STATEMENT AS TO HOLIDAY FOR STAFF ON VICTORIA DAY

['Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Chair? I think you asked for the guidance of the house with regard to holidays tomorrow for the House of Commons staff. I am seated a long way from you and I did not hear all that was said. I should just like to say that I hope Your Honour will give as wide an interpretation as is possible to the suggestion that, was made.\n\nVisiting Forces']
Mr. SPEAKER:: Some hon. members
having inquired whether the staff of the house would be given a holiday tomorrow, I have prepared the following statement.
There is no doubt that the staff of the House of Commons is entitled to a holiday tomorrow, but I have to consider the convenience of the members who intend to do some work in the building on that day. Such offices as the library, reading room and the post office, which are open on Sundays during the session, can hardly be closed. Mails will come regularly and will have to be sorted. Members preparing public statements might need to consult authorities or read newspapers. Apart from that all the clerical branches will be closed. As no doubt a great number of visitors will come into the building, we shall have to keep the constables and guides on duty. A couple of messengers will also have to work. The main dining room will be open until after luncheon, and the cafeteria will do business as usual. All the other members of the staff of the House of Commons, except the cleaners who will be employed from 6.30 to 8.30 and 9 a.m., will be on holiday. I am, however, in the hands of the house, and if hon. members decide that all the offices, except the constables, be closed, I will act accordingly.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Chair? I think you asked for the guidance of the house with regard to holidays tomorrow for the House of Commons staff. I am seated a long way from you and I did not hear all that was said. I should just like to say that I hope Your Honour will give as wide an interpretation as is possible to the suggestion that, was made.

Visiting Forces



[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on external affairs-Mr. Bradette.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I desire to move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria, Ont. (Mr. Hodgson), the adjournment of the house to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely
(1)	the proposed dissolution and scuttling of the British empire by giving up the empire defences and the military bases in the Mediterranean, Suez and in the middle east to the United States as a United States responsibility, and withdrawing the empire defences of these bases to East Africa;
(2)	The abandonment of the Suez canal and India and the situation in Palestine; inasmuch as on this 75th day of the session this house has not had any opportunity of discussing these very important matters which relate very materially to the future defence of this country as a member of the British commonwealth of nations.


James Horace King: As the hon. member
knows, it is possible to accept a motion for the adjournment of the house when an hon. member has no other opportunity to discuss the matter which he believes to be of urgent importance. Since we have now before the house the debate on the budget it is possible for hon. members to discuss the questions which the hon. member for Broadview believes to be of urgent importance. Therefore I see no reason to accept the motion to adjourn the house to afford the hon. gentleman an opportunity to discuss this matter.


Thomas Langton Church: With great respect to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I say we have had no opportunity to discuss this matter this session. The empire is being given away every day, and we do nothing about it. A member has always had the right to refer to the urgency of a matter he seeks to bring up at this stage. This is the 75th day of the session, and we have not had a chance to discuss these things. The ruling given before by Mr. Speaker Black on the question of urgency was only an opinion, which is not binding on the house now.


James Horace King: Motions.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to appeal from your ruling, Mr. Speaker. There has been no
opportunity to discuss these matters. I have been here a long time, but I have never seen this ruling given before.



EMPIRE DAY

Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Yesterday the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) suggested that today we might recognize Empire day, which is the day before May 24. It seems to me this house might very well accept that suggestion. Therefore I suggest that we follow the precedent set by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself on May 23, 1944, when he asked the house to rise and sing God Save the King in recognition of a very great day in the annals of the empire.
(The members rose and sang God Save the King)



VISITING FORCES


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 253, to make provision with respect to forces of the United States of America when visiting Canada and with respect to the exercise of discipline and to the internal administration of such forces.
He said: During the war there were provisions under the War Measures Act facilitating the exercise of disciplinary and administrative powers by the commanders of United States forces that might be in Canada on the invitation of the Canadian government. Those provisions expired on April 1 when the orders in council, other than those appended to the so-called omnibus bill, were repealed. This is a bill to make provision for the exercise of some disciplinary and administrative powers by commanders of such United States forces as may be in Canada on the invitation of the Canadian government, but without in any way excluding the jurisdiction of our own courts of justice.
Thomas Langton Church: Might I ask the minister what are visiting forces doing in this country? We are part of the British empire; what are they doing here without the consent of Britain and the dominions?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: These forces are visiting Canada as an autonomous unit of the commonwealth of British nations.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
United Nations



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the accession of Canada to the convention on the privileges and immunities of the united nations and to grant to the united nations and any specialized agency of which Canada is a member and which is brought into relationship with the united nations, to their officers and to the representatives of their members, the legal capacity, immunities, facilities and privileges necessary for the accomplishment of the purposes of the united nations and of its specialized agencies.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General having been informed of the subject matter of this resolution recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Thomas Langton Church: May I ask how many agencies it will cover?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The hon. gentleman asks how many of the specialized agencies of the united nations it will cover. It will cover all the specialized agencies of which Canada itself may be a member.


Thomas Langton Church: There are about four
hundred of them, I think. No wonder there is a scarcity of housing in Ottawa, with twenty-four countries to be represented here.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to issue securities not exceeding $46,723,000 in principal amount to provide the moneys necessary to meet capital expenditures made or capital indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1947; to authorize the governor in council to guarantee the principal, and interest of securities issued by the company for the purpose aforesaid; to authorize the making of temporary loans to the said company secured by such securities and not exceeding $46,723,000 in principal amount to enable the said company to meet such expenditures and indebtedness; with authority to give financial aid and assistance to other companies of the said national system.

He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider t.he following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to provide for the refunding of matured, maturing and callable financial obligations of the Canadian National Railways and for the issue of securities guaranteed by the dominion of Canada in respect of such refunding to an aggregate principal amount not exceeding $260,000,000.
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. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs):	Mr. Speaker,
on May 20 several questions were directed by hon. members to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and to me concerning the emigration to Yugoslavia of certain residents of Canada. As all the questions are related, the Prime Minister informed the house on May 21 that I would make a comprehensive statement on the subject.
The first suggestion that a group of Yugoslav nationals might leave Canada for Yugoslavia was made by the charge d'affaires of the Yugoslav legation in Ottawa in a letter, dated March 5, 1946. In this letter he stated that there were a number of Yugoslav nationals who wished to return to Yugoslavia when transportation facilities became available. He also raised the question of export permits for various Canadian products on behalf of the nationals concerned. The charge d'affaires was subsequently advised of the export regulations then in force.
In June, 1946, passports were granted to four Canadians of Yugoslav origin for the purpose of proceeding to Yugoslavia. The passports were granted subsequent to a written request from the charge d'affaires of the Yugoslav

Emigration
legation in which he stated that the applicants wished to proceed to Yugoslavia to make arrangements for certain Yugoslav nationals or Canadian citizens of Yugoslav descent who "were planning to return to Yugoslavia for the purpose of lending their skill and assistance in the reconstruction of the country."
Subsequent to the return of these persons to Canada a good deal appeared in the Yugo-slav-Canadian press about the return of Yugoslavs and Canadians of Yugoslav descent to Yugoslavia and it appears that funds were collected in connection with the proposed emigration.
In regard to the export of capital the regulations of the foreign exchange control board provide as hon. members know, that persons leaving Canada for permanent residence elsewhere are provided with sufficient foreign exchange to pay their passages and reasonable expenses en route. They are allowed to export personal and household effects, and their remaining cash assets up to a maximum of $25,000 each are transferable in Canadian funds.
A proposal was made by the Yugoslav charge d'affaires under which the resources of the emigrants, within the policy stated above, would be pooled through a central organization known as the Council of Canadian South Slavs. This body, instead of withdrawing the funds from Canada, would use them to make bulk purchases in Canada of goods suitable to trades in which the emigrants would engage upon their return to Yugoslavia.
This proposal was approved and bank accounts were established by the Council of Canadian South Slavs under the supervision of the foreign exchange control board. Although up-to-date figures are not available at present, deposits to the accounts have amounted to approximately $1,000,000.
In this connection export permits have been granted by the Department of Trade and Commerce for the export of material from Canada to Yugoslavia to the amount of $345,918. Some permits were granted to individuals direct; other permits were granted to Canadian manufacturers who apparently received orders for direct shipment.
Settlers' effects are not under export permit control. A farmer leaving Canada, therefore, would be free to take his farming equipment without the necessity of an export permit and, in a similar way, a mechanic would be free to take the tools of his trade. Undoubtedly the total value of settlers' effects would be considerable, but it is difficult to estimate the exact value involved.
It is also difficult to estimate the total number of persons leaving Canada under the auspices of the Council of Canadian South Slavs since passports would be applied for by the individuals concerned, if they are Canadians, and Yugoslavs would travel on Yugoslav passports. There is, of course, no regulation or law which prevents a Canadian or an alien leaving Canada of his own free will. The legal position of an alien leaving Canada is governed by the Immigration Act which provides that an alien acquires Canadian domicile "only by having his domicile for at least five years in Canada after having been landed therein". He loses his domicile by "voluntarily residing out of Canada with the present intention of making his permanent home out of Canada and not for a mere special or temporary purpose."
Thus a Yugoslav citizen, regardless of the length of time he has lived in Canada, will lose his right to reenter Canada if he goes to Yugoslavia with the intention of making his permanent home in Yugoslavia. Should he change his mind and wish to reenter Canada, he would have no right to reenter Canada and would have to apply for admission as any other prospective immigrant.
Moreover, if he should be readmitted to Canada, he could not count his previous stay in Canada for the acquisition of Canadian domicile. In order to become a citizen of Canada, he would, after his return, have to remain in Canada for five years.
The legal position of a Canadian citizen by naturalization leaving Canada is governed by sections 20 and 21 of the Canadian Citizenship Act. Section 20 reads in part as follows: "A Canadian citizen, other than a natural-born Canadian citizen . . . ceases to be a Canadian citizen if he resides outside Canada for a period of at least six consecutive years," subject to various provisos. Section 21 provides inter alia for cancellation of citizenship by order-in-council if a naturalized citizen "out of Canada has shown himself by act or speech to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty."
It is important to note that a warning appears at the back of the current Canadian passport, which reads as follows:
Canadian citizens by naturalization certificate or citizenship certificate should bear in mind that unless under the laws of the state to which they originally belonged or by the provision of a treaty, they have ceased to be subjects of that state, their certificates have no effect within its boundaries nor can the good offices of His Majesty's representatives be extended to them there.
If. therefore, any Canadian citizen by naturalization who goes to Yugoslavia is,
[Stage Direction]
Newfoundland
[Stage Direction]
under Yugoslav law, a citizen of Yugoslavia, the Canadian government will not be able to grant him any measure of protection as long as he remains in Yugoslavia.
The group, which is now assembled in Montreal, have satisfied the various regulations applicable to their movement to Yugoslavia both in regard to themselves and to goods purchased by them. No doubt they are aware of their possible loss of status under Canadian law but they are free to go to Yugoslavia or to any other country if they so wish.
On May 21 the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) asked whether I would take steps to see that the Canadian passports carried by the expatriate Yugoslavs now in process of returning to their homeland be protected in such a way as to prevent their alteration or transference to other persons, and ensure that each Canadian passport issued to this group will be easily identifiable on its reentry to Canada. I can assure the hon. member that every effort will be made to guard against the misuse of these Canadian passports.
Allegations have been made in the press that improper methods have been used to persuade residents of Canada to return to Yugoslavia or to contribute to the funds which have been raised to finance the return of other residents of Canada. Should any evidence come to hand as to the methods used in these or any other cases which would warrant action by the government, it will not hesitate to take such action.
Thomas Langton Church: Are the Yugoslavs being given priorities in shipping? If so, with what companies, when Canadian citizens can get no shipping at all?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Any arrangements that have been made for transport were made by themselves or through persons other than agents of the Canadian government.


Gordon Graydon: Is there a reciprocal provision whereby people may bring assets from a communist controlled country to a democratic country such as ours? It seems to me that we are giving them certain privileges which they would not grant to their own citizens who might be coming here.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think we have to judge our regulations and laws on their merits, and not on their conformity or otherwise with laws of other countries, some of which our people would not readily accept.


Gordon Graydon: I think that the public would not expect this government or the
government of any democratic country to be too soft with people who are known as communists and who would revolutionize our system of government.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would point out that these are general regulations. There are no special regulations made for any special class of resident of Canada. The regulations are general and I think they have to be judged on the basis of whether or not they are proper for the Canadian people.


Mr. FERGUSON:: Our esteemed minister of immigration (Mr. Glen) is unfortunately in hospital, but I should like to direct a reminder to his department to remember, when Yugoslavs wish to enter Canada as immigrants, the action of the Yugoslavs now leaving who are exporting all they can from this country.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: I notice in this morning's Ottawa Journal that a delegation from Newfoundland is bound for Washington to discuss a trade agreement between that country and the United States. First I should like to ask when the conference is to be held in connection wfith that country joining the Canadian confederation. Second, if they make a trade agreement with the United States will it interfere with the conference on confederation and preferences?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Within the last twenty-four hours June 25 has been fixed as the date for the opening of the meeting between the representatives of the assembly in Newfoundland and the representatives of Canada. Of course this government would not like to make any comment upon any action that is being taken with respect to trade agreements by the government of Newfoundland. It may very well be that the existence or non-existence of agreements will be matters to be considered at the conference, but this government would not presume to volunteer any advice or voice any criticism as to what is being done by another government.


Gordon Graydon: How many will compose the Newfoundland delegation?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: We have not been informed of the composition of the delegation.
IMr. St. Laurent.]

Inquiries oj the Ministry



CABINET MINISTERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think I should rise on a question of privilege in order to correct a report respecting the salaries of cabinet ministers which appears in the Montreal Gazette of this morning. After referring to the Prime Minister's salary, the report continues :
The other cabinet ministers get a total of $18,000 each, of which $10,000 is for the post of minister, $2,000 for motor car and $6,000 sessional indemnity, all of the latter being free of income tax.
The correct position of course is that all of the latter is subject to income tax.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: Can the Minister of Labour inform the house if any passages booked by Canadians coming to Canada on the Aquitania have been cancelled in favour of Polish immigrants who are en route here?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I have no knowledge of the matter, but I should say that the arrangements would be made by the British government.



DEFENCE RESEARCH BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. H. WINTERS (Queens-Lunenburg):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if he will consider increasing the personnel of the interim defence research board to include a member from Nova Scotia.


Hon. BROOKE CLANTON (Minister of National Defence):: Consideration is being given to the membership of the defence research board in order to give adequate representation to all parts of the country and the various interests that should be represented on the board.


Gordon Graydon: You must be in a bad way with the by-election down there.



PRESENT STOCKS IN STORAGE-QUESTION AS TO INCREASE IN RATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of a press statement today regarding sugar stocks in storage in Canada. According to the report these stocks are very large. The question I wish to ask is this: In view of that situation has consideration been given to increasing the ration by approximately four pounds per person in order to take up the surplus?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not seen the press report and no doubt my hon. friend had not been able to send me notice of his question. I doubt whether the surplus is as great as the newspaper report would indicate, but in any event I shall look into the matter and make a statement to the house early next week.



MEAT RATIONING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. B. BARRETT (Norfolk):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that July 1 this year falls on a meatless day, will the government consider suspending this order for that day to meet the anticipated heavy demand for food arising from the expected inflow of tourists?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have a similar question from the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Stephenson). I shall look into the matter and see whether anything can be done.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, May 22, consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell (Muskoka-Ontario) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege last night of moving the adjournment of the debate. I want to say for the benefit of hon. members
83166-216$
The Budget-Mr. McLure
[Stage Direction]
that I have waited for some considerable time for a member from my province to speak on behalf of that province. As they have not seen fit to do so I believe it is my duty to say a few words at this time. I feel that if any member from my province had spoken what he would have said would have been more favourable to the government than what I am about to say.
After I moved adjournment of the debate last night some of my friends on both sides of the house said to me, "Well, we will hear tomorrow all about that car ferry, freight and truck traffic, transportation and the nonfulfilment of the confederation pact." At first I felt that this was a rather embarrassing suggestion, but on second thought I realize it is a compliment, whether or not it was intended as such. If I had time-
James Horace King: I would ask hon. members to moderate their voices. It is nearly impossible to hear the hon. member who has the floor. I suggest that those who have important conversations to carry on might use the lobby.


Mr. McLURE:: Or let them go to their rooms, Mr. Speaker, and have their usual sleep. If I had time this house would surely hear about the government's neglect in fulfilment of our confederation pact, but another time is coming, and before this house rises, even if it is in September or October, I shall have my say on that subject. I am not afraid to demand from this government or any other government or any other party the rights that belong to my province as a province.
I have noticed, Mr. Speaker, as you have noticed, that as soon as hon. members rise to speak in this debate a great many members hike for the nearest exit as if somebody had called out "All ashore that's going ashore". I have kept a partial register of this and I have found that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) had a full house, and in my humble opinion he deserved it, whether he pleased them or otherwise. But as hon. members on different sides began to debate the budget the attendance petered out from a full house to a score of deuces and one queen. I have kept a register of attendance when the hon. members were speaking and on a great many occasions there was barely a quorum in the house. But what is the difference, Mr. Speaker? We are all speaking to Hansard, to our constituents, so after all we are all on a par. As I look at the government side today I am grateful for a better attendance than most 
hon. members have had, and I would say thank you to them for that. I will say this, that if there were no Hansard, reporters in this house I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I could fill this chamber in the next ten minutes -if there was no record to go to the country of what I should say-and that is true of a great many others.
In this budget debate I have not missed one sitting of the house. I have listened to all the speeches on the maritimes except the one delivered by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and I could not help being absent on that occasion; I was called out of the house. Some of the speeches I am not in a position to understand fully, and ,1 regret that very much indeed. When hon. members speak in that classical language, French, unless they go slowly and carefully, as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) do, I am at a loss to understand what they say. While I was born in a French settlement in Prince Edward Island, known as North Rustico-and I was proud to be born in that, settlement-I always held it against the French people there that they wanted to learn English but we were not privileged to learn French. However, the other day on happening to meet one of the French members of the redistribution committee I interpreted to him what I wanted to make known with regard to Queens county. I said this to him, "Ne touchez pas Queens."
During this debate, and especially within the last couple of days, I have felt elated, Mr. Speaker, that the maritimes are being recognized, so well recognized that I am almost envious that we have not a by-election pending in the province of Prince Edward Island. When the government realize that they have a long overdue by-election on their hands they seem to sit up and take notice, to warm up to the fact that the maritimes are a part of Canada. But I do not give the entire credit to the by-election. I believe that hon. members who have spoken so ably on the unfulfilled obligations of the government to the neglected maritimes have exerted a great deal of influence. I refer to such hon. members as the member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black), the hon. member for Colehester-Hants (Mr. Stanfield), the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor), the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Kirk), and there have been a great many others. I didi hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bridges), with all his eloquence, would have spoken on the rights of the maritimes in this debate. I do wish to say that it afforded me real pleasure when the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MAY 23, 1947
The Budget-Mr. McLure
MacNicol), a constituency of that great province of Ontario, climaxed his efforts by his interest and factual information regarding the neglected maritimes of this dominion. It was a grand and glorious feeling for me when he spoke about the best bit of red earth in the world, my province. It was an assurance to me also that my efforts to keep the island on the map have not been in vain. All this, Mr. Speaker, is a preamble to the subject that is before us for debate at this time, one that is important to us all whether we are in private or political life, and that is the subject of the budget.
In introducing the budget on April 29 the Minister of Finance informed the house that it was his first. Political history records the fact that it is either the making or the breaking of the man who first delivers the budget. At this time I wish to congratulate the Minister of Finance on playing first fiddle. Since his debut in political life seven years ago the hon. gentleman has played many parts in government. He played second fiddle to the ex-minister of finance (Mr. Ilsley); second fiddle to the ex-minister of defence, Hon. J. L. Ralston, and to another ex-minister, General A. G. L. McNaughton. Then through the strategy of the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Case), he became minister of defence. On Tuesday, April 29, we found him calling the tune and playing first fiddle. At that time it was interesting to note how the Prime Minister smiled upon him as he called him to the second fiddle seat in the front row, and when the Minister of Finance in his address would draw a long bow with a high note how the Prime Minister beamed upon his protege with the nicest of Virginian smiles!
In his budget speech the Minister of Finance told us that a great day is coming. What the people want is the present day to be great. They are not willing to buy futures even on a 29 per cent profit margin. A few days prior to the minister delivering his budget speech I looked at a picture of him in the Globe and Mail. I do not believe he had a moustache at that time. There I saw a man in comfortable attire, shirtsleeves rolled up to the biceps, earning his $18,000 annual indemnity by the sweat of his noble brow. It reminded me of the words of a great British Prime Minister who said, "sweat and tears" *-sweat for the Minister of Finance but tears for the taxpayers of Canada.
According to the minister he laboured hard and well to make us believe that his first budget held out more money for all, higher wages for all, higher profits for all, lower taxes for all, lower prices for all, higher production for all industry with floor and ceiling prices to protect producers and consumers. Oh, what a hope! But notwithstanding all this clanging of tambourines and idealistic verbiage, when the searchlight is turned on the budget it reveals at the same time the nigger in the woodpile of hope for better things. By this budget will come stifling of private enterprise with less production, more jobless men-and it is reported we have thirty thousand of them in the maritimes at the present time-more discontent and general dissatisfaction throughout the entire country.
Having listened attentively to the minister's budget from the first to the last I wondered who prepared it-I knew who delivered it, and in my opinion it was exceptionally well delivered. But I noticed particularly the high praise given to the budgets of other years- and I wish the ex-minister of finance were in his seat. Then I wondered why the change of ministers in the financial department. Had the previous minister become over popular, or had he lost caste with the taxpayers of Canada to the detriment of this government? That question I shall leave for hon. gentlemen to answer.
When the budget was finished I thought of an old quotation from scripture which is heard frequently. It. will be found in Genesis, chapter 27, verse 22:
The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: You have it wrong. Read your bible again. "The voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hand is the hand of Esau."


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Mr. Speaker, I should love to correct the hon. gentleman; I know he has religious ideas, but he is mistaken im correcting me.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Get me a bible.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Most of us considered it was a typical budget of other years funnelled through a younger minister in a government effort to eliminate some of the bad taste of other drastic budgets; for instance, failure to increase exemption for both married and single persons. We all believe the government owes every man and woman, if physically fit and capable of doing so, an opportunity to earn a living. The lower paid or salaried people in the country are earning only a bare existence and are paying their full share of taxation to the revenue department, through hidden taxes. They should not have to pay an income tax on top of what they are already paying. To my mind these things are proof
The Budget-Mr. McLure


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was classified as expenditures when the stuff was paid for.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: 
Douglas Charles Abbott: Million.

The Budget-Mr. McLure


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Million.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: Read a little more carefully.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Let me hear that voice again.


James Sinclair: Read a little more carefully. If you are going to read you might as well read correctly.


An hon. MEMBER:: You read too.


James Sinclair: I speak every single word. I don't read.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: For instance, the Minister of Finance announced over a month ago that there would be a surplus of over 1200 million.


James Sinclair: That is right, $200 million.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: You are listening, are you? The leader of His Majesty's opposition foresaw, some sixty days prior to that, a thirty per cent income tax reduction, which he announced. My leader must have had some inside information; whether he was in collaboration with the Minister of Finance-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can assure my hon.
friend as to that; there was no collaboration.
Mr. McLL'RE: -it is not for me to say, but he was only one per cent higher than the minister.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No one was more surprised than the leader of the opposition.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: However, the minister has boasted about his record as surpassing that of all the finance ministers in the past eighty years.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, no. I am sure my hon. friend wants to be fair. I did not boast that my record was better than that of any finance minister in the last eighty years. That is the last thing I would want to do.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I would not desire to accuse the minister of boasting, but he compared his record to the record of the last eighty years.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not my record.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: That reminded me of a story. The district attorney in a court was having trouble with one of his witnesses, a rather pugnacious gentleman. The attorney asked, "Are you acquainted with any of the jurymen?" And the witness replied, "More than half of them." Then the district attorney asked, "Are you willing to swear that you know more than half of them?" The old witness looked at the jury box and replied, "If it comes to that, your honour,
I am willing to swear that I know more than all of them put together." Thus said the Minister of Finance.
With further reference to the secrecy concerning this budget I may say that a month before it was brought down I was told on what now appears to have been good authority that furs and fur farming were to receive a real walloping. Well, when this budget was brought down on April 29 last it left an aching void in the hearts of furriers and fox ranchers from one end of Canada to the other, notwithstanding the fact that all the information concerning this great conservation industry had been laid before the minister, showing that its condition was such that only most heroic remedial measures could restore it to prosperity. Naturally one of these measures would be the removal of the processing tax and the over-all sales tax. Then manufacturers and retailers would be encouraged to feature silver fox and mutation fox, which are without doubt the most beautiful of all furs in the world, and have been so regarded for over half a century. Only a very small proportion of the women of America have ever been able to purchase silver fox furs, though a great many of them desire to own a scarf, a stole, a cape or a coat. The fact is that the government have taxed this fur practically off the market. In 1945 I endeavoured to get the then minister of finance to see that his tax policy was about to strangle this great conservation industry with a twenty-five per cent processing tax. At that time this tax was cut to ten per cent. Then came the blow that killed the industry, that obnoxious, I was almost going to say cursed tax, of eight per cent over-all on the finished fur article, making the last state a great deal worse than the first.
If time permitted I should like to show this house, as I did in 1945, that by this over-all sales tax, and the processing tax, the total tax on all furs had been increased from about five per cent on the meanest kind to as high as sixty-five per cent. The governments of both Canada and the United States have allowed enormous quantities of outside furs to be brought into these countries-how is my time, Mr. Speaker?


James Horace King: The hon. gentleman has just about one minute left.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Since I do not speak very often. Mr. Speaker, I crave the indulgence of the house and ask for a short extension, even though hon. members want to vote today.
Last year the United States imported over $300,000,000 worth of furs, and this did not include silver fox and mutation fox. About
The Budget-Mr. McLure

$100,000,000 worth of furs were imported from Soviet Russia; and while the bulk of these furs went to the United States, a great many millions of dollars worth seeped into Canada, This heavy taxation and these importations took away the demand for our furs, and the only remedy for the situation in Canada would be to take off the processing and sales taxes on silver fox and mutation fox, and perhaps also on mink, though ranch mink is allowed free entry into the United States while silver fox from Canada must pay an ad valorem duty of 35 per cent. The strongest and best kind of government is one that is willing to protect its own people. Let us have some reduction in taxation in regard to this industry.
I wish to mention another matter that has been impressed upon me by the people of Prince Edward Island, and particularly the people of the constituency of Queens; that is the taxation on soft drinks and chocolate bars.


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but he has exhausted his time, and unless he has the unanimous consent of the house I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Proceed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I shall not take very long.


James Horace King: If the hon. member has not unanimous consent I shall be obliged to ask him to resume his seat. I suggest that he conclude in a few words.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Following the representations made by youth organizations, hospitals, churches, schools and the children themselves, one would have anticipated that this obnoxious tax would be abolished, but no. The government claim they are giving the children real money. It is a case of the minister of welfare handing out the baby bonus to the children, and the Minister of Finance coming around the corner and swiping the children's candy and soft drinks. Here again it is the voice of Jacob but the hand of Esau. There is also the jewellery nuisance tax. There is no change because, the minister says, this tax is bringing in something like $25,000,000. In these taxes surely such essential articles as alarm clocks, watches and tableware might have been exempt. Here is an example of the taxation. On a $20 watch at the factory the government gets $11.60, and on an alarm clock costing $2.50 at the factory there is a tax of $1.45.
Then, there are two conflicting reports with regard to the dominion-provincial agreements.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Time.


James Horace King: The hon. member's time has expired, and I would ask him to resume his seat.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I do not make a practice of referring to personal notes in the house. However, I have received a personal note from a dear friend of mine saying that I had made a mistake in a biblical quotation. I find that the quotation in the bible I was brought up on, the old Presbyterian bible is- and my hon. friend was correct:
The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau.
The bible of my very dear friend of another faith in this house-and in which I was not brought up-contains these words in Genesis:
The voice indeed is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau.


Mr. J. S. SINNOTT (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take part in this debate, even at this late stage. I have had the privilege of listening to others, and in what I shall say I shall try not to repeat what others have said.
The last few minutes, when we have had to listen to the woes and the wails and the painting of that dismal future for Canada, have been most painful. I do not think anything can be more destructive than the wails and woes such as we have heard from the hon. member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. McLure).
Before approaching my main item, may I compliment the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene) who painted such a. rosy picture of his constituency. From his speech one could tell that nature was close to his heart. I am sure the people of his constituency are behind him, heart and soul, when he tries to do something for them.
May I express a vote of thanks, too, to the hon. member for North York (Mr. Smith) who, along with others has been trying to bring about dominion-provincial meetings so that his constituency might receive the benefit therefrom.
I should like also to compliment that grand old man from Brandon (Mr. Matthews), the daddy of the house. When I heard him making his colourful speech I knew he had his people at heart. No wonder he has retained his seat for such a long time.
I would compliment, too, the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) upon his fine speech.
Today I speak as a back-bencher, one who is not in the $18,000 brackets which have

The Budget-Mr. Sinnott
been mentioned. I am going to speak on my own behalf, not on behalf of the party; and in doing so I shall express my own opinion. I shall not be over-critical of any party in the house, for the simple reason that as a back-bencher, whether my views are good or bad, I do not suppose they will be taken anyway.
The former minister of finance worked under terrific strain during wartime, and he has now given way to a younger man, a man who must work very hard, with his shirt sleeves rolled up, as was pointed out by an earlier speaker. Having been reeve of a municipality for a number of years I can join hands with him in my knowledge of the terrific strain to which he must have been subjected in carrying out his financing. I maintain that the whole process of financing is based on a system of debt. This afternoon I shall attempt to make my opinions as clear as possible. As chairman of a school board I found that the board had to borrow money from the bank to carry on its year's activities, and had to pay a terrific amount of interest on the amount it borrowed. The municipalities, in turn, had to borrow money from the bank to carry on their activities for the year. Provincial and dominion governments must do the same thing.
Just to show the inconsistencies in connection with getting money, let me point out one or two things. To get money when you need it and to get it when you do not need it are two different things. The first year I was reeve of a municipality of 4,000 people our credit stood at $8,000. We were in dire need of money at that time-that was back in 1936-but we were refused it, because it was said that our credit was not good. It was pointed out to us that some of our taxes were outstanding. We had only $8,000 to operate our schools, for which the sum of $30,000 was required. After seven or eight years of good financing we reduced the municipal debt by $229,000. We bought a drag line and other modern road equipment, and also built 400 miles of road. In the last year we could have got $50,000 credit at the bank, but we did not need it then. What I have stated illustrates that money is plentiful when it is not required, but when one is in dire need of it he cannot have it.
Anyone who will read the little red book will see that I am set down as an implement dealer. It happened that I was following that occupation for a few months prior to my coming to Ottawa. But during the greater part of my life I have been farming, and it is on behalf of the farmers I should like to say a few words today.
There are two classes of farmers. There is the grain grower, and there is the other farmer who produces live stock in addition to his grain crops. I have not much sympathy for the man who is just growing grain, because I know that on the western prairies they simply sow their seed in the spring and take off their crops in the fall, year in and year out, with the result that the land becomes lighter and blows away. They are robbers of the soil. The men whom I want to defend are the dairy farmers and the hog raisers. These men really work for a living, milking their cows, raising hogs, and so on. They must farm 365 dajrs in the year. They cannot just pull out in the fall, go to California and return in the spring-they must stay on the job. The animals must be fed in the morning, the cows must be milked, then fed again at dinner time and at night. The daily chores of such a farmer run from six in the morning until ten o'clock at night.
I have a letter here from the secretary treasurer of the municipality in which I reside which shows the extent of the benefits derived from the dominion-provincial conference. This municipality is going to get six mills on the general assessment. School taxes vary from 35 mills to 61 mills, and in most cases it has been a great help. In the case of a property worth $3,000, there will be a reduction of $18 in the school taxes alone, or approximately 30 per cent.
An hon. member has mentioned Mr. Krug. I have a letter from him which reads in part:
Your ideas of using the Bank of Canada to finance public indebtedness and the private banks to finance private activities are similar to my own views.
Let us not have any more of this funny money story we hear so much about. The Bank of Canada should be used for the benefit of the people of Canada. Some people will say, "Oh, something for nothing." This is the funny money story that crops up and which we hear so much about. Let me say here and now that it would be the same kind of money as I hold here in my hand.


An hon. MEMBER:: How much is it?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: This happens to be one dollar.


Gordon Graydon: You are taking no
chances?


An hon. MEMBER :: Are you going to table it?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Our Lord said that the law of life is work, that if a man 'will not work, neither let him eat, Our colossal debt of
The Budget-Mr. Probe

$13,079 million is getting to the point where some people cannot even figure it. The interest charges on that debt amount to $437,517,000. Much could be accomplished if that interest were put to better use. I am going to urge our young minister not to depend upon his old advisers who cherish the philosophy of a debt-creating system. He should get down to brass tacks and see what makes the clock tick. I am sure that if he uses his ability along those lines the people of Canada will certainly appreciate it.
I should like to say a word about the miserable old age pensions. I ask any hon. member to try to live in Ottawa in decency on $30 a month. He will find that you have to pay' from $15 up to $25 for a room in which to live. What money have you left to live on? A pension of $60 a month is not too much for our aged people. This could be paid under a contributory system. The Bank of Canada could be used to create the necessary credit. I do not believe in giving out something for nothing; the people should learn to save and contribute.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Why use the Bank of Canada?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: We will have to help them out because we could not expect them to save all the money themselves. If we created this money' through the Bank of Canada and gave the aged people a decent monthly allowance of $60 we would be creating a market for much of our production right here at home. I hope the Minister of Finance will take a little advice from a back-bencher and see that this is done.


Mr. J. O. PROBE (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I have but one purpose in taking part in the present budget debate. I am compelled to voice the intense disappointment of the citizens of my riding and Canadians in all walks of life at the financial sleight-of-hand displayed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in his first budget address. To say' that the minister made a clever speech is unhappily true. His voice was strong even though his arguments were a bit weak. The applause from the back benches of the Liberal party was vociferous if a bit forced. The congratulatory press releases of the next day covered up the obvious and growing decay of government statemanship with clever facades of impressive statistics.
The minister's speech reminded me of nothing so much as a conducted tour of a district under the arrangement of the local chamber of commerce. Such tours invariably show the credulous tourist the respectable scenes of 
the community. He is shown the great public and industrial buildings, the main streets and the landscaped homes of the thriving local aristocracy, all telling the story of material success and accumulating wealth. But the guide shields his visitors from even a glimpse of the local slums, from the unkempt and undernourished children and from the garrets of poverty on the other side of the tracks by whose degradation the outward glittering facade is usually able to be maintained. Such a guide was Canada's Minister of Finance in his economic report to the nation three weeks ago. To the House of Commons he said, and I quote from page 2543 of Hansard of April 29:
Today we see a Canada enjoying a degree of prosperity never exceeded in living memory. We look forward to a year of high production and incomes. Indeed, we would appear to have ample excuse for self-satisfaction and easy optimism.
Those were the minister's words.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Go on and read what I said after that; read the whole text.


John Oliver Probe: I have read it. I do not doubt that is the view to be seen on the minister's side of the tracks. To his sightseeing colleagues on the treasury benches such a picture is reasonable, because the federal books shows an apparent surplus of $352 million in government operations for the fiscal year just concluded.
The annual reports of big business to shareholders show that industrial companies have had a similar money experience: from the 1946 balance sheet of Monarch Knitting Company, showing a 309 per cent increase in net profits over 1945; from Orange Crush Company, a 448 per cent increase; from Building Products Company, a 256 per cent increase; from Moirs' Chocolates, a 226 per cent increase; from International Paper, a 265 per cent increase; from major corporations everywhere, equally staggering reports of golden harvests in practically all lines of business, thanking the government no doubt for past favours, but holding out sticky hands for more and yet more concessions by way of relaxed price controls, of bigger export guarantees, double depreciation, lower income tax rates, and removal of checks on excess profits.
And the minister, having heard the perpetual clamour of the lobbyist for bigger and better profits, and perhaps planning strategy for the inevitable election, the only type of planing which has merit in the eyes of laissez-faire governments, trots out his carefully groomed budget for our inspection. Well, let us look at it. Here is his forecast for the next year:

The Budget-Mr. Probe
Sales tax up $27 million; excise duties and other excise taxes up $13 million-thus far an increase of $40 million. Definitely no relief there to the people who pay such taxes.
Excess profits taxes cut by $279 million. There is a nice fat incentive melon to the overworked coupon clippers.
Personal income taxes down $70 million, with no change in previously announced exemptions. There is another load cut off the weary shoulders of income taxpayers, with tax relief given, as usual, under capitalism, in inverse ratio to need.
Of course the minister informed the house that over half the people of Canada are now receiving so little pay that they pay no income tax anyway; and that in spite of an exemption figure which is below the cost of living. Families in the low income brackets do not cheer the 1947 budget.
But a few of those who have better than average incomes do quite well by themselves. Not the single man getting $800 yearly, whose need for incentive to produce more is valued at $6 for the next year since he will save only $6 next year on income tax. That saving will not give him a net balance after the rising costs of room rent, food and clothing are considered.
But a single man now getting $3,000 yearly will have $173 annual tax relief. He needs $173 to whip up his incentive. And one getting $10,000 a year will have $785 more relief than in 1946. It seems to take a bigger bonus in the view of the Minister of Finance to create an incentive to the $10,000 a year bachelor to work for that brave new world!
On the minister's side of the tracks such lopsided tax relief is not only fair but necessary! A married man with two children will, if he is now getting $150 a month, save $10 a year. Remember, the Minister of Finance puts such a man in 'the upper crust of Canada's salary scale. Maybe fear of starvation should be ample incentive for such a man! For him a tax reduction of eighty-three cents a month, to lay away for the rising cost of shoes, or enough to pay the increased cost of less than half the milk his children need

if they could afford to eat those things they should be eating.
Of course a married man with wages of $250 a month gets $83 a year cut from his income tax. or enough to allow him to pay his landlord $7 a month more rent, now that rental ceilings have conveniently risen to absorb the tax relief. You can trust a good landlord to cooperate!
The married man with two children and a salary of $10,000 a year gets approximately $2 a day relief from his tax burden.
And so it goes. The higher your income, the higher is the value the Minister of Finance puts on incentive. The higher your income, and the less your need, the greater the relief from income tax. To continue to quote from Scripture, as has been done so conveniently this afternoon, "For whomsoever hath, to him shall be given,"-by all versions.
And what about the minister's plans for increased incentives to the corporations whose profits I quoted a moment ago? Where in the past fiscal year corporation and excess profits taxes of $688 million were taken away from the industrialists, next year will see only $470 million returned to the people of Canada from this source. A cool incentive of $218 million to big business! Not a bad year's work in the lobbies for free enterprise! The minister is helping to reconstruct post-war capitalism with a vengeance, and as always, at the expense of the underfed and the under privileged! For a single year, Canadian corporations get tax reductions amounting to more than six years federal payments of old age pensions at the current rate. Nothing stingy about that scale of relief for rugged industrialists! But the needy pensioner still waits for government action! And still the Tories are not satisfied! The incentives I have mentioned are still not enough for the family compact!
The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell). in his role as spokesman for the Progressive Conservative party on the budget, demanded that the government take steps to return government interest rates from their present three per cent to the good old five and six per cent of the Tory-dominated finance rates of world war I. Strange how the Conservatives babble away incessantly about government economies, and then one of their most respected front benchers demands interest rates that would raise Canada's self-imposed subsidy to parasitic money-lenders by another $437 million yearly. This one request bv the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario would build up a $875 million present annually from Canada to the great financial institutions and the so-called middle class pensioners for whom my hon. member the financial critic for the Progressive Conservative pleads so eloquently. I wonder whether he will ever plead as sincerely for the expenditure of an equal amount of Canadian money for a universal old age pension scheme for all Canadians, to include those who live on the other side of the tracks as well as his beloved middle-class pensioners. They have to face the facts of life more insecurely equipped than do the coupon clippers who would make every day a day for Christmas giving to themselves.
The Budget-Mr. Probe

I regret to state, Mr. Speaker, that, in my view, so far as the post-war period is concerned the economic action of the government has been one of gradually yielding to the wishes and the policies of the Conservative party. The Liberals, yes, and even the Tories on occasion, in debate and in their election literature so often talk the language of a planned economy as advocated by the C.C.F. They do this on the hustings because they are astute enough to know that economic planning is what Canada must have and what Canadians will vote for, but after every election to office the great betrayal is shameless and persistent. This budget gives relief to the rich once more, and it leaves at least the majority of Canadians worse off than before by its failure to eliminate or reduce hidden taxes, the more vicious because they are concealed taxes. I refer to the sales, customs and excise taxes. In his address the minister said that over half the Canadians were too poor to pay income tax; yet these same poor people bear the heaviest tax rate of all our citizens, with the hidden indirect tax of eight per cent, the sales tax and the excise tax. For those who need tax relief most the minister has done nothing in the budget. Not only are these low income families unable to get the meagre benefits of income tax reduction because they have no taxable income, but this coming year the full impact of rising rents, higher costs of food and of clothing, the unnecessary removal of the various subsidies on milk, butter, coal and so on play havoc with the pay cheque of the family.
Let me state this in another way. It is primary economics under any modern government that is not a malevolent dictatorship for public revenues to be levied in accordance with ability to pay, and that the greater the tax needed, the more steeply graduated must be the rates. No such economic policy is at work in the minister's present tax structure; in fact it is quite the reverse. Even in the field of corporation tax the Liberal policy is content to levy a uniform rate on great and small operators alike. Where does the accepted principle of ability to pay rest in the minister's calculation, in this instance?
By the British North America Act of 1867 the powers of provincial governments were limited to the right to collect direct taxes such as those levied on incomes or estates. These taxes cannot be concealed in the cost of living or in the cost of production. In their payment the taxpayer is always acutely conscious of the fact that he is paying taxes and of the amount that he is being taxed. By the same act the dominion government was empowered to levy either direct taxes such as the income fix, or indirect taxes such as the customs,
l"Mr. Probe.]
sales or excise tax. Until 1917, during world war I, the dominion remained out of the field of direct taxation, confining its tax powers to those which the producer or importer could usually pass on to the ultimate consumer by concealing the tax in the price tag.
These taxes being hidden in the price tag, were not so glaringly evident to the consumer and, being unknown taxes, were not unpopular. He became critical of the income tax only when his income became taxable, but accepted the more regressive sales tax because he was unaware that, regardless of how low his income, heavy taxes were, in fact, being charged against him, but concealed in the prices of the necessities he bought.
As late as 1930, one-third of all taxes in Canada were of the hidden variety, and just barely one-fifteenth of all taxes were levied on income or inheritance; or, in other words, only one-fifteenth of municipal, provincial and federal taxes were based on ability to pay. It is through this economic sleight-of-hand of dominion ministers of finance, by which they weave sales taxes, excise taxes and customs duties into the cost of living that they pick the pockets of the low-income citizen of Canada.
Every time he buys a can of corned beef for his lunch pail, or the overall for his back, or the paper with which he shapes his smoke, or the tools with which he earns his meagre income-tax-free pay cheque, or when he turns on a light switch to find his weary bed at night, this consumer, who is free from direct tax, still pays a more onerous tax than does his neighbour in the fashionable suburb.
When he buys soles to repair the shoes of his children, or he pays for the cloth his wife uses to patch the holes in the inferior quality clothes that business ethics condone, he pays generous profits to unbridled enterprise (plus customs duty on the imported portions), plus the eight per cent sales tax to the Minister of Finance, plus a 50 per cent to 75 per cent collection fee on the tax, also concealed in the extra mark-up, and too often a 1-J per cent to 2 per cent per month finance charge due to recent sickness or unemployment having caused bills to accumulate.
Even the chocolate bar and the pop bottle pay their regressive tax of 20 per cent to 40 per cent to help create the surplus of the Minister of Finance. The soda-fountain courtships of Canada's glowing-cheeked adolescents are halted till the tax collector gets his two cents a bottle. With the price difference between the drugstore soda and the barroom beer so little, it is small wonder that I have had nearly three hundred letters from youth groups of Regina and elsewhere draw-

The Budget-Mr. Probe
ing attention to the moral danger implied in the minister's sales and excise tax policy, as well as to the disproportionate share of Canada's tax burden charged against the teenage habits of our youngsters. It is refreshing to me that Canadian youth is more keenly alert to the injustice of regressive taxation policies, and more vociferous in protest, than are adult citizens who may be below the income tax exemption; for the latter, quite aware that they pay little or none of the direct income taxes to which their better-off neighbours are liable, remain complacent about the hidden taxes, even while they are bewildered as to the real reason why their wages never quite stay ahead of living expenses.
I will make a wager with the Minister of Finance that if he would make it compulsory for the next six months for every sales tag to show the amount of the price covered by hidden indirect tax, either he would be compelled to bring in a proper sales tax in the next budget, or the Liberal party would go out of existence at the next election.
But so long as the tax may be hidden from the consumer, sufficiently to prevent widespread political repercussions, the degree of impact of the tax burden is to the Liberals of as small concern as it was to the despotic Bourbons of France 200 years ago.
A sales tax that nets the government eight per cent at the point of collection becomes a tax of 12 to 14 per cent to the consumer by the time the wholesaler and retailer have added their mark-up. So that when the government estimates receipts from excise taxes -and duties of $490 million; customs duties of $230 million, and sales tax of $325 million, these hidden taxes totalling $1,045 million will actually cost Canadian consumers, because of the mefEceney of collection procedure, from $1,500 to $1,800 million for 1947. This is one important view of Canada's budget which the minister neglected to show our people, and which I feel must be shown to complete the scene.
Since levy of indirect taxes is not based on ability to pay, Canadians will in 1947, for each family of five persons, pay an average of $600 to $720 in higher cost of living, due to indirect taxation, with the greatest tax impact on the small wage consumer. From any married wage-earner this takes away in hidden taxes several times what the government pays back in family allowances, more decently to feed, clothe and shelter his children. The sales tax becomes a tax burden in inverse ratio to the income of the family.
In his failure to lighten the heavy hidden load of sales tax, the Minister of Finance has
been grossly unfeeling and unfair in his responsibilities of office. His loyal colleague, the would-be Liberal premier of Saskatchewan, the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) indulges in spasms of double talk on this subject. In Saskatchewan, in days that were happier from the point of view of the political aspirations of the hon. member for Rosthern, a Liberal government once imposed a two per cent sales tax in the name of education. Thi3 tax, despite the limited tax resources of my province, has twice been modified since the C.C.F. government headed by Premier Douglas took office in 1944. Out in Saskatchewan the hon. member for Rosthern has waxed eloquent for the complete removal of a tax which his Liberal colleagues of recent memory themselves imposed. Then in Ottawa the same hon. gentleman, blandly or blindly or both, supports the continuance of taxation far more regressive and at least seven times as costly to the consumer, by a government having constitutional power to secure revenue from all manner of means denied to one of the poorest provinces in the Dominion of Canada. What an obvious faux pas in logic by a would-be premier.
And note how the other Liberal member from Saskatchewan tries to sugar over the indefensible position of the federal government. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who is, in my opinion, one of the cleverest debaters of the Liberal party, speaking on May 12 highlighted his party's spoken promises in contrast to their fiscal deeds in these words, as reported at page 2961 of Hansard:
And I might go further and say that all forma of indirect taxation in Canada today were brought into being in the first instance by a Conservative government. It is true that some have been maintained in part by the Liberal governments which succeeded those Conservative administrations, but in only one instance has there been an increase in one of these indirect taxes. That was the instance referred to a moment ago by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), when he said I might have gone a little further. Yes, I might have gone a little further and said the sales tax was increased by the present government in the budget of 1936, in order to take care of the costs which had been placed against the people of this country while the previous government was in power. The intention of the government was-
These are the salient words.
-to reduce that taxation, just as it had done in other instances. But, Mr. Speaker, we have been through a war which lasted for six years. During those six years the cost of carrying on government was greatly increased, _ with the result that up to the present time it has not been found possible to reduce that particular form of taxation.

The Budget-Mr. Probe


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: Is that not true, that we had gone through a war?


John Oliver Probe: The Liberal government put the tax I refer to back on again in 1936 or 1937. We have here in the speech of the Minister of Agriculture just another example of the Liberal pot calling the Tory kettle black. The record of both Liberal and Conservative governments since world war I emphatically belies the sincerity of speakers of both the old-line parties. In this debate, both Liberals and Conservatives say they have a genuine concern to lower regressive indirect taxation, which, not being based on ability to pay, is doubly and trebly unjust to low-income Canadians. But their actions, when they were in power after 1920, give the lie to these professions of concern.
Here is my proof for saying that neither Liberals nor Conservatives have a record in office which can be trusted in the field of regressive taxation. I am going to give figures from the Canada Year Book, 1938, at page 836. On this page there appears a statement of sales tax changes from 1920 to 1938.
In 1920, on May 19, there was placed on the statutes a domestic sales tax of one per cent on sales by manufacturers, one per cent on sales by wholesalers and one per cent on importation. In June of that year the rate on sales by manufacturers to retailers or consumers was raised to two per cent and the import sales tax was raised to two per cent on importations by retailers or by consumers; that is, by the end users.
In 1921-and we are coming now to the government of the present Prime Minister- 1J per cent was the rate on sales by manufacturers to wholesalers, It per cent on sales by wholesalers, three per cent on sales by manufacturers to retailers or consumers, except lumber, upon which the tax was two per cent on all domestic sales; and the import tax had gone up proportionately to 2 j per cent to manufacturers and wholesalers, and four per cent to the retailer or consumer.


Ernest Bertrand: May I
correct a slight error. In 1921 the Liberal government was elected in December.


John Oliver Probe: I thank the minister for the correction. We will then admit that these figures I have given thus far are during the Conservative regime, because in the next year, in 1922, when the present Prime Minister was in office, the sales tax, which was 1} per cent under the Tory regime, or the Union regime the year before, now became 2i per cent on sales by manufacturers fMr. Probe.]
to wholesalers, 2J per cent on sales by wholesalers, and 4j per cent on sales by manufacturers to retailers or consumers, except lumber, on which the tax was now raised just one per cent on all domestic sales; and the import figure now had risen to six per cent on importations by retailers and consumers.
In 1924 it had become six per cent on sales by manufacturers or producers, with three per cent on a restricted list, and six per cent on importations. In April, 1924-I presume there was an election in sight; in fact, there were several in the next two years, in 1925 and 1926-the list was reduced somewhat: five per cent on sales by manufacturers and five per cent on importations. That lasted for three years, until 1927, after the Meighen regime, and now the present Prime Minister was back on the throne. It was reduced in 1927 to four per cent, reduced in 1928 to three per cent, reduced in 1929 to two per cent, and reduced in 1930 to one per cent. He had brought it back to where it was just before he came into office.
In 1931 my hon. friends under the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett took office, and immediately swatted it up to a nice four per cent on sales by manufacturers and four per cent on importations. In 1932 it went to six per cent in each case, and in 1933 a distinction was made in the case of light articles manufactured by the blind, which were rated at half the tax for other manufactures. There was no change until 1936 when my Liberal friends came into office again, and in 1936, at the time when regressive taxation had its most burning effect on the pocket-books of low-income and relief people, the Liberal government raised that sales tax from six per cent to eight per cent on sales by manufacturers, and eight per cent on imports.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the statements that have been made in this House of Commons by members speaking for the government, and by members speaking for the Conservative party, are belied by the actions of their governments when they were in office.
My remarks at this time have been confined to regressive taxation; but, before closing, I should like to record my support of the remarks made on the budget by the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. McKay), who spoke on the irrigation needs of my area; the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher), who dealt with a more progressive trade policy, and the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton), who analysed the implications in regard to agriculture contained

The Budget-Mr. Shaw
in this budget. At some other time I hope to refer to the record of the government in the field of public, housing.
In closing, I must pay tribute to the leader of the C.C.F. party, the statesman representative from Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), for his broad knowledge of both domestic and international matters and, above all, for his unflinching adherence to decent social and economic principles. Were my leader's principles implemented by a Canadian government acting for all sections and classes of our citizens instead of for a privileged Canadian economic aristocracy, the C.C.F. subamend'-ment moved by the hon. member on Tuesday, May 6, would have been unnecessary. That amendment was in these words:
That the following words be added to the amendment:
"(d) fail to raise the income tax exemption levels; and
(e) fail to make any provision for the more than half of our population who are compelled to live on incomes below the present exemption levels."


Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my principal reason for participating in this debate this afternoon is to establish clearly and definitely the position of the Social Credit group in relation to the Progressive Conservative amendment and also in relation to the C.C.F. subamendment. In doing so, I shall present concrete reasons for the stand we intend to take. Before proceeding to do that, however, there are certain other observations I should like to make.
The budget debate opens the door wide and presents an opportunity for the discussion of a broad category of subjects. We have heard some speakers deal almost entirely with matters of local consequence; that is, those directly affecting their own constituencies. We have had many speeches dealing with matters of a national character, and also many referring to the general international situation. At first I was tempted to concentrate my remarks upon two or three matters which are the primary concern of my own constituency. While sorely tempted, for example, to devote my full forty minutes to one major local problem, namely the Red Deer post office and customs building and the inadequacy of service resulting from the deplorable condition of that building, I shall reluctantly defer consideration of that matter. But should it be necessary later, during this very session I shall devote forty minutes to that subject and direct my remarks to the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand), the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). I hope I may not have to do that. Then, too, it is difficult for
me to resist the temptation to devote my full forty minutes to a second vigorous protest [DOT] against the contemplated joint action on the part of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian National Railways, with the blessing of the board of transport commissioners and the governor general in council, to abandon &L) miles of railway in the Red Deer district, and thus, among other things, reduce land values in that area, virtually ruin several villages and hamlets, adversely affect our mail service, increase the cost of grain, live stock, coal and lumber marketing, contribute toward unemployment, cripple certain small private businesses, and provide cause for increases in municipal taxation. My opinions and the opinions of those directly affected by this retrograde action will certainly be made known to this house before the day of prorogation arrives.
I should like now, Mr. Speaker, to refer to just one or two speeches which have been made in this house during the past few days. First, I should like to refer to page 3310 of Hansard. The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) was speaking at the time. I am not referring to this because he happened to be the speaker but because he seemed to reflect a view held by a great many members on the other side of the house. Referring to dominion-provincial relations, the hon. member said:
In a country as great as Canada, so immensely rich in lands, forests, fisheries, minerals and other natural resources, with a small population of not quite 13,000,000 inhabitants, we do not want, as was suggested by the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleehe, to go back to the conditions which prevailed in 1921, for example, or in 1930, or even to the conditions which prevailed from 1937 to 1939, because, if we remember well, the last economic crisis was sunk in the rivers of blood of the last great war. We do not want to see again in this country thousands of Canadians on direct relief, or living in a state next to starvation merely because of the lack of proper provision in the constitution of this country, or the lack of collaboration between federal and provincial powers, or, in other words, because of the blindness, the short-sightedness and the foolishness of men.
Let me assure the hon. member, to start with, that I for one certainly do not wish to see those conditions occur again; but I think in the latter part of that statement, instead of saying "or in other words", he should have said simply "because of the blindness, the short-sightedness and the foolishness of men." The thing I want to point out is this.
I fully recognize that we desire a complete understanding and working agreement between the dominion and provincial authorities. In my opinion it is certainly necessary that we develop a proper concept of a working federal democracy, with the restatement and redefi-
The Budget-Mr. Shaw

nition of rights, authorities and responsibilities of all governments. But-and I lay emphasis upon this-if the hon. member for Bonaven-ture and those who think as he does with respect to this matter believe that the mere transfer of authority from the provinces to the dominion will, in itself, prevent unemployment, prevent business stagnation, or prevent another war, then I say the hon. gentleman is in for a rude awakening. I assert that with that we must have certain fundamental changes in those economic and financial policies which, as they now stand, contribute to unemployment, relief, crushing taxation and debt, trade wars and military wars. It does not matter who administers the dose of poison; the results will be the same in either case.
A number of members from the maritime provinces have laid a good deal of emphasis upon conditions facing them and their people in that part of Canada. I congratulate them upon the energy and sincerity they have displayed in presenting those problems. As one whose paternal ancestors were for six generations rooted in the soil of Nova Scotia, as one who has travelled rather extensively in that part of Canada and has, I believe, an appreciation of their problems, I do not hesitate to join them in their plea for simple elementary justice.
Many of the problems of the maritimes are similar to those of the great west. The maritimes are faced with an unfair freight rate structure; so are we. They are faced with lack of secondary industries and all that means, and so are we. They have their coal problem, and we have ours. They are faced with the fact that in Canada we find financial centralization in the two central provinces, which has mitigated against the proper development both of the east and of my section in the west.
I say to members of parliament from central Canada, you have the political strength here; but you must also have with that the understanding and the sympathy necessary to make possible the solution of those maritime problems, and also the solution of many of our western problems.
In that connection an hon. member from the maritimes stated only a few days ago that his people are beginning to look south. I say that in the west many of our people are looking south. Many of them-and I presume this is also true of the maritimes-have gone south, because of a lack of what they regard as proper opportunity in those parts of Canada.
In my estimation that is a dangerous trend, dangerous for Canada. I say certainly that if the solution rests within our power, then
fMr. Shaw.]	'
we must find it and apply it. I was astonished the other day to hear an hon. member refer to the 30,000 unemployed-and I am not sure whether they were in Nova Scotia or in the maritime provinces.


An hon. MEMBER:: The maritimes.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Even as applied to the maritimes, it is still an astonishing situation for us to view at this time. If one makes allowance for unemployment resulting from strikes, we are still left with a most astonishing situation.
I well recall two or three years ago, and more particularly just before the last election, when we had showered upon us those grandiose promises with respect to full employment. I am reminded of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie), who, not long before the last election, wrote in these words:
Full employment is the declared policy of the government, and I for one am confident that as a nation we have the capacity to obtain that objective and to maintain it.
I cannot read those words with the same fervour with which the minister would utter them. Nevertheless, what he said is perfectly clear. And commenting editorially upon those words of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the publication in which it was found said this:
Full employment is the declared policy of the government which means that work must be found for all; as the public welfare is the government's first responsibility.
In even more specific language, the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is reported as follows in the same publication:
1.	Full employment is the avowed and declared policy of the government.
2.	Most intensive studies and plans have been instituted in order that this objective may be attained.
3.	-
And this is the most important one.
-the most informed economic advisers are of the opinion that a policy of full employment is one within our capacity to achieve.
And that was written under this title, "What can be done in the name of war must be done during peace," and the subtitle is, "Public welfare must come first."


Thomas John Bentley: Is that a Liberal speech?


Frederick Davis Shaw: Yes, the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. MARTIN:: Is the hon. member await that there are more men employed today, oy a million, than there were in 1939?


Frederick Davis Shaw: I am fully aware of that.

The Budget-Mr. Shaw


Paul Joseph James Martin: Refer to it, then.


Frederick Davis Shaw: But it is not full employment, or at least not my idea of it, when we find 30,000 men in a small area seeking employment, and even having to migrate out of that area in order to live.


Mr. GRANT:: That is wrong.


Frederick Davis Shaw: The minister said that what they want is security. I agree. He said that they want a job to go to and nothing short of this must be provided, and that full employment is the pivot of the government's postwar plan.
I could fill the pages of Hansard with similar quotations emanating from cabinet ministers and other members of the Liberal party. I say to members of the Liberal party in whose constituencies unemployment might exist, you must be prepared to take whatever the unemployed are prepared to hand you; because you gave them those definite assurances. They cannot be expected to accept the excuses which some persons are so capable of manufacturing. Today labour enjoys its security, or semi-security as the case may be, only while engaged on the job, and only while in receipt of a pay cheque. I think it is recognized that if you stop that job, you stop the pay cheque, and you take from the individual everything, including his freedom.
Once you relegate the worker to that position he might well accept all that the anti-democratic or the subversive elements in the country or the community might be prepared to offer him. When the discussions respecting full employment were taking place in the house, and at the time of the last election, we made it clear that as an objective full employment was not necessarily the desirable thing. We contended that full employment, so long as it was useful and so long as it contributed to production so necessary to the life of the country, would have our support. But we also emphasized the fact that the only conditions under which full employment could be guaranteed would be those under which one would have the right to pick a chap up by the nape of the neck and throw him into any spot where you might find any kind of work for him. We find today a movement of persons out of the maritimes. I say they are migrating by virtue of economic compulsion. They have little opportunity of even surviving should they remain there and should conditions be permitted to exist under which they cannot find a useful type of employment.
I was interested in an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of April 18
with respect to this question of full employment. If my memory serves me correctly, the Ottawa Journal was one of those which gave a good deal of emphasis to the desirability and the possibility of full employment. Since that time, they have had either a change of editor or a change of heart. This is the editorial in part:
"Full employment" in other words, is a phrase that should not be used in a democratic state, this for the reason that it is something which can be practised only in a totalitarian state. Under a totalitarian regime, where men are told where to work., and when and at what, workers can be moved in the mass from one area to another. Under a democratic regime that can't happen. Because it can't happen, loose "full employment" talk does harm-may in come cases be positively mischievous.
I mention that for two reasons. First, you guaranteed them full employment; you built up their hopes and you have not given it to them. Second, we cannot have as our ultimate objective full employment when that involves the necessity of an individual engaging in useless employment in order to secure his income. I should like to devote more time to that, but there are a number of other matters to which I wish to refer.
Referring now specifically to the budget and taxation, I think to anyone who is at all observant there is ample evidence of the inadequacy of the tax reductions indicated in the budget. I know that to those whose taxes were reduced such reductions are welcome. However, there is one aspect which I wish to emphasize. Under the stress of war the government of Canada imposed a great variety of taxes, including sales tax and nuisance taxes, upon our people. Canadians accepted them because of the war and because of the requirements of war. However, no attempt is now made to make substantial reductions in them. In my estimation there is nothing in the budget designed to reduce the cost of living for hundreds of thousands of Canadian people. Nothing is to be found in it which will permit a higher standard of living for those persons who were forgotten by the income tax reductions. There is a tremendous surge of criticism in this country with respect to the action of the government in imposing certain conditions because of the stress of war and then persisting in continuing those conditions after the war is over. If my memory serves me correctly the Income War Tax Act was introduced during another war, and assurance was given then that it was only for the duration of the war and only to meet very special conditions which had come into being as a result cf the war.

The Budget-Mr. Shaw
In his budget the minister estimated government expenditures in excess of $2,000 million. As compared with 1946-47, this shows an approximate average percentage of reduction of nineteen per cent for the present year. I should like to compare that with 1939. If the figures which I have worked out are correct, for each dollar spent by the government in 1939 they now contemplate spending $3.80. The Canadian citizen finds himself in this position: for every dollar which he earned in 1939 he is now receiving approximately $2.80. The important aspect is that government spending has increased at a much more rapid rate than the national income.
The disturbing aspect of the whole thing is that while the national income may slip to lower levels, even to depression levels, government spending to a substantial degree has become fixed and will remain close to its present levels. It is recognized that, should a recession come in any pronounced degree, the government might resort to borrowing and debt redemption might not continue during such a period. In my estimation the real burden of the debt is the interest on the debt and the government feels morally bound to make those payments. We are already paying between $400 million and $500 million a year in interest. With a recession, with recourse to greater government borrowing, the burden of those interest charges might reach crushing proportions within this country. Interest is now taking between twenty and twenty-five per cent of all government collections. That is a tragic situation and, unless we adopt some other policy, we may find, such conditions as would block Canada in any attempt she might make to have continued stability within the country.
I know that this house gave very little attention to the amendment moved by my leader (Mr. Low) to the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In that amendment he advocated:
The use of the national credit to meet at least some of the financial requirements for essential services; and, as a guarantee that this country shall not again be subjected to financial depression, to make available to each and all Canadian citizens a proper portion of purchasing power which shall not first pass through the usual channels of industry, this on a basis calculated to maintain a balance between effective purchasing power in the hands of consumers and the aggregate of the prices of goods available for sale.
I think it is becoming more obvious that in that rests a solution to many of the great financial problems which face this country today and which will face this country in far greater degree, I can assure you, sir, within the next two or three years.

I should like to refer to the statement made by the minister with respect to the revision of the income tax law. I have not as yet heard any reference made to this matter, but to me it is one of the important aspects of the budget. Referring to this, the minister said, as reported on page 2557 of Hansard:
We have been busy during the past year upon the rewriting of our basic income tax law in an effort to improve its arrangement, to make it clearer and simpler, and to remove ambiguities and anomalies. Hon. members will, I think, be particularly pleased with the extent to which it will be less dependent upon the exercise of ministerial discretions.
The minister then stated that it was his intention to introduce, during this session, a bill embodying this general revision of income tax law. May I say I believe that every thinking member of this house-I am going on the assumption that they are all thinking members-realizes the absolute necessity of a revision of the Income War Tax Act. I submit that, above all else, that act must be so constructed as to prevent the possibility of the extension of special privileges through interpretation. It is my conviction that, as the act stands today, there is every possibility of special privileges being extended to certain persons because of the regulations and more particularly because of the interpretations.
It should be borne in mind at all times that, even if the act is made perfect, its successful operation will depend upon two other things which I wish to mention. In the first place, it is my contention that adequate finances should be provided in order to properly staff the income tax offices. It is my opinion that you cannot possibly secure or hold the services of competent men unless you are prepared to pay them sufficient to make these positions attractive.- I believe that if the facts were known we would realize that competent men are walking out of these offices almost every day. It would be interesting if the minister would table figures with respect to the labour turnover in the income tax offices.
In the second place, unless they establish salary schedules in these offices and adhere to these schedules they are going to strike a blow at the morale of the personnel in the service of the Department of National Revenue, and I lay special emphasis on the income tax division. We all know that appointments to the national revenue department are not made through the civil service commission. I personally think that is wrong. I know that, as the civil service commission is at present constituted and with its limited authority, it works under tremendous handicaps. There is alto-

The Budget-Mr. Shaw
gether too much opportunity for interference in their deliberations. In fact, once before I brought evidence before the house to show that the commission had made appointments of persons who, to use a crude expression, were kicked out of the service because they were not acceptable to the person who happened to be in charge of a particular branch.
I want to emphasize this, too, that if there is any department of government where the door is open to the charge of political patronage, that department is the Department of National Revenue, and I say that because they ignore the provisions of the Civil Service Act. Let me make it perfectly clear that I am not making any charge. I am not saying that is the case, but I am saying the door is wide open. The employees they now have in that department must feel most insecure, and they can be made to feel much more insecure if they realize that their seniority and their ability are being ignored by the department. I do not care to say more about that at the moment except this. When the time comes for a revision of the Income War Tax Act, I say, by all means refer it to some committee of the house for careful examination. I would go a step farther and say, refer to that committee also the Excess Profits Tax Act. I should like to know something about some of the decisions made by the board of referees in determining standard profits. I should like to see that act and that specific section of the act considered by any committee of this house at the appropriate time.
Since my time is fleeting rapidly, I must leave out a number of matters to which I was going to refer. I come directly now to the amendment and the subamendment.
The hon. member for Peace River has already pointed out that, if the rules of the house did not forbid it, this group would move an amendment as soon as one of those now before us is disposed of. Our amendment would have been more constructive than either of those we are now considering. However we find ourselves in substantial agreement with the criticisms contained in both the subamendment and the amendment. Let me hasten to say this. I wish to make it abundantly clear that, while we are in substantial agreement with what is contained in the subamendment and the amendment, we are not subscribing to all that was said by the sponsors of these amendments. In fact we would be the first to condemn certain things that were said, such as the reference of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdon-nell) to the fact that interest rates were too low. I quote that only as an example.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: The hon. member is one of the fairest men in this house, and I want to ask him this question. Will he be good enough to read what I said about interest rates? If he does he will find that all I said was that I questioned whether low interest rates were a panacea for everything. I pointed out that they bore hard on certain elements in the community. But as for advocating higher interest rates the hon. member will find that I did not do that at all.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I should not like to attribute anything wrongly to the hon. member. What he said was:
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 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.
If the hon. member says that he did not intend that we would' have to increase interest rates I am prepared to accept his word, but I read what he said very carefully and drew that conclusion, and I think the house drew the same conclusion from his remarks.
To turn again to the subamendment and the amendment, the hon. member for Peace River placed quite fully before the house our views on hidden and indirect taxes. No government speaker has in the slightest degree shown why there could not have been at least $50 million reduction in these taxes for the coming year. Such a reduction would have been quite possible without endangering Canada's financial stability or without running the year's operations into a deficit, even if the government persists in running affairs under the present antiquated financial arrangement. We would consider this a good start on the road of progressive tax reduction; this country would have witnessed an almost immediate reduction in the cost of producing goods and services, and the cost of living would have been eased considerably. The government cannot successfully claim that it is concerned about the welfare of the Canadian people in the light of its failure to do what obviously
The Budget-Mr. Shaw

it could have done to tackle the high cost of living problem. Therefore we support clause
(a)	of- the Conservative amendment.
It is our opinion that the best way to encourage the development of our natural resources is to take whatever steps are necessary to provide a ready market for the production from these resources at prices that will return to those engaged in mining, agriculture and so forth, a fair margin of profit over the years. The best market that we have for our goods is the one that is most neglected-the home market. It is quite obvious that there is nothing in the budget designed to expand and develop this internal market, and therefore our mining, lumbering, fishing, and farming interests are forced to scramble for foreign markets with all their uncertainties and problems. Therefore, with the second part of the Conservative amendment we must agree.
With regard to dominion-provincial relations, the leader of this group placed our position squarely on record in the debate on the address. Certainly this government has failed utterly to achieve unity in Canada and to secure the cooperation of all the provinces in working out a programme of social security, health, and public investment. It is quite evident that the concept of federal democracy held by the Liberal government is not one which makes for united effort toward a new order in Canada. Most of the provinces resent and fear the strong centralization tendencies which they have seen in the Liberal government. Most of them view with considerable anxiety the trend toward international centralization and the surrender by this government to an international authority of portions of our sovereignty, which action is bound to affect the rights and autonomies of the provinces themselves. The dominion-provincial conference machinery should be well on the way toward a complete restatement of the rights and authorities of the various governments in this country. Instead of that, what do we find? Ill feeling, division, and lack of united purpose. Under the circumstances, therefore, we must agree with the third part of the Conservative amendment.
And now a word about the C.C.F. subamendment. This simply adds two further parts to the Conservative amendment. With regard to the first, this group has consistently advocated increasing the exemptions under the Income War Tax Act. We think another step should have been taken this year. There is no reason why at least another $50 million could not have been taken off the taxpayers in the lower brackets, because it is perfectly clear that at the end of this year the govero-

ment will come through with another handsome surplus, one which they have no right to accumulate so long as the people are carrying the heavy burden of taxes which they are carrying. If we look at the matter from the purely orthodox point of view, something most certainly could have been done to relieve the people of the burden of this terrible tax. If the government could be persuaded to adopt an honest financial system, there is not any question about our being able to increase exemptions to $1,500 for single persons and $3,000 to married ones in this country.


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he has exhausted his time.


Frederick Davis Shaw: If I could have just about one minute I could finish my remarks.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Frederick Davis Shaw: In fact it would be made easier by adopting what I shall call the honest financial system, but it could be done under the present one. This we are prepared to prove beyond all shadow of doubt.
The second part of the C.C.F. subamendment needs little comment. We find ourselves in agreement with it, because, as I have already stated, this budget has meant nothing at all to the larger half of our population who are exempt from income tax imposition. It is a disgrace and a reflection on the intelligence of the people of this day that half the population should have to pay the price they are paying for the goods they must have out of incomes that, are so low that they do not come above the $750 and $1,500 exemption levels. This great group of Canadians could very well have been assured reasonable security through the retention of subsidies on milk and butter and some other essentials of living. They would have been assisted materially had this government tackled the problem of indirect taxes as I 'have already shown that they could have tackled it. We find ourselves, therefore, in support of both the subamendment and the amendment and shall vote accordingly.



EXPLOSIVES


[Stage Direction]
Right, Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs):	I wonder
whether I could have the unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions for the purpose of tabling a certain agreement

evidenced by an exchange of notes? I should have done it at three o'clock, but I did not have the document before me at that time It is an exchange of notes between Canada and the United States recording an agreement for the mutual interchange of patent rights in connection with RDX and other explosive compounds which were developed during the war years by our honorary council for scientific and industrial research in Canada; and by the office of scientific research and development in the United States. Those that were developed in the United States were registered first in Washington; those developed in Canada were registered first in Ottawa, but the agreement is for the use without royalty by both governments of the whole process evidenced in this series of patents.
Gordon Graydon: I take it that this is
a further step in the defence collaboration between Canada and the United States.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	It is a continuation
of the close collaboration that there was in this scientific field during the war years.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
workmen's CIRCLE OF CANADA
The house in committee on Bill No. 180, to incorporate Workmen's Circle of Canada- Mr. Croll-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: I may remind hon. members that this bill received its second reading and was referred to the committee on banking and commerce and has been reported by that committee without amendment.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN COUNCIL OF THE GIRL GUIDES ASSOCIATION

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 206, incorporating the Canadian Council of the Girl Guides Association-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
William Ross Macdonald: I would remind the
committee that this bill was referred to the
Private Bills,
committee on miscellaneous private bills and was reported from that committee without amendment.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN NURSES' ASSOCIATION

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 171, to incorporate Canadian Nurses' Association- Mr. Benidickson-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1 -Incorporation.
Mr. BENIDICKSON:: I did not speak on the second reading of this bill, Mr. Chairman, but I think many hon. members will envy me the privilege of being sponsor of the incorporation of an association whose merits are so well known as those of the Canadian Nurses' Association, as it has existed for some thirty-five years. The members of the association are the members of the various provincial associations, who, under the laws of the several provinces, become registered nurses. That group consists of 24.000 people and, after its long history, these people have decided for certain purposes that they would like to have incorporation by the federal parliament.
They publish a newspaper known as The Canadian Nurse, and in the course of their development there will be the acquisition of certain property. It is felt by the members that the time has come, after an existence of thirty-five years, when personal liability on the part of their officers and so on should be eliminated and they should have the right of incorporation.
The purposes of the organization are analogous to those of many other professional societies such as the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Medical Association, the national association that has been formed by engineers in the various provinces, and so forth. I could give other illustrations.
I should like for the record to indicate the objects as set out in the bill, which are those that constitute the background for the present formal incorporation in the Canadian parliament:
(a)	to dignify the profession of nursing by maintaining and improving the ethical and professional standards of nursing education and
service;
(b)	to encourage its members to participate in affairs promoting the public welfare;
(c)	to promote the best interests of the nurses of Canada and to maintain national unity among them;
(d)	to encourage an attitude of mutual understanding with the nurses of other countries.
Private Bills

The common and general terms under section (e):
(e) such other lawful acts and things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the above objects.
There is in the proposed charter nothing which in any way interferes with or encroaches upon the provincial associations that have been incorporated in the different provinces, or with provincial legislation. As a matter of fact, a prerequisite to membership in the national organization is acceptance under the provincial laws into the provincial association.
We all realize that the provinces are jealous, and properly so, of their jurisdiction, their provincial autonomy and the protection of civil rights within each province, and I simply wish to assure hon. members that, if each province decides that a nurse may be accepted within the regulations of that provincial organization, such nurse will in turn become a member of the Canadian Nurses' Association and receive copies of the admirable paper put out by this organization, which in turn will help to achieve the objectives I have enunciated.


Thomas Langton Church: I rise not to oppose but rather to support the principle of this bill, but I should like to point out certain aspects of the matter with which it deals. The promoters are all good people who are a credit to their profession. It took the medical profession of Canada nearly thirty years to form the Canadian Medical Association, and I know something of the difficulties that beset such organizations. I know something about the questions that nurses have to cope with, having been chairman, with the late Mr. Thomas Bradshaw, of the hospital commission in our city.
One difficulty of a national nurses' organization relates to contracts between employer and employee, property and civil rights within the province, and things of that sort. The situation in regard to nurses has undergone a complete change. If you applied for a registered nurse tonight in Toronto you would find it almost, impossible to get one, that is to say, someone who has taken the course. Moreover, hospitals have a great deal of difficulty in providing rooms. One floor in the big hospital in Toronto has been closed. The city provided the site for that hospital, and has very largely to help to maintain it with capital and per diem allowances. There have been large capital expenditures in connection with every hospital in the city; just the other day there was a capital expenditure of $250,000 in connection with a smaller hospital.
During the war a great many nurses went into the armed forces, and there grew up a
fMr. Benidickson.]
type of nurse called a practical nurse. What is a practical nurse? The common definition is that, a practical nurse is one who has just learned by experience, without having had very much training. They might have been employed as maids, or in any one of a number of other occupations, but they turned themselves into what they called practical nurses and charged $6 a day. Well, think of three practical nurses, each receiving $6 a day, together with free room and board and all the rest of it. No working'man can afford to pay that.
Then I want to point to the good work that has been done by the St. John Ambulance Corps and the Victorian Order of Nurses. I have no objection at all to the principle of this bill. I had a talk with the minister of health about it. I understand that he was somewhat opposed to it, but I do not know because he never told me; one of the members of the committee told me. Did these people, as promoters of this bill, ever consult the hospitals? Every qualified nurse is on a register, of which there are five or six in our city, and most of them are connected with a hospital. The promoters of this bill never consulted the hospitals, and as far as I know they never consulted the medical officers of health of the municipalities or the provinces. Formerly the provinces did not. pay very much attention or give much of a per diem or capital to hospitals, which were maintained largely by private organizations of one kind or another, and most of them with capital aid and maintenance of cities and towns. The city of Toronto made a grant of so much a day for each patient; I think it. used to be fifty cents, then $1.50, but now I understand it has gone up to $2 or $2.25. and in addition they have had. in the case of Toronto, to make large capital grants to all hospitals. Here in this parliament we used to spend only about $200,000 on the health department. Before the war that went up to about $475,000, and now they are trying to expand it still more. So far so good, but. of course it is impossible for this government to give anything to hospitals by way of maintenance or capital expenditure. The time has come when it will have to. The situation is serious for the working man, because he cannot afford to pay for this nursing service and hospitalization. For that reason the work of the St. John Ambulance Corps and the Victorian Order of Nurses is important. A medical doctor sees the patient, and then a qualified nurse comes once a week to look after him, at a charge of only $2. The Victorian Order of Nurses also did a great deal of good work during the war.

Private Bills
While I do not object to the principle of this bill, I think it might have been left over in order that some correspondence might be had with the federal, provincial and municipal medical health officers and with the provinces and the hospital authorities, because this is a matter concerning relations between federal and provincial authorities, which should be the subject of a dominion-provincial conference. It is one of the most important things we have to consider, because one of the first duties of a government is to look after the health, wealth, happiness and prosperity of our citizens. I do not oppose the bill; I have been told that the provinces have consented to it. But the provinces are not the hospitals, and I think the hospitals and also the medical officers of health and the medical schools should have been consulted. In addition to that. I notice that some of the incorporators come from other provinces. I want the bill surrounded with proper safeguards, and I want it understood that if this resolution passes it will not interfere with the St. John Ambulance Corps, the Victorian Order of Nurses or any nurse who is prepared to make her services available.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I am so glad the hon. member for Broadview is 100 per cent behind this bill. The province of British Columbia appreciates his cooperation and support. I think the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidiekson) made an able presentation. I happen to be an ex officio member of the nurses' association of British Columbia; and I hope that some time the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and the hon. member for Broadview, both of whom have an unenviable status, will come out and get to know the members of that association as I know them.
If there is to be any talking out in connection with this bill I give warning that I will talk out every bill introduced from every other province during the present session. I would only disagree with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River on one point, and that is when he compares the high standards of members of the bar and of the medical profession with those of the nursing profession. I want to assure my hon. friend that neither he nor any other member of his profession can ever hope to attain such high standards as those maintained by the nurses in Canada.


William Moore Benidickson: I should like to say to the hon. member for Fraser Valley that the hon. member for Broadview has, in fact, been very considerate. He spoke to me before the house met this- evening; he had some
queries as to the status of the St. John Ambulance Corps and practical nurses, and I want to assure him and all other hon. members that there is no intention to interfere in any way with the status of those organizations or persons. I also want to say that the nurses are organized provincially, and that each provincial organization has seen the proposed constitution and has approved it. My hon. friend has also indicated some connection in an ex officio capacity with the nurses' association. I want to say it has always been a matter of great pride on my part that my mother was a member of the nursing profession of Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On section 9-By-laws and regulations.
Mr. MaeINNIS: I understood that an amendment was made in committee to this section. Should not that amendment be read? If there has been an amendment, the bill before us is not the bill that is being passed.
William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Vancouver East is correct, and I thank him for bringing this point to my attention. Section 9 was amended by inserting in line 2 on page 3, after the word "appointment" the words "to the executive committee."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 10 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. H. WINTERS (Queens-Lunenburg, for Mr. Maybank) moved the second reading of Bill No. 207, for the relief of Evelyn Florence Esson Pugh.
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all suggest that no doubt divorce legislation is farthest from the mind of the hon. member who is moving second reading, in the absence of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank). I am sure the hon. member would be the last to wish to have his name associated with this, and the following bills.
It is not my intention this evening to speak at length about divorce. I would point out, however, that on June 21, 1946, the then
Private Bills

minister of justice, in an effort to find a solution for this vexed problem which has been drawn to the attention of both houses on many occasions in recent times, had this to say, as reported at page 2713 of Hansard for last session:
I have suggested to hon. members of parliament concerned with this that there might be some other solution that would not set up divorce as a matter of right but would largely relieve parliament of the inconvenient features of the practice now going on. The courts of the province of Quebec pronounce decrees of separation for adultery. If parliament were to say, "We will not consider an application unless it is supported by a decree of separation based upon a finding of adultery," then the committee of parliament would not have to go beyond looking at the documentary evidence.
Since then I cannot recall having had any report from the then minister of justice, who is now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), with respect to his investigation as to the possibility of the solution he suggested should be advanced at that time.
Perhaps at some stage in the debate, or on some similar situation-and I raise the matter now because we have almost reached the end of the time alloted to private members-the Secretary of State for External Affairs would give the house some ideas as to the results of his investigations.
There was one further matter I wished to bring to the attention of the house. I had hoped that the minister, in collaboration with the former minister, might have reached some solution, because upon looking over the statutes for last session I find that almost a third of the space in that volume, which I now hold in my hand, deals with matters in which the average individual finds little interest. I refer to the 289 acts dealing with divorce at that session. From the point of view of the cumbersome nature of the statutes themselves, and indeed from every other possible angle, it seems to me desirable that something be done to find a more satisfactory means of dealing with a problem which in recent years has become so vexed.
I am told that divorce applications at this session of parliament may reach an all-time high. While last year there were 289, if my memory serves me correctly there are at this session already before the senate no fewer than 406 applications for divorce. I would suppose that before the close of the session those bills will have reached the House of Commons, and it will be expected that they will become law".
I have no desire to raise my voice unduly in this matter, nor have I done so during the

years, but I earnestly implore the government, through the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to do something in this matter. Perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs would speak to us concerning the possibilities which at that time he considered were bright, but which, upon further investigation, he may have found quite different.
I would close my remarks by asking someone in the government to take this matter up, to see if there is not some slim ray of hope whereby parliament may be relieved of this vexatious job which has been entrusted to it under the present laws of the dominion.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I have watched the grave defects in this type of legislation, which we find in great abundance after every great war. The wives and children deserted are the ones who suffer. I suggest that during the recess the government or state should give consideration to that feature of the problem.
I believe that the Anglican Bishop of London, England, is expected to visit Ottawa shortly. Over there, for the first time in 350 years, they are about to change the divorce laws. A royal commissioner was appointed by the Archbishop of York, and some changes have been recommended. I hope the government will study that report. The right hon. the Bishop of London, Doctor Wand, recommends "reconciliation" and "forgiveness" as part of the programme. Reconciliation, he says, is a most important remedy and forgiveness is a healing force.
As I have said before, I believe county court judges could handle divorce more effectively, with cheaper divorces resulting. Judges of the high court are sick and tired of it. Before Christmas and before June, three or at times four judges must try divorce cases in the city hall at Toronto, to help clean up the list. The wives and children are the ones who suffer in these cases, and I hope something will be done about the matter. A civil registration system is also a remedy. Under Roman law marriage was a contract.
The royal commission in England was presided over by the Archbishop of York. I hope the government will study the report to see if the state cannot do something to relieve the great social wrong done the wives and children who are left very largely as a charge on the municipality and on their friends.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, if we were to allow ourselves to think of this list of homes broken up through misunderstanding we might come to the conclusion that it is a disaster for home

Private Bills
life in Canada. But when one compares this list with the list of fine Christian home3 in this country, he finds it is only a small percentage. I know of homes where young men were married before they went overseas. They came back, bought their homes and called in their minister who dedicated those homes. Those are happy homes.
I think we should emphasize strongly the outstanding number of Christian homes which are telling their own story through what they are sending out by way of clean character in our young men and maidens.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a word apropos of what was said by the hon. member who introduced the subject this evening. Anyone who has given thought to the subject must come to the conclusion that divorce has reached enormous proportions in this country. But I differ from the first speaker this evening when he endeavours to lay blame on the dominion government, either for the method in which divorce proceedings are carried on, or for the divorce actions themselves.
It is true, as he said, that the statute books are thick. I do not know how many members understand just how carefully the committee of the senate investigates every case which comes before it. I do not know of any court in this land which is giving more consideration - and serious consideration - to divorce, than is the senate committee. I am surprised to hear hon. members suggest that bills are being passed through parliament without any thought. Let us be fair in regard to the matter. Any hon. members who are in doubt can go over and see for themselves how carefully this work is done. There are those who speak about giving the senate more work to do. I am not a bit alarmed about the work they are doing.
All this does not touch the problem of divorce. This is one of the most serious problems facing this country. It is a problem which will have to be faced by the people of Canada, by the churches and by the provincial governments. I rose in case any thought was in the minds of hon. members that what we were doing here was condoning divorce or that no consideration was given to divorce bills coming before the senate committee. I think everyone will agree that as between the courts of this land and the senate committee there is more fairness, justice, consideration and investigation in connection with the work of the committee than in connection with the work of any courts in this country.


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened most attentively to what has been said by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). It would be quite illuminating to have a list of petitions for divorce which have been presented to the senate and the number of petitions granted. I am ready to give the benefit of the doubt to the hon. gentlemen of the senate, but what seems strange to me is that very few of the applications are turned down. Some day I may ask a question about the matter and the answer may be a surprise to us.
When these matters come before the civil courts the judges question the witnesses and these investigators who are paid so much to look through keyholes and who always give the same evidence. They have a hard time before the courts; but, according to the reports of the senate committee, their evidence is always the same. It is only about two or three pages long; the same questions are asked and the senators seem to take for granted that the application-


James Horace King: I would remind the hon. member that he should use the words "other house" or "members of the other house."


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not understand what Your Honour said.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Refer to it as the other house.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, yes, the other house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Call it anything you like, but not the senate.
POULIOT: If I use the expression "other house" I know hon. members will understand what I mean or whom I mean. I wonder if the gentlemen of the other house could not at times take a more conciliatory attitude instead of listening so attentively-


George Alexander Cruickshank: They should look through the keyholes themselves.


Jean-François Pouliot: -to what is said by the investigators? I wonder if they could not try to do something to bring together those who may have differences that are really not as bad as described by the lawyers? That is done by the judges. They try to bring married couples together who have some differences, and quite often they are successful. Then the committee of the other house can do nothing with regard to the children because the rights of children are supposed to be civil rights. Therefore, when a divorce is granted the children become like orphans of the storm, which is very sad and pitiful. I admire the earnestness of my colleague in expressing the

Private Bills

sincere wish that we have fewer cases of this kind, and in that we have the support of all the churches. I hope the churches will join together in trying to bring about a satisfactory solution of this matter.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 208, for the relief of Katie Rhoda Brick McGrath-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 209, for the relief of Louise Guiol Ghetler-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 210, for the relief of George William Curtis Johnson-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 211, for the relief of Melville Mae Rundle Swinburne-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 212, for the relief of Ruby Weldrick Hunt-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 213, for the relief of Doris Shapiro Kolman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 214, for the relief of Mary Margaret Rider Brown.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 215, for the relief of Fennie Nettie Adelstein Waldman-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Gustave Lucien Verhelle-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 217, for the relief of Ruby Campbell Matts-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 218, for the relief of Dorothy Kathleen Morrison Germain.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of Sophie Rad-wolsky Closner- Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 220, for the relief of Muriel Emma Wood Durrell.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 221, for the relief of William John Carmichael.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Guido Verdoni.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Ronald John Park.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 224, for the relief of Gloria Avon Roland.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 225, for the relief of Gilberto (Albert) Belmonte.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Mildred Lillian Flude.-Mr. Smith (York North).
Bill No. 227, for the relief of Pauline Joan Hyde Murphy.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 228, for the relief of Alsye Mae Lissemore Lawrence.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 229, for the relief of Jessie Leonard Simpson Clunie.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 230, for the relief of Fern Catherine Kerr Ekins.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 231, for the relief of Lilly Elizabeth Ingborg Lindfors Crowhurst.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 232, for the relief of Romeo Richard.-Mr. Maybank.
IMr. Pouliot.]
Bill	No.	233,	for	the	relief of	Charles
Augustus Dolling.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	234,	for	the	relief of	Charles
Frederick McDowall.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 235, for the relief of Woolf (Robert) Cook.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 236, for the relief of Adele Brown Kerkofsky.

Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 237, for the relief of Ellen Heath-cote Taschereau.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 238, for the relief of Molly Marco-vitch Schwartz.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 239. for the relief of Betty Gertrude Bernstein Schreiber.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 242, for the relief of Margaret Joan Anstey Steven Hyslop.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 243, for the relief of Elly Zahn Kaminsky.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 244, for the relief @f Naomi Joan Williamson Cantlie.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 245, for the relief of Matilda Jane Cumming.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Agnes Dowd Brown.-Mr. Maybank. .
Bill No. 247, for the relief of Ursula Catherine Tetreau Black.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 248. for the relief of Eleanor Edith McKeehnie Martineau.

Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 249, for the relief of Jack Wallis.- Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 250, for the relief of Evelyn Margaret Morrison Cryer.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 251, for the relief of Frances Eileen Scribner Mackay.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 252, for the relief of Irene Laflamme Kattas.-Mr. Maybank.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. M. BENIDICKSON (Kenora-Rainv River) moved the second reading of Bill No. 241, respecting the Ottawa Electric Railway Company.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre) moved the second reading of Bill No. 15, to amend the Income War Tax Act.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, my remarks on
this bill will be brief. Subsection 1 of section 81 of the Income War Tax Act, reads as follows:
No person employed in the service of His Majesty shall communicate or allow to be communicated to any person not legally entitled

Aeronautics Act
thereto, any information obtained under the provisions of this act, or allow any such person to inspect or have access to any written statement furnished under the provisions of this act.
This is the section which has frequently been referred to in this house, particularly by successive ministers of national revenue, when replying to questions that hon. members have asked or have placed upon the order paper seeking information with respect to income tax returns. I have in mind in particular advertising by large corporations, about which some of us have inquired as to whether or not it was allowable as an expense for income tax purposes, and other questions of a similar nature.
In order to get around this iron curtain of secrecy, it seems to me that there should be a provision to make it possible for hon. members to ask questions and to get answers from the minister concerned, and for that reason I am suggesting the addition of certain words to the subsection which I have just read. In fact that is what this bill does. It simply adds these words:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall operate to prevent a minister of the crown from communicating to the Senate or to the House of Commons any information obtained under the provisions of this act.
Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me correctly, a similar bill was introduced by m3' hon. friend last year. My remarks like his will be brief. I feel that I shall have to oppose the bill because I do not think the amendment he suggests is in the public interest. I had not expected that this bill would come up this evening and the objections which I have to the amendment I would want to elaborate at some length. Perhaps my hon. friend and the house would have no objections, therefore, if I were now allowed to move the adjournment of the debate. I so move.
On motion of Mr. Abbott the debate was adjourned.



AERONAUTICS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre) moved the second reading of Bill No. 21, to amend the Aeronautics Act.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this
bill is to help the government carry out its own policy.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
83166-217*


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to notice that my helpfulness is so deeply appreciated on the opposite side.


Mr. HOMUTH:: It is noted for the first
time.


Gordon Graydon: Look a gift horse in the mouth, gentlemen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Back in 1944 the present Minister of Reconstruction and Supply' (Mr. Howe), then minister of munitions and supply, announced the government's intention with respect to a civil aviation policy with particular reference to the post-war period. One of the cardinal features of that policy was contained in these words which I quote from the speech which the minister made in this house on March 17, 1944:
Steps will be taken to require our railways to divest themselves of ownership of air lines, to the end that, within a period of one year from the ending of the European war, transport by air will be entirely separate from surface transportation.
That statement of policy was later incorporated into law by chapter 28 of the statutes of 1944-45, by adding a clause 14 to the Aeronautics Act. That clause provided that all licences then in effect under part 3 of the Transport Act, 1938, or under part 7 of the air regulations, 1938, should cease to be valid "one year after the termination, as fixed by order in council, of the war in Europe-"


James Horace King: I must inform the hon. member that on the second reading he must not refer to the clauses of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not referring to the clauses of my bill, Mr. Speaker. I am discussing the principle of the bill, and I am reading from a clause of the statutes of Canada. The words I was just now reading appear in the statute, not in m>' bill; in fact, they are the very words I seek to have altered. That is the whole purpose of my bill. I will finish reading the clause: "shall cease to be valid one year after the termination, as fixed by order in council, of the war in Europe which commenced on the tenth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine".
There was another clause in that same statute of 1944-the act was passed in July of that year-which provided that, from the coming into force of that act, licences to operate commercial air services could not be issued to any company that provided transportation by means other than by air. That was clause 12 (2). In other words, the government's policy was put into statutory form by the bill that we passed in the session of 1944. Some of us waited for some considerable time after that for that policy to come into effect, and finally
Aeronautics Act

in August, 1946, I questioned the minister about the matter and asked when it was going to be put into effect and was told by him that the policy had been changed. When I first asked about it I was told about an order in council that did not exist, but we have been over all that ground before and I shall not cover it again. I want to read this one passage from what the minister said in this house on August 17, 1944:
Mr. Howe:	I said that the date of applying
the policy had been advanced one year 'by the government; and I was giving my own opinions, as minister responsible for the services, that the policy announced on that date was not the policy which would give best service to the public in the area. That is my own opinion. The government policy has not been changed, and will not be changed, naturally, until the act is changed. The House of Commons must approve any change of policy, because this house passed the act which established the earlier government policy.
My contention, Mr. Speaker, is this, that the house put into statute form the policy which the government had announced in March, 1944. That policy called for divesting of the ownership of air lines from railways within one year after the end of the war in Europe. That was the clear understanding of the minister himself, as he so stated. It is down in black-and-white in Hansard that that meant one year after May 8, 1945. Subsequently, it has been contended by the government that legally, for the purposes of this act, the war is not yet over in Europe and will not be over until an order in council has been passed fixing the date. That, in other words, puts off as a movable feast the time when this policy is to be brought into effect.
The purpose of the bill the second reading of which I now move is to bring some finality into this matter and make it clear whether this policy is to be put into effect or, if not, whether it is to be changed in the proper way, by an amendment to the Aeronautics Act. Hence the only change that Bill No. 21 makes is to take out those words to which I have referred as a movable feast and put in a definite date, namely, December 31, 1947. The effect of inserting that date in clause 14 would be to make that the final date upon which the government's policy announced in March, 1944, shall be brought into effect.
I contend that this whole question of our air services, particularly in relation to the development of the great new frontier in the northern part of this country, is an extremely important one. I contend that what is involved in it is not just a matter of the relations between private air lines and the publicly-owned system, but there is
[Mr. Knowles.1
involved the whole question of whether we are to develop our northland in an integrated and responsible way. For that reason I feel that we should move on to some clear-cut position with respect to our civil aviation policy. It is for that reason I present this bill to the house. If it passes it will take us out of the present position which leaves the implementing of the government's policy as a movable feast changing from year to year, and inserts instead a definite date for its achievement.


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: My hon. friend opened his remarks by saying that he was trying to help the government. Perhaps I can be equally kind to him and say that the government has no particular objection to this bill. The purpose that the bill attempts to achieve has already been accomplished. All the fifty-three licences granted under the Aeronautics Act of 1938 have in fact been cancelled and reissued.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, oh.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Some two or three weeks ago I tabled in this house a voluminous report of the air transport board made after a study and examination at public hearings of all the fifty-three routes. I also tabled the order in council approving the reissuing of licences for several of the routes, and the air transport board has from time to time issued licences for routes not covered by the first mentioned order in council.
The board of transport commissioners was formed in 1944. Its purposes were set out at that time. It was to act not only as a judicial body to adjudicate on disputes in the field of aviation, but also as an advisory body to assist the minister in determining aviation policy. Pursuant to its second function, it made an exhaustive study of all existing air routes in Canada. Hearings were held in all the principal cities, and the facts bearing on all the licences then outstanding were reviewed. The net result was that the board recommended that routes be divided into two classifications. The first classification includes routes that require extensive equipment and expensive aids to navigation, demand accurately scheduled services and, in short, require a long pocket-book for their operation. The routes so designated were the following:
In the province of Quebec, a route from Montreal to Quebec city, Chicoutimi, Forest-ville, Mont Joli, Baie Comeau and Seven islands, with a possible extension to Port Menier on Anticosti island.

Aeronautics Act
In northwestern Ontario and Manitoba, from Winnipeg to Red Lake, Ontario, Kenora, Sioux Lookout and Pickle lake.
In northern Manitoba and northeast Saskatchewan, between Winnipeg, Dauphin, Le Pas and FI in FI on, in coordination with and using the same kind of equipment as required for the route in northwestern Ontario.
In Saskatchewan, from Regina, connecting Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Prince Albert and North Battleford.
In Alberta and the Northwest Territories, from Edmonton to Fort McMurray, Fort Smith and Yellowknife, and to provide a direct air service to Vancouver from the Northwest Territories; a route from Yellowknife to Prince George, British Columbia, via Hay river, Vermilion, Peace river and Grande Prairie, Alberta; and third, to connect with the Yukon and Alaska, a route from Edmonton via Grande Prairie, to Fort St, John on the northwest staging route.
In British Columbia and the Yukon, from Vancouver, up through the centre of the province, to Prince George and Fort St. John, and thence up the northwest staging route to Fort Nelson, Watson lake, British Columbia, Whitehorse, Mayo and Dawson City, Yukon Territory.
On the coast of British Columbia, from Vancouver, connecting to Nanaimo and Port Hard}' on Vancouver island, Sandpit on the Queen Charlotte [DOT] islands, and Prince Rupert on the mainland.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit one question about these routes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of section 12 (2), which says that the board cannot issue these licences to railway companies unless the governor in council is of the opinion that it is in the interest of Canada, has that opinion been expressed in all these cases?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was just coming to that. After a very7 careful canvass of the situation, the conclusion has been reached that the services along the routes which I have just mentioned should continue to be furnished by Canadian Pacific Air Lines, which is in fact, at the present time, the only available carrier that is willing and able, and can adequately serve the present and future public convenience and necessity along the routes described.
Pursuant to that finding of the board, a recommendation was placed before the governor in council and an order in council was issued confirming the finding of the board. That order in council was tabled in parliament
some weeks ago. That is the action which has been taken with seven of the fifty-three routes. The other routes were of a different nature. For the most part they require to be operated on skis or on floats and demand less accurate scheduling than the routes I have mentioned. These latter routes were separated from the Canadian Pacific and have been issued to other applicants. Time does not permit me to detail a list of the operators that have been confirmed on the secondary routes; but I may say that, in general, all companies wishing to enter into the business of commercial aviation in this country have been allocated terrorities which the board believes will permit earnings sufficient to maintain their operation and return a profit. In proof of this, I may say that, generally speaking, commercial air lines other than the T.C.A. in 1946 returned a substantial over-all profit to the operators and, I believe, gave excellent service to the persons in the territory which they served.
For the first time in Canada we have a stable aviation industry, an industry that is amply self-supporting, and one that offers opportunity to the returned man to establish himself in a profitable business.


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but the hour for public and private bills having expired the house will resume the debate which was proceeding before six o'clock.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell (Muskoka-Ontario), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. H. W. TIMMINS (Parkdale):: Like those who have preceded me in this debate, I should like to add a few words of commendation to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in respect of the presentation of his budget. It was the first budget to which I have listened. It was a comprehensive budget presented with clarity and brevity-perhaps too much brevity; but it was done in excellent style. Those of us who listened to it could comprehend it as he went along. The budget was presented some time ago, in fact, on April 29 last. Perhaps the house will bear with me if I, as a newcomer, make a reflec-
The Budget-Mr. Timmins


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend realizes that is before the reductions in taxes which I proposed.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: I appreciate what the minister says in that regard.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is at existing tax rates.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: I quite agree, but I say that we are too close to war-time budgets because, after all, the government says we are to have some social security measures and I presume we shall in the course of time. There is only one class of people who will have to pay for that social security, and that is the same old taxpayers who are carrying the load now. Therefore the sooner we get back to a peace-time budget and back to taxation that the people can pay, the better for all concerned.
The minister also announced in his budget an average rate of reduction of about twenty-nine per cent in 1947. Perhaps I am wrong; perhaps he did not say twenty-nine per cent in 1947. At any rate, he must have been reading "Alice In Wonderland", because the reductions in taxation do not start until the 1st of July, 1947. They are only for half a year, so that the average reduction to which he refers, in the year 1947, comes to only about 144 per cent. You must call a spade a spade because that is the size of the reduction.
Further, the reduction of income taxation in 1948 is only a forecast. It is subject to a good many exigencies, some of which the minister has more or less indicated. There may be an unfortunate trade balance with the United States which may not allow the government to bring in the reductions.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That will not increase the income tax. This will be the law in 1948 unless parliament changes it.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: This is only a forecast on the part of the minister.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. It becomes the law once this budget is adopted.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It would not be the first time this government has changed its mind.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: I take the words of the minister himself that many other elements enter into the income tax for 1948, and I take
it that those are factors which will influence the government on the question whether or not we shall have these reductions in 1948.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is made perfectly clear in the budget speech that the tax reductions apply to 1948 and the latter half of 1947, and the only uncertain element in 1948 would be what the taxes would yield or what our expenditures might be. There is no question about the reduction.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: I am not debating the question with the minister. I say there may be exigencies which may prevent the minister from getting the taxation he finds necessary in order to carry on for the coming year.


Douglas Charles Abbott: To get the revenue; not the taxation.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: In the speech from the throne we read these words:
Once suitable financial relationships have been arrived at with the provinces, my ministers have undertaken to seek, in a general conference or otherwise-
And I emphasize those words "or otherwise".
-to work out satisfactory arrangements with the provinces in regard to public investment and social security measures.
The idea seems to have gone out that, once these tax agreements are entered into with the various provinces, as a matter of course social security measures are tied up with them, and that if some of the provinces hold out, social security is not going to come to the Dominion of Canada. Well, I have a clipping from the Ottawa Journal of April 23, 1947, containing the report of an address at Hawkesbury by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), in which he said:
"Hawkesbury as a thriving industrial centre," said Mr. Martin, "has a vital interest in the social security plans of the Liberal government. If they are carried out as we hope they will be, these plans will bring to the families of this community a greater degree of security and a greater chance of happiness and well-being than they have ever had before."
From that speech one would think that the Liberal government had a social security plan which would be brought in, and that it was just around the corner.
1 should like to take a few minutes of the time of the house to refer to some things that have been said by the various provincial premiers with respect to this matter of social security and these agreements. In the first place, the minister himself made it clear, when he spoke to the board of trade in Toronto some months ago, that the dominion government alone could not possibly assume
The Budget-Mr. Timmins

the responsibilities which are involved in the social security and public investment proposals unless it had these great fields of income and corporation taxes and, further, that there would be further responsibility upon the various provinces in respect of the raising of funds for these particular services. Then on Monday, May 12, we had the pronouncement that the province of Nova Scotia was preparing to sign an agreement; but it was made clear that the premier of that province was approving that agreement on the basis of expediency. He pointed out in no uncertain terms that there were a great number of problems still to be dealt with. For instance, this report states:
Although Nova Scotia was taking steps to enter an agreement, Premier Macdonald saw many contingent difficulties and criticized federal authorities for approaching the problem in a manner which, in many respects, had been "unwise and unsound."
"I say that the idea of separate bargains with the provinces is wrong, and that great matters of this kind should be settled at a general conference between the dominion and all the provinces."
"The proposals of the dominion government in their latest form leave much to be desired and the methods followed by the dominion government leave even still more to be desired.
That is what the Premier of Nova Scotia had to say. Previously, on February 7 of this year, the same gentleman is reported as follows:
Premier Macdonald said his government's nonacceptance of the offer was "a matter of principle." He said Nova Scotia had two major objections, the first being Ottawa's insistence on retaining minor tax fields such as amusements and pari-mutuels. "You might as well do away with provincial governments if you leave them no power to levy taxes."
On a previous occasion the Premier of Nova Scotia said:
If the process of the dominion invading provincial tax fields were allowed to go on, "what is the end to be?" he asked. Can anyone deny that, if most of the revenues which the provinces are to enjoy are to be paid to them by the dominion, the time may not come-indeed, is it not likely that the time is sure to come-when the dominion will begin to say what use the provinces shall make of these revenues? When that day comes there will be an end to provincial autonomy.
Then this is what the Premier of Alberta had to say. I grant you that these tax agreements have now been signed, but the fundamental principle, the fact that in order for us to have unity in Canada we must have an economic system that will work this year and in the years to come, still has to be dealt with. The point I am trying to make is that it can be dealt with only by the parties concerned sitting around the conference table with the

dominion, working all together in the interests of the dominion in order to bring about economic and social security agreements which will be for the benefit of the whole country. Of course the province of Alberta has already consented to sign an agreement, but this is what Premier Manning had to say:
The government desires to make it abundantly clear that such an agreement is in no sense a solution to the problem of dominion-provincial relations.
The proposed agreements do nothing more than provide for a redistribution of certain tax revenues under a formula which is neither scientific nor related in any way to the actual financial needs of the respective provinces. . . .
It leaves unsettled the whole question of constitutional reforms which are necessary in the light of modern circumstances, and does nothing to clarify the ambiguity that exists as to the lines of demarcation between dominion and provincial jurisdiction and responsibility.
Further, Premier Manning continued:
. . . before the problem of dominion-provincial relations can be satisfactorily solved, agreement must be reached between the dominion and all of the provinces on a basis which is voluntarily acceptable and on terms which all parties to the agreement regard as reasonable and proper.
Any formula which fails to produce this broad measure of voluntary agreement falls short of that which is required to underwrite the stability of our national economy, irrespective of what temporary financial gains accrue to individual provinces.
I do not believe the matter could be better stated than in the words of the Premier of Alberta.
Then we in the house remember that on March 17 last the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when we might expect the conference to be convened. Referring to the correspondence with the premiers of the provinces, which he said contained several communications relating to the circumstances under which the conference should be reconvened, the Prime Minister replied:
The conditions set forth there have in the mind of the government not as yet been fulfilled. I am therefore not in a position to say at the moment when the conference will be reassembled.
I do not know what the mind of the government is, or whether or not it is going to change its mind. The people of Canada, no matter what their political proclivities may be, no matter to what political party they may belong, believe that there is a duty and responsibility upon the government and the treasury benches to call that conference, and to call it as quickly as possible, in order that these problems may be solved.
The first meeting of the dominion-provincial conference took place in August, 1945. The

The Budget-Mr. Timmins
last meeting was on May 3, 1946, when the conference adjourned sine die upon motion of the then minister of finance. Mr. Macdonald, the Premier of Nova Scotia, was one of the most forceful among the premiers in stating that the dominion-provincial conference should be called again, as he put it, as a matter of principle and equity.
If I may refer to the correspondence on dominion-provincial relations tabled in the house, and particularly to page 30 thereof, one finds that the Premier of Nova Scotia is writing the Prime Minister under date of December 5, 1946, and, among other things, states:
The government of Nova Scotia emphasizes its strong conviction that a general conference between representatives of the dominion and all of the provinces is the only proper forum for discussion of matters so grave and so important as this.
The fact of the matter is that it has been suggested that social security plans are tied up with the signing of these agreements. I am sorry the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is not in his seat at the moment, because I did wish to say that, so far as I can find, there are no social security plans under way at the present time. The government has no social security plans to bring down, and we are left entirely in the dark.
Last week the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) asked some questions of the Department of National Health and Welfare, one of which was as follows:
What expenditures have been incurred annually by the dominion government since March, 1943, in connection with planning and organizing a national health programme?
That is one of the things about which there has been a good deal of talk, and many speeches, throughout the length and breadth of the country. The answer to that question is as follows:
1943-	44	
$837.421944-	45	
1,958.031945-	46	
394.441946-	47	
478.21
We are getting pretty close to home. But, as a matter of fact, $478.21 in 1946-47 for planning for national health services and national health insurance does not give us much hope that there is anything around the comer in respect of national health. So I am saying to the government and to the Minister of National Health and Welfare: let them take the house into their confidence in respect of this matter of national health insurance that we hear so much about.
In fairness, I should place on record the remainder of the answer that was given. I read again from the return filed:
The above does not indicate the amount of careful study and thought which has been given to this subject by many officers of the department.
Well, we have all been giving it study and thought.
Their salaries are not included in the above figures, as it is impossible to estimate the proportion of their time devoted to this work. A full-time officer is now giving his attention to studies in this field.
He must have just started, because his salary is not reflected in 1944; indeed it is not reflected in the last four years:
And the entire research division of the department concerned, consisting of approximately ten persons is at his disposal.
The fact is that if the government started a health insurance plan tomorrow they probably could not bring it into being-so I am told-in a matter of some five years or more. We have not the hospitals. We have not the hospital beds in any of the provinces to take care of any health insurance plan.
Only the other day the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) was despairing of the hospital facilities in his constituency. So it is in Ontario, as I know of my own knowledge, and so it is throughout the Dominion of Canada.
The only real progress that has been made in respect of preparing for hospitalization has been in Ontario, where the premier has offered $1,000 per bed to any hospital in respect of any beds which may be made available from now on in hospitals, thus leading 'the way for health insurance, or whatever health measures may develop in the years to come.
In the United States they are dealing with this problem more effectively. We read that within the last week Mr. Truman brought down his policy in respect of health insurance, and the first thing he did was to have congress vote a sum of S3 million to prepare plans for hospitalization facilities to be made available. In addition to that, he has asked congress to vote another $75 million to prepare institutions to work along with the plan.
We have nothing of that sort in Canada. I know of nothing planned up to this time in respect of health insurance. So it hardly lies in the mouth of the government to say that, as soon as these tax agreements are settled, they are going to deal with matters of social security. The people think it is right around the corner. I am saying just as loudly as I can that I cannot see it just around the corner; and I do not believe the people of Canada can, either.
As a matter of fact, the Ontario Medical Association seem to have stolen the ball in respect of this matter of health insurance.

The Budget-Mr. Timmins

Last week they met and prepared plans for bringing in a plan for Ontario which, in the long run, will be the forerunner of whatever health insurance plan may later develop in Canada. They got started a week ago, and the best brains among the medical men of Ontario are going to bring in a plan which they feel will be workable. As I have said, they seem to have stolen the ball in respect of planning for health insurance.
We had expected that something would have been done in the budget in connection with relieving indirect taxation. From time to time during the debate a good deal has been said on this subject. People may have forgotten that we have such things as amusement taxes, telegram taxes, telephone taxes, taxes on railway tickets, a sales tax, -a luxury tax on jewellery and a tax on toilet articles. On Monday last the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said in the house that the budget provides as far as posible for indirect taxation only on articles that are not necessities. There are taxes on tooth paste and shaving cream, and I think we have long since come to the conclusion that these articles are not luxuries. Yet we have been paying a high luxury tax on them.
It is my opinion that a start should be made toward reducing these taxes. If it is ever going to be made, this is the time to do it when national production is up and when money is freer than it has ever been in my lifetime. This is the time to start to reduce some of these indirect taxes. It has been said in another place that the budget is a hodge-podge of levies, unrelated to levels or any discernible economic theory, as the Minister of Finance has demonstrated by failing to do anything about it.
In an effort to find out how these various taxes came into effect, who was paying them, how much they were paying and so on, I made it my business to try to find out how much the married women of Canada were paying in taxes. We have heard a lot about the married women in business paying taxes, and there should be some relief for them, having regard to production. I inquired of the Department of National Revenue as to what taxes had been paid by married women in 1946, but they were not able to give me an answer. Then I made the same inquiry in respect of 1945 and I could not get an answer. Then I asked this question:
How many married women in the Ottawa taxation area paid income tax in 1945 in respect to salaries alone (as contrasted from those who paid income tax on investments), and what was the aggregate of the income tax so paid?

Here is the answer I received.
Statistics have not been assembled in a form to answer this question definitely either for the Ottawa district or the country as a whole but, as indicated in a reply to a previous question, arrangements have been made to gather such statistics in the future. However, as a partial reply, the department estimates that there were approximately 110,000 married female taxpayers in all Canada in the year 1946. Their salary or wage income is estimated at $1148,000,000 and the tax payable on this income in 1946 is estimated at $48,500,000.
I made it my business to follow that up in order to find out upon what basis this return had been given. I found that there were no records with respect to this matter. I found out that there are no statistics in Canada from which to give me that answer. The fact of the matter is that statistics have not been kept, and the minister who taxes the women of Canada has really no concrete material before him when he places that tax upon the married women. Speaking for myself and with some knowledge of business, I think it has been a mistake that the tax was not ameliorated with respect to married women.
As we know, a woman in business has an exemption of 8750 and her husband has an exemption of 81,500. If the married woman earns more than $250, as between 8250 and $750 the difference is deducted from the husband's exemption. If she makes as much as $750, the exemption of her husband is reduced to $750. We all know that the married women in business are doing their share. Probably your stenographer in the parliament buildings is a married woman. I know that my stenographer in my business is a married woman. There are nurses, teachers and stenographers who are carrying on their work in the Dominion of Canada, and it seems to me that some start should have been made in 1947 with respect to relief in the interests of production in Canada, which, after all, is one of the problems that we have to face. We must keep up production in order to maintain the supply of goods, and in order that in the course of time the price of goods may be reduced and that we may be able to get back to the economy of normal times. I think we might have had some leadership in respect of that, particularly since the minister has told us in his budget that he is budgeting for a surplus, I think he said of an estimated $190 million. He tells us that that is to take care of the agreements with the provinces.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And to take care of debt reduction too.

The Budget-Mr. Grant


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: And to take care of debt reduction too. It is perfectly obvious that in 1947, having regard to the start that has so far been made, there will be no dominion-provincial conference called. Since the provinces which have not signed agreements have balanced their budgets for 1947, I presume that the minister could almost put out his hand and find this surplus which he is to have for the year 1947. As a matter of fact, it may not be too late yet to take action with respect to some of the things that people have been clamouring for-after all, we are only the representatives of the people-things like soft drinks for the kiddies. Perhaps the tax on soft drinks could be relieved with the surplus the minister will have in his hands by the end of the year.
I obtained a return from the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) with respect to taxes on soft drinks in 1946, which states that something like S17 million was secured. There was a tax of one cent a bottle and an additional tax of twenty-five per cent. I think the minister, with a surplus in hie hands or with a surplus staring him in the face, could have done something about that, as well as the tax on chocolate bars. In the same way, something might have been done to relieve taxation upon married women.
I should like to turn for a moment to housing. When the Minister of National Health and Welfare was speaking in Hawkesbury on April 23, he had something to say about housing, and I quote:
Under the National Housing Act we have provided more than $400,000,000 to assist Canadians in building homes. It is expected that 80,000 new homes will be completed by the end of this year.


William Ross Macdonald: I must remind the hon. member that his time has expired.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Might I have just a moment?


An hon. MEMBER:: Time.


William Ross Macdonald: With the unanimous consent of the house.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: During the last few weeks I asked the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) for a statement as t.o what survey was being made by his department in connection with housing, and he advised that a survey was going on all the time. The minister must know of the critical situation which has developed in Canada at this time in connection with housing. I should like to point out to the minister that home building this year shows an increase of only 8-8 per cent over last year, whereas 83166-2184
industrial building shows an increase of 116 per cent. I think his survey should show him that, as a matter of fact, we are going behind in house building in 1947. We are not going to have as many houses as we had in 1946. This is a national problem. A crisis in respect of housing has developed and is with us now, and I am asking the minister, what does the government propose to do about it?


Thomas Vincent Grant: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes at my disposal I can refer only briefly to what has been said by the last few speakers. The hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Timmins) seems to have become converted to a policy of social legislation, because he devoted from half to three-quarters of his time to social legislation and said that the government was very slow in bringing it down. In that respect he was somewhat different from the hon. member who preceded him, who said that the family allowance was a brazen bribe to the people of Canada.
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw), in speaking this evening, spent a good deal of his time in talking about the maritime provinces. That is an old political trick, .getting away from one's own part of the country and going to the other end to talk about unemployment there, when there is none perhaps in his own part of the country.
I listened to the Tory member from Queens (Mr. McLure). I could not catch all he said today, but I read in yesterday's Hansard how he began his speech last night. He referred to Marc Antony. I am not going to read to the house what he said. I would not want to repeat it because I am afraid we are getting on our hands in this house a case of senile perversion. Old fools are the worst fools.
He said that he was speaking for the province of Prince Edward Island. I want to remind the house that the hon. member was speaking for the Tories of Prince Edward Island, the minority and a very small minority of the people of Prince Edward Island. The hon. member also said that he hoped there would be a by-election in Prince Edward Island. I would remind him that if there is a by-election there it will not be a dual one like the last one he ran in, and he will not be able again to hold on to the coat-tail of another member to get into this house. That is how he got in at the last election, and he cannot deny that. His speech today bears out what appears in his biography in the Parliamentary Guide, which says that he was at one
The Budget-Mr. Grant

time a commercial ambassador. Well, all I have to say is that he made a commercial speech today.
I did think he was not fair in speaking about the fur business, because he gave the government no credit for saving the fur situation in Prince Edward Island this year. The government this year gave the fur men in Prince Edward Island a guaranteed price equal to the average price over the last three years, and saved the fur business of Prince Edward Island. My hon. friend and a few other men like him put the fur business on the rough in Prince Edward Island. As he was speaking, I was just thinking that the Tories must have had .a bet among themselves as to who could make the most ridiculous speech and, after listening to the hon. member for Queens, I would say that he won the bet.
When a doctor is called out to see a patient he keeps an open mind until he arrives at the bedside. That was the state of mind I tried to maintain the night the budget was presented to the house. My diagnosis of the loyal opposition, in their reaction to the budget, is one of shock, shock from bitter disappointment, shock from shattered hopes. I noticed that one or two of them, notably the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair), who is of my own profession, seemed to retain their normal demeanour in the house on that occasion, and I decided that I would leave the treatment of his colleagues to him. I think he has made a very good job of it. Of course time is a great healer, and I notice that some of our hon. friends opposite have been coming back to life in the last few days.
I should like in that connection to rededicate a few lines to the hon. member for Lanark:
He listens earnestly to tales of grief,
Forgets himself, that he may give relief
To bodies suffering, or tortured minds,
In service to all men, his pleasure finds.
I have thought from the first, Mr. Speaker, that this budget did not need any defence. I suppose that some hon. members on this side of the house rose to speak on the budget in order to make their first speech. I noticed that one of the most sensible Conservatives in the house, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) overran his time, and he did not mention the budget at any time during his whole budget speech, which made me think that he had nothing at all to say against the budget.
This budget reduces taxation and shows a large surplus, and those are the two chief things about any budget. When we find

taxation reduced and a substantial surplus we are generally satisfied that everything else is fairly good. But the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell), the financial critic of the opposition, seemed to be affected much more than the rest of his colleagues, and he made a confession to the effect that if his party were in power the people of this country would have to pay a higher rate of interest on mortgages and notes of hand and so forth which they owed to these rich people. He also said that if his party were in power there would not be any surplus, or words to that effect. That is about all that I could gather from his speech.
Every hon. member who has spoken in this debate has congratulated the young Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), not only on his budget, but on the splendid manner in which he delivered it, and I wish to join with others in extending my heartiest congratulations to him. I also wish to congratulate every member of the Liberal party, back benchers and myself included, upon the way we stood behind our leader through thick and thin because we knew he was right, and so I want to congratulate the whole Liberal party as well as the Minister of Finance on that wonderful budget. I also congratulate the Liberal party on the fact that today Canada is more prosperous than ever before. That has been admitted by almost every hon. member. Canada is the third trading nation of the world today. I remember that in 1930 Canada was the fifth trading nation of the world.


Mr. STUART (Charlotte):: What government was in power then?


Thomas Vincent Grant: The Liberal party; it went out in 1930. By 1935 Canada was the eighth trading nation of the world.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: What party was in power then?


Thomas Vincent Grant: The Tories. The excuse they gave was that there was a world depression. That is why Canada went down to eighth trading place in the world. If Canada went to the eighth trading place some other nations took her place. They must have been prospering. Another nation took her place and she went down to eighth place, et cetera. Today, under a Liberal government, she is the third) trading nation of t'he world. Canada is a country of something over ten million people. There are countries that have hundreds of millions of people, and yet we are the third trading nation of the world under a Liberal government.

The Budget-Mr. Grant
We hear many wails from all parties on the other side of the house about prosperity. Do they ever look at the reports of the bank presidents of Canada? These reports show that, in spite of all the money people put into victory bonds to win the war, they have twice as much money in the savings bank now.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Including the C.C.F.


Thomas Vincent Grant: Yes, including the C.C.F. They have twice as much money in the bank today as they ever had before. How does that come about in a country that some people are wailing about? Sometimes they forget and say that we are the most prosperous country in the world. Where did the money come from for the people of the country last year to buy more insurance than they ever bought in any other two years? Last year the people of Canada bought $1,777 million worth of insurance. Where do they get the money? Bennett did not send it to them. We are now told by our Tory friends, who have become socialists themselves, that we have turned socialist. If my hon. friend makes another speech like the one he just made he had better go over with the C.CJF. It was not since the C.C.F. were created in Canada that we had social legislation. We had social legislation in 1923, the Combines Investigation Act; the Old Age Pensions Act under a Liberal government in 1927; the fair wage and eight-hour day in 1928; the Farm Loan Act in 1926 and the Family Allowances Act in 1944, of course, and unemployment insurance and scores of other social legislation before our hon. friends of the C.C.F. party commenced to function.
Last year the Tory member for Queens talked; about the unemployed and jobless in Prince Edward Island. I said in the house afterwards that there was no unemployment in Prince Edward Island with the exception of some returned soldiers who had recently come home and were not yet rehabilitated. Well, there was an awful noise about that in Tory circles. The leader of the opposition on the island got up in the legislature and said that I was an outlaw, or words to that effect. I had said that fishermen were banking money down there. He said, the idea of fishermen banking money; the idea of a man talking like that in Ottawa. Well, I leave, it to him. That is Tory mentality.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Thomas Vincent Grant: The hon. gentleman talks enough in the house. The hon. gentleman is very proud. He knows what Pope said about pride. He said:
Of all the causes that conspire to blind
Man's erring judgment, and misguide the mind,
What the weak head with strongest bias rules,
Is pride, the never-failing vice of fools.
The Guardian newspaper, which was at the time I think somewhat under the influence of the Tory member for Queens, came out with an editorial, and of all the lacings a man ever got for saying that Prince Edward Island had' no unemployment I got it. That was a year-ago. I am going to take time to read another ' editorial, because my hon. friend said' that Liberal papers sometimes find fault with; the government. This is from the Tory Guardian newspaper of April 17, 1947. It was nine months after I made my speech. The heading of the article is: "Our Island Prosperity" and reads as follows:
Annus maribilis well describes the past year as the prospects for the coming year. We have been free from catastrophies due to nature or man's making, and have enjoyed ideal weather, social, health and business conditions for almost eighteen months,-
That goes back a year before I said there was no unemployment.
-and are still going strong in this respect. Mr. R. P. Hartley, superintendent of the federal maritime insurance commission, with headquarters at Moncton, reports that conditions here are the best in the maritimes, with the prospect of having to import labour to help out when the $4 million wharf contract at Borden begins at an early date. Returned men have been largely absorbed in farming and fishing and other industries, while construction work, which is exceptionally busy, is taking up any employables available.
This is the place where our hon. friends over there say there are 30,000 people unemployed. It continues:
The farmers have benefited extensively by the deal in potatoes with the British government which will net them some $8,000,000 gross on last fall's potato crop. There are some doubts about next year's market for lobsters on account of the powers that be in Europe claiming that that delectable crustacean is more of a luxury than a necessity and its importation should be discouraged. However, at the recent fisheries conference here, taken part in by the Minister of Fisheries, Ottawa, and the Minister of Fisheries, Quebec, hope was expressed that any such embargo would be delayed for the coming year at any rate. The loss of the European market would necessitate the development of a more extensive outlet in Canada and the United States, and may entail the greater use of air express for the purpose. Which reminds us that air training and air traffic have become thriving industries in the province. One of the two new headquarters of the R.C.A.F. for the maritimes has been transferred to Summerside airport, and extensive building operations to provide homes for the officers and crews will soon be underway. Plans are also under consideration for running a new car ferry between West Point and Buc-touche or alternatively between Summerside and Pont du Chene, to take care of the summer
The Budget-Mr. Grant

auto traffic between here and tie mainland. This will be in addition to the Borden-Tormen-tine ear ferry and the Wood Islands-Caribou, Nova Scotia ferry which is developing a steadily increasing trade and traffic with Nova Scotia and Cape Breton; while the Clark Steamship service promises to be in greater activity than ever in the development of trade between Newfoundland and here. Altogether prospects were never brighter than at present for continuing and expanding prosperity in the garden of the gulf.
That editorial appears in one of the strongest Conservative papers ever published in Canada.
The opposition say that our people are overtaxed. Well, if they are overtaxed, why are they buying so many victory bonds; why are they depositing so much of their money in the banks, and why is it that, whereas almost everyone had to mortgage his farm while the Tory government was in power, there is hardly a mortgaged farm in Prince .Edward Island today? And that improvement has come about since 1935. I know what I am talking about. I am not like the fellow who said that there were 30,000 unemployed in the maritimes, the fellow who did not know what he was talking about. We had two or three major strikes on at the time and minor ones as well, and he was adding them to the list of the unemployed, and very likely adding the school children as well.
Let me mention one nuisance tax, an old Tory tax. I refer to the sales tax. We say that our dollar is at par, but it is not at par when you consider the sales tax. You cannot go out with a dollar without somebody getting eight cents out of it in the form of sales tax, and ultimately the consumer finds that he pays twenty cents out of the dollar through that confounded nuisance Tory sales tax. I say, as a Liberal government, let us as soon as possible get rid of that Tory sales tax.
I should like to say a word about the mail couriers while I am on my feet if I have the time.
Some hon. MEMBERS; Go on.


Thomas Vincent Grant: We have heard an uproar in this house from our Conservative friends opposite about the terrible plight of the mail couriers. They say the condition of these people is a scandal. That is what they said a short time ago, and I believe they were expecting a general election at that time, because the same thing took place in the last session before the 1930 election. At that time Mr. Guthrie of the Tory opposition went so far as to move an amendment to the Post Office Act to provide that mail couriers should be placed in the civil service of Can-

ada, knowing that it could not easily be done. That was the last session before the 1930 election and, as I say, it was Hugh Guthrie who moved the amendment. Our hon. friends opposite made speeches then exactly the same as their successors have recently been making on the same subject, but I notice that it was the younger members who spoke. The old shell-backs who were here in 1930 did not speak. It was the younger members who put up the howl about the mail couriers, and they shed tears, just as their predecessors did in 1930. In 1930 that amendment was moved to the Post Office Act, but it was voted down. Then the election came on and every mail driver received a letter signed "R. B. Bennett", stating that if the Conservatives were put into power the mail drivers would be put in the civil service. In that letter they stated that they had moved in the house the amendment to which I have referred and that it had been voted down by the Grits.
I read that letter and I may say that it was dangerous to meet a mail driver on the road at that time. That was the time my hon. friend over there, the Tory member for Queens, was shouting on the platform, "Look at your milk cheques". Yes; I saw the letter which these mail couriers received. But what happened afterwards? As soon as the Tories got into power, the mail couriers began to ask that they be put into the civil service. The Tory government then said, "We will have to do something with those fellows", and they threw almost all the mail contracts out for tender in a body. Times were getting so hard that the people were starving and could not get a dollar. Bennett spoke then of sound money. He said. "This is sound money you are getting", but it was so sound you could not smell it. Well, these men lost their contracts or got them at a much reduced figure. I know a man w-ho had a contract for $1,100; when it was advertised he put in a tender for $450 and got the contract again, and it remained at that figure until we raised it to $1,100 two or three years ago.
That was what the Tories did to the mail couriers, and here they have tried to start the same thing again this year, but it did not work because some of the older fellows said, "You had better drop that; the mail couriers have good memories".


Mr. FRASER:: They are not getting a fair deal yet.


Thomas Vincent Grant: You are not getting a fair deal either.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: 
Thomas Vincent Grant: 
Charles Edward Johnston: You should have become indignant and walked out.


Thomas Vincent Grant: Almost every member who gets up on the opposite side talks about chocolate bars. Let me say this, particularly to my Tory friends. When they were in power between 1930 and 1935 you paid five cents for a chocolate bar, but you would get only one chocolate bar for a bushel of potatoes in Prince Edward Island. You would get one chocolate bar for a bushel of potatoes and three cents over. Potatoes were then eight cents a bushel. Today, with chocolate bars at eight cents each, you can get twelve chocolate bars for a bushel of potatoes in Prince Edward Island. You get ninety-six cents for a bushel of potatoes, but of course they are the best in the world.
AVe hear a lot of talk from our C.C.F. friends about free enterprise. I may say that the C.C.F. party are the only people who lose money in Prince Edward Island. Every time they run an election they lose $200. They are very much opposed to free enterprise, but I should like to ask my hon. friends: Where would we be tonight but for these electric lights? In the dark, I suppose. Our socialist friends condemn free enterprise, but would we have electric lights tonight in this house, or would we have a telephone system, would we have the radio and the automobile, all inventions of free men, had Henry Ford, Bell, Marconi, Edison and all such men been taken by a socialist government when they were eighteen or nineteen years of age and told
to go to work for the government? Do you think they would have invented those things after working hours? Of course not.
I did not write out a big speech to read in this house. I don't like that stuff. We are Liberals; we say so, and we talk that way. AVe hear a great deal from the Conservative-party opposite about the little man. It makes-my blood run cold when I hear the Tories talk about the little man. They are the people-of the big interests, the men who care no>
more for the little man than that one of their number who said that family allowances were a brazen bribe to the people of Canada; yet only the night before last we heard them talk about the little man. I say, beware the Greeks when they come bearing gifts.
AVell, Mr. Speaker, I think I have exhausted my vocabulary and have said enough. I do not want to take any more time, because I should like to see a vote taken tonight. Therefore I shall now resume my seat.


Mr. R. J. HENDERSON (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I think I will try to shift the scene of combat from the little island province back to my inland province of Ontario and my own constituency.


Mr. LOW:: Tell us about the Grits.


Robert James Henderson: We certainly enjoyed the humorous and witty address of the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Grant), and I hope my remarks may be of the same high order. As a matter of fact, after the terrible flaying we poor Progressive Conservatives were given by him, I do not know whether I should proceed. In any event, in starting my remarks I wish, along with the other hon. members who have spoken, to compliment the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) on his excellent presentation of the budget. I did enjoy his voice, the clear tones in which he spoke, and the good, clear, sensible, whole-hearted manner of presentation, which was indeed a revelation. That was the third time I have been privileged to listen to a budget presented in this house, and I must say that this year the presentation was par excellence.
We have been hearing some excellent addresses on the issues of the day, and if some- the last speaker excluded-have wandered from the subject matter of the budget, they were just taking advantage of the latitude allowed at this time to speak of matters of public concern as they affect their own provinces and perhaps their own constituencies. In doing so, they have rendered us an invaluable service. They have made an indelible impression upon us, and I can assure
The Budget-Mr. Henderson

beet industry in southwestern Ontario, and all other growing areas, will be definitely assured.
Mr. Speaker, before I conclude this brief address, and in order that I may not digress too far from the budget aspect of my observations, I wish to place on record a protest, if one may call it such, against the tax, the old Tory tax we heard so much about a while ago. Nevertheless it is one we say is discriminatory. I refer to the eight per cent sales tax on domestic electricity, and more particularly to the eight per cent sales tax as it is levied on both natural gas and manufactured gas as used in our homes for cooking, water heating, lighting and space heating.
I wish to refer more to the tax of eight per cent on our gas bills than the eight per cent tax on domestic electricity, because our hydro bills are much smaller since we use electricity in our homes for lighting and cooking, but not yet to a great extent for space heating. A brief in the form of a protest has been submitted to the Minister of Finance by the Canadian gas association and, in order that I may bring it to the attention of this house, I will now quote some of its major denunciations as outlined. The Union Gas Company, the one with which I am intimately acquainted and one which no doubt is representative of all other gas companies in Canada, has tried to give us excellent service and, we feel, a square deal. It is true that it recently had to raise its rates, justifiably, we believe, because as yet they are by no means prohibitive. It serves a great area in southwestern Ontario, including the cities of Windsor, Chatham, London and Sarnia. It has its headquarters at Chatham, and its lines serve all the towns and villages and a good many of the rural areas. It has a goodly sized number of maintenance men, and it pays good wages and expends huge sums on meters, pipes and other equipment.
Natural gas as a fuel is very popular where it is possible to acquire it. Its use is not general throughout Canada, but it is used extensively in southwestern Ontario and parts of Alberta. Compared with manufactured gas, natural gas is in a class by itself, because it has heating units of 1025 B.T.U. per cubic foot, whereas manufactured gas has only 450 to 530 B.T.U. per cubic foot. It will be seen that natural gas has heating qualities which are practically double those of manufactured gas. Natural gas in southwestern Ontario is in diminishing supply because the producing wells are slackening off. The Union Gas Company of Chatham, having expended huge sums for exploratory purposes without suc-
cess, have now entered into an agreement with the Panhandle Gas Company of Texas whereby they may import 5J billion cubic feet annually and thus assure their customers of an adequate supply for all purposes for twenty years to come.
This twenty-year assurance is something which no other concern dealing in fuel, solid or otherwise, can give, and we believe that every encouragement should be given to the natural gas industry because fuel is one of our definite requirements, regardless of the cost. This was made more definite by a recent announcement of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) as to the limitations in the use of fuel oil for heating requirements in the future. It demonstrates the fact that Canadians are frantic as to fuel necessities, and when this natural gas company comes forward with a definite assurance of a twenty-year supply we feel that there is due to it, not only worthy praise but definite encouragement.
Let us face the fact, which is an old slogan. In September, 1939, the Special War Revenue Act was amended whereby users of domestic electricity and gas were subjected to the eight per eent sales tax as a special war levy. That was enacted so that gas and electricity might be diverted, wherever feasible, from domestic purposes to war necessities and, as such, all users submitted cheerfully and cooperated fully. But now that the war is terminated, we feel that this tax should have been eliminated in the budget presentation. Such is not the case, and we feel, rightfully so, that it is discriminatory because other special war levies such as the war exchange tax have been repealed, as has the twenty-five per cent excise tax provided by the Special War Revenue Act. Income war tax rates, both personal and corporation, have been reduced, as have excess profits taxes, personal and corporation. This particular tax has been retained, we believe not as a special war revenue tax but for revenue purposes only.
Let us face some further facts. What are the implications behind this adherence? According to the latest submissions, there are some 720,000 residential gas consumers being served by the several gas companies across this dominion. The annual gas bill paid by this great army of residential users is some $24,000,000, and the total sales tax as levied, which is collected by the companies at no expense to the government and turned over to the public treasury, was the tidy sum of $1,915,886, or practically $2,000,000, a total of $12,000,000 in the six years of its existence. While actual figures are not available, there

The Budget-Mr. Henderson
is no doubt that a substantial proportion of this sales tax was levied on householders who use gas for the same purposes that others use solid fuels which are free from the sales tax.
Let me give an example of how this tax adds to the cost of living of a residential owner of a seven-roomed house in Ontario from January until December of 1946. The total gas bill would be $139.60, and the special war tax of eight per cent would amount to SI 1.15. This means that there is a war levy of practically $1 a month on many who can ill afford to pay it. In Manitoba, where the climate is much colder, these cold facts apply. The gas bill for a modern equipped house would amount to $284.79 and the special war tax for 1946 would amount to $22.85. This means that practically $2 a month was levied as a tax in order that these home owners might enjoy their own fireside comforts and cook their own sustaining meals. Therefore it is respectfully submitted that this tax should be removed for the following reasons: first, the sales tax on gas was imposed as a special war levy in September, 1939, and the war emergency no longer exists; second, since no sales tax is levied on solid fuels which are used in dwellings for the same purpose for which gas is used, the levying of a sales tax on gas is more or less discriminatory.
May I again exhort this government: first, to reconsider rental controls where compassionate grounds are certain; second, to encourage and foster the sugar beet industry and, third, to eliminate this discriminatory eight per cent sales tax on gas and domestic electricity since, in the face of the big surplus we have this year, it appears small, unusual and inconsistent.
Now, may I digress further, since I have a few minutes of my time still left? I should like to say a few w'ords in connection with the Old Age Pensions Act. An amendment is to be introduced, and I must say that those eligible and in need of the same have been hopeful that something in keeping with the present-day cost of living requirements would be contained therein, but I fear they are to be disappointed. We are all agreed that the present payments with the means test applied are very small and meagre indeed. In my community, and generally throughout Ontario, the total pension is $28 a month. This is forty per cent higher than the pension of $20 a month paid during pre-war days, but the cost of living index has risen in proportion with the increase in pension, and the pensioner finds himself or herself more or less an unwanted person among his or her relations or elsewhere.
Many children of the present age are more or less negligent of their parents and shirk
their responsibility. There was a time before the war when the $20 a month pension was an entry-ticket to many homes. I have known families to keep pushing these older parents around from one to the other with no welcome from any of them, but just as soon as the pension was secured they vied with each other and sometimes quarreled to see which one would get them and take them in.
But a great change has come about, either due to prosperity on the part of the children or an attitude of state-paternalism as evidenced in so many instances. Nobody seemingly is desirous of accepting parental responsibility and the demand is that the state provide fully.
In my home community I know of four homes which have provided accommodation for from fifteen to forty each of these senior citizens. They are well housed, properly fed and cleanly kept by the matrons of the homes. The charge is $26 a month, leaving the pensioner $2 a month for tobacco or other knick-knacks so dear to them. Many who have no other home and who can pay their way are taken in and live comfortably with others, of their age and likings. These homes are under medical supervision and standards and are a decided asset to any community. Their numbers are growing across Canada and are thus making the care of the aged very convenient and peaceable. It is well for the older people to be together, because the old and the young do not assimilate too readily according to present-day social standards. It would be a generous move on the part of this government to recognize fully the part these homes are playing and to give them some definite assurance of further assistance. The matrons of these homes have bed patients in their care and charge as low as $45 a month for this service. The extra cost above the pension is borne by the county or other responsible municipality. This relieves our hospitals, which are too readily over-crowded. With the new health group insurance plans and schemes as formulated and now working, our hospitals do not know what to do, and many of these elder and incurable patients are now being removed to these homes which are taking a rightful and necessary place as subsidiary hospitals. We are at the parting of the old ways of doing things, and new schemes must be devised to care for the needy.
I maintain that the moral fibre of the country can be judged and assessed in just so far as it takes care of its old, its blind, its sick, and its needy. Germany on her way to build up her superior master race was accused of destroying all those who could not add to her national standards and income.
The Budget-Mr. Henderson

We in Canada are known abroad as a Christian nation, so let us measure up to our reputation as such by increasing our allowance to all those eligible to such an extent as is within our capabilities to pay and within the needs of all those requiring this assistance.
Our present plans of payment have been consistent with those of other countries and in that our actions are indeed worthy. I am certain that, after a careful survey by our experts, a plan of payment agreeable, not only to the taxpayer, but also to those in dire need, will be instituted as acceptable to all. .
I should like to refer all groups in this house to the table presented by the then minister of national health and welfare on page 752 of the 1946 Hansard. I am sure much valuable information is contained therein, which should be carefully studied by all before they voice their comments. This table has been well prepared and the figures are astounding. The age of seventy, with the modified means test, seems the plan most feasible for the present, but on referring to the table on page 754 of the same Hansard we will readily agree that females are in much more urgent need than the males. Here at the age of seventy we find sixty-nine per cent of the males not gainfully employed, while ninety-six per cent of the females are in the same unemployed class and require assistance. In the sixty-five to sixty-nine age group we find thirty-one per cent of the males unemployed, while in the same age group ninety-two per cent of the females are thus classified.
So, when we make seventy the over-all age group for both, we are falling short 'of our duties, because male and female are certainly in two distinct groups, with the female in urgent need of the lower age classifications. We realize that this will cost huge sums but, with the war over and our national income at a high level, it behooves us to assist these aged citizens who have given their all and, during the days of hardship, to make this Canada the great nation it is today.
Now a word on immigration. We must have a clear-cut immigration plan, admitting only those who will fill in an unnecessary gap and relieve a farm situation that has become very much unbalanced. Immigration authorities inform us that the number of immigrants desiring to enter Canada is infinitely greater than it was two decades ago. While some countries may have regulations regarding exit permits and export of capital, these restrictions will no doubt be modified as conditions grow more normal.
In the British isles, 300,000 are reported as awaiting transportation to some of the coun-

tries of the commonwealth, and 100,000 have at least made serious inquiries. The high commissioner for Australia has recently stated that his country has set up an immigration policy of admitting 700,000 new citizens annually, with those from the British isles preferred. Under their government's new scheme, British servicemen would be transported free of charge and non-veterans at $40 each, while immigrants from other countries would pay their own passage.
With the labour shortage in Britain verj acute, the British government is alarminglj concerned lest the lure of other countries might induce unlimited numbers to leave her shores to take up their homes elsewhere. We feel that the acute shortage of housing in our urban municipalities is detrimental to admitting skilled labourers; yet our countryside has many vacant dwellings suitable for farm workers. Immigrants of two social standards should be admitted, and could be without throwing our economy out of balance.
Our desirable class would be single men without capital who would be willing to take jobs on the farms, learn our methods, save their money and, as thousands of former similar ones have done, purchase and operate farms of their own in the future. Nationalities of this type in the past have been Belgians, Hollanders and Danes, who came here years ago as hired help, have made good, and now own and operate farms of their own as good Canadian citizens.
Another necessary and readily assimilated class are the ones with considerable capital and farming experience to purchase immediately many of our farms now operated by farmers who are anxious to retire owing to advancing years or ill health and who would readily dispose of their farms. Our agricultural resources alone could maintain hundreds of thousands of additional persons. There is at present a ready-made opportunity for newcomers because many unoccupied rural homes are awaiting arrivals and new ownership and farm operation.
Recently our department of agriculture in the town of Petrolia. made a rural survey of one of our townships, the township of Warwick. The township of Warwick is fairly representative of all the other townships in that part of southwestern Ontario. This is what they found. It is a complete survey:
The survey's summary for Warwick township describes the township fairly well and is reprinted below:
Number of farms visited, 719; 230 were pasture farms.
Nobody living on them; 247 were under 100 acres; ninety-nine of these 719 farms

The Budget-Mr. Henderson
were rented; thirty-seven had empty houses fit for dwellings; 113 had bush on them; 154 were located on country road or highway; 187 farms were watered by creeks; 150 were infested with either thorns or weeds. That generally happens when they are turned into pasture farms. That part of the farm is more or less neglected and they grow up in weeds and thorn bushes. Here is an important fact that I should like hon. members to get: 163 of these 719 farms were operated by men over sixty years of age. Therefore there is a wonderful opportunity for European farmers coming in with capital. There is a ready-made opportunity. These men are all willing to dispose of their farms and move into town if they could only get a house to live in when they decide to move.
The immigrant from other lands has added materially to our industrial development and agricultural prosperity. It is true that we can never again admit these immigrants as we did during the early part of this century when they were arriving at the rate of one thousand a day and speeding across our country to develop and bring into being two of our prairie provinces. I can remember well when a thousand a day from Europe were speeding across Canada. They brought with them many of their skills and scientific knowledge, which, when added to and applied to our own, has worked to the advantage of all.
The most recent addition to my constituency has been a great number of Czechoslovakian families. They succeeded in leaving their homeland immediately before the war and brought with them much capital and purchased many of our better farms. They settled in groups, which was probably detrimental to their best behaviour; nevertheless they readily assimilated themselves into our ways of life because they intend to stay here. They adopted our methods, learned our language and settled down as good law-abiding citizens. Their children attend our schools and are growing up as the Canadians of the future, being schooled in an atmosphere in the very best of our customs and traditions. Canada cannot afford to let time pass without instituting an immigration policy broad enough-


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


Robert James Henderson: I have only a few more words.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Finish your speech.


Robert James Henderson: Canada cannot afford to let time pass without instituting an immigration policy broad enough to admit to this country thousands of desirable settlers to
populate the vast open spaces and to assist in the development of a greater nation. Our national economy is built up on our export market; but with double the present population, or three times it, we would have a great domestic market which, after all, is the soundest, since a home market is not dependent on trade treaties and international political bickering.
Our present needs are in the fields of agriculture, which is drying up and production decreasing owing to a large extent to the lack of help. We in Lambton-Kent have the roads; we have the unoccupied farms; we have the proper type of soil which has been developed by a hardy and virile race of pioneers, but at the present time and in the immediate future we must have sufficient immigration and labour that is not adverse to giving an honest day's toil for an honest day's pay. The citizens of the future must have stout hearts, intelligent minds and willing hands.
On motion of Mr. Langlois the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, May 26, 1947