I am conscious, too, of the difficulty you must have in making spot decisions as to a question's urgency or relevancy. It seems to me that we would do well to adopt the practice in the British House of Commons whereby, so many times each week, a definite time is set aside when questions may be asked of the government, and when there is no particular matter of urgency to be decided.
I must, however, offer some little criticism of the two ministers who unfortunately are not at the moment in their seats. I refer to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). I am sure no one would suggest for one moment that hon. members on this side ask any questions in which there could be political implications.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I should think that would be generally assumed by the house. I would rate those two ministers by stating that the Minister of Labour wins all championships, not only through his failure to answer questions he is asked, but also for including politics in every reply he makes. The Minister of Finance is not a good second; indeed he is well down the list. I would not care to classify the rest of the field. It seems to me, however, that questions are not meant for that purpose. And, lest there be any doubt about the matter let me say that I was speaking ironically, because I know it does come from both sides of the house.
Having said that, I turn to a matter which has arisen in outstanding form during this session. I refer to the procedure of mixing legislative matters in one bill. We had, of course, the omnibus bill, and I appreciate it is not intended that the practice set up in that bill shall be followed. Perhaps it represented an unusual occasion. But, more important-and there was no reason for this -we had in one piece of legislation the

The Budget-Mr. A. L. Smith
coupling of immigration with Chinese exclusion. There is nothing mutual about those subjects, and it seems to me that they should not have been placed in one bill.
Indeed the situation is like it would be if Your Honour were to ask me out to dinner- and may I add that that is not a hint-and you placed before me some caviar. I then tell you that I do not like caviar, as a result of which you say to me, "You eat the whole dinner, including the printer's name on the menu, or you eat nothing at all." That is exactly the position in which we are placed when the government ties together in one piece of legislation subjects which should be the subject matter of two or three bills, or whatever number the subjects would justify.
My next complaint is not against the government, but it is one for which, it seems to me, there should be a remedy. I refer to the utter lack of trained people in this building who could be of assistance to private members who are honestly trying to find out something about a subject in which they may be interested. I go all the way with what was said last year by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair), because private members on the government side and also on this side may find ourselves interested in a subject which would be dealt with in a department of one of the ministers. We may think that the government is wrong, and that an error in judgment is being made, and may feel that another course should be adopted.
What do we find? We find we must do all our own digging. This is in no sense a criticism of the few splendid people we have in the library. We just have not the kind of people I think we should have, and in my view it would be good for parliament and for the country if ministers were attacked a little more often.
One may make up his mind that a piece of legislation is totally bad, or that some of it is bad. I am not suggesting for one moment that it is intentionally that way. I refer to an honest difference of opinion. He comes into the House of Commons with what little assistance he can find and attacks the piece of legislation. The moccasin telegraph immediately gets working to the official gallery, and, in ten minutes or so, three, four, five, ten or fifty-take whatever number you want- people begin to work to show that you are wrong even though they know you are right. In other words, they attempt to find little reasons here and there to show that the fellow on the opposite side is wrong, even 83166-214
though they know he is right. It seems to me that that is carried a very long distance.
Let us assume that I ask a question of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). I do not see him here and I am getting lonesome-oh, yes, I have found him now. Let us assume that I ask the Minister of National Defence what has happened to a certain thousand men in some camp in some remote spot in this country. Immediately the boys go to work and the first answer I get is that there is no camp with one thousand men. Sergeant Cook has ulcers of the stomach and is off strength for the moment, so the answer is given that I am just completely wrong.
Then he will carry on, "I will tell you how completely wrong you are because, by order in council 947,777, which I now table, it shows that the whole command was disbanded and there is nobody there at all." He will continue, "That order in council is 947,777A, because the treasury branch did not want to pass 947,778." I am beaten before I start, simply because I am unable to find any means in this building whereby I can gather the facts I need. It is easy to say to a private member, "Why do you not go and dig?" This is the ordinary life of a member of parliament in Ottawa as I have found it. I am not an early riser but I try to get here by ten o'clock.


An hon. MEMBER:: Good.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am happy the hon. member thinks it is good. At eleven o'clock you have'committees to attend; you have your lunch; you sit from three to six and from eight to eleven; in the meantime you take care of your correspondence and the errands you have to run and that sort of thing. Most of us live here in an atmosphere which is not good-I am referring to the air- for at least twelve hours a day. It just is not possible for anyone, unless he maintains a clipping service out of his own pocket, unless he pays research people himself, to have a sufficient and exhaustive knowledge of any subject in which he is interested. I mention these things in the ordinary life which we live.
In addition to that, we have all the reports of the committees. For example, we want to go home and be able to know something of what the veterans committee-it is not sitting this year

or the Indian committee or some other committee has been doing. We all try to keep up as well as we can with what has been accomplished. We should be able to go to someone and say, "Let me have a summary of what has taken place there." It is true that

The Budget-Mr. A. L. Smith

we have secretaries, but I doubt very much if many hon. members have secretaries who are capable of doing that. I am happy to say that I have an excellent secretary, but as yet I have not asked her to go through that business.
I turn now to a matter which interests the country greatly, the leadership of the Liberal party. I should like to give some excellent advice, because I know there are many people interested in knowing just where the mantle will fall. I have been watching some of the aspirants very carefully across the floor for some time, and I say to them that they should get out more into the country. As far as the people in the area in which I live are concerned, they could have two heads because they really do not know them. It may be that they prefer the anonymity-perhaps that is the wrong word-it may be that they prefer not to be seen, but I think they are all gentlemen of not undistinguished countenances and certainly we should like to see more of them in the part of the country in which I live. My last thought is 'that they should adopt the method employed a long time ago and simply cast lots for the mantle and settle the thing quickly in a friendly fashion.
I turn now to the budget. Every hon. member has complimented the Minister of Finance. I intend to do likewise, but only in one particular. I am always interested in forensic efforts whenever I find them, and I think one of the finest exhibitions I have ever seen was when the Minister of Finance used some words that will long remain in my mind. He stood up to his not inconsiderable height; his voice was resonant and ringing, and he gave an example of the greatest courage ever exhibited by a public man when he looked across here and with flashing eye and ringing tones said, "This is a real surplus." I compliment him upon that kind of performance. It was an oratorical effort which I think I shall long remember.
If this is a real surplus, then the minister can push water up hill with a sieve. He reversed all the ordinary laws of accountancy. If he still uses the method that he used here I am quite sure that he could upset Newton's law of gravity, and it would take most of us until tomorrow to find out that perhaps he was wrong.
I mention one other thing, a thing which, of course, is not political. I heard on the radio last night that a bridge was to be built between Halifax and Dartmouth, and I heard something about certain marsh lands in Nova Scotia. May I say that anything I say at the moment about the maritimes I want to preface with the statement that is usually found in books: Any reference to any person living

or dead is purely coincidental. Taking my mind back through history, I remember that Lief Ericson discovered Nova Scotia some five or six hundred years ago. I was unable to find in the library any of Lief's memoirs, but I am sure that at that time he had something to say about the marsh lands of Nova Scotia. You will remember that Longfellow wrote a poem about the Acadians; this is the forest primeval, the murmuring pines and the hemlocks, and so on. That was his great poem, "Evangeline." I am sure the only reason Longfellow did not write about the marsh lands was that he died before he could really get anything ready on the marsh lands.
I have been reading Hansard for a considerable number of years and I can assure you, sir, that I have read of these marsh lands being discussed at almost every session of parliament for a great many years. I want you to believe me when I say I am sure that this is purely coincidental and has nothing to do with a certain by-election to be held in Halifax a month or so from now.
I shall mention only two things in connection with the budget. I mention, first, one little thing, and I do so only because I do not think I have received as many communications about any other subject as I have about this little matter of the tax on soft drinks. These letters come from Y.M.C.A.'s, church organizations and others. I have no doubt the drive was organized, but they all seem to feel keenly about this tax, and I think it it not yet too late to have this little bit of tax taken off.
I want to say a word about something which is not in the budget and which, I think, is not in the estimates of the Department of National Health, and I do so because, next to the soft drink matter, I am quite sure that my correspondence with respect to the disease of arthritis has been heavier than on any other subject. If I suggest to you. sir, that I speak feelingly on this subject I hope you will not think I am trying to make a pun; nevertheless it would go both ways.
When we hear, as we did last year from the then minister of health, that 600,000 of our population of 12,000.000 are suffering from this crippling disease, it does seem to me that no time should be wasted to find out, by way of research, why this thing is and, for those who already have the disease, what the cure may be. I realize that members in opposition are constantly suggesting to a government that it should go and spend money here and there. We want the government to do something in the west, as the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie) so well put it and as so many others have put it. We want this and the

The Budget-Mr. A. L. Smith
other fellows want that and, I suppose, if one took a pencil and added up all these proposed expenditures they might reach a staggering sum beyond the capability perhaps of any government to provide. So that it comes down to this: it becomes a matter of judgment for the government itself as to how the money we have can best be spent. Mr. Speaker, I recommend this expenditure on the cause and cure of arthritis, not only to relieve suffering-and it is intense in many cases and there are many sufferers-but because it has a bearing on our economic life, so much so that one could almost call this expenditure a self-liquidating project. The blow it strikes at our economic life through making 600.000 of our people unable to work is an argument on the economic side which might perhaps assist the minister in dealing with the treasury board.
I come now to discuss something of a serious nature, namely the wheat board. I have some figures. I am not asking permission to put them on Hansard by just filing a piece of paper, because I want to read them to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). But first I want to say this. There has been no meeting of the agricultural committee of this house, I think since 1942. At no time in the history of the wheat board since 1936 have the audited accounts of that board ever been placed on the table of the House of Commons. I do not want to be misunderstood. I realize that, by statute and in fact, statements have been filed by the board itself, but no audited statements have ever been filed as such and were never filed before any public body in Canada until a few weeks ago when they were tabled in a senate committee. It is unfortunate that at that committee there was no reporter, so that only one copy of the statement was available. I did get a quick glance at it and, with assistance, extracted from it some figures which I should like to give to the house.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, when the house was good enough to give me three or four minutes at the dinner recess I assured you I intended to deal with only one other subject. I intend to live up to what I then said, but I must make this admission. I have listened with some care to the speeches made in this the greatest of all deliberative bodies in the Dominion of Canada, and I have noticed that, whoever speaks, whether it be on a bridge over a creek in his back yard or on 83166-214J
baby bonuses or on international affairs, we have all become accustomed to the statement that it is the greatest problem facing the Canadian people at this particular time. Perhaps it is in our own bailiwick, but I do not pretend for a moment that what I am about to say ranks in that class at all.
As I indicated then, I intend for the first time in my life-I mean my life in this House of Commons-to use some figures, and these figures concern the wheat board of this country. And lest my hon. and very close and old friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) has any doubt about them, I can only say to him that I do not see any of his cohorts upstairs at the moment. I give him these figures on my responsibility as a member of parliament, and I say that as to their approximate correctness. By approximate correctness, I mean that there will be no deviation of over one per cent, and in any event it will be a very small figure.
This wheat board of ours cost, in 1939, in administrative and overhead expenses, S677.342; in 1942. $842,149; in 1945. $1,592,543. ATou will remember that this is all handling the same crop. I will admit they did take up some minor things like rape seed and a few incidentals which do not very much restrict or enlarge the picture. I may say to you, sir, that the increase there is 134 per cent between 1939 and 1915, and between 1942 and 1945 it is still 89 per cent.
I turn to some individual items and, first, I deal with the question of salaries. Before I go farther, may I assure everyone here that I am not at all presuming, or suggesting from these figures, any dishonesty or anything even savouring of that on the part of those who operate the wheat board. When I have given 3'ou these figures I intend to try to draw an inference which I think is quite fair and which has been consistent with the attitude taken by those of us who are in this parliament. I have extracted a number of items as follows:
Salaries
1939	 $304,566
194,2	 560.262
1945	 1,114,116
I am using 1945 because that is the last crop brought to a finality, as I understand it; in other words. July 31, 1945. The percentage increase between 1939 and 1945 is 266 per cent, and the percentage increase over 1942 is 96 per cent.
Next I take rentals:
Rentals
1939	 $28,721
1942	  38.871
1945	 62,360
That is an increase of 117 per cent to 1945 and 60 per cent over 1942.
The Budget-Mr. A. L. Smith

Here is a small item, but it seems to me to need explaining:
Postage and excise
1939	 $ 4,177
1942	 10,528
1945	 62,970
That is an increase of 1,403 per cent over 1939 and 49 per cent over 1942. The next item is audit fees:
Audit fees
1939	 $15,000
1942	 28.500
1945	 58.000
That is an increase of 286 per cent over 1939 and 103 per cent over 1942.
The next item is one that I do not understand. I am inclined to think it must be on a rental basis or something of that kind. It is called tabulating equipment:
Tabulating
equipment
1939	 $19,347
1942	 39,184
1945	 62,569
That is an increase from 1939 to 1945 of 223 per cent and an increase over 1942 of 59 per cent.
The next item is travel:
Travel
1939	 $13,161
1942	 49,711
1945	 80,985
That represents an increase of 515 per cent over 1939 and 63 per cent over 1942.
I will get rid of all my figures and then I shall have some comment to make upon them. In the period, from 1936, when it was instituted, to 1945, the end of the crop year of 1944, this board lost in its operations $112 million. I wish to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and the house, how that was paid. They took a credit of S24,S(X),000 from their predecessor. They have obtained from the dominion treasury $87,450,000, and that is divided into two amounts. On July 31, 1945, they received 867,469,000, and at that time there was charged up and still to be drawn, $19,9SO,000. So you see how the loss has been made up.
One other item I intend to call to your attention and it is this. The balance sheet of July 31, 1945, shows that they have set up

and I quote exactly: "provision for expenses of issuing final payments", presumably referring to payment out of a residue of $10,377,597, or, in other words, ten per cent of the total, for issuing the final cheques with respect to the balances outstanding on participation certificates to farmers for that year. I said, sir, that I had no intention of charging against the wheat board anything savouring of dishonesty, or anything of that kind. But what I do say is that we in this party

endeavoured to have this matter referred to a committee where there might be an examination of the operation of this board, but we were refused that by the government. May I also say that both the groups to my left, if my memory serves me correctly, voted with the government, although I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) voted with us on that occasion. Remembering that they were handling the wheat crop of western Canada-that'is not exactly all; there were other little duties added-I put this to you, sir, with great respect, that we have never had any explanation. Can you imagine that? We had great difficulty with the Department of Trade and Commerce. It took us at least six weeks in this house to find out what balance they had on their hands for the 1945 crop. But can you imagine it?-in salaries, there was a 266 per cent increase; in rentals, 117 per cent; postage and excise, 1,403 per cent; audit fees, 286 per cent; tabulating equipment-and that is a big word-223 per cent; travel, 515 per cent. All that without any explanation whatever having been given to this House of Commons!
I base my criticism on two grounds. I think even the most rabid-thinking person who sits opposite to me or to my left will agree that I am at least fair in this. My argument is twofold. The first is that if ever accounts required examination by the House of Commons, those accounts of the wheat board, of which I have given you instances, require examination. Perhaps I should have given the over-all figure. It is this. In 1939. total administration and overhead amounted to $677,342; in 1942, 1842,149; in 1945, $1,592,543, or an increase, over-all, of 134 per cent in 1945 and 89 per cent in 1942. As I say, my criticism is twofold. I say that is something which should have had examination by the standing committee on agriculture. Just to mention this increase in astronomical figures is to say enough, it seems to me, almost to force on the mind of any fair-minded person that they are at least worthy of examination.
My second criticism is this. Here we are paying in one year to a firm of auditors, whose name escapes me at the moment, although I think Brown is the first name in the firm-


Mr. PARENT:: Brown, Brown and Brown.


Mr. KNOWLES:: The hon. member over there is colour blind.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Frankly, I know I am getting a little bit deaf, but I do not like these whispering campaigns. The point I make is that this is one place at least, having regard to all our crown companies,

The Budget-Mr. A. L. Smith
where this audit should be in the hands of Mr. Sellar, auditor general of the Dominion of Canada. I have not actually seen the auditor's certificate, but I assume it is that usually meaningless thing which is attached to every audit-where they say, we have seen this and. we have seen that; the papers we asked for have been forthcoming, and so on- which, through sad experience in the courts, they have been driven to do and which, as we all now know, means nothing. But if the auditor general of the Dominion of Canada had these figures which I have now read, does anyone think he would not have had some comment to make with respect to them? I would ask the house to remember that we are continuing this wheat, board now at least to the end 'of the British wheat agreement. The people over here at the moment want to continue it forever. I am quite sure they will change their minds about that as circumstances develop. But this is not a business where you need research people, or where you need great technical experts. It is just a bunch of people buying selling wheat, and that has been going on since the world began. Why this particular government company or crown company-call it what you like-is not under the auditor general and is not under the civil service is something that I at least-and it may be my fault-am completely incapable of understanding. Nor in the discussion on the Wheat Board Act did we receive any explanation from either the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who collaborated so closely, as the house will remember, in answering some of the embarrassing questions which were then asked. We have not yet heard one reason given why that should not be so. I imagine it is a continuous audit. You could not pay $58,000, I am sure, unless it were a continuous audit. I have no doubt there are a bunch of bright boys over there who are learning chartered accountancy, and they were counting cheques and counting dollars and using this $62,569 of tabulating equipment rather well. I imagine they are not one-finger fellows. They can probably play the equipment as a man or woman plays a piano. But when we pay $58,000 a year, sir, for an. audit, and all we get is just what I have told you, then it seems to me that Mr. Watson Sellar should be called in.
I close, sir, by repeating that I am not making any sign of a charge of dishonesty against anybody. But I say that this business has now cost the taxpayer $100 million odd, aside from what it has cost the farmer. This
board made so much money, but their total loss over that area I have given is $100 million odd. What we are doing here is launching into something the end of which we know not.
Let us take two other institutions which are both government-owned and operated. Let us take. Trans-Canada Air Lines and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We all remember the history of the Canadian National Railways, and we all know they have been burrowing into the treasury of this country all these years. Now T.C.A. has started. Last year the C.B.C. lost $409,000, and this year will lose $500,000. There is only one place that money can come from. What we are doing, generally speaking, by these crown companies, these government operated, companies, is just starting another snowball which the taxpayers of this country, through their dollars, will have to provide the energy and strength to push back up the hill whence it came.


Mr. MARCEL BOIVIN (Shefford) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, over the week-end I had the occasion to discuss at length with a group of my constituents who belong to the working class, the different measures now before the house and I was asked to express my opinion on the budget. I answered that I would do so in the very near future and so, with your permission and relying on the indulgence of hon. members, the voice of Shefford will once more be heard in this chamber.
On September 10, 1939, Canada declared, war on Germany and on May 8, 1945, the united nations achieved final victory over their enemies. In just about a quarter of a century, our country had been through a second great war which had lasted six long years.
According to an old saying which I heard not so long ago, when your neighbour's house is on fire you must lend a helpful hand, if you want to protect your own buildings. Once the fire is extinguished, the victims are left to themselves to assess the damage and one often forgets all about his own efforts, although they may eventually have serious consequences.
I must say that on April 29 of this year, while listening to the financial resolutions submitted by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), I was reminded of this saying with the only difference that instead of a fire it was a war. Having lent a helpful hand to our allies, we know what will be the effect of that help on our financial position. Worrying serves no purpose; the consequences of our gesture will long be felt, but it is to be hoped that those whom we have helped will do likewise unto us, should we ever need their assistance.
The Budget-Mr. Boivin

Like hon. members who have spoken before me, I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to offer my most sincere congratulations to the Minister of Finance for the splendid way in which he presented his first budget. One can readily see that upon taking charge of his new department, he did everything he could to reduce considerably wartime expenses and I sincerely hope that he will continue to do so during the present fiscal year, in order to help the Canadian people who sorely need further tax reductions at the present time.
The members of this house were pleased to hear the Minister of Finance render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's when he paid the following tribute to his predecessor:
Behind us are the huge and difficult budgets of the war years-high water marks of achievement set by a minister of finance whose name will long be remembered and honoured by his fellow Canadians.
All hon. members will acclaim that statement and they understand that the present Minister of Justice had a hard and thankless task during the war, as Minister of Finance. In addition to providing a sound financial administration he prevented inflation.
You will agree, Mr. Speaker, that inflation threatened all countries of the world, save Canada, thanks to his wisdom and perspicacity, thanks also to the sagacity and foresight of those whom he selected for the task of protecting the stability of our currency.
There have been many shortages, it is true, owing to the many difficulties encountered by manufacturers and because a great number of them found it impossible to obtain raw materials. But through the department which came under his wing, the wartime prices and trade board, prices were held in constant check. In this way, Canadians saved millions and millions of dollars. I admit readily that he directed his department in a masterly fashion with the wise help of the Prime Minister, who has been leading our fair party for the past 27 years and has proved to the world that Canada could grow as well under a sound administration in times of stress as in years of prosperity.
On behalf of French-speaking members, may I congratulate most sincerely our Englishspeaking colleagues upon their successful efforts in learning our language. You have been listening, these last few days, to the hon. members for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher), Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) and Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson). To the latter, who has experienced great difficulty in learning French, I extend my, congratulations and those of my colleagues. The hon. member for Calgary West should try to imitate his col-

leagues instead of passing remarks. Thereby he wrould help his own people and contribute to a greater extent to the unity of Canada.
As I have already stated in this house, I belonged to the working class until June 11, 1945. Therefore, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the budget speech aroused my interest. For this reason I should like to refer to it and to call the attention of the minister of finance to certain statements, in order to assist the workingman and the small wage-earner. The minister said:
Our available manpower is almost fully employed.
It is true that there is no scarcity of manpower, but even with the lifting of wage controls and the granting of small wage increases, the low wage-earner is still experiencing financial difficulties.
For instance, let us take the case of a labourer who, in 1940, was receiving $18 per week. He was then paying 25 cents for two pounds of steak, $20 for a suit of clothes, $4 for a pair of shoes, $2 for a hat and proportionate prices for other items. Now let us suppose that in recognition of his devotion to duty and his hard work, his employer has given him an increase of $16 a week-if so he is more fortunate than most of his fellow workers-and he is now receiving $34 per week. However, he must now pay 50 cents per pound for steak-and not of the best quality at that- $60 to $65 for a suit-more in many cases- S10 for shoes and higher prices for all other items. In order to bear out those statements, I got in touch with a dealer in men's furnishings of Granby who told me that prices of goods have increased generally by 20 per cent from 1940 to 1946 and in some eases by 60 per cent since the lifting of controls. Generally the quality is much lower.
It must be admitted that wages have not gone up at the same rate as the cost of living. I trust a solution may be found and I even wonder if decontrol has not been too hasty.
Mr. Speaker, if I remember rightly, at the time of the last budget I requested exemptions of $1,200 for single persons and $2,000 for married persons. Now, about personal income tax, in going over the new schedule, I recalled the Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley's statement to the effect that:
The income tax is the fairest and best tax on which to rely for the hulk of our revenue. More than any other, it takes ability to pay properly into account and this applies as well in the lower brackets as in the higher.
I have often given thought to those words and while we have been told that last year's exemptions of $750 and $1,500 were high enough to relieve more than 50 per cent of

The Budget-Mr. Boivin
Canadian wage-earners from all income tax,
I feel it was not properly taken into account. For instance let us go into the financial situation of a single man earning $100 a month, or $1,200 a year.
As a first item, his room rent is now $6 a week, or $312 a year. His meals, at a minimum of 50 cents, cost him $1.50 a day, $10.50 a week or $546 a year. That is item No. 2. Let us allow him, say, $2.50 weekly for cigarettes and pocket money and we have a third item of $130 a year. Now allow the same taxpayer $60 for a single suit of clothes during the year, $50 for an overcoat, $5 for a hat, $10 for a pair of shoes, a minimum of $25 for handkerchiefs, socks, shirts, ties and underwear and $50 for working clothes. Allowing only a minimum in each case, item No. 4 amounts to $200 a year. Under item No. 5, we have medical treatment for an amount of at least $50. This does not take into account any time lost nor casual expenses and yet it provides only a bare existence and not by any means a decent standard of living.
But I was forgetting, Mr. Speaker, that the same individual is subject to income tax. Looking at the table given by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech, I find that on an income of $11200 a year he must pay by cheque to the order of the Receiver General of Canada, the sum of $61 representing item No. 6. If we add up those several amounts, we get a total of $1,299, which means a deficit of $99.
Now let us take as an example, the married man with two dependent children and a salary of $2,000 a year. There we have:
Minimum rent, $30 a month, $360 a year.
Electricity, $4.50 a month, $54 a year.
Recreation for the family, $4 a week, $208 a year.
Clothing, for himself, $200 per annum.
Clothing, for his wife, $100 per annum.
Clothing, for his children, $150 per annum.
Food, $3 a day, minimum $1,095 per annum.
Medical expenses, $100 per annum.
Life insurance, householder, ignoring the rest of the family, $84 per annum.
Fire insurance, $8 per annum.
Income tax, $36 per annum.
Omitting household and miscellaneous expenditures, we have a total of $2,395 per annum.
To be generous, let us deduct family allowances of $7 and $8 a month, or $15 a month, $180 per annum.
The total becomes $2,215, representing a deficit of $215.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this married man earning $2,000, even after receiving family allowances worth $180, still shows a deficit of $215 and runs into debt.
When his children are a little older, he will find some excuse, in spite of compulsory education, to keep them out of school so that they may help him, not to clear himself from debt, but to balance his budget.
From the example which I have submitted today, it will be realized, I trust, that expenses must be further reduced and that the worker must be granted enough of an exemption to meet his obligations, for it must not be forgotten that if he is financially successful the country benefits by it.
Note that the above-mentioned tables are based on $1,200 and $2,000 exemptions. How would the figures compare if I had compiled this information according to the $750 and $1,500 exemptions in effect in 1946?
I was not in the least surprised to read in the newspapers that on March 31, 1946, 328,288 Canadians had not yet paid their income tax. I fear that, under present conditions, the number will increase. For that reason, I entirely agree with what the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand) said in this house on May 12 last, about income tax and the payment of interest by taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, although I have proven that, in my opinion, the present exemption is too low, I admit that this budget is very interesting. I had looked forward to an increase in exemptions but the government decided instead to decrease the income tax 29 per cent on the average. The reduction is as high as 54 per cent in the case of those in the lower income brackets and thus, it will benefit the working class.
I have carefully noted what the minister said on April 29 last. I quote:
Some increases in inventories are occurring out apparently not on a large scale, presumably oecause the pressure of demand in most cases is so excessive that neither producers nor dealers can keep ahead of it.
Later on, he said:
. . . most of our imports have had to come from the United States.
In that connection I must say that at the present time commercial travellers are selling large quantities of American goods to our stores at a much higher price; such a condition is disadvantageous to the Canadian people who will have to pay more for the goods, but it is also unfavourable to our own industry which will find the market overstocked when it is in a position to produce at full capacity.
The Budget-Mr. Boivin

Speaking of the working class, the Minister of Finance mentioned dwellings and said there was still an acute shortage in spite of all the efforts to alleviate it.
There is no room for doubt in my mind, after listening on January 7 to the statement of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) to the effect that despite shortages of materials, 59,846 housing units had been built in 1946 and that construction of 80,000 units was contemplated in 1947.
I am very anxious to know the cost of houses which have been built with a great deal of difficulty without the help of a government subsidiary. I know very well that in 1946 nobody could obtain nails anywhere except on the great market which became popular with many people and which is still called the black market. Gyproc could be had on the same market, for a small consideration. To secure any plumbing material, one had to oil somebody's palm, even when oil was scarce.
On July 11, 1946, page 3342 of Hansard, I dealt with a few points in connection with building. I now wish to add that construction of theatres, garages, restaurants, summer cottages, and all buildings detrimental to the providing of materials required for private homes should be suspended for a certain period of time.
Allow me to quote from an article published in La Voix de I'Est, Granby's daily neswaper, on February 21, 1947 under the heading "Significant Figures on the Need of Houses for Workers". This report told of a survey launched in 25 urban centres by a workers' league. It showed that only 5-9 per cent of the workers owned their homes in my province.
Those statistics also reveal overcrowding; there are an average of 6-76 persons per housing unit whereas each unit contains only 4-67 rooms. In 60-4 homes there is no dining room, and in 34-6 there is no living room. In 12-4 per cent of cases, people sleep in the kitchen; in 23-8 per cent in the dining room and in 41-4 per cent in the living room. This survey shows that steps should be taken to remedy the situation.
The minister has referred in the budget speech to the high level of our production and income, owing to a large extent to our export trade. It is true that Canada exports more goods than she consumes and that exports are necessary. The minister insisted on the fact that the export credit programme was essentially a transitional measure.
He also made a statement which the people of Canada had been expecting for a long time when he added that the government did

not contemplate a continuing, large-scale programme of government lending to finance our exports to other countries.
It is true that we have done our full share to help our allies when they were in danger, and I note with pleasure, from the speech of the minister, that we are returning to a business basis and I trust that notwithstanding the increased prices we shall not be called upon to make further extended loans to England or to any other country, which would be detrimental to our own interests.
May I now broach another topic of keen interest to my own constituents, agriculture, which, in so far as it applies to other parts of Canada, takes up a large share of the debates in this house. There has been a call for increased production through proper use of abundant farm machinery and improved methods of cultivation, undoubtedly with a view to boost our foreign markets. It should be noted, however, that our export policy is such as to make it impossible for a great many of our farmers to keep producing at the increased rate they have been doing, at the wise suggestion of experts. Box cars have all been requisitioned for the transport of goods, for the shipment of grain for overseas so that what little grain is shipped to eastern Canada is often sold milled and sacked, at consequently higher prices though of lower quality, while slow deliveries often puts farmers in a difficult position. I hope we may look forward to improvement in this respect and that the present handicaps to the Quebec farmers will be removed with the help of the departments concerned.
In closing, I should like to extend my deepest congratulations to the hon. Minister of Finance for setting the course of his financial policy for the general purpose of avoiding inflation as far as practicable and thus assuring Canada of a farm and industrial production that will make ours one of the world's least unfortunate if not most prosperous of nations.


Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) surely created a great impression at the time it was made. However, there is a but. The following analysis of it in this house and outside is a sure indication that the proposed budget does not at all meet the expectations of the average taxpayer, nor his wishes.
Had the minister considered the numerous representations submitted to us in the last months, he surely would have realized, for one thing, that, in connection with the income tax, the small taxpayer expected an increase in the exemption to at least $2,500 for married

The Budget-Mr. Dorion
men and SI ,500 for single persons. It has already been amply proved that the $1,500 exemption granted the married man is absolutely inadequate and that the present rates of taxation applying to incomes of family men, assume a character that is detrimental to families and even anti-social. However, there is another very serious disadvantage arising from the deduction at the source; I do not mean to criticize the system itself, for I consider it commendable. I claim that were we to lighten the burden of taxation for those in the lower income brackets, we would, at the same time, remove, for thousands of taxpayers, the inconveniences resulting from the administration of this system.
We all know that, at the present time, the employer has to deduct part of his employee's salary, on the assumption that his total income will be based on the wages paid to him. If the job is temporary or intermittent, as is often the case, the wage-earner may subsequently be unemployed for a certain period, or he may have to be satisfied with a lower salary, so that, at the end of the year, when everything is reckoned, he would find out that his total income for the twelve months does not reach the amount of the exemption he is entitled to. Then he will have to get busy and write the proper authorities to claim the amount deducted from his salary and it will be many months, sometimes a year, before he recovers those deductions.
A very large proportion of wage-earners have the tax deducted at the source and are in the position I have outlined; hence, by raising the exemptions, we would avoid the inconvenience and trouble incidental to deductions at the source for thousands of taxpayers, while at the same time, making a social contribution.
If the government must, on the one hand, take the required means to collect needed revenue, it should, on the other hand, try to spare its citizens troublesome practices that are hardly profitable but prompt those upon whom they are inflicted to criticize and protest. often with full justification.
There is no doubt that it has cost the government a great deal to collect these insignificant sums deducted at the source, and it is obvious that the checking required when claims are submitted and the mailing of refunds have put the treasury to considerable expense.
How often have we not heard complaints from dissatisfied workers who, after a few months employment, find that the few dollars so essential to them and their families are deducted from their pay. They know that they can claim a refund, but they are also
fully aware that it will not be forthcoming for many a month. Then, they voice their criticism, grumble against the state and society and claim that they are unfairly treated: as a result, they become fertile soil for the development of subversive ideas.
I honestly believe that the government should have increased the non-taxable portion of income and, in order to maintain its returns at the same level, it should have lowered the exemption granted taxpayers in the upper brackets.
Other taxes should also have been eliminated. I refer to those which are generally known as nuisance taxes. The revenue which they provide could easily be derived from other sources and 'their repeal would bring the people a measure of comfort far outweighing the receipts accruing from said taxes.
In wartime, the people willingly submitted to these taxes because they were ready to make all sorts of sacrifice, but now that the war has been over for two years, they are entitled to some slight relief. Moreover, the circumstances under which these taxes were introduced must not be forgotten. Not only was it necessary to fill the treasury coffers with the funds required for the pursuit of our war effort, but the idea was to curtail, as far as possible, the demad for the goods thus taxed. Due to wartime needs, it became imperative to apply strict restrictions on the consumption of all goods, save those of an essential nature.
Although the purchasing power was very high, the government could more easily convince the people that they should make use of that power to purchase war savings certificates and war bonds; today, however, circumstances are entirely different. The reasons which motivated that kind of taxes no longer exist and the government should help the Canadian people to return as quickly as possible to a normal life and enable consumers to obtain more easily the goods of which they were partially or totally deprived during the war.
This debate on the budget gives us the best opportunity of stating and submitting to the government, and to the population as a whole, the needs and representations of our fellow-citizens.
I take this opportunity to make a few remarks on Canada's internal policy and also to indicate my constituents' views on our external policy.


Mr. ARSENAULT:: May I ask the hon. member a question before he deals with our external policy? Will he vote for or against the budget?
334S
The Budget-Mr. Donon


Frédéric Dorion: The hon. member will no
doubt see for himself when I have finished my speech.


An hon. MEMBER:: I am not so sure about that.


Frédéric Dorion: As far as internal policy is concerned, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the question of foremost interest to the Canadian taxpayers is the matter of dominion-provincial relations. Judging from the speeches made during this debate, I would say that that question was the subject of a great many of them. I do not hesitate to say that I was particularly interested in the speech made yesterday afternoon by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault). The hon. member for Bonaventure who, on that occasion, supported centralization of power-and I congratulate him upon his courage-employed two arguments. First, he contends that the dominion government should have greater power in the fields of direct and indirect taxes, in order to prevent the depression which we may have to face two or three years hence. He summed up his thought in one sentence, which I find on page 3310 of Hansard. Here is what he said: -in making such offers to the provinces, the dominion government is seeking to avoid the next depression, which would be the fifteenth.
The hon. member for Bonaventure spoke to us about the first fourteen depressions the world has known during the past hundred and fifty years. He submitted, as I have shown by quoting his own words, that in order to prevent the next depression, the central government should be granted extended powers.
I well remember the last depression, Mr. Speaker. The others occurred before my tim7, and I did not witness them. I recall, however, that in 1929 and during the following years, many countries experienced a depression as severe as that which bore down on Canada and perhaps more so. Yet they did not have to contend with provincial legislatures. Take England, for instance. Obviously England did not have to cooperate with provincial governments. France was ruled by one central government. Belgium, Holland and many other countries where there existed no provincial governments were hit by the depression as severely as Canada and suffered even more bitterly.
Obviously it is very easy to make a statement, but arguments are needed to support such a stand. Personally, I know that during the twenty-seven years that I have been a practising lawyer, had I asserted, whenever I took up a case in court : "Your Honour, my client is right", that would not have been

sufficient for me to win my case. Such a statement must be based on facts which can support it. In many instances, as I have just shown, many countries that had but a central government, were unable to prevent depressions; that is clear and obvious.
In one European country, the depression was less severe than in others. Indeed, I remember that in 1933, when Hitler came to power in Germany7 and began to prepare his country7 for the terrible and devastating war from which the world has just emerged, the depression was much less acute there than elsewhere; note, however, the kind of economic and political system that country submitted to during the years which were the forerunners of the dreadful catastrophe. Every-one knows that Hitler enslaved his people and shot his political opponents. If that is the type of economic and political system the hon. member advocates in order to prevent depressions, I will have none of it and much prefer democratic systems like our own, even though that may mean putting up with the drawbacks of depressions -which, nevertheless, could easily be avoided if we took the proper means.
The second argument which the hon. member for Bonaventure put forth in support of his stand, was drawn from three privy council decisions and from the constitution; he mentioned sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act. Obviously, when one refers to legislation which at first sight appears more or less clear, its text should be carefully read and considered in order to be well understood. Section 91 of the British North America Act begins with the following sentence:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces.
Section 92 gives a list of the exclusive powers of provincial legislatures. I quote the following excerpt:
In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say:
Direct taxation within the province, in order to the raising of a revenue for provincial purposes.
I stress the following words "for provincial purposes". It is true that paragraph 3 of section 91 authorizes the Dominion Government to levy indirect taxes as well as direct taxes and I shall not argue that point. However, it seems to me that the Dominion Government is granted the power to levy direct taxes sub-

The Budget-Mr. Dorion
ject to the provisions of section 92. It is evident that those two sections should be read together. We cannot contend for one moment that the Dominion Government alone should have the power to levy direct taxes and deprive the provincial governments of the same right. It is evident that, in principle, both governments have the right to levy direct taxes.
However, there is a difference between having a right and exercising it. If my good friends will listen to me for a moment, they will see that in examining legislation such as this, it is easy to draw clear and precise conclusions but one must not confuse the issues. I repeat that it evidently follows that the Dominion Government cannot levy taxes without taking into account paragraph 2 of section 92; in other words, the provincial legislatures will first have the right to levy direct taxes needed for provincial purposes, and that necessarily follows from section 91.
Again, section 91 authorizes the Dominion Government to levy direct taxes, provided it takes into account the provisions of section 92. When a province must find revenue for provincial purposes, section 92 grants power to the provincial legislature to levy direct taxes to satisfy provincial needs. Once the province has availed itself of the right to levy taxes for provincial purposes, then and only then may the Dominion Government levy direct taxes for federal and not for provincial purposes.


Bona Arsenault: May I ask the hon. member a question?
. Mr. DORION: Yes.


Bona Arsenault: I want an answer
immediately. I refer to the case of Silver Brothers vs. the Attorney General of the province of Quebec and the Attorney General of Canada, which dates back to 1942, regarding bankruptcy, mentioned in the Appeal Cases, page 189. Does the hon. member not admit that in this case the judicial committee of the privy council granted to the Canadian Parliament, that is the Dominion Government, priority over the provinces in the field of direct taxation?


Frédéric Dorion: I have here the "Dominion Law Reports" which contain precisely the case of Silver Brothers which he quoted yesterday. I shall come to that later.


Bona Arsenault: I would like an answer.


Frédéric Dorion: You will get it, perhaps sooner than you wish.


Bona Arsenault: I gave my answer yesterday.


Frédéric Dorion: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if sections 91 and 92 are to be reconciled, if they have any meaning at all-for I base my contention on the law-if, as I am told, those direct taxes are to be set to rights, we must come to a logical and reasonable conclusion, based on the words I have just quoted and not on imagination. This only possible conclusion I have just expressed.
The hon. member for Bonaventure referred a moment ago to the three decisions given by the privy council which he quoted yesterday in support of his argument. Last night I took the trouble of reading those three decisions in the "Dominion Law Reports". Let us consider first the case of Forbes vs. The Attorney-General of Manitoba, which is contained in volume I of the "Dominion Law Reports" for 1937. Here is the judgment:
(Text):
The legislative authority of the provinces under section 92, (2) of the British North America Act, with respect to "direct taxation within the province," embraces the power to levy taxes upon residents of the province in respect of their incomes even though a resident be an employee or servant or officer of the dominion government, and the exercise of such power by the province is no encroachment upon the exclusive powers of the dominion parliament, to fix "the salaries and allowances of civil and other officers of the government of Canada." under section 91	(8) of the British North
America Act; nor is it ultra vires of the provincial legislature to provide that if a wage-earner within the province receives his wages from an employer outside the province, without deduction of tax, the wage-earner shall himself pay the tax whether the outside employer ibe the dominion government or anyone else.
(Translation):
It appears from this decision, Mr. Speaker, that provincial legislatures have the power to impose a tax on wages in addition to the tax levied by the dominion government. This is the case of Forbes vs. The Attorney General of Manitoba.


Bona Arsenault: Would the hon. member read the last paragraph of this judgment, after the word "lastly"?


Frédéric Dorion: The last paragraph of the case I have been quoting?


Bona Arsenault: The case of Forbes vs. The Attorney General of Manitoba?


Frédéric Dorion: My hon. friend may see for himself. I shall have the book sent to him.


Bona Arsenault: Read after the word "lastly".


Frédéric Dorion: I quote this decision of the privy council from the "Dominion Law Reports". I do not think that these law reports can be questioned.
The Budget-Mr. Dorion

As regards the case of Silver Brothers vs. The Attorney General of Quebec and the Attorney General of Canada, here is the judgment passed by the privy council:
The hon. member will find that decision in volume II. 1932, of the "Dominion Law Reports", page 673, which states:
(Text):
It was competent for the dominion parliament to enact section 17 of the Special War Revenue Act, 1915 (Can.), chapter 8, as amended by 1922, chapter 47, which provided that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Bank Act and the Bankruptcy Act or any other statute or law, the liability to the crown for excise taxes should be the first charge on assets in priority to the claims of the crown in the right of a province, such legislation falling within the fourth proposition enunciated in re Fisheries Act, 1914.
But that provision must be read in conjunction with section 16 of the Interpretation Act of Canada, enacting that "no provision or enactment in any act shall affect in any manner whatsoever the rights of His Majesty ... unless^ it is expressly stated therein that His Majesty shall be bound thereby;" and the effect-
(Translation):
Here I would ask the hon. member for Bonaventure to pay careful attention to the following:
(Text):
-and the effect of reading them in conjunction is to add to section 17 the proviso that the priority so conferred shall not operate against any right in the crown in a province where such right would be diminished by the priority being asserted against it, and, as there existed in the province of Quebec legislation giving priority for all sums due to the crown for certain taxes, therefore the province of Quebec, which had filed a claim in bankruptcy for such taxes, was entitled for taxes therefor over a claim by the dominion for taxes under section 17;
(Translation):
Now, that judgment of the privy council shows that provincial taxes have priority over dominion taxes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Mr. COURNOYER:: Will the hon. member permit a question? I believe it was in connection with the execution of the judgment.


Frédéric Dorion: No, it deals with the whole :ase.


Gérard Cournoyer: It was a bankruptcy case.


Frédéric Dorion: Take this document to the members opposite so that they may read it. The last judgment quoted by the hon. member for Bonaventure is the judgment in the case of Caron vs. The King, which is found in volume IV, 1924, of the "Dominion Law Reports", page 105. As I stated at the begin-
ning of my remarks, it was ruled in that case that the dominion government has the right to levy direct taxes; however, something else was decided in the same judgment. Reference is made to the former Parson case and I read at page 108 of that report:
(Text):
Their lordships adhere to that view and hold that, as regards direct taxation within the province to raise revenue for provincial purposes, that subject falls wholly within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures.
(Translation):
Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the issue raised by these proposals of the federal government? The dominion claims the right to raise money within the provinces by means of direct taxation and then to hand out certain amounts to the same provinces such as, for example, a sum of fifty and some odd millions of dollars to the province of Quebec. What do you expect the provincial government to do with that money if not to spend it for provincial purposes?


Charles Eugène Parent: Let out contracts for road' construction.


Frédéric Dorion: That is the kind of intelligent interruptions we hear too often in this house.
As I said, if the federal government is to' hand out money to the provinces, that money will of course serve provincial purposes. The governments of the provinces have no other use for it. Now, I submit that if the central government raises, through direct taxation, sums of money that are subsequently affected to provincial purposes, its action is contrary to the constitution, to the law and to the judgment of the privy council which I have just quoted. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it seems clear that the supporters of centralization who base their argument solely on the British North America Act and the decisions of the-privy council which I have quoted, must come to the conclusions which I have just drawn.
That is probably why the hon. members-who spoke on the matter in this debate struck a different note and, for the most part, made it a question of partisanship, of personalities.


Mr. LANGLOIS:: It is your very own policy.


Frédéric Dorion: Turning, for instance, to
the speech of the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Tremblay), on page 2937 of Hansard,.

The Budget-Mr. Dorion
I single out a sentence there that sums up the whole argument of his speech. I quote:
Just listen to Mr. Duplessis, and then to Mr. Drew; they both talk the same language.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: They do.
Mr. DORION;
. . . They have the same epidermis, the same skin. They make the same sounds. They're twins, nay, Siamese twins, as my hon. friend has just pointed out.
The friend referred to by the hon. member for Dorchester was the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard) who a few minutes earlier had stated precisely that Messrs. Drew and Duplessis are Siamese twins. Now the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville should possibly have recalled a certain recent speech of his own at St. Hyacinthe. In La Presse of Tuesday, May 13, 1947, I find the report of a meeting held at St. Hyacinthe where the principal speaker was the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville. The hon. member is quoted as follows:
A good part of the strikes affecting the country of late may ibe laid at the door of the C.C.F.
Ottawa also has a few independents, that is to say camouflaged Tories.
Some hon. MEMBERS; Hear, hear.


Frédéric Dorion: I am glad the hon. members opposite are pounding their desks. It proves that the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville is not the only one who knows something of camouflage.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: The whole province of Quebec has learned about it, through you people.


Frédéric Dorion: At the time of that election, we did see, Mr. Speaker, what camouflage could be in the province of Quebec. There w'ere all kinds of Liberal candidates: Independent Liberals, anti-conscription Liberals, antiwar Liberals, official Liberals, orthodox Liberals and even candidates who were not at all Liberals.


Mr. GAGNON:: And how many more!


Frédéric Dorion: But the day after the election, all those various categories of Liberals had joined into a single, united, well-disciplined Liberal front.


An hon. MEMBER:: How many Independents did you have in the last election?


Frédéric Dorion: But then, on this matter of camouflaged Tories, I would much rather abide by the judgment of the voters of the constituency of Charlevoix-Saguenay than
that my hon. friends opposite who, in June of 1945, set up an organization that exhausted all possible means to bring about my defeat, as was admitted by the Liberal organizer himself. It was then that, throughout the constituency, Liberals kept calling me "camouflaged Tory." It was their sole argument anyway. Well sir, the Liberals of Charlevoix-Saguenay-and I call them that because for the previous twenty-five years they had been regularly returning a Liberal member to the house of Commons, each time with majorities of 8,000 to 10,000-those good, and shrewd Charlevoix-Saguenay Liberals were quicker than my hon. friends opposite to understand what to think of my opponents when they talked of a "camouflaged Tory", and elected me with a 4.000 vote majority.
Mr. Speaker. Quebec Liberals labour under the peculiar delusion that anyone who is not a Liberal must perforce be a Tory. They cannot conceive of anyone capable of independent thought, of acting on his own, with the courage to have personal ideas and truly to further the interests of his constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I now resume my quotation from the report in question:
. . . that is to say "camouflaged Tories who, for all their official denials are none the less supporters of Mr. Bracken's Conservative party and opponents of the Liberal party, as was forecast in the 1945 elections.	_
Those independents are of the same ilk as the members of l'Union Rationale, a party begot of imposture which carries on merely through imposture.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frédéric Dorion: Mr. Speaker, though I have long been in politics I don't think anyone could ever accuse me of being dirty. My politics have always been clean and I mean to keep them so. However, if my hon. friends wish to hurl that kind of insults, I want them to know that I am also willing to lower myself to using the same weapons.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: You started in 1935.


Frédéric Dorion: And I have in my possession certain files that might be very useful to me.


Charles Eugène Parent: He is adept in blackmail only.


Frédéric Dorion: As I said, Mr. Speaker, the hon. members who discussed that question of dominion-provincial relations have turned the question to one of short-sighted petty politics and, did you wish to be convinced of that fact, you would have only to read their speeches, particularly that of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) reported on pages 3028 and 3029 of Hansard. Also the utterances of the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Hartt). of which I quote the following excerpt from
The Budget-Mr. Dorian

page 3136. He said that, in 1942, the provincial legislature had handed over to the central power the right to collect indirect taxes in the province of Quebec and:
It was at that time that the federal government called upon the provinces to relinquish certain fields, to rent them out, to give a chance to the federal government to carry on the war. The Liberal government at that time in power in Quebec said, "Take it; we will cooperate; we want to do all we can." What did Mr. Duplessis, who was a member of the legislature at that time, say? He was in opposition at that time. Had hon. members been there they would have heard Mr. Duplessis' speech. They would have heard him say that we were giving away our autonomy. It has nothing to do with autonomy.
It is always the same: a personal struggle against two premiers.


Mr. HARTT:: That is the plain truth.


Frédéric Dorion: And now, they want these people to beg the federal government to be kind enough to grant them permission to cooperate with them? Mr. Speaker, I claim that the hon. members now on the other side of the house are reducing the question to a matter of petty politics and thereby serve very badly not only the province of Quebec, but the whole of Canada and they are contributing to preclude a possible agreement between the federal and provincial governments.
And while I am speaking about the hon. member for Cartier, I wish to take him to task for a statement contained in his speech and which appears on page 3134 of Hansard. I quote:
f want to say with all reverence and respect that the sisters have a right to vote. Legally they had the right to vote and they received dispensation. When they went to register they allowed their pictures to be taken. There is nothing shameful about that; they were within their rights. But on election day you could not take a picture of any one of the sisters. Rumour had it that thirty costumes were rented and that other ladies were dressed in those nuns' costumes. Tliat is why the umbrellas appeared. Un their fingers there were diamond rings, and nuns have no diamond rings. They wore toeless shoes, and nuns do not wear toeless shoes.
Mr. Speaker, had such a statement not applied to an institution that is both respected and honoured in the province of Quebec, I would not have referred to it.


Maurice Hartt: Look at what is written. I said, "Other ladies were dressed in those nuns' costumes". There is no question of the nuns.


Frédéric Dorion: However, if the hon. member for Cartier is sincere-


James Horace King: Order! I must remind hon. members that the first duty of the Speaker is to uphold the dignity of the house

and I ask everyone to help the Speaker in keeping order and decorum. Another duty of the Speaker is to protect the freedom of speech. I believe that everyone should feel in duty bound not to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor, without his consent and without rising from his seat.


Frédéric Dorion: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Cartier was serious in making that statement may I ask him how in this poll, where there were a returning officer chosen by himself I am sure, a clerk also of his choice and at least five or six representatives of candidates-since there were five candidates at that election-how such a group of people allowed persons under such disguise to cast their votes. If his allegations were true, an inquiry should be held immediately and the returning officer as well as the clerk responsible for such shocking irregularities-that is, letting people vote who had no right to do so -should be arrested.


Maurice Hartt: The union nationale was also represented.


Frédéric Dorion: Mr. Speaker, I said a while ago that I wished to make a few brief remarks regarding the sentiments of my constituents on the matter of Canada's foreign policy. They will conclude my speech.
In this connection, I believe our first duty is to decide as soon as possible to belong to the pan-American Union. We are expected there, our participation is anxiously awaited. There is not the least doubt that belonging to that union would be in the best interests of our country. Why delay a step that becomes more and more essential? It is probable that our participation in the panAmerican Union would give more weight to our views in the international councils.


Mr. LALONDE:: Would the hon. member allow me a question? Is not membership in "the pan-American Union reserved to republics alone? I am not sure, that is why I ask.


Frédéric Dorion: In answer I would say that there is a place for Canada in that body, that the seat reserved for our country is empty and that we have had numberless invitations to join the union.


Maurice Lalonde: Republics only are
eligible?


Mr. COTE (Matapedia-Matane):: Will the hon. member allow a question?


Frédéric Dorion: I am sorry. My time is running out fast, Mr. Speaker, and I will not allow questions.

The Budget-Mr. Dorion


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You will be given the necessary time.


Frédéric Dorion: Are the ties binding us to England so powerful and so close as to prevent us from dealing on a basis of equality with other American nations? No matter how energetically we rely on the Statute of Westminster to claim that we have become an independent nation, as long as the facts remain as they are at present; as long as, while making grandiloquent statements, we act as colonials, so long will our share in international affairs keep us away from the discussions of peace settlements.
There is another courageous step that the government should take as soon as possible: that would be to name an ambassador to the Vatican. I do not wish to boast too much about it, but I am proud of having been the first member of this house to advocate representation at the Vatican.
In passing, may I say this to the Right Hon. the Minister of External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent): newspaper comments which appeared the day after I discussed this matter in 1944 show that I did not shock the country. On the contrary, comments were entirely objective and I am more and more convinced that the time has come to take this step.
Canada, with a diplomatic corps as distinguished as it is numerous, does not officially recognize the Holy See.
During the past few years, more particularly, the Holy Father has acquired singular prestige in the eyes of individuals and nations. A glance at the list of people to whom he has granted an audience is all the evidence needed.
Without going into further detail, allow me to recall a curious episode of contemporary history; I refer to the fact that the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See confined itself within the Vatican from 1940 to 1946.
Towards the end of May 1940, Ciano informed the Nuncio that in case of war, the diplomats accredited to the Holy See would not be allowed to remain in office unless they settled in the Vatican City. Where and how was a diplomatic corps to be accommodated in that tiny state which entirely lacked hotels, boarding houses, schools, private dwellings, theatres, hospitals, cafes and cemeteries?
All the states concerned claimed it their right and proclaimed it their duty to have their diplomatic agents accredited to the Holy Father remain in office during the dreadful crisis of war; they therefore asked the secretary of state to provide the necessary accomodation for them in the Vatican City.
With amazing speed, the Vatican engineers effected the required changes.
France, Poland, Belgium and Great Britain were the first four states to request Vatican hospitality. Next came the South American republics:	Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba,
Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela. In 1943, China established diplomatic relations with the Holy See and Dr. Cheou Ivand Sie then joined his allied colleagues.
During the war, forty states kept their representatives to the Holy See in office.
All these diplomats did not confine themselves to the Vatican just for the fun of it, for entertainment was scarce; neither did devotional reasons keep them there, for many of them-the busiest-were not even Roman Catholics. Why were all these states so anxious to remain in direct contact with the Pope?
England, ignoring ancient prejudices when empire interests are at stake, devoted herself to the common cause. The presence of a British legation at the Vatican has not modified in the slightest degree the position of the established and non-conformist churches in England.


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.


Frédéric Dorion: I shall be through in two minutes.


Mr. LACOMBE:: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Let him speak!


Frédéric Dorion: A little later, the United States asked that Myron T. Taylor, president Roosevelt's personal representative accredited to the Holy See, also be admitted to the Vatican City.
Thus, among the important nations of the world, only four are not represented at the Holy See, namely, the Soviet Union. Mexico, Turkey and Canada. We are indeed in strange company.
Had normal relations been maintained between Canada and the Holy See, a great deal of misunderstanding could have been prevented among Canadians themselves.
I hope that the government will take into consideration the numerous representations from all parts of the country and that the question of a representative to the Holy See will shortly be settled once and for all.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words about another aspect of our external policy.


James Horace King: Order. I believe that the house has granted sufficient extra time to the hon. member to allow him to conclude his remarks.
The Budget-Mr. Ferguson


Frédéric Dorion: Very well, Mr. Speaker.
(Text):


Mr. J. H. FERGUSON (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, as a descendant of British ancestors who over 100 years ago fought in the defence of Canada; as one whose ancestors of English, Irish and Scottish stock associated with the French Canadians to settle this country and make it possible for us to live here in peace, harmony and progress under a democratic form of government, I would be remiss if I did not take a few moments to say something in reply to the hon. member of the C.C.F. party from Maple Creek (Mr. McCuaig), who today put his arms around the communist government of Russia, asked that Canada set an example to that country, extolled its great virtues, and compared it with this great country of ours.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And quoted the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church).


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I say the examples we set 100 years ago are now being followed by that communist country, which is only in its infancy as compared with the great Dominion of Canada. But I considered it my duty simply to remind hon. members of the C.C.F. that it is most obnoxious to the house to compare the Dominion of Canada with a communist controlled government in a country such as Russia is today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a complete distortion of the hon. member's speech.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The hon. member's
speech is no more distorted than some of the mentalities which try to interpret my remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That would be impossible.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The house has heard and remembers only too well the attempt of the Minister of Finance to hearten the people of Canada with the budget speech which has had so many holes shot in it that it now looks like the sieve the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) spoke about today. The minister's eloquence only coated the speech with a very fine tissue, but nothing capable of withstanding the well directed, accurate and justifiable shots that so easily punctured this government's budget to such an extent that further criticism is now unnecessary. The great majority of the people of Ganada see quite clearly through the hoax that the Liberal government have endeavoured to foist on the Canadian people who sorely need, and are entitled to, at least some semblance of capable management and guidance of their public affairs.

I propose to bring out reasons that suggest more reasonable treatment for the people of Canada than they have been enjoying under a government that has mishandled the affairs of this country. W'e see on all sides government doubt, fear, contradiction, faltering in face of rising prices and possible acute chaos of the entire business of Canada. There is little promise for the wage-earners of this country if the government stubbornly persists in its present course. Too many people are complacent about the sinister shadows that hang over so much of the once civilized world. It can happen here. Canada lies squarely in the stream of history. It can guide that stream or be swept away by it. We can, and we should, be able to help in a momentous way to avert the decline of western civilization and a reversion to the dark ages. World conditions of today were not unexpected. Pestilence, suffering, famine, hardship and the complete economic and political dislocation of the world are a consequence of the devastating war through which the world has passed.
Germany is divided and broken, slowly starving. They are festering in ruin as a result of the poison of fascism and, worst of all, the virus of communism.
Thousands of Dutch wish to emigrate from broken Europe. Belgium suffers from wounds of ancient animosities. France, politically bankrupt, stands, yes, but feeble, with the vampire communism feasting on the blood of the weakened bodies of her labour unions, army and government. Communism is strong in Italy, and all eastern Europe lies behind the iron curtain. Only Greece, whom the Right Hon. Winston Churchill referred to as "small in numbers but great in spirit", is now the frontier between paganism and Christianity.
More important still is the plight of Britain and the attempted liquidation of the British empire bjr the Labour government which, we hope, is not so severely stricken by the cancer of communism that the British ministers may see the folly of their ways before it is too late, that they may understand the efforts of the enemy and combat these efforts successfully so that the great people of the British isles may, while there is still sufficient of the old spirit left, rally as they did at El Alamein, on the shores of Dunkirk and throughout the country as a whole when obliteration seemed inevitable, and return tc the true and tried, old but sure, form of real democratic government.
The British pound has lost its magic; the British people are stripped of the wealth of empire and bowed down under a crushing burden of taxation. British money is no

The Budget-Mr. Ferguson
longer available in Greece or any other place to support the forces of western civilization. Too well has the poison that has been slowly administered throughout the British empire taken effect by ruthless, ungrateful foreigners and guests of the empire; also, born British, those living in the lowest strata of humanity, despised, shunned and exterminated by all countries of the world for endeavouring to administer at a price, the death potion to their own beloved land. The chaos and ruin, the suffering and possibilities of the British isles today may have reached the stage, God forbid, that makes it incumbent on the dominions of the empire to come to the aid of the motherland, the land that spells freedom and fair play; but aid must also come from all those from other countries who have been fortunate to emigrate to the dominions within the empire.
Now, can Canada do her share? Have we ourselves clean hands? How light has been our burden when we consider all that God gave us and all the advantages we have had in facing the tasks that were ours? Have Canadians reached the stage when they can now say we have accomplished our great but pleasant task? I say, no. But we will, and can, rise to heights within the British empire mightier by far than the greatest patriots ever dreamed of.
If we would only put our own house in order and stop procrastinating! Can you believe, Mr. Speaker, that we have in Canada conditions similar to what they have in Europe. It is hard to believe, but we have. What is this government doing about the matter? The people have -the right to know. This government, through its Department of Labour, knows, or should know, full well that one of the greatest causes and reasons of rising prices is lack of production, housing shortage and all the many obstacles that the people of Canada rely on the government to eliminate. All these factors sap the energy of our people and expand the costs of government. Communism is making further inroads in every walk of endeavour throughout the dominion from coast to coast.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) knows in his heart of the deliberate attempt of those in the communist party in Russia to bring this country to a condition where it can be taken over in the not too far distant future just as easily as Roumania, Poland and other countries not so long ago proud, prosperous and successful. They have been made to lie in bed with the avowed enemy, countries once governed by the true democratic form of government.
Do the people of this country realize that the Prime Minister, when he was informed by the under-secretary of state for external affairs, Norman Robertson, of the first revelations of the Russian spy ring in Canada, stated, according to reports in the press- which have never been denied:
I do not think the government of Canada can take any action which would cause the soviet government to say that we were prying into their affairs . . .
And, on his thought and decision alone, on such an important matter, he suggested that the man who exposed the treachery should return to his embassy with the papers that were to prove to the people of Canada the almost unbelievable facts, disclosing the endeavours of a communist-ruled country to obtain, through almost any means whatsoever, information that would later aid them in bringing this Canada, one of the greatest parts of the empire, down to the level of the serfs residing, mostly by compulsion, in those countries now controlled by and under the yoke of communism.
Until recently, one Ruth McEwen worked in the office of the Prime Minister of Canada. She is the wife of Bert Hughes, an exemployee of the film board at Ottawa, and Hughes is an openly confessed communist and supporter of that bestial organization.
The Russian communistic government is holding forth at international conferences with voluble statements about peace and security. I believe the soviet government is simultaneously preparing secretly for a third world war, creating in all democratic countries, and certainly including Canada, a fifth column. In the organizing of this fifth column diplomatic officials of the soviet government have taken part.
Knowing this all to be true and believing that trade unions are one of the finest organizations that form part of the great bulwark of true democracy, I warn this government that the people of Canada are relying on them to do their duty openly and fearlessly in exterminating and' purging trade unions of all communistic elements. Bearing in mind that this year the communists of Canada are celebrating their twenty-fifth anniversary of organized activity through the Labour Progressive political party, the name which they now use as a cloak to cover their true identity, let me point out that they are still endeavouring to elect men to this very parliament. The communistic party's name has changed, but their underlying strategy, leading straight to bloody revolution, remains unchanged. Their leaders have stated that, after they have mastered the political strife, a general strike
The Budget-Mr. Ferguson

is the gateway to revolution. The democracies advocate freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and, above all, freedom of all peoples residing within the boundaries of a democratic country, but the advocacy of and the willingness to give freedom as known only in democratic countries, surely do not go to the depths of permitting avowed enemies of the state to continue with their insidious work and to continue to contaminate trade unions and labour to such an extent that, even if their contamination be small, used in the manner that it is being used, it can be accountable for the downfall of such a great nation as our beloved dominion. The efforts of the communists in Canada are bearing fruit in retarding the progress of the country, thereby affecting its finances and the finances of this government.
I believe that, through their efforts, the government has been called upon to make expenditures by way of aid in various ways that would not have been necessary if a great many of the minds of our people had not been poisoned with the doctrine of communism. The information divulged by one Pat Sullivan who until recently headed the seamen's union should, in my opinion, have been investigated thoroughly and speedily by a royal commission, and I think it would have been found that the accusations of Sullivan were absolutely correct regarding the guiding hands of the communist party amongst the leaders of the seamen's union. If this fact were established, surely we can make laws speedily and efficiently to meet such a situation. We owe it to all decent members of the seamen's union, as a government composed of men in charge of the affairs for Canada for the people of Canada and on behalf of the seamen's union, the great majority of whom have, I am sure, ideals, ambitions and desires for fair play both to themselves and to their employers.
I know many members of the seamen's union personally; many of them live right in my constituency, men who fought in the last war for democracy as we know it and the principles embodied in democracy as we know them, and men who fought in this war and gave their blood for the same type of democracy. These men chose to take as their vocation sailing on the great lakes and the high seas. This desire is their privilege as real Canadians, but they have the right to protection in order to carry on fearlessly and successfully and follow the class of labour which they select, without intimidation or threats of violence by many heads of the present seamen's union who have openly declared themselves as to the path they- are following, communism.

Only recently an ordinary dispute arose between some of the steamship companies and the seamen's union. A proven, outstanding citizen of Canada was asked to represent the companies as their representative on the marine arbitration board which is to meet in the capital of Canada to iron out disputes between several companies and the Canadian seamen's union. This gentleman, the Hon. J. Arthur Mathewson, K.C., tendered a letter to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), refusing to sit on said board owing to the fact, as he stated in his letter, that it appeared to be established that the persons now occupying the positions of officers of the Canadian seamen's union were not properly elected in a democratic way but were forced into present positions by the manoeuvring of a relatively small cohesive group of avowed communists within the union. He stated that the officers of this union themselves had been publicly pronounced to be communists and that they had never denied the charge and, in some cases, had brazenly vouched for its correctness. Mr. Mathewson stated that the so-called communistic party is not a political party in the same category as political parties generally recognized in democratic Canada. He stated that it was a fifth column and that its subversive activities are continuously and deliberately promoting industrial friction to such an extent that it cannot be ignored.
Mr. Mathewson raised the question as to whether the men purporting to act can be considered, or should be recognized, as the spokesmen for the unlicensed personnel of their ships. Mr. Mathewson, as a true Canadian, I am sure could not conscientiously sit on any board with the knowledge of the personnel of the seamen's union that he has, and I do not believe that this government should recognize or permit to sit on any government arbitration board certain men who now hold executive offices in the seamen's union, because I do not consider that they are in a position or that their frame of mind will give a true and beneficial picture to the members of the seamen's union and the people's representatives . here in Ottawa or to the responsible officers of the steamship companies.
I feel confident that it is the desire of the government, the steamship owners and the seamen of Canada to arrive at a mutually beneficial agreement and to carry this agreement speedily into full force and effect; but, with such men as we now find heading the seamen's union, the intent of such agreement could never be carried out. I say that the government should take the same attitude as Mr. Mathewson and refuse to be a party to a communistic infiltrated board. The government should use its labour relations machinery to see that the men who represent the seamen

The Budget *-Mr. Cournoyer
in arbitrary disputes are elected by properly conducted elections and a secret ballot and that every member of the union has been given an opportunity to vote. Let it be known to all labour unions that the government of the people of Canada, with the proof they have before them, will not countenance any person or persons holding office in any union in Canada who have the slightest taint of communism or communistic leanings. We know what communism means and we must act on the knowledge we have. Tomorrow may be too late; we shall have nothing to fear if the situation is faced fairly and squarely now. But I shudder to think, if we hesitate in our duty to the British empire, Canada and the democracies of the world, what the peoples of the democracies will suffer if the encroachments of communism are permitted to expand much farther.
We are promised a new labour code. I make this eatnest plea to the minister: See that labour relations machinery is set up immediately that gives our organized workers protection against the bludgeoning, intimidation and constant blackmail to which they are now subjected by Soviet-directed vile communistic organizations in Canada.


Gérard Cournoyer: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say a few words in answer to the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion), who referred to the decision reported in Dominion Law Reports in the case of Silver Brothers Limited versus the Attorney General of Quebec.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that in an interpretation based upon the standing orders of the house, the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) had no right to quote that judgment in support of his contention that the provinces have priority in the field of direct taxation.
I suggest that the judgment which the learned member has quoted and which he was kind enough to send me for perusal could not apply to such a case. Indeed, that case dealt with the Bankruptcy Act and the Special War Revenue Act, whereas the matter which was brought up concerned the two creditors of the company in bankruptcy, that is the dominion and the provincial governments. It dealt with the interpretation of a special statute and not of sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act.
Hence, the only point which I wish to make in reply to my hon. friend is that the learned judges of the privy council have clearly stated, in the judgment which has been quoted, that they did not intend to give priority to the
provincial government. Let me read the decision reported on page 676 of the "Dominion Law Reports" for 1932:
(Text):
Now, looking at s. .17 and the way it speaks of the preference, it would not be difficult to hold that it was a rule only applicable in bankruptcy. If that is so, then the matter is ended for bankruptcy is head 21 of s. 91. But let it be assumed that it is rather a natural concomitant of taxation, then the case falls clearly under the fourth head laid down by Lord Tomlin. It runs thus:
"There can be a domain in which provincial and dominion legislation may overlap in which case neither legislation will be ultra vires if the field is clear, but if the field is not clear and the two legislations meet the dominion legislation must prevail."
As a matter of fact, this is the textual reproduction of what has been said by Lord Dunedin as long ago as '1907, in the case of G.T.R. v. A.G. Can., (1907) A.C. 65. Now, here so far as taxation itself is concerned, the field is clear. The two taxations, dominion and provincial, can stand side by side without interfering with each other, but as soon as you come to the concomitant privileges of absolute priority they cannot stand side by side and must clash; consequently the dominion must prevail.
(Translation):
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that in view of this quotation I may conclude that the hon. member, though he be independent, should not have been so independent of the written word as to infer that section 92 should apply without any reference to section 91 of the British North America Act.
(Text):


Mr. MATTHEW MacLEAN (Cape Breton Norlfc-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have never
been anxious to take part in any debate, although schooled in politics from my earliest days. I have always endeavoured, since coming here, to get in touch with the different departments in connection with the needs of my constituency but have been continually reminded that I should discuss certain matters in the house. So tonight I shall for a brief period trespass on your time and hope, as far as possible, to avoid repeating any of the matters so far discussed in this debate.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the able budget speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and compliment him on the manner of his presentation. I think he will go a long way in the political life of this country.
I also wish to pay tribute to his able predecessor (Mr. Ilsley), who had borne the burden of that portfolio in the most trying times in our history. When I think of two able men, former ministers of finance, who broke down under the strain in the days
The Budget-Mr. MacLean

before the war, I am convinced that he is made of good stuff, such as we generally produce in Nova Scotia.
We are glad of the measure of relief afforded in the budget to so many of the taxpayers. Of course all would have been more satisfied if the exemptions had been greater for both single and married people, but we must proceed slowly if the measures of social security about which we hear so much are to become effective. We cannot obtain these measures unless someone pays for them, and money does not grow on trees, nor is it the product of a printing press. All wealth must come from the soil, and only by industry and hard work may we hope to achieve the high aims we have set out in the different pieces of legislation to come before the house.
I was sorry to notice that the financial critic of the opposition was not in good form when he answered the minister. He has always been a genial soul and, I believe, has the respect of all members in this house.
It is amusing to have in the amendment anything relating to the cost of the necessaries of life, after the arguments put forward by the opposition objecting to the proposals to retain controls on certain products for a further period and the dogged determination with which the Progressive Conservative part>
fought against them.
The subamendment also shows a lack of consistency when each day members of the C.C.F. party are pressing for more social security, such as increased old age pensions, health insurance and other social benefits, which, they must know, cannot be obtmned without the people being taxed for them.
I am in favour of a much larger increase in old age pensions, particularly for those who have no one on whom they can depend for any help, because the present pension is utterly inadequate. There are also the blind to whom we must give the utmost consideration. There are mothers with helpless children who cannot care for themselves, and the mothers, not being eligible for the old age pension and being unable to do any work for the support of their children, must depend on charity. Yet I must say that today I am alarmed when I think of the many young people who are well able to care for their parents who endeavour to cast the full burden of their responsibility upon the state. If the opinions of some people prevailed they would make of us a nation of leeches. We have in Nova Scotia a statute which compels children to look after and support their parents and those who necessarily would be dependent on them for support.

I am in favour of lowering the age limit for the old age pension and I should also like to see a contributory old age pension scheme introduced with contributions being assessed against the worker whenever he or she became regularly employed.
There is one tax which is not being cancelled, one about which most if not all the members of the house have received letters, and that is the tax on soft drinks. I think it would be well for the Minister of Finance to consider the removal of this tax as speedily as possible.
Another matter I would urge upon the government is that of continuing the services afforded veterans on Cape Breton island by the D.V.A. hospital at Westmount, not only as a matter of convenience to the veterans, but also to save transportation costs to the government.
I have listened to the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), who has always been an apostle of gloom, discussing labour conditions in Nova Scotia. With his views I seldom agree, but I am in agreement with his views on the unemployment situation now obtaining in Nova Scotia. Before the outbreak of war there were many young men who were unable to obtain work and who enlisted in the armed forces. Since they were not employed before the outbreak of war, the coal and steel companies were not obliged to hire them, so that they have returned to their native heath and can find nothing to do unless they leave the county. I cannot blame any government for this state of affairs, because we have no industries in the county where they may receive work and the government is not engaged in industry.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South spoke of the many corporations which had left Nova Scotia to locate in central Canada, but surely this cannot be laid at the feet of any government. Rather I think the people who were engaged in these particular industries are to blame, because they found that, by selling out their shares in such industries they were obtaining sufficient remuneration to make the sale attractive and did not consider the welfare of their fellow citizens. I do not wish to see our boys and girls leave our shores and go to other provinces to earn a livelihood, and I think it is about time that some of our business men came to a realization. of the necessity of establishing some industries in our province to keep our boys and girls at home.
When one realizes the amount of money that was subscribed to the various victory

The Budget-Mr. MacLean
loans by the people of our island during the war years, I think it is about time that some of the leading men on our boards of trade should look into the matter and start some manufacturing industries, so as to help our unemployed obtain work at home. The idea of helping their fellow men should be more of an incentive than the immediate receipt of dividends. But we want some leadership in our unions today, and management and men should endeavour to cooperate in the best interests of all, rather than, as at present, regard each other as enemies.
In Nova Scotia at present we have a coal strike on our hands, and while I do not agree with the method adopted in voting on this strike, yet the government commissioner has stated that the men are entitled to $1.40 more a day. How is this increase to be obtained? Well, in one of three ways or in a combination of the three: (1) an increase in the output per man; (2) an increase in the price per ton of coal; (3) a subsidy from the government. I am glad to know that the trouble is about settled, although I do not know whether a vote has yet been taken by the men. It is primarily a matter for the local government, the company, and the union; but I am glad that the federal government, through its Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe), have endeavoured to bring about a settlement.
The government should immediately undertake some essential public works to help relieve the unemployment. One project which has been discussed both in this house and outside it for many years is the construction of a bridge or causeway over the strait of Canso. I have heard of that for many years, but nothing has been done. I feel sure that such an undertaking would meet with the approval of all the members of this house and would provide employment for many men over a period of several years. I have on the order paper a resolution proposing that adequate provision be made for our fishermen, such as wharves and other matters directly concerned with fishing and lumber operations; but since I am mentioning these matters tonight, I shall drop the resolution when the time comes.
Some of these projects I have mentioned are now under way, but there are one or two in which I am deeply interested. One is the construction of a modern wharf in the town of North Sydney, so that the large boats coming to that port may have adequate docking facilities. No such accommodation exists at the present time. We have many large trawlers, French, Spanish and others, visiting this port and taking on supplies, and I am told
that each of these boats leaves in that port about $75,000 a year, consisting of payments for food, clothing, oil fuel, coal and necessary repairs. If repairs are required the men making them must work under the handicap of going out in the stream to do the work.
In the town of Baddeck, from which considerable lumber is exported to the United Kingdom, an addition to the wharf is urgently ' requested to enable these large boats to load, instead of this lumber having to be shipped by rail and taken on at another port, thus increasing the costs to a considerable extent.
The fishermen at North Sydney and Little Bras d'Or are continually requesting that some necessary dredging be undertaken so as to enable them to land their catches on the wharf, instead of having to load them in dories and then unload again at the cold storage plants, thus causing a handling of the catch twice. As you know, sir, this double handling does not improve the fish, so I would impress upon the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) to consider these matters at the earliest possible moment in order to bring about a more satisfactory condition than at present obtains.
When we look at conditions in the world, I stop and wonder where we are going and when this chaotic condition will end. Of one thing I am finally convinced. It is this: We have departed so far from the fundamentals of the Christian faith that we are, as General Smuts once said, "milling around like lost sheep without a shepherd." The church, which through the ages has been the greatest force in the world to make men think of the right and best interests of their fellow beings, in many instances has drifted and is still drifting from the truth. It used to be as a great lighthouse to guide us and show us the path to follow to arrive in a safe haven, but I am afraid this light has been hidden to no small extent by the fogs of heresy and unbelief so that many have lost their way. We have sent men to universities abroad for a higher education; they have come back to occupy our pulpits and have taught doctrines which they imbibed from atheistic professors; and, instead of receiving the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in interpreting the word, they are polluting the minds of their congregations with these false doctrines learned in some of these colleges.
I am reminded of one instance in Nova Scotia, in the particular denomination to which I belong, where a young clergyman was ordered to recant or get out of the church. For what reason? Was he teaching false doctrine? No; but because he was telling truths
The Budget-Mr. MacLean

that apparently did not suit the religious convictions of some, particularly the one who presided at his trial.
I cut a clipping from the Globe and Mail on Saturday in which I noticed an advertisement of the services of a United church in Toronto, and at 7 p.m. it reads "Third of a political series-speaker"-I will not mention any names. The subject was, "The Future of the C.C.F. in Canada"; and in the same advertisement-May 18, a Conservative member, presenting Progressive Conservative views.
Mr. Speaker, do you wonder if the judgment of heaven was visited upon us, when the church, dedicated to Almighty God for the saving of the souls of men, should be used for political propaganda? I do not know if any Liberals have taken part in the desecration of the House of God, but I trust not. There are other days of the week and other places where this propaganda may be carried on.
We in Nova Scotia had quite a barrage last fall. After this house adjourned, we had a number of prominent political visitors in Nova Scotia. The first was the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), who came down when the steel strike was about over; and I may say, if correctly reported in the press, he brought no soothing balm to help in the difficult situation with which we were faced, but his speech had the same tendency to settle the trouble as the pouring of gasoline would have in quenching a flame. Then we had a visit, from the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken). Later the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) came down to see us. Then we had the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), whose chief contribution was a eulogy of the hon. member for Cape Breton South. Then who think you came next? No less a personage than one Tim Buck, and in my home town we had a visit from the hon. member for Cape Breton South, who told our people of the wonderful contribution his party was making to the progress of government in this country. He stated how they arranged to speak in relays to hinder the progress of the business of this house and how they had succeeded so that the session continued until the last of August. Now, Mr. Speaker, was this not a notable contribution to responsible government?
We have listened day after day to certain hon. members advocating certain social measures for the alleviation of the ills of humanity, and they have laid great stress on the subject of social security. But I believe that their objectives will never be attained in 
this life, that social security, as they term it, will never be secured until we are covered by six feet of soil.
We have listened to certain hon. members talk incessantly about these measures by which they hope to attain in this world all the blessings that are promised to those who 'observe the laws as ordained by higher authority. They wish to provide, by legislation, something that can be obtained only by compliance with these laws, and I should like to quote three promises given in the days long ago: first, the promise to Joshua which stated that, if he observed all the laws and turned not aside, he would make his way prosperous and would have good success. Later there was the Psalmist of Israel who said, "I was a young man and now am old and yet never have I seen the righteous forsaken nor his seed begging bread". Later there was the one Infallible Authority who stated that we should take no thought for the morrow, what we should eat, or drink, or wherewithal we shall be clothed, that our Heavenly Father knew we had need of these things; but attached to this promise there was a condition precedent that we should seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things would be added unto us. We are not following these principles today, rather the reverse. If we were, many of the worries that trouble us would disappear overnight.
Strange to say, many of the most ardent advocates of all these social legislative measures are those who once taught other doctrines but are now endeavouring to solve life's difficulties 'by the advocacy of measures, placing second things in first place, thus putting their finite judgment against that of the infinite. In other words, they are trying to appease the Almighty by advocating good works, which is one of the characteristics of a troubled conscience when undertaken in substitution for first principles. If we wish to bring about that happy day of which Tennyson wrote when he said:
When the war drums throb no longer and the battle flags are furled,
In the parliament of man, the federation of the world-
-then we must come back to these first principles.
We listen to some of these people using disparaging remarks about their homeland and always pointing to some other better country. Most of these remarks come from the sandwich party over there. To those born beneath our skies who talk thus, I would say that they should be ashamed of their actions. And to those who have come to Canada and have been

The Budget-Mr. Bryce___________
adopted into our family, I would say that it is exceedingly bad form for them to engage in such criticism.
The member for Gloucester a few evenings ago quoted a short poem in which the words Canada and home were mentioned. I was reminded of a lecturer I heard some years ago, whose name I have long since forgotten, but the words I now quote have always been fresh in my memory. He said:
What is England to me? There is not a drop of English blood in my veins. What is Scotland to me, though my mother came from the land of the heath and the heather? What is Ireland to me, though my father came from that gem of the ocean and loved it with that patriotic ardor that every Irishman has for his native land? I am a Canadian, born beneath Canadian skies, educated in Canadian schools. I love this Canada as I do no other country, and it is my home.
To me, Canada, is the one country, above all others, I love. We have more freedom, happiness and contentment here than in any other country I know of. It is my home and I am proud of it. May I, in closing, quote the words of Montgomery:
Home
There is a land of every land the pride,
Beloved by Heaven o'er all the world beside, Where brighter suns dispense serener light, And milder moons emparadise the night,
A land of beauty, virtue, valour, truth, Time-tutored age, and love exalted youth,
The wandering mariner, whose eye explores The wealthiest isles, the most enchanting shores,	_
Views not a realm so bountiful and fair Nor breathes the spirit of a purer air;
In every clime, the magnet of his soul, Touched by remembrance, trembles to that pole;
For in this land of Heaven's peculiar grace The heritage of Nature's noblest race.
There is a spot of earth supremely blest,
A dearer, sweeter spot than all the rest. Where shall that land, that spot of earth be found?
Art thou a man, a patriot? Look around,
O thou shalt find, howe'er thy footsteps roam, That land thy country, and that spot thy home.


Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate which has been going on for two weeks, it is pretty hard to talk about something which has not already been mentioned. Along with other hon. members. I should like to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) on bringing down his first budget. While it gave considerable joy to his supporters on the other side of the house, I am sorry to say that I was disappointed. I realize that the Minister of Finance who will bring down a budget giving the most social security to the people and who will collect the least taxes will be the most popular man who ever
sat in the House of Commons. I also realize that the government-either this one or the one that follows it-that can produce a minister of finance who will do that, will be the one that will stay in power.
I do not wish to labour any of the points which have been raised by the other speakers, but I have had many letters from the constituency of Selkirk asking that I appeal to the government for the removal of the tax on soft drinks, which a great many members have referred to as a nuisance tax. I might say that most of the letters I have received with regard to that tax were from schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, who have the responsibility of the young people. I regret that the minister has not seen fit to do something regarding the removal of that tax.
I have also had considerable correspondence regarding the twenty-five per cent luxury tax.
I think the time has come when such things as wedding rings, cutlery, watches and alarm clocks should not be termed "luxuries", inasmuch as they are used by the average family.
I had hoped that the minister would have seen fit to revise this list.
Much has been said by previous speakers regarding the exemption levels. I still feel, as I felt last year, that these exemptions should have been raised to at least $1,000 for single men and women and $2,000 for married people. While speaking about income tax, I wish to say that I am very much disappointed that something has not been done with respect to the family unit, more especially on the farms. Of course I realize that there are family units other than the farmer's, but might I take the farmer's unit as an example to show how unreasonable the present situation is. In the interlake country, which is in the constituency of Selkirk, where mixed farming and dairying are carried on extensively, the production of the necessities in the food line other than wheat is the main source of income. Let me take the production of butter, for instance. This is a good example, because the cream has to be shipped to the local creamery to be made into butter, and in order to produce this commodity, the farmer, the farmer's wife and the farmer's family all participate in its production. In the busy seasons of the spring and fall, this work is carried on entirely by the farmer's wife and family, as the farmer is too busy with seeding operations in the spring and harvesting in the fall. Surely it is only reasonable to expect that when the farmer's income has been produced by himself, his wife and family, it should be taken into consideration as a unit and not as the earnings of one man. When this matter was brought up in the house before, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley), who
The Budget-Mr. Bryce

was then Minister of Finance, stated that he would have to apply this concession to other groups if it were granted to the farmer. Well, if the farmer is receiving an injustice, then the other person employing his family is receiving an injustice too, and both injustices should be corrected.
At the present time we in this country are in need of butter and pork, and I am going to make another suggestion which I have made on a previous occasion. It is this. When the government plan their programme, and such things in short supply as butter and pork are needed to fill our quotas to the domestic market or the overseas market, would it not be possible and sensible at the same time to do away with the payment of income tax on these items for certain periods in order to encourage their production, so that we could maintain these markets? The producer of cream and the producer of hogs can be compared to the industrial worker who works overtime. He is reluctant to work four hours overtime knowing that he has to give perhaps one-third or one-quartex of his earnings back to the Minister of Finance. The same thing applies to the farmer today. He milks cows before he starts his work in the morning and he milks cows when he has finished his day's work at night. The feeding of hogs is done before and after the day's work. Then, when computing his income tax he finds that by doing his work in this fashion, which is equivalent to overtime for him, perhaps one-third of his earnings is taken away by the Minister of Finance. I am sure that if the tax were taken off such things as butter, hogs-and I give those just as an example-and other products in short supply, for a year at a time or perhaps two years, we would have ample production to relieve the tremendous shortage in the world today. Perhaps it is not the income tax which the farmer has had to pay or will have to pay that he resents so much as it is the idea of working sixteen hours a day and then having to pay the extra earned income back to the Minister of Finance by way of income tax. The suggestion I have made would, I am sure, give the desired result. We would have increased production of the things we need, and the farmer would be satisfied that he was not the victim of unfair taxation.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that you would rule me out of order should I attempt to discuss old age pensions, so I am refraining from doing so. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) has on the order paper a resolution, which is found at page 352 of Votes and Proceedings and reads as follows:

That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Pensions Act which will enlarge the scope ot the act by providing in-, creases in the pension payable and the income allowable to pensioners and by modifying certain of the eligibility requirements for pension.
I welcome his intentions and hope that he will do most of the things which I have been asking for since I came to the house. I should also like to see the government take into consideration the plight of the blind people. They should have their pensions raised because of the high cost of living.


Mr. MARTIN:: The government is taking that into consideration.


William Scottie Bryce: I have great confidence in the Minister of National Health and Welfare; and if he does not come through with what I expect, I shall be greatly disappointed.
I have also had many requests from my constituency, which has a large fishing industry, that the Fisheries Prices Support Act be put into operation to give protection to these fishermen, since the price of fish has been falling, while, with the removal of controls, the price of equipment and gear and the costs of the fishermen have been increasing. If this board could be put into operation to establish a floor, it would give the fishermen some degree of protection.
The farmers who started out to seed this spring were somewhat alarmed to find that the ceilings had been taken off gasoline and tractor distillate, which meant that the prices of these commodities would be completely under the control of the new firms handling gasoline and oil products. I supported the wheat agreement, not because it established a parity price, which it did not, but because it placed a floor below which the price of wheat could not go, and gave a guaranteed price over a number of years. Farmers generally agreed to this price, assuming, of course, that the government would place a ceiling on the things the farmer had to buy, so that his cost of production would leave him some margin of safety. From the events of the last two months, however, it would seem that controls will be taken off most commodities but will remain on a large proportion of the things the farmers produce. As a matter of fact, many controls are being taken off which I should have liked to see kept on for some time yet, especially those controls which would tend to give the farmer and worker some stability. The Canadian housewife also notices how different manufacturers have produced articles of lower quality. Those who profit most from the removal of controls today are the manufacturers and the privileged groups. The

The Budget-Mr. Bryce
Canadian. Manufacturers' Association, which met in Toronto on January 28 last, unanimously demanded that all controls be removed. A number of agricultural and and labour conferences have taken place since that time. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Congress of Labour, consumer organizations, the United Farmers of Canada and other groups have urged the maintenance of controls in the interests of both the Canadian producer and the Canadian consumer. If the government is to meet the desires of a large majority of the Canadian people, the office workers, the industrial workers, the fishermen and the farmers, the necessary ceilings will be maintained.
With regard to the first two groups I mentioned, the office workers and the industrial workers, they find that prices of clothes, shoes and food have advanced considerably, and the removal of subsidies has also helped reduce their standard of living, causing considerable hardship in both large and small families. The fisherman has the same problems and, in addition, the ceilings have been taken off the materials that go into the manufacture of his nets and gear. While these things now cost him so much more, he is receiving less for his fish. The farmer is alarmed and annoyed at the removal of price ceilings on gasoline, tractor distillate and binder twine. If the government would listen to the people to whom I have referred they would not remove these ceilings; for it will be seen by a review of the situation that when the government removes controls it does not mean that our economy is free, but merely that we go under the control of those who produce the things we require. When farmers' costs rise, and, later, prices of farm produce rise, then these foods cost the consumer more. The result is a rising cost of living and a lower standard of living for the consumer who has to purchase the goods.
I do not wish to be critical of the speech of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell), whom I saw in the chamber a few moments ago but who apparently has stepped out for a moment; however, his remarks in regard to interest seemed to annoy me more than I can explain. I should like to quote at some length from the speech of the hon. member, so that no one may say I have misquoted or misunderstood him. At page 2803 of Hansard for May 6, 1947, the hon. member said:
Fifty years ago the man who retired with a modest competency could get five or six per cent on it and he could reckon on living the rest of



S3166-215

[Stage Direction]
his life upon the proceeds. What happens today when he receives three per cent? And he is lucky if he gets that.
I believe that when we are considering this matter of the low interest rate policy-and I know it is difficult, though it is attractive from the government's point of view-when, I say, we are considering this low interest rate policy I suggest that this very important factor be taken into consideration-it is very important indeed-that there are large elements in the community who are suffering greatly by that policy. One other thing I would like to say in this connection. I would ask whether we can go on freeing other things and leaving the rate of interest tied down tight. Personally I very much doubt it and I think it is a matter worthy of the most serious consideration.
Personally I have always thought money should be lent by branches of the Bank of Canada to the man or woman who needed it for developing the resources of this country, at a service charge. I do not know enough about finance to know just what the percentage should be, but my hon. friend speaks of it being quite easy in the old days to get five and six per cent. I can assure you. Mr. Speaker, and hon. members that when I came to the west, which was only thirty years ago, it was quite common to ask farmers to pay eight per cent on mortgages. Excessive interest and compound interest have caused farmers and home owners more grief and disappointment than anything else I know of. Had our soldier settlers of the first war who still do not own their farms been lent money at a service charge, instead of at five or six per cent, I am sure they would have had their farms paid for by now.
I do not want to labour this point, but in my thirty years in Canada I have seen many people ruined by a high rate of interest. Might I give one instance, that of a man I ran across when I was president of the Manitoba federation of agriculture. I need not give his name, but any hon. gentleman who wants it may have it from me privately. This man came to me with his problem. In 1909 he bought a farm on which there was an outstanding mortgage of $9,300. In 1939, twenty-hine years later, he still owed $3,100 on the farm. During that time he had paid to the mortgage company $29,000. He had receipts for that amount. Here is a man who, for a period of twenty-nine years, paid $1,000 every year. He was paying eight per cent interest, and had it reduced to six per cent in 1937. Here we have an instance of a man who, over a period of twenty-nine years, paid $29,000 to the mortgage company which held the mortgage on his farm. This man reared his family, he sent two boys overseas; he is seventy-one years of age now and still owes $3,100 on his farm. I have seen many cases of this kind, but I shall

[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Bryce
[Stage Direction]
not put any more on the record. I wish only to show that this sort of thing does exist in western Canada.
A few years ago in Winnipeg I sat in on a debt conference with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), when men of this type were referred to as misfits in agriculture. They said these men were misfits-men who were able to pay their taxes, to rear their families and, as in the instance I have described, to pay $1,000 a year to a mortgage company. Men like this are not misfits in agriculture; they are slaves to agriculture; or, should I say, they are slaves to the mortgage companies which finance them.
We have heard hon. members in different parts of the house refer to the good financial standing of farmers in the prairie provinces who have been able to reduce their debts. But do not let us forget the sacrifices the men and women of this country made when their sons went overseas to win the war. During the war we had controlled prices and guaranteed prices. That is the only time since the last war that the farmer ever came near getting his fair share of the national income. It is a disgrace to think we have to have a war to permit men, such as those I have described, to get enough money to clear off the debts they have been struggling for thirty years to liquidate.
I hope the day will come when men and women with ambition and a pioneering spirit who set out to buy their own farms, or couples who want to build their own homes, will be able to borrow money at a service charge, instead of under the present system, as a result of which men and women spend the best part of their lives working for mortgage companies which do not do anything to earn the interest paid to them.
I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is not in his seat tonight. However I would again appeal to him to give some consideration to the establishment of a board of live stock commissioners. I have done this before, as have many other hon. members. It is something that organized farmers across Canada have asked for; but they have been turned down for different reasons. Now that the war is over and we are getting back to more normal conditions I think it would be only right and proper for the government to give this matter some consideration.
I remember some considerable time ago when it was discussed the minister defended it by saying that it was difficult to find money for such a board. When I spoke on this subject in the house on the last occasion I suggested that it would be a board similar to the board of grain commissioners. When the
fMr. Bryce.1
minister replied he pointed out the question of the constitutional validity of legislation setting up such a board, because there had been doubts cast on the legality of the board of grain commissioners, and it was suggested that a board of live stock commissioners would be more open to criticism. But if that should be so-and I am sure the minister has given it consideration-the British North America Act should be altered, or amendments brought in to make it possible for the government to set up a board of live stock commissioners.
Perhaps the editorial in the Western Producer of November 1, 1945, sums up the situation very well, when it states:
Owing to the complexity of modern society as compared with the society of 1867 it is becoming more and more difficult to adjust with efficiency our economic, social and political relations within the conceptions of 1867, plus decisions of the judicial committee of the privy council. Because of an archaic constitution and these decisions it appears that as the Sirois commission reported, nobody knows how to draft an adequate and valid dominion marketing act. But we have to make up our minds as to what we want. Do we want to retain a constitution and a set of relations which make it increasingly difficult to adapt our social relations to modern ideas and the demands of modern conditions or do we want to keep these relations more or less parochially confined? Are we to expand the circle of social activities or keep it stationary?
It is objected that the suggested changes lead to a greater centralization of political power, which in its turn is a menace to liberty. The changes asked for, however, are required for the purpose of expanding liberty by increasing the power of the individual in improving his economic condition. We must of course realize that there is a risk; but it can be maintained that the gain considerably more than offsets the risk. Care should be taken that organization does not run to arbitrary regimentation, but it can no longer be denied that we must learn to build our civilization or soon there will be no civilization. And this means that we must learn how effectively to organize the marketing of all our farm produce so as to take all the exploitation out of it and make it of benefit to producers and consumers alike, no matter what constitutions may say and obsolescent institutions do. It can be done because there is no real obstacle to it in this democratic country except the will of the people. If we want it strongly enough we can get it.
I do not want to use the board of grain commissioners as an example any longer, but might I just draw hon. members' attention to this, that the demand by the grain producers for a neutral board was met by the establishment of the board of grain commissioners, and although there were objections to the establishment of it, now that it has been in operation for a number of years, I am sure everyone agrees that it serves a good and useful purpose.
In advancing the argument for a board of live stock commissioners, I would say the

The Budget-Mr. Bryce
very same argument applies in connection with live stock to an even greater degree inasmuch as grain is a non-perishable product and samples can be retained to a greater extent than in the case of live stock products.
In the case of grading grain, the grades carry right through to the miller, with the same grades prevailing from producer to manufacturer; but in the case of live stock, the grades the animals are sold on are quite different from the grades the consumer buys. The grade at which the packer buys the hogs from the farmer is entirely different from the grade the packer supplies to the meat board for shipment overseas, and while the meat board controls the quality and grades of the export market, they do not have anything to do with the product going into the domestic market.
Surely the time has come when there should be a neutral board to regulate this business and a board of live stock commissioners would be the right and proper thing for the purpose of regulating, controlling, assembling, transporting, grading, marketing and exporting of live stock and live stock products. As years go on, there are fewer cattle and hogs being delivered to the stockyards across Canada. More live stock is being delivered directly to the packing plants. Perhaps this has been caused by the increase in transportation by truck.
There has been a pronounced trend in Canada toward larger business organizations, and in many cases toward monopolistic enterprise. * The meat packing industry, as well as other distributing organizations, have in general followed this trend, and a large part of the purchasing of western live stock is represented by the purchases of three or four packing concerns. Concentration of buying in the hands of a relatively few firms creates a condition of imperfect competition, because markets may be unduly affected by the operation of one or all of these large buyers.
The concentration in the buying of live stock has been accompanied by a weakening of the position of the producer as a marketer. The protection which the producer had in the public market has now practically disappeared. It is my view that the position with respect to the marketing of live stock is simply that buying is now concentrated in a relatively few hands and selling is largely disorganized and ineffective. Under these conditions we cannot expect adequate protection of the producer's interest, nor do I expect those conditions which will make for a sound live stock industry in this country.
Two complaints are brought against the method of marketing: first, it is claimed that 83166-215^
the packers buy live stock from truckers at less than the stockyards' price. The packer has complete freedom of grading when buying direct. In addition, direct purchases are made on an off-car basis, while in the stockyards animals are fed and watered before being sold. Second, it is argued that the weakening of the stockyards' system by direct sales is detrimental to the producer. This seems a reasonable argument. Elimination of the central competitive market would probably put producers at a considerable disadvantage in selling to the few large buyers. About ten years ago a royal commission was set up to investigate price spreads. The commission went into many phases of the live stock industry and the report makes interesting reading. It investigated the production, collection, processing and rharketing of all live stock products. The findings of the commission were definite and given in detail. I suggest to hon. members that they look up that report.	[DOT]
The conditions we had then are now returning and with different boards set up under the War Measures Act, which will no doubt be discontinued in the future, the time is opportune for the government to do something about this matter. To have a healthy live stock industry, it will be necessary to have the confidence of all Canadian live stock producers, and there is no better way of maintaining the fertility of our soil than by a large live stock population. With a gradual return to normal conditions, farmers will again resort to the feeding of more coarse grains and: then market the live stock.
The estimated value of all live stock marketed for slaughter is $346 million for 1946, which is a tremendous volume of business. Hogs, which have helped to swell this amount,, are now entirely sold on grade, which means; that the farmer brings them to the packer and takes what the packer gives him. What I mean by that is that he gets the standard price of that day, but if he is dissatisfied with the grade, he has no appeal. The system of the meat board has encouraged this as far as cattle are concerned, because the meat board does not deal with live stock on the hoof; to get the protection of the meat board, you must have your live stock graded on the rail. I feel quite sure that the grading of live stock on the rail, as advocated by some people, would be more popular today if it were not so definitely in the hands of the packer and the producer could have some neutral body to appeal to in the case of a complaint.
Another point that could be taken care of by a board of live stock commissioners is that
The Budget-Mr. Fontaine
[Stage Direction]
of condemnation insurance. This has been going on for a long time, and while no one begrudges paying fifty cents an animal, or half of one per cent, to insure his animal against condemnation, control of this insurance being left entirely in the hands of the packing industry has been a bone of contention with the farmer for many years. If this were brought under the jurisdiction of a neutral body, such as I have advocated, and an audited statement put in the papers as to the actual condemnation insurance collected by the different packing plants across the dominion, it would give some assurance and satisfaction to the farmer as to how this money is being applied. It seems strange to the farmer or producer that T.B. free areas have been set up over parts of the Dominion of Canada with wonderful results, but we are still paying the same condemnation insurance as we did in 1910.
In closing, might I assure the hon. members that I could go into great detail regarding a board of live stock commissioners, but it has been so often put on the records of this house, not only by myself, but by members of all political parties that asking for a board of live stock commissioners is not political; it is something that 400.000 farmers across the Dominion of Canada have asked for. Surely if they ask for this it is worthy of consideration by the government, and I, in closing, appeal to the minister to give this further -consideration. As far as being legal is con-[DOT]cerned, I know this government, or any other government that may follow it, has enough brains, or at least enough lawyers, in the various departments, to set up a board of live stock commissioners that will comply, not -only with the legal requirements of the provinces and the dominion, but with the British North America Act as well.
Mr. JOSEPH FONTAINE (St. Hyacinthe-Bagot) (Translation):: 
Pierre Gauthier: Hear, hear.


Joseph Louis Rosario Fontaine: I therefore ask the Right Hon. the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to consider including in his departmental estimates items amounting to S5,000 for class A exhibitions and $4,000 for class B exhibitions.


Mr. MARQUIS:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Louis Rosario Fontaine: The grants could be applied, according to the society's needs, to the payment of prizes, land improvements and the erection of buildings required by the organization. As a representative of a farming constituency, I strongly recommend the payment of subsidies of this nature, which, in my view, are calculated to foster and promote the breeding of thoroughbred stock, not only in the province of Quebec but throughout Canada. The government would thus give concrete evidence of its interest in the farming community.
Before concluding these remarks on behalf of our farming population, I must thank the government for granting farmers, last session, the privilege of spreading income over a three year period in the computation of income tax. I was glad to support this proposal in the best interests of the farmers of my own constituency. I also warmly supported the government's generous attitude on the taxation of co-operatives. We have quite a number of them in my part of the country and I am sure that the government's attitude towards them will greatly contribute to their advancement and progress.
Mr. Speaker, I also feel it my duty to tender my sincere congratulations to the Hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) for the splendid budget he has brought down. Like his predecessor, now Minister of Justice (Mr. Usley), the present Minister of Finance
has shown his concern for all classes of Canadian citizens, especially in the lower income brackets. In the best interests of both our urban and rural wage-earners, I shall give my utmost support to the budget now before the house, because of this very generosity of the Minister of Finance towards our low-income groups.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Louis Rosario Fontaine: The proposed higher exemptions on lower salaries take into account the earned salary and the dependents of our family men. Our country has just emerged from a costly war and our greatest economists themselves are astounded to realize how far we have progressed in returning to a stable peacetime economy. It is proof that the management of our national affairs is in excellent hands when, these results being apparent, the government is in a position to introduce such a favourable budget as the present one.
Mr. Speaker, it is imperative here to indicate that, our country is also far advanced on the road to reconversion and the time has come to apply ourselves to the task of building for peace. I have in mind, at this time, the post-war reconstruction programme of which we have been told so much in the many years just passed.
In my constituency, there is a whole series of public works that should be carried out. I shall mention just a few, because I do not choose to list once more the numerous requests I have had the honour of forwarding to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier). First of all, there is a dyke to be built at St. Hyacinthe; at St. Damase, Acton Vale and in Notre Dame parish, main sewers need to be installed. While I am speaking of requests. I might as well say that post office buildings are required in St. Pie and St. Cesaire parishes. I know that in connection with some of these public works of a municipal character the delay is due to a voluntary and obstinate lack of cooperation on the part of the provincial government.
Our farming class, as producers, and our working class as consumers, have already greatly suffered from the removal of the milk, butter and cheese subsidies. When the federal government handed back to the provinces, who were clamouring for their autonomy, those two administrative responsibilities, we were expecting that our provincial premiers would be anxious to assume their obligations and continue to pay these subsidies which helped to keep production and consumption in a proper balance.
If, for financial reasons, the province of Quebec is unable to assume the payment of
The Budget-Mr. Fontaine

this subsidy, why does the premier refuse the means of doing so, generously offered by the federal government? As a practical farmer, I am in a position to state that, at the present time, the difference between the price of milk sold for consumption and of milk delivered to butter and cheese factories, is far too great. This is why, today, there is a scarcity of butter in the province and in the whole of Canada. I therefore strongly urge, on behalf of my constituents, that the butter and cheese subsidies be restored.
Let us hope that, in the interest of my constituency and of my province in general, the premier of Quebec will soon realize that the welfare of our population must have priority over his own political interests.
I wish also to thank the Hon. the Postmaster General who recently acknowledged the unfair condition of our rural mail carriers and granted an increase on such contracts as were signed before the rise in operating costs. The minister did not hesitate to take this measure of simple justice which was sorely needed by our rural mail carriers. Let him be commended for so doing.
In conclusion, I wish to express my approval of all the social measures brought forth these last few years by the present government, and which have greatly contributed to promote the welfare of our people as a whole. In this respect, it should be sufficient to mention the family allowances. I favour also an increase of the old age pensions as well as all legislation liable to protect our people, and especially our modest and labouring classes, against sickness. I give unqualified support to the resolution presented last year by the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand) and which appears in his name again this year on the order paper, asking for a pension for crippled and disabled Canadians. The government must not forget that class of our population which heretofore has been insufficiently helped and protected. The Liberal party has to its credit wonderful achievements. Much still remains to be done and the Canadian people place great confidence in this party.
(Text):


Mr. McLURE:: At this late hour I am reminded of the words of a great philosopher who was also a great speaker, and who said he had not come to make a speech. It was the great Marc Antony who was paying a visit at midnight to the beautiful Cleopatra. He looked in and saw her reclining on a couch and he said, "Oh, my beautiful Cleopatra, I did not come at this late hour to make a

speech". I am not going to make a speech now; I simply wish to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
It being seven minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 23, 1947