Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Hon. J. E. Michaud be substituted for that of Hon. C. D. Howe on the standing committee on railways and shipping.
That the name of Mr. Douglas (Weyburn) be substituted for that of Mr. Wright on the standing committee on public accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	*


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the name of Mr. Graham be substituted for that of Hon. J. E. Michaud on the special committee on defence of Canada regulations.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: I desire to lay on the table the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year ended December 31, 1942. Copies of this report are being distributed to members this afternoon. I move:
That this report be referred to the standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Has there been an allotment made by the farm machinery controller for potato machinery to be used in each province?
2.	If so, what number of machines were allotted to each machinery manufacturer for each province as follows, (a) potato planters, (b) potato cultivating machines, (c) potato sprayers, (d) potato diggers?


Mr. ILSLEY:: ,
1.	There are no allotment quotas on this type of machinery by provinces. However, the farm and construction machinery 72537-96
administration have arranged with every manufacturer and importer of potato machinery to allocate supplies of potato machines which each will receive in 1943, as well as any inventory carried over from 1942, to the various sections of the country based on a percentage of an average of 1940, 1941 and 1942 sales in each area.
2.	There has been no allotment of potato machinery to individual machinery manufacturers by provinces. Each of the board's ration officers1 keeps running records of agricultural machinery to ascertain how many machines are available and what implement firms have them. Every effort is made to allocate farm machinery in an equitable manner.


MARSH SOCIAL SECURITY REPORT
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Was L. C. Marsh, whose report was on March 16, 1943, presented to the committee on social insurance security, employed by the government to prepare and make said report?
2.	If so, what amount has been, or will be paid him?
3.	Were those associated with said Mr. Marsh in the preparation of said report paid?
4.	If so, what amount was paid or will be paid to each?
5.	What public expense, if any, has been or will be incurred in the production of said report?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	and 2. Leonard C. Marsh, Esq., B.Sc. (Econ.), M.A., Ph.D., was employed as from July 2, 1941, at a salary of $4,000 per annum as research adviser to the committee on reconstruction. The report was prepared in the course of his duties, at the request of the Minister of Pensions and National Health, and no special fee was paid.
3.	Some of those associated with Dr. Marsh in the preparation of this report received no emoluments; others will only receive out-ofpocket expenses; others will receive a fee, subject to approval of treasury board, and ouLof-pocket expenses.
4.	The following persons were associated with Dr. Marsh in the preparation of the report and, in the absence of complete vouchers, it is estimated that payments, subject where necessary to approval of treasury board, will be made as indicated: Dr. Allon Peebles, director of statistics and research, Department of Labour: Nil; Dr. W. J. Couper, special assistant to the deputy Minister of Labour; Nil; Mr. Maurice Stack, technical adviser on social insurance, International Labour Office: Nil; Dr. George

Questions

Davidson, executive director, Canadian Welfare Council: Nil; Dr. Stuart Jaffary, director, school of social work, University of Toronto:	consultant's	fee $100.00, out-ofpocket expenses $17.50; Miss Bessie Touzel, executive secretary, the welfare council of Toronto:	consultant's	fee $100.00, out-ofpocket expenses $44.75; Dr. Harry Cassidy, department of social welfare, University of California: out-of-pocket expenses (not yet reported).
5.	In addition to the approximate expenses shown in the answer to question 4, public funds will be charged with an amount of approximately $155.21, being cost of hotel accommodation and also travelling expenses of Dr. Marsh when visiting the International Labour Office, Montreal. It is anticipated that the entire public expense incurred in the preparation of the report will not exceed $445.


THIRD VICTOEY LOAN
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What was the remuneration to banks, trust and loan companies and other dealers in the last victory loan?
2.	What is the amount of accounts not yet paid, as of January 31, 1943?
3.	What is the grand total of expenses of this loan?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Payments to March 20th, total 85,073,035.38.
2.	The amount of accounts submitted but unpaid as at February 28, 1943, is estimated to be approximately $350,000.
3.	It is estimated that the total expenses of the third victory loan will be approximately $9,650,080.


Mr. QUELCH:: 1.	What was the total number of subscribers to the third victory loan?
2.	How many of these were on the special names list?
3.	What was the total amount subscribed by, (a) those on the special names list, (b) all other subscribers?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	2,041,610.
2.	7,436.
3.	(a) $616,708,300; (b) $374,828,200.
(All the above figures are preliminary.)


PURCHASE OF GLEN LAWRENCE ORCHARD, KINGSTON, PROPERTY
Mr. AYLESWORTH:: What was the total amount paid for land, buildings and orchard purchased from Mr. Harvey of the Glen Lawrence orchard, Kingston?
[Mr. Ian A. Mackenzie.!


Mr. RALSTON:: No buildings were purchased. The total amount paid for land and orchard was $5,800.


MOBILIZATION ACT-KINGSTON ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT
Mr. BENCE:: 1.	Who are the members of the board appointed under the National Resources Mobilization Act for the administrative district with headquarters at Kingston, Ontario?
2.	How long has each been engaged as a member of this board?
3.	How much money has each received for, (a) salary, (b) expenses?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Chairman:	Hon. Mr. Justice A. W.
Greene.
Deputy chairman: James Roderick Mac-Laren, Esq., William A. Parisien, Esq.
Member: His Honour Judge J. C. Reynolds (ad hoc), F. L. Alyea, agriculture representative.
2.	Hon. Mr. Justice Greene, James Roderick MacLaren and William A. Parisien, appointed August 27, 1940.
F. L. Alyea, appointed May 20, 1942.
His Honour Judge J. C. Reynolds appointed September 2, 1942.
3.	Hon. Mr. Justice A. W. Greene-Fees $760.00, travel $392.43; James Roderick MacLaren-Fees and living allowance $3,726.50, travel $460.34; William A. Parisien-Fees and living allowance $3,961.75, travel $852.65; F. L. Alyea-Transportation expenses $146.38, fees $750; His Honour Judge J. C. Reynolds- Salary-Nil, Expenses-Nil.


EXPORTS OF OATS, BARLEY AND OTHER FEED GRAINS
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	Is an export permit required in order to export oats, barley or other feed grains to the United States?
2.	If so, who is entitled to a permit?
3.	Who issues the permit?
4.	Is there a margin of profit existing between the prices prevailing in the United States and the maximum prices allowed in Canada under the price ceiling for oats, barley and other feed grains?
5.	If so, who receives this margin of profit, the exporter or the primary producer?
6.	If the exporter, has the government taken any action to have the primary producer share in his margin of profit?
7.	If so, on what date was this action taken?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Any resident of Canada may apply for a permit.

Questions
3.	The export permit branch, Department of Trade and Commerce, on the approval of the Canadian wheat board or feeds adtainis-trator of the wartime prices and trade board.
4.	In most instances, yes.
5.	The permit holder-this includes producers.
6.	The government and wheat board now conferring on how to bring this about.
7.	Answered by No. 6.


OLD AGE PENSIONS-MANITOBA
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Has the government of Manitoba, through its premier or any other official, asked this government to make a supplementary provision to enable the payment of old age pensions up to a maximum of $25 per month, in the province of Manitoba?
2.	If so, what was the answer of the government?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The dominion government advised all provinces that it will amend the old age pensions regulations to allow the provinces to pay supplemental allowances without reducing the amount of pensions payable under the Act.
Under an order in council dated February 17, 1943, (P.C. 17/1280) the dominion government amended the old age pensions regulations to permit the province of Manitoba to pay a supplemental allowance to old age pensioners.


FARM LABOUR QUESTIONNAIRE
Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	Is Form WTW1, entitled "farm labour questionnaire 1943", being circulated in the province of Saskatchewan with the approval of the Minister of Labour?
2.	If so, does the minister approve of the question, "What family help over twelve years of age is available to you for farm work this year?"
3.	What hours of labour are to be prescribed for children over twelve years of age?
4.	What rates of pay are to be stipulated?
5.	Are children so employed to be examined for physical fitness?
6.	Are other provinces to be also permitted to exploit child labour in 1943?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	The Minister of Labour has not been asked to approve of this questionnaire. He has been informed that it is circulated by the Win-the-War organization of the province of Saskatchewan.
2.	See answer to Question 1.
3 to 6, inclusive. No information.


NATIONAL WAR SERVICES-HELEN DOHERTY
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: What sums and on what dates were payments made to Miss Helen Doherty as special assistant to the Minister of National War Services?
Mr. LaFLECHE: The following payments have been made to Miss Helen Doherty as general assistant, Department of National War Services, as authorized by order in council, P.C. 118/8785 on the 26th of September, 1942:
October	7-To August 31, 1942 (Deductions were not then being made at the
source)	
$7,090	00October	7-To	September 30, 1942, $300 less deductions	
199	42October	31-To	October 31, 1942, $300 less deductions	
199	42November	30-To	November 30, 1942, $300 less deductions	
182	61December	31-To	December 31, 1942, $300 less deductions	
182	61January	30-To	January 31, 1943, $300 less deductions	
182	61February	27-To	February 28, 1943, S300 less deductions	
182	61


CHARTERED BANKS-RATION COUPON BANKING
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Has any arrangement been made to pay the chartered banks in Canada for increased duties imposed upon them by ration coupon banking, etc.?
2.	If so, give the details.


James Lorimer Ilsley: 1 and 2. The ration administration of the wartime prices and trade board has arranged with the chartered banks that they shall be 72537-961
reimbursed for the handling of ration coupons on a cost basis. The formula for deriving this cost figure will be worked out between the banks' accountants and the comptroller of the wartime prices and trade board.


FREEZING OF FARM HELP
Mr. FAIR:: What action, if any, has the government taken with respect to freezing the present farm help on Canadian farms?

Questions as Orders for Returns


Mr. MITCHELL:: Selective service mobilization regulations, section 10 (9), provide that a person employed in agriculture shall be granted a postponement from military training unless it is established that such person is not an essential worker in agriculture. An interpretative letter has been sent to all mobilization boards advising them of the policy of the government.
Selective service civilian regulations, paragraph 207, provide that no person employed in agriculture shall enter into other employment, except service in the armed forces, or seasonal or temporary employment outside of an urban municipality for not more than 60 days in any year when such employment does not interfere with agricultural production, unless he has obtained a permit from a selective service officer.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. TUSTIN:: 1. What is the personnel of the wartime prices and trade board at Brockville?
2.	What is the salary of each member of the staff?
3.	On what date was each member appointed, and on whose recommendation?
4. What is the personnel of the wartime prices and trade board at Pembroke?
5.	What is the salary of each member of the staff?
6.	On what date was each member appointed, and on whose recommendation?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Return tabled.


GALLUP POLL
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What is the Gallup poll and what public control is there over it?
2.	WTiere are the offices of this poll and who are its officials?


NET SALARIES OP CIVIL SERVANTS AFTER TAXES
Mr. FAIR:: 1.	How many civil servants, (a) temporary, (b) permanent, were employed by the dominion government, (i) in Ottawa, (ii) in Canada, on (1) September 1, 1939, (2) January 1, 1943?
2.	How many of those (a) temporary, (b) permanent, residing in (i) Ottawa, (ii) outside Ottawa, will have a net salary of $660 after paying national defence and income taxes, superannuation, and other deductions?


Mr. McLARTY:: It would be extremely difficult to give any satisfactory answer to this question as drawn. Part 2 of the question refers to income taxes, superannuation and

other deductions. I take it the hon. member for Battle River means compulsory deductions, because there are deductions where war savings certificates or bonds are purchased. Subject to this qualification I would ask that the question pass as an order for return.



PRINTING OF SPEECHES AND STATEMENTS

Mr. BENCE:: How many copies of each of the following speeches and statements were printed by the government and what was the total cost thereof,
(a)	"Three years of War", a radio broadcast by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, M.P.;
(b)	"Servitude or Freedom", an address by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, M.P., to the Canadian Club of Ottawa; (c) "Labour and the War", an address by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, M.P., to the American Federation of Labor 1942 convention; (d) "Nothing Matters Now But Victory", an address by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, M.P., on the opening of the 1942 victory loan campaign;
(e)	statements by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, M.P., on "The Military Occupation of French North Africa, and, The Withdrawal of Recognition of the Government of Vichy";
(f)	"The Defence of Common Liberties" an address by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, M.P., to the Pilgrims of the United States;
(g)	"Temperance and a Total War Effort", an address by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, M.P.; (h) addresses by Right Hon. Sir George Henry Wilkinson, Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, M.P., and Right Hon. Winston S. Churchill, C.H., M.P., made at the Lord Mayor's Luncheon, in honour of the Prime Minister of Canada?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. POULIOT:: For a copy of all orders in council relating to the appointment of Major-General Vanier to his new post in London.



TRANSMISSION OF COPIES OF STATUTES TO SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE DOMINIONS

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the correspondence exchanged between the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs and the British Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, with regard to the forwarding or sending of the bound volume of statutes passed at the fourth session of the eighteenth parliament, in which were included nine acts assented to by His Majesty the King of "the realm of Canada" on May 19, 1939.


Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence between any member of the government and the clerk of the parliaments with regard to the establishment of "the existing practice that the clerk of the parliaments sends the certified copy of the

Canadian Forces
statutes to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who sends it to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs", notwithstanding section 6 of the Publication of Statutes Act.


Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all the acknowledgments from the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the clerk of the parliaments for certified and bound copies of the statutes of every session of parliament to be sent to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, and of all the acknowledgments from the British Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs for each copy of said statutes, since July 1, 1927.



PRICE CEILING-BEVERAGES

Robert Fair: For a copy of wartime prices and trade board order permitting restaurants to raise price of beverages.



INVERNESS STATION-MARGAREE HARBOUR-CHETICAMP, N.S., MAIL SERVICE

Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: For a copy of all correspondence, notices calling for tender, tenders, contracts or special services entered into, with respect to carrying mail between Inverness station and Margaree Harbour and Margaree Harbour and Cheticamp, Nova Scotia, during the years 1941, 1942, 1943; to include copy of all correspondence with the post office inspector and other officials in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and the Post Office Department at Ottawa.


Mr. MULOCK:: Subject to the usual
reservation respecting the reports of officials, I am* satisfied to have this motion pass.



GASOLINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
ask a question of1 the Minister of Munitions and Supply. Perhaps in view of the fact that I have not given him notice he might treat the question as notice. I have had some correspondence from people operating small farms, and from market gardeners, who indicate that in their applications for gasoline rationing this year those who are using their cars for delivery purposes and in connection with their businesses are apparently being treated as ordinary car owners. Would1 the minister consult with the oil controller and perhaps make some regulation which would relieve the situation so far as these people are concerned.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to consult with
the oil controller, and inform, my hon. friend later.



ADVANCES ON WHEAT IN STORAGE ON FARMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). In view of the critical shortage of meats, feeds and dairy products, will the government take into consideration paying to western farmers adtvanees on the 400,000,000 bushels of wheat they have been forced to store on their farms, in order that they may not be compelled to sacrifice their herds?


Mr. SPEAKER:: That is a question which should be placed on the order paper.


George Hugh Castleden: I did place it on the
order paper, and I received an evasive answer.



CANADIAN FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln) : Mr. Speaker, arising out of a press dispatch appearing in this morning's Toronto papers may I direct an inquiry to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), although it would appear from the dispatch that the report has been given out by Toronto military officials, on advice from Ottawa. I shall send the article to the minister after I have asked my question. The press report says that "leave will not exceed six weeks, and may be cancelled at any time". It deals with the releasing of soldiers from the armed forces. I do not wish the house to become impatient until I have completed what I have to say, because over the week-end farmers came to me in desperation, wanting to know what they could do about the services of their sons in the army. Will the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Labour make an announcement in detail, so that the public will know and so that farmers particularly will know their true position in this respect? I would ask that the statement be made as early as possible, because the frost is out of the ground in my section of the country, and they are ready to go to work.
James Layton Ralston: So far as my department is concerned I shall be glad to look at the dispatch and endeavour to make an appropriate statement under the circumstances.
Privilege-Mr. Church



MEN WITH MEDICAL CATEGORY RATINGS LOWER THAN A-l AND A-2

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the appropriate minister in connection with a Canadian Press dispatch from Calgary appearing in this morning's papers, stating that men called up for military service who receive medical category ratings lower than A-l or A-2 will not be inducted into the services. Would the minister care to make a statement?


Thomas Vien: This question is in the same category as the previous one; it should be placed on the order paper.



CALLING UP OP MEN OP GERMAN BIRTH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). Is the government now calling up for military service men of German birth who have been reporting to the mounted police since the beginning of the war?


Thomas Vien: I could not hear the hon. gentleman, but I understand that he was asking a question with regard to the policy of the government as to calling up certain classes of men.


Joseph William Noseworthy: No; I am asking whether the government is now calling up these men, and has been calling them up for some time.


Thomas Vien: I think that is a question which should be placed on the order paper.



PRIVILEGE-MR. CHURCH REFERENCE TO REMARKS OF MEMBER FOR WOOD MOUNTAIN IN DEBATE ON MARCH 22

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I regret to have to rise again to a question of privilege, since I do not have thirty or forty press agents, as members of the government do. I wish to call to the attention of the house a speech made on March 22 by a friend of mine, the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly). I should like to read the words about which I complain, which appear at page 1447 of Hansard, and then to say a few words in order to indicate that the hon. gentleman has made a grave error. The hon. member said:
Let me turn for a moment to other members of the government. I remember back in 1927 and 1928 or thereabouts-

The yes-men can bang their desks all they like, but I am a private member of parliament and I am going to assert my rights as such, because this is still a free parliament, with free speech.

when our navy consisted of the Rainbow and the Niobe, the hon. member for Broadview-
There was no such constituency then.
-(Mr. Church) spoke in this house and referred to our navy as consisting of these two ships and he asked: Where is our fleet now? And he answered in derision: Tied up in a garage at Halifax. Ah, but he does not say that now. Our fleet is to-day doing a man-sized job, sailing and patrolling the seven seas, and we are all proud of it. It is doing forty per cent of the convoy work in the north Atlantic. We are proud of our navy and the work it is doing, and hon. gentlemen do not deride it and poke fun at it to-day as they did in 1927 and 1928. It has grown from the two ships we had then to the splendid fleet we have now.
Not one word in the paragraph is correct. I supported rearmament in this house for twenty years before the war started. I called the attention of this parliament to the grave error we were making in bringing about absolute disarmament on land, on sea and in the air, because our estimates had been reduced to practically nothing. I never said a word criticizing the men of our armed forces, and I defy the present minister for the navy to show that I did, though yesterday I am told that he interjected some remarks which are not reported in Hansard.
Let me say to the hon. member for Wood Mountain that away back on June 21, 1926, when I was opposing the so-called new status under the statute of Westminster, I said this had become an empire-wrecking statute, and that in case of war we would not be able to defend our shores, that we could no longer depend upon the mother country and its navy because by that statute we were outside the empire, and because of its separatism and isolationism. I had the figures then from the minister for the navy, and I shall refer to them in just a moment after I read the remarks I made in this house on that occasion.


Thomas Vien: Order. On a question of privilege of course the hon. gentleman is entitled to make a statement denying what was said by the hon. member for Wood Mountain, but he should not enter into another argument with regard to this question of the navy.


Thomas Langton Church: I agree with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I do not wish to take up the time of the house unduly. My remarks about Halifax were made on June 21, 1926, at which time I said that if we were going to become an independent country under the statute of Westminster any foreign fleet might

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot
sail up the St. Lawrence and we could not oppose it because our navy might be locked up in a garage at Halifax. I have referred many times in this house to the figures in regard to the navy, the air force and all the rest of it. At that time I said we were only spending five shillings a head on the defence of the country, which was less than half the amount we were spending on postage stamps, while Britain spent thirty shillings and went on to say that under the statute of Westminster we had no longer any right to look to the mother country for protection. Then I urged that we support the Jellieoe report on rearmament and make a grant toward the cost of the Singapore base for the defence of the Pacific. I did my duty as a member of parliament, and I am not going to be intimidated here by the hon. gentleman who is now Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald), who before the war did nothing to urge rearmament upon the people of Nova Scotia.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 23, 1943, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. L. Ilsley (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. Blackmore, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, to conclude what I was saying yesterday, the adverse criticism of the budget by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) was contained in six lines of the last paragraph on paage 1109 of Hansard for March 9. These were his words:
My adverse criticism of the budget is that it contains no attempt whatsoever to relieve poverty and to remove trade barriers which will be a potent factor in the post-war world, nor does it prevent control of our economy by monopolistic industry and finance.
Those were practically the only three counts on which my hon. friend opposed the budget. In his amendment he suggested that poverty be relieved by increasing the pensions to three categories of individuals, the old, the blind and the veterans. Nothing was said in behalf of the unemployed who are neither old, blind, nor veterans. Secondly, in his speech he mentioned trade, but that is not mentioned at all in the subamendment. Our external trade is vital to us. At the present
time our exports are principally grain, foodstuffs and munitions, and we have lost the commercial exports of pre-war years. As was stated here the other day, England is keeping her markets throughout the world by sending commercial exports, while we are not doing so; and at the end of the war what will happen? Canada, which has been manufacturing munitions, will have no markets in the other countries of the world, while first place in those markets will be held by the United Kingdom. So much is this the case that whenever an hon. member asks for figures giving the details not only of our exports but also of our imports, it is impossible to get any detailed information; we are told that this information is held by the censors. I hope some day the minister who is responsible for censorship will give some explanation in that regard.
In the third place, in order to improve the situation, my hon. friend, the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell), suggests the nationalization of our banking system in order to make full use of the Bank of Canada for the financing of the war. How will that be done? We do not know. It is easy to say "we will do this or we will do that", but the question in the minds of the Canadian people is how these marvels will be accomplished.
In the last war we never heard that Sir Sam Hughes was the perpetual acting minister of finance, acting in the place of Sir Thomas White. In England the minister of war is not the acting chancellor of the exchequer. In the United States the secretary of war is not in charge of finance. I cannot conceive how the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) can continue to be the perpetual acting Minister of Finance. The job of Minister of National Defence should be a full time job. I intend no reflection upon the minister; my remarks are directed to the fact that a man who has onerous duties to perform is appointed to fill a position the duties of which are entirely different from his own. At the time of Mr. Dunning all matters of finance were removed from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Finance. I cannot understand why the order in council has never been published in the bluebooks of the government which contain all the important orders in council. It was mentioned only casually on July 2, 1942, by the Minister of Finance.
The Budget-Mr. Pouliot
[Stage Direction]
The question of control is important. We have many controllers; in fact there are seventeen of them under the wartime industries control board. These controllers have no responsibility to parliament, and government business is being controlled by private industry. The duty of government is to act as a connecting link between private enterprise and the common people, but we find that private enterprise has control of government business. These dollar a year men are on the fence now. They have not indicated whether they will lean to the side of the government or to the side of my hon. friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in the next election, whenever it comes. They are trying to court each party; they are trying to find out which way the wind will blow. They are telling the members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation that they are the ones who can apply their theories because of the experience they have had in matters of control. But they want to retain their own power no matter what administration we may have in the future, whether this one, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, or a group of reformers. They are on the fence and they are waiting for the moment when they can consolidate their own strategic position.
What we need is more reform. In the past the Conservative party has stolen parts of the programme of the Liberal party. This has been stated by leaders of the Liberal party. I cannot understand why they have not made one more theft and taken the old name of the Liberal party-the reform party. That is what we need' in this country. We may not need a new party, but there should be a group of independent members who are ready to think for themselves, who will be ready to put the public interest before their own. That is my idea of what a reform group should do.
Ever since I have been in politics I have been opposed to the idea of a union government. Sir Robert Borden said of Sir Joseph Flavelle that he had shown bad judgment in suggesting a union government. There might be a union opposition composed of men of goodwill, men who want to bring about reform in this country. I say to my friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation as well as to those who sit on the treasury benches, it is time to consider reform; otherwise parliament will fall in the mud.
Mr. H. R. JACKMAN (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to approach as sympathetically and as constructively as I can a discussion of this fifth war-time budget. No one realizes more than I the difficulties which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) is facing during these days. The budget calls for an expenditure of $5,500 million and the collection of a gross revenue of $2,601 million, leaving a deficit of $2,899 million-approximately $3,000 million. Reducing these figures to something which we can understand, they amount to an expenditure of $487 for each man, woman and child in this country. The gross revenue which will be collected will amount to $230 per capita. The deficit, the difference between the amount that we spend and the amount we collect, will be no less than $257 per head of our population.
In the year just closing we had a deficit of $2,162 million, some $700 million less than the deficit we are facing in the coming year. Much of the deficit of $2,899 million which is forecast for the coming fiscal year will have to be raised in the form of victory loans and by the sale of war savings certificates. This same process was adopted in the year just closing, but approximately $200 million had to be borrowed from the Bank of Canada and an additional $790 million from our chartered banks. A continuance of this borrowing to finance our country's expenditures will threaten the soundness of all dollar obligations-indeed, will threaten the soundness of the whole financial structure of this country. That is what wall happen unless a halt is called in due time.
It is true that the national income has risen from $4,750 million before the war to approximately $9,000 million, an increase of no less than $4,250 million. The income has approximately doubled during the last four years. The total tax revenue we expect to bring in this year will be only $2,600 million, which is about sixty per cent of the increase in our national income since the beginning of the war. It would appear on the surface that the Minister of Finance is not facing such a difficult job when we consider that the increase in the national income greatly exceeds the total taxation which is to be collected at the present time. However, the matter is not as simple as that.
We should be able to ask: where has the national income gone? The minister's department is so poorly equipped with figures on the national income that even he does not know who receives the national income, and particularly who has received the increase which alone is greater than the whole tax bill

The Budget-Mr. Jackman
which has been, saddled on the people of this country for the coming year. If it is true that the departmental officers know who gets the national income and where the increase has gone, then surely it is their duty to acquaint the members of this house with those facts so that we shall be able to apply some reasoning to the problem of how the burden of taxation can be most fairly apportioned.
It is true that there are many new workers, particularly women, who in the days before the war did not receive directly any part of the national income, and they must be afforded a reasonable income in order to induce them to work. But I would ask the minister to tell us who gets the nine billion dollars of national income, and particularly where has the increase gone. It would also be most interesting, Mr. Speaker, if we could find out what the total dollar value of production in this country is at the present time. How much of this total production then goes for war purposes, and how much is left for civilian consumption? These figures are available for nearly all other countries of size and consequence, and particularly for our nieghbour to the south. We then should know exactly how much in the way of production is available for civilian consumption, and that can be compared with the difference between our total national income, and the amount that is available for spending after taxation. That difference is what is ordinarily called the gap which measures the inflation potential which we are facing. It also tells us in large measure just what the pressure on prices is likely to be, because the money will be spent if it is not saved and if there are not goods to go round, the only thing that can happen is that the prices of goods will go up unless the price ceiling is effective enough to resist pressure.
The money is undoubtedly there. There is sufficient money for the minister to be able to come much closer to balancing his expenditures than his present budget forecasts. It is the patriotic duty of every citizen to work and to save, and also to protect what we have, not only what we are earning to-day but what we have laid aside in the past in order to provide for the contingencies which beset every one of us.
I should like to pay a tribute to the national war finance committee, and to its chairman, Mr. George W. Spinney. There has been no more hard-working and self-sacrificing group of workers on behalf of the war effort than that organization. They have had a competitive spirit in the service of their country which has been a splendid example for all other organizations. I am glad to say that
in the city from which I come and which has made a notable record in supporting the war loans, the area which coincides with my own riding led the field in the last loan.
The question which is perhaps most often asked me when I go round my riding, particularly in the southern section of it, which runs down to the bay in the city of Toronto, and where in April, 1940, no less than ten thousand people were forced to accept relief, is this: Why, if we can find all this money for war, could we not find it during the depression? Or, now that they have jobs and have enough to eat, they say: Is it not terrible that we had to have a war to bring back prosperity? The answer to that, sir, is not simple. But what are some of the facts we should look in the face to see just what the answer is, or what light can be thrown on the solution of this very difficult question with which I am sure every member of this house is faced from time to time?
Last year we spent $4,470 million and collected in revenue only $2,209 million, with a resulting increase in our direct debt of $2,261 million. We increased our debt by more than we collected in revenue. The state, cannot, any more than the individual can, continue to live beyond its income. At some time a halt must be called. Much of this $2261 million which we spent but did not tax from our people was provided by the people through loans, and to some extent through leaning on the Bank of Canada and on the chartered banks. But as the minister has said, this process of leaning on the banks is a most unhealthy one and one which is fraught with danger to our country. In effect the people who bought the war loans and the war savings certificates subjected themselves to an extra tax. Certainly they deprived themselves of spending their money and instead lent it to their country. How did they do this? First of all through direct subscription to the victory loans and to the war savings certificates; and second, indirectly, through savings deposits and premiums on life insurance, which in turn were paid over to the government in exchange for securities. We must ask ourselves why were they willing to subject themselves to this extra tax. Why did they not spend their money? It is the old reason most of us have been brought up to understand, namely, putting aside something for a rainy day, to look after sickness or unemployment or old age. But these people who have lent their money to the government so that the war effort could be carried on want it back with the purchasing power that it had when they lent their money to the government. That is the reason why we must
The Budget-Mr. Jackman

by merely debating them in full parliament; we must be able to get information of a detailed nature and1 get the value of economic opinions from different sources.
Why was the sales tax not increased? At present there is a sales tax of eight per cent on the wholesale price of many articles, some essentials being excluded. In the year just closing, the revenue from this source amounted to $230 million or 10-42 per cent of the total revenue collected. In the forthcoming year we expect to get only $225 million, or $5 million less than last year. The minister pointed out some of the virtues of an increase in the sales tax, namely, that it would mop up excess purchasing power and would help in the orderly distribution of scarce supplies. He said, however, that it might give an advantage to long purses. We know that taxation has hit those who formerly might have been considered to have long purses. Those who to-day have long purses, namely, those enjoying a higher income than they did before the war, are the very ones who the minister is willing should pay more of their share of the war burden. He has not seen any difficulty in adding five cents to the cost of beverages, such as tea, coffee and milk. Let me point out the incidence of a small tax like that-an apparently small tax-on a single person with a minimum- income-and we tax them when they get even as low as $660 which affords a living which, can scarcely be called decent. The cost of that extra five cents to a person who must get three meals a day out is $54.60, and1 when we consider that that increase is added to the base price of five cents it means another $54.60 or a total of $109.20 a year in order that one of these young people getting a minimum income shall be able to have some form of beverage with their meals. If tea, coffee and' milk can be subjected to what is the equivalent of a 100 per cent tax, surely there are many articles not half so essential that could bear an increased tax. There are many people in our society who could much better afford to pay this tax than these minimum income people who must get their meals outside and have , some form of beverage at least three times a day. If the minister was worrying about the welfare of the restaurant keepers, I should suggest, looking at his deficit, that he worry a little more about his own business.
If the sales tax were increased, I should suggest that the minimum exemptions of $660 for a single person and $1,200 for a married person be increased, and also the allowances for children, because we cannot reduce the minimum brackets lower than they are today ; in fact, in view of the cost of living they

should be raised. But there is a great class above that who could well afford to pay more because of increased incomes.
This would also prevent an increased sales tax bearing more heavily on those with subsistence incomes, and produce a fair tax return from those bent on spending rather than saving. No one knows better than the minister that the money is there and that it is being spent.
Higher income taxation will hamper war production. If the people have the money in their pockets, the great majority will spend it and the government will get the revenue through the sales tax. As long as the worker can handle the money, as long as he can jingle it in his pocket, his incentive to work is not likely to be destroyed. The increase in the exemptions if the sales tax were increased should permit a restatement of the cost of living bonus policy or a reconstitution of the cost of living index, as was done last year in the case of the increase in the tobacco tax, which was not allowed to enter into the cost of living index.
In Great Britain the purchase or sales tax is graded according to the utility of the article purchased, and runs as high as 66% per cent of the wholesale price. Furniture is one of the articles subjected to a fairly high sales tax, and priority to newly-married couples is given in the purchase of furniture.
The granting of subsidies, which is growing apace, is the very opposite of a sales tax, although the two may go hand in hand. There is no question, however, that in many cases these subsidies are becoming a great burden. The price of articles is bonused for people many of whom can well afford to pay the real cost.
I had the privilege of speaking on the RumI plan some weeks ago before the minister brought down his budget, but I should like to say a few words as to the plan which he has brought down and the difference between it, which I think could well be termed a half-way plan, and the Ruml plan.
The principle underlying the Ruml plan was one of debt forgiveness. People who owed money to the government by way of taxes found themselves in a most embarrassing position, and those who were not already in an embarrassing position were likely to find themselves in such position if they lost their jobs or had sickness or should retire or die. So that the underlying principle of forgiveness, if I may use that term, which is not strictly accurate to describe it, was carried out to a large extent.

The Budget-Mr. Jackman
The minister said that half of last year's taxes would not have to be paid, inasmuch as we were going on a current basis and would pay full taxes, or at least ninety-five per cent of the total 1943 imposition every week or month. I do not think it was ever the intention as far as Canada was concerned that the whole of the 1942 taxes should be forgiven, but only that part of them which remained a debt. But the minister, in place of going the full way and forgiving that part of the taxation still owing, drew the line at fifty per cent, whereas a great many people in Canada, perhaps the majority, still owe approximately sixty per cent rather than fifty per cent. A very great hardship is being imposed upon these people, because not only do they have ninety-five per cent of their full taxes deducted from their current pay cheques, but in addition they owe five and ten per cent, and in some cases considerably more, of last year's taxes, and their cash position has become a real hardship. Under the plan recommended by the government half of last year's taxes are no longer a debt; but, as I have said, the amount which will be collected by the government without any increase in rate will be $105,000,000 more than last year, and a great part of this increase will be on account of the fact that people still owe money on last year's taxes, even though fifty per cent of them may be forgiven. I think the minister might have been well advised to set the figure at sixty per cent rather than fifty per cent as far as forgiveness of last year's taxes was concerned.
The second instance in which the minister strayed from the principle of the Ruml plan in his recommendation to this house was in making an invidious distinction between so-called earned and investment income. One-half of the tax is to be forgiven on all income except investment income over $3,000; and the tax remaining in that case is to be due and payable at death. Everyone recognizes the principle of raising necessary revenues by taxation according to ability to bear the load, but there are limitations. The minister himself admitted them in giving his reasons for not increasing the already high income tax. Income taxation according to ability to pay was accorded thorough recognition in the tax schedules brought down last year. Indeed, the minister knows that in effect his schedules are in part a capital levy. Furthermore, investment income is already subjected to an additional tax of four per cent above the ordinary rates enforced.
The fact that the remaining half of the 1942 taxes, which everyone else is forgiven, is not due until death, obviates the need of considering this tax as a war measure. It is nothing more or less than the singling out of a particular class in the community for special punishment, and without reason. Wherein lies the minister's logic when he says that the half way plan, or the Ruml adaptation that he has presented, might never have been adopted had all incomes been investment incomes, for then the burden of debt would not be the paralysing load it is to most taxpayers? If we admit that, how does it follow that one class should be singled out for special treatment, -with that treatment having no relation whatever to the necessities of the day, which are surely the basis of our extraordinary taxation? The collection of the unremitted half of the 1942 taxes will take place over a period of from one to fifty years from to-day. Where is the fairness in forgiving half of the 1942 tax to a man with an earned income of $50,000 and not similarly forgiving a man with an investment income of $5,000? It might also be called a special tax on widows and fatherless children, for many widows have only investment incomes. I might point out also that salaries are a first charge against corporation income, while those who receive investment income through interest or dividends come last.
Recently I was told of the case of a man who had retired, who is now serving his brother man and receiving his reward in the good opinion of his fellows, who had given up an attractive salary and was living on the income from his savings. He is now singled out for special punishment. On the other hand a man who kept on working for himself and did not feel the call to public service receives preferential treatment. All retired people are not loafers. Some may even serve the people in a public capacity. The minister suggested that if those who still had this tax to pay when they died wished to do so-and he made the remark rather facetiously-they could take out insurance to cover it. May I point out to him that most of the people in this category are probably not in physical condition to take out insurance. Furthermore, if they do so they are faced with increased succession duties. I have not much objection to making the rich poorer if that will benefit someone, but when it will benefit no one it does seem useless to adopt a dog-in-the-manger attitude, particularly when it may bring about some danger to all our people. The failure to treat the tax on investment income in the same way as the tax on all other incomes constitutes in this case a third succession duty, the provinces and the dominion already each having one. In the first place the amount of the tax is not fixed, though in his budget ad-
The Budget-Mr. Jackman

dress the minister said the amount was fixed. That is quite true in a sense, but not in any true sense. It is absurd to say that a dollar owed to-day is the same thing as a dollar owed fifty years from now. In the first case it is one hundred cents; in the other case, namely, after fifty years, discounted at even 3 per cent interest it is 23 cents. Not only are investors singled out as a class; they are discriminated against as individuals within the class, according to their age. In other words, this new canon of income taxation introduced by the minister, and I presume concurred in by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson), is that the older you are, the higher should be your income tax. Surely such a tax determinant belongs to succession duties and not to the income tax. I appeal to this house against the imposition of a third succession duty.
The membership of this house should also ask what will be the effect on the incentive to save if the special taxation against investment income is carried too far. What will be the reaction of people who have lived thriftily through the years and have built up an investment income? Putting a premium upon a spendthrift and a penalty upon a thrifty man will have only one inevitable result, which will be in complete opposition to the minister's appeal to buy victory bonds.
Although the minister is doing considerable preaching about saving, I doubt if he really knows what saving can do for one. It is sometimes said that the only magic in finance is compound interest. A dollar at three per cent will in fifty ye are amount to $4.38. In one hundred years it amounts to $19.21. A dollar at six per cent will in fifty years amount to $18.42, and: in one hundred years to the staggering sum of $339.30. Thus are some fortunes built up through savings. Surely an investment income of $3,000 on which the income tax is approximately $900, leaving $2,100. will not be a maximum that one can provide for a couple's old age. If not, then why does the minister draw the line at $3,000, and why does he penalize those who have saved?
On the one hand the minister pleads with the people to save, while on the other hand he shows them that they are very foolish to save. In the meantime he finances nearly half of the war cost out of savings. Some of it was saved in the past. Physically we all pay for the war as we go; but financially the burden is distributed, perhaps with some recognition of ability to bear, but with little recognition of the sacrifices made in the past, or the incen-

tive or risk shown or undertaken by those who have been the creative spirit behind our industrial economy.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not further trespass on the time of the house. There are other subjects about which I should like to speak, but since there will be other opportunities, during the discussion on the resolutions, I shall reserve what I have to say until that time. I wish then, to thank you, sir, and the membership of the house for the courtesy extended to me.
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax): Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate chiefly because I wish to place before the house, before members of the cabinet and particularly members of the war cabinet, a problem facing the city of Halifax. I feel justified in introducing the matter in the budget debate, because it is a condition which flows directly from our war effort.
Before dealing with this special subject, however, I should like to compliment the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman) upon his well prepared and excellently delivered paper in respect of finances. I. cannot very well agree with much of what he said. I was surprised to hear an hon. member from Rose-dale advocating an increased sales tax, because I am reasonably sure that that would not have been the position taken either by a great many of his past leaders or by the majority of those in his group in the house. I was unable to follow his reasoning with respect to the sales tax, because all hon. members know that as that tax is pyramided the cost to the storekeeper is increased, and naturally this adds to the cost paid by the individual consumer, the average taxpayer. For this reason I was surprised that the hon. member, with his financial training, should have advocated such a measure.
I join with him however in congratulating and complimenting the national war finance committee, an organization which has done excellent work in the past and which I have no doubt will continue to render splendid service when the next victory loan campaign is launched.
I could not follow the hon. member's argument in connection with deficits. In one breath he stated that in past years we looked upon deficits with a certain amount of dread, and he wondered whether it was sound financial policy to permit deficits to exist. At one time I found myself thinking as the hon. member appears to be thinking. Sitting on an opposition bench in the Nova Scotia legislature I often wondered whether the government was wise in permitting a deficit to remain. I

The Budget-Mr. Isnor
pointed out it was unsound business, that the garment should be cut according to the cloth. It was my view that expenditures should be kept within the bounds of revenue. Those were the views I voiced, and I have no doubt the hon. member had the same thoughts in mind. In the next breath the hon. member said, "It is a wonder the Minister of Finance does not do something this year to reduce the deficit." These two suggestions, to use a common expression, just do not add up, they do not make sense. The views of the hon. member come to me as a surprise, having in mind his vast experience and broad training in financial matters.
More than once during the debate we have heard it said that we are now asked to pay two and a half years' taxes in two years. This statement is unfair. The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross) made a similar suggestion. It would be just as fair to say that the taxpayer under present circumstances pays only one and a half years' taxes in two years. We cannot get away from the fact that we are being forgiven six months' taxes. I say we should accept that explanation, and be fair when we discuss the matter. The fact is that the average taxpayer has been forgiven six months' taxes; in other words he will have to pay a tax smaller to the extent of that traceable to the six months' period than ordinarily he would have to pay.
May I now deal with a problem facing Halifax. In doing so I am pleased to note that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) is in his seat, because I am going to place responsibility directly upon his shoulders, or the shoulders of the war cabinet. I do not apologize for taking that stand, because anyone who understands the situation in Halifax will appreciate that I am on sound ground.
Had I the time I could give the background of the situation which developed in Halifax in December, 1917, when two ships met in the harbour, causing fire and explosions and resulting in the loss of 1,700 lives. I do not wish to go into that, but it is because of what happened then that in my view a responsibility is placed upon the government to do something which would bring about more adequate protection from fire. The government should do something too about the expense the city of Halifax faces because of the great influx of people, -which is owing largely to the place Halifax occupies in the war effort.
May I place before the government certain facts upon which I base my contention that it is the responsibility of the government to
give some assistance. In normal times Halifax has a population of about 70,000. As to the present figure, apart from the armed forces, some have given it as 135,000, but it is certainly fair to say that we have at least
115.000,	because we issued 115,000 sugar rationing cards. Subsequently we issued over 85,000 ration books, so that I think I am on safe ground when I say that we have 115,000 people as compared with our normal population of
70.000.	This additional population has added to the cost of financing the city. The city is unable to tax these additional people and thus increase its revenue, and for that reason the people of Halifax feel that the government should do something to help out this situation. The influx of population, as I say, is largely due to Canada's war effort. Halifax is not asking for assistance; it is asking for compensation because of the additional outlays which are necessary.
I should like to pause here to extend my thanks to the government, and particularly to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), for the recent gesture of good will that has been made in the form of an item of 830,000 in the estimates in connection -with the new hospital. This is to be paid for the duration, and this year an additional amount of $15,000 is being allowed for maintenance. This matter has been touched upon by other speakers. It is the outcome of a survey made by the Rockefeller Foundation. It has been found necessary to make extensive plans to take care of the health of the citizens of Halifax. I would point out to the minister and to the government that this does not take care of the ordinary increase in our health expenditures which are estimated to be something like 845,000. In connection with internal health it is estimated that this year an addiitonal amount of 825,000 will be needed because of our increased population.
There is also a need for additional police and fire protection, which will mean the expenditure of another 825,000. Because of additional fire protection needed on the water front, we are paying out an additional $12,000. There has been an increased expenditure in connection with our public schools, amounting to $10,000. Here is another important item. The government has taken over a number of dwelling houses, apartment houses and small hotels, and the loss in assessable value amounts to $375,000, representing $16,000 in revenue. These items add up to something like $133,000.
In addition to the figures I have mentioned, fifteen additional policemen will be required at a cost of $21,000, and fifteen additional
The Budget-Mr. Isnor

firemen, with some equipment, at a cost of $21,000. The additional expense in the cost of public health has been referred to, amounting to $25,000. The carrying charges in connection with the new fire station will amount to $3,000. This makes a total of $203,000. There has been very heavy traffic on our streets through the movement of military trucks, and so on. It is estimated that the maintenance charges and cost of repairs at the termination of the war will amount to $25,000.
In presenting this claim to the government I think the city of Halifax is well within the figure when it suggests that compensation should be paid to the extent of $200,000. I could give the background of certain of these items but I do not think that is necessary. I am going to leave the record with the government, particularly with the war cabinet, and ask that they consider the granting to the city of Halifax of the sum of $200,000 for the purposes I have indicated.
Hon. members will recall the terrible disaster of 1917 with its great losses of life and property. I suggest to the Minister of Munitions and Supply and the Minister of National Defence that they assume the responsibility of installing additional fire fighting facilities so that the present fresh water supply may be left available for other purposes. If anything serious should happen we should have an auxiliary water supply upon which to draw. It has been suggested that in order to protect the many defence projects which extend from the extreme south of the city to the extreme north, a pipe-line should be laid from the quarters occupied by the air force in the south to those occupied by the naval services in the north. This pipe line, which would draw upon the salt water in the harbour, would require about ten pumps. The total cost of the installation would be around $100,000-not a large amount when you consider what the disaster of 1917 cost the government and the people of Canada and the people of Massachusetts. I urge in all sincerity that the government give this question serious consideration and do something for the city which I, along with my colleague (Mr. Macdonald) have the honour to represent.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer. I spoke about it last year when the defence estimates were being considered, and I can remember the kindly manner in which the minister of defence turned and said he would give the matter his consideration. If he has given it consideration, nothing has resulted. I refer to something with which he is familiar, and with which I think almost every citizen in eastern Canada is familiar,

certainly everyone who has entered the city of Halifax-the entrance known as the bottleneck. I may not have made my point quite clear to the minister of defence last year. Perhaps I did not present as good a case as he would have presented. As I see it, the problem is quite simple.
There is an entrance to the city known as the bottleneck. I asked the minister of defence what would happen if the city of Halifax were attacked. How would troops be brought in from Debert or any other place? How would the people get out of the city? In times of flood I have seen this bottleneck under seven or eight or nine feet of water. I am glad the Minister of Transport (Mr. Michaud) is in his seat because he also should be interested in this bottleneck. Perhaps he could cooperate with the minister of defence in providing an underground as well as an overhead pass at this point. We fear that a serious situation might arise if it became necessary for people to enter or leave the city in any considerable numbers. I am going to ask the minister of defence to give this matter more consideration this year than he did last year when I placed it before him, and perhaps he will accede to our request.
I should like to compliment the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) on the splendid presentation of his budget. It is not an easy task to present a budget of the size which Canada has had to face in the last two years. In my remarks on the budget of last year I referred to the budgets of former years presented by the late Hon. W. S. Fielding, the late Hon. E. N. Rhodes, Sir Thomas White and others. I showed that the budget of last year was something like a hundred times the size of former budgets, and1 this year it is still greater. To be able to present a budget of such magnitude and have the people say it is a splendid budget, and at the same time instil into the people a willingness to do everything possible, is something which could have been achieved only by one who knows how to present a budget in the manner in which the Minister of Finance presented his. But as I said last year, that is only to be expected, because he comes from Nova Scotia and he is careful of the dollars-he knows how to collect them' and how to take care of them.
I want to deal with two questions which were raised last Thursday evening by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden). I am pleased that he is in his seat because I like to face an hon. member when I have anything to say in reply to him. I like the style of delivery of the hon. member for Yorkton. No doubt he always wants to be fair, but last Thursday evening I think he

The Budget-Mr. Isnor
was not entirely fair when he dealt with the victory loans nor was he entirely clear in Tegard to free enterprise.
I shall deal first with his remarks on free enterprise. I asked him the other evening when he was speaking for a definition of free enterprise, and he gave me one. I suppose it was his own interpretation of free enterprise. Certainly it differs from my interpretation, nor was it the definition of free enterprise which the Right Hon. Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of Great Britain, gave when he spoke on that subject last Sunday.


George Hugh Castleden: He is a Tory, is he
not?


Mr. ISNOR:: It would not matter to me whether he was a Tory or not.


George Hugh Castleden: But you would not expect me to agree with him entirely.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I would agree with the hon. member if he was right. I am going to agree with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) in his stand on free enterprise. I am even going to agree with the present leader of the Progressive Conservative party, Mr. John Bracken, in his stand on free enterprise, and I believe I have the support of the very great majority of the members on this side of the house.


George Hugh Castleden: I am glad I differ from them.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I hope there is no question in the mind of the hon. member for Yorkton as to where I stand on free enterprise. I am for free enterprise. I should hate to see the day when we should lose that incentive; for free enterprise has been the backbone of Canadian-ism right from our earliest days. The hon. member for Yorkton, in his definition of free enterprise the other evening, and I take it he is utterly opposed to free enterprise, as were all members of his group-


Mr. COLDWELL:: It all depends upon
how you define it. The present system prevents it.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I have a definition here
which I shall give, but I take it for granted that - the hon. member for Yorkton and his group are opposed to free enterprise as expressed by him.
Mr. COLDWELL r By whom?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: By the hon. member for
Yorkton the other evening.


George Hugh Castleden: No. The hon. member asked me for my definition, and I said that we want to have this particular right.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The hon. member asked for
an expression of opinion from this side of the house on free enterprise, and I am pleased to let the hon. member know where I stand. I have in my hand a clipping from, the Ottawa Journal of Thursday, February 25, which expresses my views on free enterprise perhaps better than I could myself. It is an. editorial headed, "About 'Leaning on the State'." After referring to Mr. John Bracken's statement as to free enterprise, it says:
In the current print of that very sane, distinguished weekly, the San Francisco Argonaut, there appeared eight points which this country at this time might well ponder. These:
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
I am in accord with that. It goes on:
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
Think that one over! In other words, build on solid foundations, instead of tearing down and destroying the results of the efforts of those who have built up this country. Next:
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
That would be applicable to the hon. member for Yorkton. I do not say this unkindly, and I do not want to be misunderstood; it is just a difference of opinion.. The hon. member for Yorkton the other evening built up a case against interlocking directorates, but he forgot that free enterprise takes in not only those who do big business, but also every storekeeper, every country merchant, every town merchant, every city merchant, irrespective of whether he is doing a big business or a small business. That is why I say the hon. member is going very far out of his way to hunt trouble. When you are opposed to those classes, the country merchant, the town merchant, the city merchant-


Major James William Coldwell: Nobody does oppose
them.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Yes, according to the definition that was given. You are against profit. But eveiy one of these men is in business for profit.


Major James William Coldwell: Define profit.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: No one disguises the fact that we are all in business for profit. We could not pay our taxes and serve the community if we were not in business for profit.


Major James William Coldwell: You probably never
make a real profit.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Perhaps not. There is one
little book which tells me whether I do or not- Dun's. I continue with the quotation from the Ottawa Journal:
The Budget-Mr. Isnor

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.	_


Major James William Coldwell: What about the boys who rode the rods? Were they given opportunities for free enterprise?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I have heard that bogey before. I had every sympathy for them during those years of the depression. During those ten years, like every other merchant, I had my own problems. I do not mind telling the hon. member who has raised the question that every merchant who was trying to do business on legitimate lines had his problems in those years. I carried my staff and kept their wages at the same level during the entire period of the depression. I set up a credit for them, and without exception- they liquidated it. I do not wish to deal with matters in a personal way; for what I did is only what was done during that period by any number of good, honest, legitimate merchants who believe in free enterprise.
I was a little scared lest the hon. member should ask me for my definition of "free enterprise", so when I went upstairs the other evening I looked it up in the Oxford dictionary, and here it is:
Enterprise: Undertaking-
What any person in business would do.

bold or difficult one, courage, readiness to engage.


Major James William Coldwell: I agree with that.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Well, that is what any good, clean merchant would do, and what the men engaged in private enterprise are doing to-day.


Major James William Coldwell: I am afraid the hon. member is mistaken.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Also:
The method of the enterprising is to plan with audacity and execute with vigour; to sketch out a map of possibilities and then to treat them as probabilities.
I do not know just how that fits in with the ideas of the group to which the hon. member belongs.


Major James William Coldwell: I could not hear it.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: This is as far as I can go in regard to the views expressed by hon. members who are against free enterprise; you might control enterprise. I believe there are certain forms of enterprise which need controlling, possibly those which were mentioned the othe,r

evening by the hon. member for Yorkton. It may be so; I do not say that it is necessary. I do not know that they are doing anything they should not do under our system of doing business.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, then, it is not free, of course.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I would not go farther than this, that controls restricting free enterprise may come, but I hope I shall never see the day when we as a nation do away with free enterprise.


George Hugh Castleden: We agree with that, but not as to the kind of free enterprise we have to-day.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: You do? Then you should not talk as you do. I might go farther. The members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group favour, and I believe some of them are closely associated with, labour, and are forever posing as its advocates and assuming to look after its interest. Well, although I am a business man of Halifax, I believe I am also fairly closely connected with labour. I have always enjoyed in large measure the confidence of the labour unions in the city; and I doubt if any member of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group is expressing the views of organized labour when he says we should do away with free enterprise.


George Hugh Castleden: Does the hon. member agree with what the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) said the other day about the steel workers organizing?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I cannot keep in mind what all hon. members have said. My memory is not as good as that. I am dealing particularly with this matter because. I believe that organized labour has even a greater stake in the system of private enterprise than either management or capital, since in this system lies the unions' chief hope of survival. It is my belief that labour would not entirely endorse the stand of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation to the extent that they favour the abolition of private enterprise.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches of hon. members of the Social Credit group. I believe they are sincere in their support of monetary reform. I have been interested also in the views of hon. members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation as to social security measures and post-war problems. But I am inclined to think that our whole effort, or practically our

The Budget-Mr. Isnor
whole effort at this time, should be devoted to winning the war. It is all very well for hon. members to stand in their places and proclaim fanciful post-war utopias in which the state will give to every man a house, a car, a refrigerator and a radio. A group like that thinks in terms of distribution of bounty, rather than of man's inborn need to produce for himself and be the source of his own security. But men of power, ability and courage do not want a hand-out. I believe that that statement applied to a great extent during the days of the depression: there were any number, in fact a great majority, who would far rather have had employment than a handi-out.


Major James William Coldwell: I agree thoroughly with the hon. member.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I am not so much concerned about the unemployment insurance plan, good as it is, and great as is the need for it, as I am about seeing the day when we shall not require unemployment insurance, but rather will be able to give work to every man who wants work.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: That is the problem. How are you going to do it?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I should be very pleased to discuss that at some time, but-


John Horne Blackmore: Turn loose now.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Well, when the hon. gentleman makes a speech he follows the text closely, but I have no written speech; I have simply one or two notes, and I am trying to do what I can with what I have.


John Horne Blackmore: I am following your speech closely.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I was referring to the great majority of men who do not want a hand-out. They ask only the opportunity to work, to create, to save, to spend, to be independent of restraints, and to have their greatest energies released for the great business of living. I hope the group that interrupt me from time to time will agree with that as well.
I had intended to deal with statements made by the last speaker with regard to the pay as you earn plan, but I shall not have time to do so at any length. But I want to go on record as saying that this is a step in the right direction. I was in favour of the government's accepting the Ruml plan complete. I was in favour of that, I say, when I first read it. I followed the lectures of the author of that plan; I followed the newspaper reports of observations by bank managers and others.
But after I heard the Minister of Finance outline what he felt to be the weakness of that plan and show why he arrived at the decision that only six months should be conceded, I was prepared to admit frankly that I was wrong in the first place, and I am in hearty accord with the principle adopted by the finance minister in forgoing the tax for only six months. I will give my reasons, or at least one reason which, I believe, will appeal to the group on the extreme left as well as to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group. To a very great extent deductions in respect of the wage earner were made at the source, and he is practically up to date in his payments; whereas quite a large number of business men made fairly substantial profits, owing to the increased spending power and the large amount of money in circulation. They may have paid their six months' income tax but they still have a large amount on hand. If the minister had remitted that full amount of the increased profits resulting from the increased prosperity of our country I should say criticism would be justified, and I would join with hon. members on that score-that it was class . legislation, unfair to the wage earner; that it was allowing a man who had reaped large profits to retain them instead of doing as the Minister of Finance has rightly done.
I was surprised and disappointed and sorry to hear the hon. member for Yorkton refer the other evening to his experience in connection with dominion government bonds.


George Hugh Castleden: I said they were victory bonds of the last war.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Well, it is the same thing, except that the bonds of the last war were tax free, while those issued during this war are not tax free and bear a very low rate of interest. The hon. member said he bought bonds during the last war-


George Hugh Castleden: After.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: After the last war, and he went to a bank and offered them for sale, and the bank refused to buy them but sent him around the corner and up a flight of stairs where he sold them to a broker, I suppose, who paid him only ninety-two cents on the dollar. I do not question the hon. member's experience, but it is difficult for me to follow his reasoning; for if I remember correctly, without exception all these bonds sold at a premium. In 1919 the market price ranged from 105 to 108. Either the hon. member lacked business ability, perhaps due to inexperience, or for some reason he did not get
The Budget-Mr. Isnor

what was coming to him. I am wondering whether they were Dominion of Canada bonds, and whether he disposed of them to a legitimate broker. He neglected to mention the name of the bank. Was it a bank manager in a small town who did not know the quotations on Dominion of Canada bonds, and was the man to whom he finally sold it a recognized broker?
However, I do not wish to labour the point; I desire only to indicate the effect that his words, broadcast throughout this country, might have on the victory loan campaign which is to take place next month. I should be sorry to think that any words of mine, and the same thing applies to the hon. member, would cause even one person to refrain from buying a victory bond during the coming campaign.


George Hugh Castleden: May I be permitted to state my purpose in making that statement? It was merely that the government should give an assurance at this time that would prevent the recurrence of any such incident. Such an assurance would assist in the sale of bonds.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I am always pleased to give an hon. member opportunity to correct any misapprehension that he may have created. But more than one spoke to me about his speech. The following morning it was put to me something like this: Surely that hon. member from the west did- not know what he was talking about. Surely he does not want us to take no part in the next victory loan campaign. Surely he does not want to belittle the efforts of the thousands and thousands of volunteer workers who go out on every campaign to do their duty to their country and help the war effort. Surely he does not want to take away from the three million people, two million in the last campaign alone, who purchased victory bonds, the privilege of thus doing their duty. Many of them cannot serve in the armed forces. The words used by the hon. member were very misleading, and I am quite willing to accept his explanation. He said:
Then we shall have this house divided into two proper groups, those who are in favour of free enterprise as it is practised to-day, the coupon clippers, on the one side, and those working for humanity on the other.
That is found on page 14(M of Hansard. When you think of the three million people, scattered from the Atlantic to the Pacific, who are holders of Dominion of Canada victory bonds, and the four million who hold insurance policies, surely the hon. member does not mean that he wants two groups set up,

one to oppose the other. These are all coupon clippers. Any person who buys a bond at the present time in a sincere effort to help along Canada's part and the part of the united nations in this war, could be called a coupon clipper. Surely the hon. member does not mean that. I want to be known as one of those who are willing to buy to the limit and to clip those coupons if it is going to help Canada in her war effort.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: I wish to make a few remarks on reconstruction. We are told that such discussion is premature. But it is quite evident that those who make such a statement are busy planning the future according to their own ideas. For instance, I have here a dispatch from London. It says:
Important financial discussions have been in progress here for weeks. . .	. Three main
issues are under discussion: 1. An international bank. 2. An international currency unit based on gold, and known as the Bancor. 3. An international exchange clearing house.
We do not hear anything about that in parliament. I suppose it is not part of parliament's duty to discuss such issues.
Then I find a great deal of confusion as to the proposals that are made and that have received such wide propaganda. For instance, the allied nations are always referred to as the united nations. We are fighting to preserve our democracy, but we are to have a new order. We are to preserve the old and create a new order. We are to restore sovereignty to the conquered nations, while we are to surrender our own sovereignty to international control. Trade restrictions are to be removed, but the gold standard is to be restored, and that is the greatest of all trade restrictions. Then we are to have work for everyone, even if the work has to be created for that purpose. We are to have so many freedoms, but everything is to be planned and everybody is to be controlled; that is, everything but finance. Why? I think it is plain enough. Because the financiers are doing the planning and they intend to do the controlling. Theirs is not a new order but an old racket, and the purpose of this so-called new order is to make impossible any effective reform of this old racket. Let me read a few words that were written something over one hundred years ago, touching upon this very subject:
Legalized by act of parliament passed in 1694 in words every man should bear in mind, words fatal to the peace and happiness of England, words which were the precursor of a scourge greater than ever before afflicted any part of God's creation. Thus arose loans, funds and national debts, things that England had never heard or dreamed of, things without which she had a long and glorious career of many centuries, and had been the greatest and happiest country

The Budget-Mr. Jagues
in the world. Seeing that to lend money at interest, that is to say, for gain, that is to say to receive money for the use of money, seeing that this is contrary to the principles of the Christian church-The scheme, the crafty, the cunning, the deep scheme has from its ominous birth been breeding swarms of usurers of every description, feeding and fattening on the vitals of the country till at last it has produced what the world never saw before-starvation in the midst of plenty.
Those are the words of a very great Englishman, William Cobbett. We do not hear much of him; that is our loss, but he fought this thing all his life, because he saw it at first hand and hated the results it brought to England and the English people. Starvation in the midst of plenty! That was Shylock's new order, and of course there had to be some new rules for a new order. Accordingly Ricardo invented or discovered a new set of rules for. the use of his uncle Shyloclc. He invented the iron law of wages and the whole economy or economics of scarcity. Presently uncle and nephew were joined by another nephew, Karl Marx, who proposed revolution as the remedy for starvation in the midst of plenty. And so the world progressed toward wars, fire and the sword, the breaking of laws and revolution, all of which this century has seen.
Let me now read a few words by another great Briton, not an Englishman this time but a man still living, who more than anyone else inspired the allied victory in the last war:
At Versailles the financiers resumed command and issued their orders like emperors who would brook no interference with their imperious demands. Their unfortunate financial policies dominated our trade and restricted production for the whole period between the wars.
An effort was made to induce the government to employ the credit of the country to supply the crying needs of the people, but Mammon was on his throne and ruled all these schemes out. To-day we are suffering from the consequences of these policies.
Those are the words of David Lloyd George in "Britain's New Order", published in 1941. What were the conditions between the two wars? We are familiar with them in this country: the bankruptcy of business and farmers, the destruction of a great deal of private enterprise, millions of unemployed, and so on. We had international finance controlling trade, industry and distribution. We had financial crises and depressions, and nothing could be done because we had no money. When these conditions inevitably brought about war we were told that war results from national sovereignty and private enterprise; and we spend as much money on destruction in a day as could be found in a
month for construction. At the same time every method of propaganda has been used to advocate that the whole world should be turned over to the financiers who had created these conditions leading to war, so as to make effective resistance impossible. Who were these international financiers? I have not a complete list, but I have a number of names here which I believe will be familiar: the Rothschilds, Sassoons, Kuhns, Loebs, Warburgs, Montefiores, Sieffs, Niemeyers, Sieppmanns, Fruhlings, Cassells, Strakosches, Sehroeders, Baruchs, Schusters, Cohens, Bleichroders, Kleinworths, Kahns, Goschens. How many French names are in. that list? How many British? How many Christians?


Mr. MARTIN:: Let us have no Jew-baiting.


John Horne Blackmore: Then do not do it. You are mentioning it; the hon. member is just giving the names.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The implication is quite clear.


Norman Jaques: If the cap fits I cannot help it. One of those international financiers financed the London school of economics, which was founded by socialists for the purpose of training the bureaucrats for the future world socialist state; and that same London school of economics is playing a very big part in the shaping of things to come. One of its distinguished graduates is the chairman of our own committee on post-war reconstruction. Another is Sir William Beveridge, the author of social security. Still a third is Professor Lasky, the internationally known communist.


Humphrey Mitchell: Since when has Professor Lasky been a communist? Be fair.


Norman Jaques: Let me read what he says- and I did not intend to read this, so that I hope Mr. Speaker will take note of the interruption. I quote this from an article by Professor Lasky:
The communist hypothesis insists that no socialist government can attempt seriously to put its principles into practice without encountering determined resistance which will issue in civil war. To maintain socialist principles, in short, socialists will be driven to become communists or to betray their socialism. If they become communists they will find themselves involved in the grim logic of Leninism- the dictatorship of the proletariat, the drastic suppression of counter-revolution, the confiscation of the essential instruments of production, the building of the state, in a word, upon the principles of martial law until the security of the new order is firmly established.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: He is stating a communist principle; he is not stating his own views.
The Budget-Mr. Jagues


Norman Jaques: I am only repeating the
facts. The object or the purpose of the London school of economics has been to train and send out to the empire these gold-plated, Ricardian economists and socialist professors whose mission has been, apparently, to undermine the youth of the empire, the prestige of the British empire, and faith in our democratic way of living.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend is not
serious about that, is he?


Norman Jaques: I am absolutely serious;
and I say the results are a tribute to the business acumen of Sir Ernest Cassel, the German international financier, from Frankfort.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about T. V. Gregory?


Norman Jaques: He is another.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Anyone who calls him a
communist is talking nonsense.


Norman Jaques: Then we have Sir William Beveridge and Doctor Marsh, the former a director, and the latter a graduate of the London school of economics. They represent the Ricardian school of economics.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not at all.


Norman Jaques: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Marsh does
not represent the Ricardian school of economics.


Norman Jaques: Social security does. Just
as Ricardo invented or discovered the iron law of wages, and went on to say that a labourer without work had no right to exist, his modern counterpart says in social security that freedom from idleness is more important than freedom from want. He assesses the necessities or, if you like, the wants of those who are not working, so far as food is concerned, at SI.70 a week for a man and $1.30 for a woman. I would call that the Ricardian economics of scarcity. It is nothing else.
If you like you can take these three men, Doctor James, the gold-standard; Sir William Beveridge, the Ricardian; and Professor Lasky, the Marxian. I believe that is a fair comparison. There they are-Shylock, Ricardo and Marx. They are doing the planning.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the hon. member ever read either Marx or Lasky?


Norman Jaques: Plenty. The other day in the committee on reconstruction and rehabilitation the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) asked this question of Doctor James:
There is one question I should like to ask Doctor James. Doctor James, you referred to

a number of programmes that had been put forward for post-war reconstruction by various organizations. You did not, however, refer to-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. member has no right to quote from a report of a committee now sitting.


Norman Jaques: Doctor James was asked either in or out of committee, what he thought of the report of the London chamber of commerce. And, mark you, Doctor James is chairman of our committee on reconstruction. His reply, in so many words, was, "Well, I really do not know; I have not bothered to read it or, if I have read it, I have not bothered to remember it."
I hold in my hand a copy of the report of the London chamber of commerce. In its preface it states:
The London chamber of commerce has a direct membership of 9,000 firms and companies. Thirty-nine industrial and commercial associations, with an approximate membership of
50,000,	are affiliated to it and are represented on its council. The chamber is therefore vitally concerned in the nature of the framework withiu which industry and commerce will be called upon to function after the war.
This report was printed word for word in the congressional record at Washington on July 17 of last year. Upon introducing the report to congress, congressman Voorhis used these words:
I wish to draw your attention to paragraph 26.
I shall read that paragraph presently.
The distribution internally of the purchasing power necessary to consume the whole of their own production. Upon that principle the most solid hope for the future of mankind can be built, and it is applicable not only to England but to the United States and every other nation.
Let me now quote the paragraph to which reference is made:
26. The fundamental problems then, which a satisfactory system must be designed to solve are:
(1)	The elimination of the fear and hostility resulting from the struggle of all nations to obtain an "active favourable balance of payments," the penalty of the vanquished being economic servitude to the victor. This struggle has resulted in attempts by all the nations to restrict imports by barriers to trade, and to increase exports by subsidies and other artificial means, and by the use of political and economic pressure.
(2)	The distribution internally of the purchasing power necessary to enable the nations to consume the whole of their own production; if this were done they could equally consume the goods of other nations which they might exchange for their own production. This problem is closely connected with (1) because an excess of exports over imports furnishes an excuse for increasing effective demand within a country (through the distribution of wages)

The Budget-Mr. Jaques
without increasing the number of goods awaiting consumption in the domestic market.
(3)	The unwillingness, consequent upon their industrialization, of primary producing countries to receive, after the war, imports of certain manufactured goods which previously they had imported freely.
(4)	Nations with different internal economic systems must be enabled to live in the same world without those differences constituting a threat to the continued existence of one another's internal systems.
(5)	The movement of people from overpopulated to under-populated countries. The objection of the latter to receive immigrants is due to the unemployment of their own people and will disappear when that problem is solved, assuming, of course, that the would-be immigrants are of the right type.
I could read more, but I shall not take up the time of the house in doing so. The London school of economics was founded by international socialism and was financed by international finance. There is no possibility of contradicting that statement. Why is it that their ideas and planning are accepted when the ideas and wishes of 50,000 business firms and manufacturers in Great Britain are entirely ignored? What can be the reason? There can be only one. It is that the new order is to be an international dictatorship by finance. That dictatorship will not be concerned with the welfare of the people; its concern will be money, usury and debt, whereas the London chamber of commerce is concerned with real wealth, real profits and real thrift. Many members of this house, especially in the Conservative and Liberal ranks, have within the last two or three weeks criticized the ideas of my hon. friends to my right. Many of them seem only too glad to swallow any idea provided there is a sufficient amount of gold on it, as long as it is gold-plated. That is what the gold standard means.
The world is coming to a state of financial feudalism. That is the new order we are promised. It is suggested that we should surrender our sovereignty, the British crown; rather than continue to look to the crown as the symbol of our sovereignty we should look to Shylock's three brass balls, the symbol of pawnbroking and poverty the world over. To show where this group stands on these matters, I should like to read two resolutions which were passed in Edmonton at a joint caucus of the federal and provincial members of the Social Credit movement. The first one on "Union Now" reads:
Whereas sovereignty of the people is the most precious heritage of this and every other British nation; and
Whereas democracy cannot exist without the effective sovereignty of the people; and
Whereas the British crown is the heart and the symbol of the British commonwealth of free and sovereign people; and
Whereas His Majesty's fighting forces exist to preserve the aforesaid essential sovereignty and democratic liberties of the British people and are engaged at present in war against the forces of enemy powers threatening those constitutional rights; and
Whereas in our modern economy control of money means control over every aspect of national life and is an essential sovereign power for the people to retain as the basis of their democratic authority; and
Whereas the closest possible understanding and cooperation between the British peoples and the people of the United States of America is vital to the future welfare of humanity; and
Whereas the scheme commonly known as "Union Now" proposes;
(a)	That a federation of the British empire, the U.S.A. and other democracies be consummated;
(b)	That the nations entering into such a union set up an international authority in which would be centralized control over:
i.	The armed forces of all the nations entering into the union.
ii.	The financial system of the entire union; and
iii.	The rights of citizenship of the nations entering into the union.
(c)	That the nations involved would surrender their sovereignty over the aforesaid functions, thereby centralizing power in the hands of the international authority by giving them absolute control over every aspect of national life through financial control and of citizenship rights, and by placing the armed forces and armaments under their control;
(d)	That the entire British empire shall have minority representation in the international federal legislature;
Therefore be it resolved that we condemn the open advocacy, particularly during this struggle for the preservation of democracy, of a scheme which would divest the people of Canada of all essential sovereign authority, destroy effective democratic government, submerge the British empire in a conglomeration of countries dominated by an international totalitarian authority, render the British crown meaningless and sweep away everything for which the British people are fighting at the present time.
That leaves no doubt as to where this group stands on "Union Now", on the British crown and on international finance, even though the latter may be gold-plated. The next one on national socialism reads:
Whereas Canada in partnership with the other nations of the British commonwealth is fighting for the preservation of its democratic institutions against the threat of national socialist domination; and
Whereas the menace of state socialism lies in the evil principles of its supreme state doctrine, irrespective of the labels, often harmless sounding, under which it masquerades; and
Whereas in a democracy the state and all its institutions should exist to serve the people in obtaining the results they want from the management of their affairs, in contrast to the state socialist concept that the people exist to serve and submit to the dictates of a supreme state authority and its institutions;
The Budget-Mr. Nicholson

Therefore be it resolved that we oppose as anti-democratic, the national socialistic policies being advocated and adopted (under cover of a professed adherence to democratic principles) for increasing the arbitrary power of a vast government bureaucracy to dominate and regiment the people, thereby crushing initative, destroying free enterprise and robbing the individual citizen of his rightful liberties and privileges under our democratic constitution.
And be it further resolved that the people be aroused to the peril of this trend towards a totalitarian national socialist state before it becomes entrenched as the basis of the post-war order and we find, too late, that while fighting German national socialism overseas we have become enmeshed in its destructive toils at home under cover of some other label.
Such as social security and other schemes emanating from the London school of economics.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, although the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has urged that this debate be concluded as soon as possible, I think that a budget calling for expenditures of over fifteen million dollars a day requires careful consideration by the representatives of the people sitting in this house. Speaking on Monday, the minister mentioned that he had received cooperation consistently from the beginning from the great majority of the members, I think he said from all the members of the Progressive Conservative party and from most of the members of the house generally. It is unfortunate, I think, that the minister left the rest of us who sit on this side of the house under a rather dark cloud. Just as the minister himself objects to sweeping condemnation of his boards, so members who are included in a category of that sort must naturally object.
Judging by the standards of other constituencies, those of us who come from rural communities have not as spectacular a record for great victory loan contributions as others have set. I received a letter just yesterday from an old age pensioner in my constituency who is now over eighty years of age. He wrote on the 17th of this month saying that he had been very ill and had been unable to get down to the bank to cash his cheque. Then he went on to explain that every month he buys a war savings stamp for each of his eighteen grandchildren. In other words, he spends on the war $4.50 each month out of a cheque of $20. It appears to me that a contribution of that sort from an old gentleman who understands fully the issues which are at stake in this war is wonderful.
My riding has never established any high records for large individual subscriptions to the victory loans or for large totals, but I should like to mention that I represent a con-
stituency of 57,000 people, in which there are only three dentists, or one dentist to serve every 19,000 people. It is true that economic conditions are better to-day than they have been in the last ten or fifteen years; but when hon. members consider that there are ninety-two post offices in the riding and sixty-nine different railway shipping points where people ship their produce, and that we now have only three dentists to look after 57,000 people, compared with five dentists or one dentist for every 11,500 before the war, they will get some idea of the depressed conditions in that area. The reason why we have so few dentists to-day is that those who lived in these communities were unable in the years before the war to send their sons to dental college, and those who were fortunate enough to be able to send a son or a daughter to a university saw the young people, when they got through college, establish themselves in Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg or in some of the larger centres in our own province where they could establish a home and become self-supporting. Our people have been forced to accept low standards of living, and it cannot be expected that we could equal a record in victory loan subscriptions such as that set up by the constituency represented by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman).
The members of this group have not supported the _ view expressed by the previous speaker (Mr. Jaques) who criticized the government for the controls that have been introduced. We have advocated social planning. The senior lion, member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) gave the impression that we have advocated giving people something for nothing, making possible in Canada a very high standard of living for everyone without anyone having to work. Nothing could be further from the truth. We said1 before the war that if Canada had full employment, if she used her resources and put her people to work, she could give her people a very high standard of living. The estimated national income of $9 billion for this year would provide over $700 for every man, woman and child in Canada, or an income of $3,500 a year for each family of five people. In spite of the fact that we have three-quarters of a million of the strongest and ablest of our citizens in uniform who are not producing any consumer goods but are being maintained in the national interest; in spite of the fact that we are providing equipment to carry on the war and to equip, clothe and' feed our forces, the Canadian people on the whole are to-day enjoying a higher standard of living than ever before in the history of this country. So that I think it is clear that if we had been planning

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson
in peace time as we now plan in war time we could have ended unemployment in the thirties and given our people comfortable homes, good furniture and clothing, and the necessary medical and dental services so that it would not be necessary for 57,000 people to live in any part of this country where they have to travel, in some instances, a hundred miles to visit the nearest dentist, and where there is only one dentist for every 19,000 people.
Planning is essential if the democratic nations are to stand up against the forces of fascism. In Great Britain very early in the conflict rationing was introduced. The reactionary forces in Great Britain protested and said: This is socialism; it is regimentation; it is not in the best interests of the country. But in spite of their protests rationing was introduced. In Canada we are introducing rationing as goods become scarce because we recognize the principle that ability to pay should not be the deciding factor as to the amount of goods that citizens may buy. Is it not significant that in Great Britain, the best fed people, next to those in the armed forces, are the seamen, and the second best fed are either the miners or the workers in heavy industries, or the children of Great Britain? I wish we could say in Canada that our soldiers, sailors and airmen and seamen are the best fed, and that next come the workers in our steel industries and in our mines, and the little children. But that cannot be said in Canada. In Great Britain, in 1940, Robert Boothby, parliamentary secretary to the ministry of food, was able to say:
An expectant or nursing mother and any child under school age can now obtain for the asking milk at 2d. a pint. It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the importance of this scheme. I regard it as one of the most notable measures of social reform which has been carried through in recent years. It has taken a world war to make our dreams come true.
The Minister of Finance mentioned that there had been little criticism of his taxation policy. It is my opinion that the government lias not gone far enough in taxing those with high incomes. I realize the predicament of the administration. Unfortunately, there are still some in Canada who share the views of Arthur Meighen, who spoke in the other chamber in 1940, as follows:
I do not exaggerate at all when I say I have had business men by the dozen tell me that they have been leaning on their oars, they have nothing to work for. They say, "We might just as well take it a little more easily now for we are only working for taxes anyway."
A serious problem presents itself to any administration when men like Mr. Meighen 72537-97
express these views. It is true that their number is not large, but they exercise a tremendous influence on the economic and political life of this country, or any other country, and through, their interlocking directorates they could seriously cripple the country's war effort if they were to do what Mr. Meighen's friends apparently were doing in the fall of 1940, namely, resting on their oars.
I must urge again that the administration also take into consideration the large number of Canadian people who have made and are making very real sacrifices and who are going to make every sacrifice which is necessary to carry this conflict to a successful conclusion.
I have here a table of tax deductions prepared by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson). Different income tax groups are listed, and there are 127 groups of married people with 3 children receiving incomes, after they have paid all their income tax, of amounts ranging from approximately $100 to $1,000 a month.
In 1936, when the late Norman Rogers was acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, he was responsible for setting up a special committee to prepare statistics of family income and expenditure in Canada. The report of this committee was published in 1941. It is available from the bureau of statistics for fifty cents, and should be read by every Canadian. This committee surveyed a group of 1,439 representative families in Canada. They did not go to the relief areas or the depressed areas; they tried to get representative men from the working classes and the salaried groups in receipt of earnings between $450 and $2,500 per family a year. After compiling their information they found that the average expenditure for the group was $1,453.90, divided on the following basis:
Per cent
Food	 31-3
Shelter	 19-1
Fuel and light	 6-4
Clothing	 11-7
Home furnishings	 8-9
Health	 4-3
Personal care	 1-7
Transportation	 5'6
Recreation	 5'8
Life insurance	 5-2
It could not be argued that every citizen in Canada should spend his income in exactly this way, but if one considers the spending of this representative group he gets a fairly good break-down on how a family income should be spent.
In the last group which the Minister of National Revenue discusses in his pamphlet, it will be found that, after paying the highest

Questions

income tax ever known in Canadian history, a man, his wife and three children are able to spend per month, if they spent according to the percentages I have just mentioned, as follows:
Food	 $310
Shelter	 191
Fuel and light	 64
Clothing	 117
Home furnishings	 89
Health	 43
Transportation	 56
Recreation	 58
Life insurance	 52
Personal care	 17
Can it be argued that during this critical period any family of five should be allowed to put pressure on the price ceiling to the extent of $310 a month for food, or $117 a month for clothing, or $89 a month for home furnishings? It can be claimed no doubt that people in these brackets are taking out large subscriptions in the victory loan campaigns. I am not in a position to know how much they take. But the demand for luxury goods and the spending on non-essentials indicate that there is a very large amount of money which could be diverted into the treasury by either higher taxation or compulsory loans on a much more ambitious programme than we have hitherto produced.
On motion of Mr. Nicholson the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 25, 1943