1940-07-03

QUESTIONS

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROY;
1.	Is there an official film covering the visit of their majesties, the king and the queen, in Canada, last summer?
2.	Is this film bilingual, or are there two versions of it, one for the English-speaking population, and one for the French-speaking population?
3.	If there is a French version, was there a deletion made of the speeches made in French by their majesties, by the Lieutenant-Governor
3.	(a), (b), and (c).
Country
United Kingdom	Cwt.
.	$
United States	Cwt.
[Stage Direction]
Other countries	Cwt.
[Stage Direction]
Totals	Cwt.
[Stage Direction]
(d) Available for consumption in Canada: 146,676 cwt.

Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	What was the total pack of salmon canned in Canada during the years 1937, 1938, and 1939, giving each year separately?
2. What was the value of canned salmon during each of the years 1937 to 1939 inclusive, giving each year separately?
3. What was the value of canned salmon during the years 1937 to 1939 inclusive, giving each year separately, as follows: (a) exported to the United Kingdom, (b) exported to the United States, (c) exported to other countries, (d) for Canadian consumption?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	1937-1,509,520 cases of 48 lbs. each= 724,750 cwt.; 1938-1,708,835 cases of 48 lbs. each=820,241 cwt.; 1939-1,539,894 cases of 48 lbs. each=739,149 cwt.
2.	1937-$9,268,404; 1938-$12,274,863; 1939 -Not yet available.
1937	Calendar years 1938	1939196,729	171,320	303,8773,798,818	3,726,527	5,517,27355,975	5,366	5,805344,002	54,490	37,968339,089	311,714	283,2293,390,828	3,347,177	3,072,316591,793	488,400	592,9117,533,648	7,128,194	8,627,557
1937-133,192 cwt.; 1938-332,112 cwt.; 1939-

Questions


LIVE STOCK PRICES
Mr. LACOMBE:: What were the average prices of animals slaughtered for consumption during the years 1938, 1939, and 1940, in the following markets respectively:	(a) Montreal, (b) Toronto, (c)
Winnipeg?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Average Market Prices of Live Stock
Winni-
Montreal Toronto peg
Steers, good over 1,050
pounds, per cwt.-
1938	.. S 6 53	$ 6 26	$ 5 431939	.. 7 15	6 91	6 171940, January.. ..	.. 7 57	7 37	6 53February ..	.. 7 46	7 18	6 16March.. ..	.. 7 38	7 19	6 28April	.. 7 48	7 10	6 43May	.. 7 72	7 52	7 03Calves, good and choice	veal, per cwt.-	1938	.. S 8 10	$ 9 23	$ 7 171939	.. 8 55	9 51	7 671940, January.. ..	.. 11 75	12 49	9 95February ..	.. 11 13	11 87	9 32March.. ..	.. 10 74	10 85	9 11April	.. 7 45	10 38	7 80May	. 7 75	10 24	8 20Hogs, bacon, per cwt.-	1938	.. 9 94	9 53	9 331939	.. 9 28	8 83	8 521940. January.. ..	.. 9 41	9 07	8 61February ..	.. 9 33	9 00	8 60March.. ..	9 37	9 03	8 60April	.. 8 98	8 55	8 11May	.. 8 50	8 25	7 75Lambs, good handyweight,	per cwt.-	1938	.. 8 63	9 08	7 941939	.. 9 42	9 57	8 381940, January.. ..	.. 9 66	10 63	9 15February ..	.. (A)	10 06	9 15March.. ..	.. 8 92	10 79	9 39April	.. (B)	10 93	9 93May	.. (C)	11 58	12 44(a) A few spring	lambs $10 to $11 each.	(b) Spring lambs $5 to $9	each.	(c) Spring lambs	$2.50 to	$10 each.	
^BRITISH CHILDREN-ARRANGEMENTS FOR RECEPTION IN CANADA


Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	What were the limits agreed upon between the British and dominion governments regarding British child evacuees?
2.	In view of the minister's statement regarding the unreliability of the radio, will he state
whether his announcement as given over the radio on Saturday last, that Canada would take all the children that England would send, is true or not?
3.	Has the government extended a definite invitation for (a) a limited number of British children, or (b) a general unlimited invitation to all children the British government cares to send; (c) if neither, what is the nature of the invitation ?


Mr. CRERAR:: I have not had an opportunity to study this question very carefully, but I think the information requested was given in the statement presented to the house the other day. We might let the question stand until I look into it.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Stands.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-SNOWSHOES

Mr. ROY:: 1.	Has the Department of Munitions and Supply awarded contracts for the manufacture and purchase of snowshoes?
2.	If so, to whom have such contracts been awarded?
3.	Eor how many, and at what price in each case?
4.	Were tenders called for by public notice?
5.	If so, when were these tenders received?
6.	Has the contract been granted to the lowest tenderer in each case?
7.	If not, in what cases have the contracts not been awarded to the lowest tenderer, and for what reasons?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No.
2,	3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. No tenders have been called for snowshoes nor contracts awarded.


Mr. ROY:: 1.	Has the Department of Munitions and Supply awarded a contract for snowshoes to Mr. Salim Faber of Loretteville ?
2.	If so, what is the amount of such contract?
3.	Were tenders called for?
4.	If so, did Mr. Salim Faber submit the lowest tender?
5.	Is Mr. Salim Faber a manufacturer of snowshoes?
6.	If so, where was the location of his factory before he signed his contract?
7.	Has Mr. Faber given guarantees for the due execution of his contract, and, if so, what are such guarantees?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No.
2,	3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. No tenders have been called for snowshoes nor contracts awarded.

Questions as Orders for Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	Were any buffalo, moose, elk or deer slaughtered during the past year?
2.	If so, how many of each, and where?
3.	Were any of these animals sold on the hoof or otherwise?
4.	If so, to whom, and at what price?
5.	What disposal was made of the hides?
6.	Were tenders called?
7.	If so, what are the names of those who tendered and the amount of each tender?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Return tabled.


ADVERTISING AND PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES
Mr. JACKMAN:: 1.	What is the amount spent by the various government departments on advertising or publicity during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1940?
2.	How is the amount divided among departments ?
3.	How much of these various amounts can be properly attributed to ordinary peace time departmental business, and how much to war effort?
4.	With what advertising firms or agencies has this advertising been placed, and what amounts have been placed with each?


DIRECTORS OF PUBLIC RELATIONS
Mr. JACKMAN:: 1.	How many departments of the government employ directors of public relations or liaison officers or other officers whose duty it is to acquaint other government departments or the public with the work of the government or of particular departments?
2.	Who are these officers?
3.	What is their respective remuneration?
4.	What is the term of their employment?
. 5. What was their previous business association?


FOREIGN PUBLICATIONS-SUBVERSIVE ARTICLES
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What action has been taken by the government since the session opened to prevent the use of the mails and circulation of certain American and other publications containing subversive articles in war time?
2.	Will the use of the mails be denied to the Chicago Tribune and Saturday Evening Post and other weekly publications for continued articles detrimental to the cause of Britain and Canada and the prosecution of the war, and prevent their circulation in Canada?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Return tabled.


FORD MOTOR COMPANY OF CANADA
Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	Is the Ford Motor Company of Canada a dominion incorporated company?
2.	How many shares are outstanding of (a) voting stock; (b) non-voting stock?
3.	Who are the owners of the voting stock?
4.	Who are the directors of the company?
5.	What are their registered stock-ownership qualifications?
6.	Are any of the directors employees of the company? If so, who are they?


Pierre-François Casgrain: Return tabled.


METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC COMPANY OF QUEBEC
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Has a contract amounting to $90,000 been awarded by the Department of Munitions and Supply to the Metropolitan Electric Company of Quebec?
2.	What is the capital stock of this company?
3.	Who constitute it, and who is its president?
4.	Where was the location of this company's premises before the signing of the contract? .
5.	Who signed the contract?
6.	Were tenders called for, and, if so, was it by public notice, or privately?
7.	Did the Metropolitan Electric Company submit the lowest tender?
8.	When were tenders received?
9.	Has the Metropolitan Electric Company furnished guarantees for the due execution of the contract, and, if so, what is the nature of such guarantees?


HULL, QUB., ADVANCE POLL
Mr. ROY:: 1.	During the last dominion election of March 2G, where was the advanced poll in the city of Hull located?
2.	To whom was rent paid therefor?
3.	Who is the owner of the building?
4.	Who were the deputy returning officers and clerk at this poll, and how much were they paid?



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-VEHICLES


Mr. ADAMSON:: For a return showing the names of all newly appointed persons whose remuneration is in excess of $100 per month, appointed to the government service, other than by civil service commission examination or under civil service commission regulation in the period September 1, 1939, to June 21, 1940, together with their salaries, living allowance, if any, and present duties.


YOUTH TRAINING FOR AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION AND REPAIR
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, agreements and other documents, during the years 1939 and to date in 1940, exchanged between the Department of Labour and the government of Nova Scotia, or any department thereof, regarding youth training in technical colleges, public schools, special classes, and/or industrial plants, to provide mechanical training for young men with special application to the manufacturing, reconditioning and repairing of aircraft.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). In view of the fact that in the course of the next thirty days harvest operations in the west will be beginning, when is it proposed to appoint the advisory committee for the wheat board?
Hon. JAMES A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce): Questions along this line have been asked from time to time recently. There is no idea or suggestion of delay in giving to the house information on this and kindred subjects. Various matters in connection with the handling of this year's wheat crop, the crop for the approaching season, are under discussion and are being considered. Information will be brought down as soon as possible.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Will it be brought down before we prorogue?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Not necessarily.


AMENDMENTS TO ACT-INQUIRY AS TO PAYMENTS ON 1940 CROP
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Trade and
Commerce inform the house whether or not amendments dealing with the Canadian Wheat Board Act will be finally considered, and whether payments will be made in time to take care of the harvesting operations in connection with the 1940 crop?


James Angus MacKinnon: That matter also is under consideration.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe). I hold in my hand an advertisement which appeared in last night's issue of the Montreal Star, issued under the authority, I assume, of the Canadian National Railways. This purports to advertise special low round-trip fares from Montreal to New York-I suppose to attend the world's fair.
Having regard to the efforts of the administration, as reflected in the budget, to conserve our resources, and especially our exchange, does not the government think that the Canadian National Railways should refuse to foster this kind of appeal to our people- an appeal to go outside our countiy and spend large sums of money? I say that because very little of the moneys expended on these railway fares will accrue to the national railways. Will the minister use his authority to have this kind of appeal silenced?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: The conservation of foreign exchange would seem to be a function of a department of government other than the Canadian National Railways. It will be understood that the Canadian National Railways are in the business of moving passengers and freight, and I presume their policy is to attract freight and passenger movement in both directions. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) will know that in a similar manner excursions are advertised in New York, and from that point groups of passengers travel to Montreal.
As to the question of exchange, it is a matter which is receiving the close attention of the government. Action along that line should be announced by the government, and in the event of such action I am sure the Canadian National Railways will be glad to conform.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I was going to ask the Minister of Transport if any action taken in this connection with
Public Information

regard to the Canadian. National Railways would also be taken in respect of other railways.


Clarence Decatur Howe: When a government policy
is announced we expect all railways in Canada to conform. Naturally the government does not attempt to manage the Canadian National Railways from Ottawa just because it owns the common stock of that organization. All the railways are treated alike.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the
leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) that the government has under consideration the very matter about which he has spoken. We are considering the whole matter of foreign exchange used by people going to the United States. I noticed that in his observations yesterday the leader of the opposition was rather strong, I thought, in his insistence that we should facilitate in every way possible the granting of passports to people wishing to enter the United States.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Between
border points.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, between border
points. But it seemed to me that that was not altogether in conformity with or consistent with the idea of conserving exchange.


Richard Burpee Hanson: My reference to the situation at St. Stephen had to do with the every-day life of the people down there. Some hon. members do not understand the situation at that point. In those two border towns the three fire departments respond to the one fire call. This is an illustration of the extent of the community effort. If it were not for a river and an imaginary international boundary, there would be one town. Hon. members must understand the seriousness of the situation at that point. The hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Hill) could give the minister some information on the point.


Mr. POWER:: The American cemetery is
on the Canadian side.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Quite true.


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps the fire departments would account for the 60,000 applications to which my hon. friend referred yesterday?


PUBLIC INFORMATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, on June 29 there was released from the office of the director of

public information a press release respecting the use and limitations of parachute troops, tank and dive bombers in team work, and tending to throw more light on German tactics. This is purported to have been prepared by a military correspondent.
My attention was drawn to the matter by a newspaper man. I am not going to read the whole release, because I believe that would be asking too much. But if there is anything our bureau of public information could give out more calculated to frighten the people and to strike terror into their hearts at this time, I do not know what it could be. I am asking the Prime Minister why such information is sent out. Is it necessary to do so? Are such things censored? Will the government see to it that this type of information is more carefully reviewed by someone in authority before it is sent out?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: In reply to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) may I say I should like to read the article first.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I quite agree.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And I promise to give consideration to the point raised.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JAMES SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) respecting a matter of immediate concern to every decent citizen in Vancouver. My question is based on an item appearing in the Vancouver Sun of June 29. It is as follows:
Joe Celona freed after serving only five years of ten-year sentence.
The item continues:
Joe Celona convicted and sentenced to ten years in the federal penitentiary for implication in the white slave traffic has been released on executive clemency at Ottawa, it was confirmed here to-day.
This man, Celona, prior to 1934 was the openly acknowledged vice lord of Vancouver, dominating the underworld of this city more completely than did Capone in Chicago.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Sinclair: This is an important matter. I know that when men such as this are released it is done upon the recommendation or the advice of local authorities. For that reason I would ask the Minister of Justice

National Registration
if this man Celona, who debauched and depraved hundreds of girls, and who corrupted the police force and the city administration, was released on the recommendation of Hon. G. S. Wismer, attorney general for the province of British Columbia?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a pretty serious statement.	.


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I did not know the hon. member was going to ask this question, and of course I cannot carry in my memory details respecting operations of the remission branch. However, I shall look into the files. So far as the procedure is concerned, may I point out that before a ticket of leave is granted we ask the opinion of the judge who convicted the prisoner; we have the report of the gaoler or the warden of the penitentiary, and there are also two or three other reports. I could not give the names of the people who may have written in, because they are highly confidential. We could not get the information we need for the proper carrying out of -the business of this branch if we published the confidential reports which we receive.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to ascertain whether fully qualified and experienced air pilots who are citizens of the United States would be accepted for service in the Royal Canadian Air Force if such service was offered. I put this question to the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power).


Charles Gavan Power: The answer would be yes, provided they were judged to be fully qualified by the officers of the air force. In other words, they would not be barred because they are United States citizens.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couta): I should like to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston) when I may expect the regulations of the foreign exchange control board, with amendments.
James Layton Ralston: I shall make inquiry this afternoon and give my hon. friend an answer to-morrow.



NATIONAL REGISTRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: On June 26 I asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), which is reported on page 1162 of Hansard. This question reads:
Is it the intention of the government to carry out some scheme of registration under the mobilization act before the first class of men is called up for training under this act? If it is not, will the Prime Minister give the house information as to when the first men are likely to be called up?
The Prime Minister replied that the matter was under consideration and that he could not give any information at that time. In view of the time element and the large number of men affected by the mobilization act, can the Prime Minister give any further information to-day on this important matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can only say to my hon. friend that the question to which he has referred relates to a matter of policy which will be made known to the house as soon as the government is in position to state it. Until the Department of National Defence has made the regulations which it deems essential with respect to the calling up of men it would be premature on my part to attempt to say just when that calling up will take place. The government will announce its policy in due course. That is all I can say.


George Stanley White: Could the Prime Minister say at this time whether there will be a registration before the men are called up?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I can say to my hon. friend that the calling up of men will not necessarily await the registration. As a matter of fact I should perhaps say that it will not await the registration.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, July 2, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. L. Ralston (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. Coldwell, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Quelch.
The Budget-Mr. Shaw
Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of my remarks last evening I had occasion to deal particularly with the question of national health. I attempted to stress the fact that it is imperative, especially during war time, that we have a healthy, virile, well-equipped people. I referred also to a statement which had been made by a prominent British authority on health to the effect that the children of a nation constitute a rock upon which a nation might be built. It is also important that we realize that these same children constitute a rock upon which a nation may be rebuilt, a matter of more importance in view of the war situation. I referred also to what I termed the deplorable conditions prevalent in Canada and the attendant physical and mental ills. I would have made reference to other important factors if time had permitted. I could have referred to the fact that it has been reliably estimated that twenty-five per cent of our Canadian people may be classed as indigents. This is not a statement of mine; it appears in a report which was published last year by the national committee for mental hygiene. This reference to twenty-five per cent of our population being indigent should be explained. By indigent we mean that they are either unable to provide the necessary food, clothing, shelter and medical attention, or are able to provide food, clothing and shelter but unable to provide necessary medical attention. This is a tragic situation inasmuch as two-thirds of this twenty-five per cent are children.
It might be noted that in Canada there are each year 20,000 births where the mother is unattended by any skilled person. This may not be entirely due to economic conditions, but I venture to say that it is to a large extent. I would refer the house to the rapid decline in the birthrate in Canada. This was first noticed about 1926, so it cannot be said that this decline was entirely on account of the depression. However, there is sufficient evidence to prove that to a large extent it is due to economic conditions which have existed and to the fear which many people have of the future. Because of this decline in the birthrate it is absolutely necessary that we give the best possible consideration to the conservation of child life. That is the only way in which we can offset a decline in the birthrate.
It has been said, and rightly so, that if babies are well bom and cared for, child mortality becomes almost negligible. As a result of conditions beyond the control of the average person it is unfortunate that a great many babies are not well born and are not well cared for. We should bear that fact 
in mind. At this point may I pay a tribute to the doctors of Canada. I have lived in a rural community for many years and I know something of the good work performed by the members of the medical profession. Unfortunately Canada has a population of approximately eleven million people spread over an area of about two million square miles, and we have not enough doctors. Furthermore,, I believe it is generally agreed that doctors have more or less located in the larger centres of population. There are various reasons for this. There they have the more up-to-date equipment which they have been trained to use and modem hospital facilities. Probably, too, life is more enjoyable in the urban centres, but that is not intended as any reflection on the medical profession.
Nurses have also performed a noble work. I have in mind the district health nurses in some of the provinces. But still we have not enough health nurses to do the work properly. I have also in mind the splendid work that is done by hospitals, and it is tragic to think that instead of extending our hospital facilities, many of our hospitals in the dried-out areas are nearing the point where they will have to close their doors if they do not receive further assistance from the federal government.
I should also like to mention the welfare societies. We all know the marvellous work that has been done by the welfare societies in sending out circulars and information which are extremely valuable to people living in the outlying areas. During the last war many hon. members will remember that many of our doctors joined the forces and many of our nurses also went overseas. Governmental grants to welfare associations were cut down on the ground of economy, and individuals, instead of contributing to the welfare organizations to any appreciable extent, contributed to the Red Cross overseas service. I have nothing against that, of course, but it left our welfare societies in straitened circumstances financially, and we found ourselves without sufficient doctors and nurses. The result was, as the figures show, that during the war years sickness among babies and children increased, and child mortality also increased. Let us not repeat that during this war. It is necessary, of course, that doctors and nurses should go overseas, and I know too, that it is not possible in every instance to give the same grants which these welfare organizations were receiving before.
But I would point out that we have three other doctors who are not going overseas: Doctor Food, Doctor Clothing and Doctor Shelter, and I believe that if we hire or make

The Budget-Mr. Gershaw
use of these doctors at this time, our people will be to some extent compensated for the loss of the services of the doctors and nurses who go overseas.
I should like to deal for a moment with refugee children. I noticed in the Ottawa Citizen last night the statement that parents of approximately 52,000 children have made application to the British government to have their children sent to Canada. I do not know whether they will all be brought here or not, but if there are a million who wish to come,
I hope we shall bring them all. It was a splendid gesture on the part of the federal government to make it possible for these children to come to this dominion. No one who has read a description of their conditions or seen moving pictures of refugee children in Denmark, Holland, Poland and other countries can have any hesitation in saying that we did the proper thing when we made arrangements to bring refugee children to Canada. But before the government decided to bring these children over here, they must have come to this conclusion:	First, we are
able to provide clothing for them; second, we are able to provide food for them; third, we are able to provide shelter for them, and fourth, we are able to provide education and medical services. I am not saying that the Canadian government is going to pay for that; perhaps the British government will, but irrespective of who pays, these things must be provided for the refugee children.
If we can provide all these things for the children who are brought here from abroad, why did we not a year or so ago make these very same things available for the thousands of starving children in our own country? I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am very much in favour of bringing the refugee children here; I would bring a million, or ten million, if they wished to come, but at the same time I do say that in the light of the care which we are going to provide for these refugee children, there was small excuse for not providing similar care for our own children who for the past ten years have been fleeing before another type of monster, the economic depression. Our children are a national asset, the best and most lasting asset which we have, and since they are a national asset they are of extreme national concern. Since they are of extreme national concern they should become a national responsibility.
We hear much said about passing the buck. I believe that expression was used on the other side of the house not long ago, but the time has come when we should cease even to consider passing the buck in dealing with our unfortunate children. We know it is the muni-95826-82
cipalities which are supposed to initiate schemes of relief and health services, but Mr. Speaker, many municipalities in the dried-out areas have nothing with which to start any scheme. Therefore the federal government can make no contributions because the municipality has no money with which to start the scheme. The provinces are struggling valiantly, and I commend to hon. members the public health programme of the Alberta government. But the provinces as a whole cannot cope with this national problem, and it is the absolute duty of the federal government to take over the whole health situation in Canada and give to the unfortunate, and particularly the children, the care which we know we are able to provide.
May I just say this in conclusion? The war is no excuse for reducing governmental expenditures on public health. That is not necessarily my own opinion only. I quote a statement under the name of the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) appearing in the April issue of Health, which is the official publication of the Health League of Canada. Before I read it, let me say to the minister that I agree wholeheartedly with what he says here:
The all-embracing measures necessary for the successful conduct of warfare must not be permitted to weaken our efforts in the cause of public and individual health.
On the contrary we must redouble our efforts to ensure the health of the nation.
"Redouble" has only one meaning to me, and I say to the minister that I sincerely trust the government does intend to redouble its efforts in this direction, and that I shall watch the health estimates to see if the minister's policy is carried out.


Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) will excuse me if I do not follow his very eloquent plea for health. At this moment we all realize that the making of our maximum contribution to the empire at war is the great overshadowing problem of this session. The government is rapidly organizing the industrial, financial and economic resources of this country for war and for more war, and the people are loyally supporting that effort. The daily expanding strength of the land, sea and air forces has proceeded beyond our fondest hopes and expectations. As to the land forces, each day, the minister tells us, between 800 and 1,200 men are enlisting, and the tremendous task has been carried out of providing supplies for these men. In connection with the air force we have a thousand enlistments a week; and, Mr. Speaker, if you go along the highway
revised Edition
The Budget-Mr. Gershaw

in one part of this province, as I have done, you will see a large field filled with aeroplanes for training purposes. You can see in the factories engine and aeroplane parts being assembled: one factory alone is turning out two planes a day, and many more will follow. We must remember also the sea force; the navy has been increased in size to nearly 100 vessels. Some of them are in British waters guarding the British isles, those islands which for two hundred years have been the bulwark of freedom and which, for any lover of liberty, are the most precious gems of the ocean.
Plants for the manufacture of articles of war are being built, older plants are being enlarged and reconditioned, and all are concentrating on war material. I hope that this industrial activity will spread so that those in the far west and those in the middle west will have the opportunity of making their contributions and that there will be in this time of great need neither idle men nor idle plants. The west will welcome for many reasons the establishment of plants and factories. They would like to see branch factories in their cities. They can offer much in the way of inducements, such as power and railway transportation and a suitable climate, so that in peace as well as in war there shall be decentralization of industry in the interests of all concerned.
I am convinced that during the last few months a tremendous work has been accomplished in preparing for war; and come what will in the way of weal or woe, the people of this country will be indebted to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the members of this government for what they have done.
I wish to deal for a few moments with a battle on another front-the battle which fathers and mothers are putting up to improve home conditions. This budget is definitely planned for equality of sacrifice in war; and on the home front, I believe, our aim and ambition should be to give equality of opportunity to the children and to people generally throughout this great country. I am convinced that living conditions throughout Canada are not thoroughly understood. Crop reports, trade returns and observations made from the cities do not give an adequate indication of what is taking place. I am reminded of days long ago when a queen decided to go through her country to visit her subjects, but her courtiers garlanded the path which she trod and took her to the green lanes and shady places, took her to the garden spots and to the flowing streams, so that she never knew that over the hills and

far in the valleys her people were in want. I know that it is not the intention of this or of any government that people should suffer for lack of fuel or food or clothing or shelter, and I know that each municipality is responsible for the individuals who reside within its limits or who have strayed over its borders. But I know also that it sometimes happens that people suffer, that it is difficult to locate responsibility, that councils do not encourage relief giving, that relief officers sometimes become callous or make errors of judgment. Therefore I am glad to hear the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) say that this government will do its full part in time of war as well as in time of peace.
A few days ago an hon. gentleman who sits in another place stated that advantage was being taken of the old age pension scheme. I believe that he lacks complete knowledge of the situation, because there is another side to be considered. The old age pension scheme has brought a measure of security and happiness to many of the pioneers of this country. It was put into effect by a Liberal government, and I hope that a Liberal government will be able in the very near future to lower the age and increase the amount, because I am convinced that a great humanitarian service will be done when the benefits of the scheme are enjoyed by larger numbers of deserving men and women.
I will not mention at any length the problem of our wheat crop. Wheat growing is the means of livelihood of a great number of people, and if they have to produce at less than cost they must suffer. I am convinced that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) is well aware of this, and will do everything in his power to obtain for us a better price for our wheat in these times of contracting markets and other difficulties.
During the last year a new experiment was attempted in parts of western Canada, with the object of compensating in some measure a man who through no fault of his own lost his crop. The measure by which this was achieved is the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. It is a splendid piece of legislation, and has been the means of putting money into homes where it was badly needed. But in the first year its administration appears to have been faulty, and some of the regulations seem to have been altogether unsuitable. I know that some farmers got too much, but many others, equally or more deserving, got nothing. I hope that this legislation will be retained, but that changes will be made to render it more generally useful and helpful.

The Budget

Mr. Gershaw
The price of farm implements has been a great problem for the people of the west. It is true that the cost of implements in Canada is a little lower than that of similar implements in the United States, but prices are altogether too high, and some remedy must be found. The difficulty from which the average farmer suffers is that the price of everything he has to buy is on a very high level and the price of what he has to sell is on a low level. The government that can bring those two levels a little closer will rule this country for many a year, because they will restore joy and hope to great numbers of our people.
Mankind has always had to contend with poverty. We have heard our parents and grandparents tell of their trials and troubles in this province. In those days they had to get around their troubles as best they could, but a little better system has gradually come about. Poverty is recognized as a curable evil, and although we have still a long way to go to reach the ideal, some progress has been made. Such things as direct relief, relief works, old age pensions, mothers' allowances by the provinces, farm placement, national forestry, dominion-provincial youth training, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act have all helped to mitigate the hardness of the lot of many of our people. The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in particular has done a great deal of good. By making it possible to produce flowers and gardens it has made homes more homelike and it has caused some easterners to feel that they no longer need their eastern homes because they can have some of these things in the west. It is unfortunate that the estimates for that activity have had to be reduced.
Before closing I should like to discuss one other problem which is of great importance from the economic and social standpoint. It is not a new subject, because the sugar beet is mentioned as one food which the builders of the pyramids used. The Romans introduced it into Gaul, and Napoleon in 1812 and 1813 had 334 sugar factories established. So that all down through the ages it has been a subject of genuine interest in the furthering of human welfare. It has passed the experimental stage in western Canada, particularly in southern Alberta, and the statistics show that that province is better suited than any place in the world for the production of sugar beets.


Mr. MARTIN:: Not better than western
Ontario.


Frederick William Gershaw: In southern Alberta we have a lot of sunshine. We do not get early frosts and we can produce 11-88 tons per acre with a sugar content of 18-166 per cent. An increased production of sugar beets would very greatly help the situation out there. In the late nineties and the early years of this century a great many people settled in that country thinking they could grow grain. Railways, elevators, homes, churches and schools were constructed and the hopes of the people were high. But each ten-year period brought less and less moisture. The rainfall failed for many years; streams and slews dried up, and in the last ten years the spectre of poverty has stalked through that land so that relief has been necessary on a large scale. Even in times when there was a fair crop the prices were so low that a living could not be obtained and the problem of reclaiming that vast area is therefore definitely a national obligation. It has been found that irrigation is the one vital factor in stabilizing agricultural development there. We need irrigation badly in those districts. Private concerns have spent as much as $35,000,000 to establish irrigation districts and their losses have been tremendous.
If an irrigation scheme is to be successful there must be canning factories, particularly sugar beet factories, because these are the things that make a complete unit, and there is no fear as regards the market for sugar, because 85 per cent of the sugar which we use in Canada is manufactured from imported raw material. Then there is a place for sugar beets in the rotation of crops. Where a field is planted with sugar beets there must be intensive cultivation and, for years, whatever crop is grown on that field will give an abundant yield. Then it is a cash crop. It gives people a little money during the season to improve their home conditions and to carry on their ordinary life. Where a sugar beet factory is located the land is much more valuable, being worth up to $100 an acre, whereas irrigation land can be bought, where there is no factory, at say $20 an acre. Another big factor is the encouragement it gives to the live stock industry. Cattle, lambs and hogs can be finished where the beet tops, molasses and pulp are available for feed. In that great ranching country they lay off a certain number of townships for winter feeding and sometimes the grass fails to grow and they are short of fodder. They can drive the cattle to some place close to the factory and the by-products of the factory will be a great advantage in the fattening of the stock.
The Budget-Mr. Gershaw

Unemployment is public enemy No. 1. Mr. Houson, president of Canada and Dominion Sugar company, says:
I will say this, that the beet sugar industry provides work for a tremendous amount of labour. There is no other industry that I know of that takes care of more labour.
The amount of factory labour required to make a ton of white sugar out of sugar beets, compared to the amount of factory labour required to make a ton of white sugar from cane, is as three to one; and when you include all farm labour in the manufacturing of sugar from beets, it really provides work for about twenty times as many people as the manufacturing of sugar from cane does. You start with the preparation of the land, then you have seeding, weeding, thinning and blocking, harvesting and transportation, so that there is a tremendous amount of labour involved. It also brings work to the railways, the merchants, the machine shops, and helps in the community life of the district in which it is situated.
In 1932 I had the opportunity of moving a resolution in this house to encourage the establishment of more sugar beet factories. The agriculture committee investigated the whole subject and reported as follows:
Your committee therefore recommends that in view of the existing tariff on sugar and in consideration of the substantial payments being made to agriculture and labour by the beet sugar factories at present in operation, the cane sugar refineries should undertake to provide for a gradual increase in factory facilities for the refining of beet sugar in Canada, and that, with the additional advantages in freight rates to points in the middle west, heretofore described, factory facilities should now be steadily increased in western areas where beets are grown, and thereby make it possible to produce from beets a more substantial percentage of the sugar consumption of Canada.
Your committee further recommends, that if no successful attempt be made in the immediate future by the refineries to increase the facilities for the manufacturing of beet sugar, the government should take into consideration steps to accomplish that end.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what we are asking to-day. In Canada we produce the raw material to provide only some fifteen per cent of our sugar, while in 1939 the United States produced 23.2 per cent of the sugar they consumed and even the United Kingdom produced some 20 per cent of their consumption. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is familiar with this problem; he has driven through and flown over these districts, and I should like him to compare the living conditions of the refiners with the living conditions of the people in those areas. We realize that the London sugar agreement is still in operation and that we must keep

faith; but there are means, through the adjustment of taxes and freight rates, of giving encouragement to this industry. I wish my voice could reach the housewives of Canada and induce them to use more and more beet sugar, remembering that it gives employment to twenty times as many people as does the use of a similar amount of cane sugar.


Mr. J. SASSEVILLE ROY (Gaspe) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, the budget recently brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston) gives splendid evidence of his patriotism as well as of his sense of responsibility. Clear, rigorously exact and even more courageously frank, it enables us more easily to consider our serious problems and to arrive at sounder decisions. I therefore congratulate and thank most sincerely the minister, of whom it can be said that he has well served his country.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: The huge estimates already voted were sufficient and evident warning that the new budget would provide for numerous and heavy imposts, since it was not deemed advisable to resort more extensively to loans in order to settle our war expenditures.
Coming face to face with reality, one perceives it to be more brutal and impressive than one would have imagined it at long range, and its contact, if not always frightening, cannot but give rise to very serious meditation. Briefly, what is this reality with which we are faced? Here are the facts:	Our
country's expenditures will amount this year to almost a billion and a half dollars. Perhaps an example might serve to illustrate the crushing weight of this figure. On June 10 last, there arrived in Ottawa two trainloads of gold. The twenty-six cars which made up these trains, each one bearing approximately forty tons of the precious metal, represented only about $800,000,000, that is little more than half our first war budget. That is an illustration of the burden our country is being called upon to bear. Is it capable of doing so?
Let us discard for the moment any attempt at criticism. The gravity and the needs of the hour demand, on the contrary, that we recognize the imperitiveness of these expenditures. Canada has been drawn into a world conflict for the second time within a quarter of a century. Does our country possess to-day the same economic vitality on which the federal treasury could count during the first great war? In their first report for January 1914, Bradstreet's recognized that financial, industrial, commercial and agricultural conditions had never been more prosperous in Canada. However, at this moment of our entering another world war, our financial

The Budget-Mr. Roy
position is most unstable. As a result of the machine's victory over labour and of the lack of domestic and foreign markets, our agriculture and manufacturing industry have been on the decline for many years. We have been in the throes of an acute economic depression for the last ten years. Our federal, provincial and municipal finances are no longer adequate, and in every branch of public administration there have been accumulating, year after year, deficits and tax increases of all kinds. Lastly, our public debt is now eight times larger than at the outbreak of the last war.
In view of the precariousness of our situation, we have the right to ask ourselves if our economic structure is sufficiently strong to-day to bear a burden which cannot fail to grow heavier with subsequent budgets. One would be, to say the least, foolhardy to assert it. Indeed, did this country not show numerous signs of weakness under a much lighter burden of taxation during the post-war period? Was not this taxation inadequate to prevent the rise of our public debt which climbed, during this period, from 1,200 millions to 3,200 millions, that is an increase of two billion dollars since the end of hostilities in 1918?
It is therefore evident that if we were barely capable the first time, with an economic structure far less burdened than it is at present, to bear a much lighter load, there is urgent need, should we recognize this deficiency, immediately to reinforce and inject more vigour and resistance in our economic front, in order that this budget may not disillusion the treasury and bankrupt the country.
Never in its history has Canada known such anxious times. On a far continent, another world is in the throes of a bloody evolution the result of which none can foresee. Must not our efforts henceforth tend, for this very reason, toward shielding our country from the consequences of this horrible evolution which we have resisted since 1914? We must thus be ready for any sacrifice, the least of which would be the willing recognition of our past mistakes, of our rashness and want of foresight, even though the personal pride of certain political leaders might suffer to some extent in the process.
In order to facilitate a study of the situation and consideration of the means whereby all budget anticipations may be fulfilled, let us narrow the picture down to the limits of the Gaspe peninsula, which offers an aspect very similar to that of the entire dominion. The population of this region is of mixed origin. It is formed first and chiefly of French-Canadians, noted for their laboriousness, their
sense of economy and their incomparable hospitality; secondly, of a large group of English Canadian loyalists and Irish Canadians, remarkable for their spirit of enterprise and their perseverance; thirdly, of Canadians originating from Jersey, whose courtesy and politeness are proverbial and, lastly, of Frenchspeaking Canadians of various racial origins. These different racial groups live together in a secular harmony that might serve as an example to the rest of the Canadian people.
The Gaspe region is richly endowed with the same natural resources that are to be found elsewhere in Canada. The agriculture, fisheries, timber wealth, mines, hydro-electric power and oil deposits there, plus a seaport of the first order and beautiful landscapes second to none, can compete on more than equal terms with those to be found anywhere else in the country.
It labours, however, under the same deficiencies that are to be noted elsewhere. Like every other region also, it has more than enough possibilities of development to fill all present and future needs. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, poverty and unemployment conditions are more severe in the Gaspe region, and more particularly on the Magdalen islands, relatively speaking, than in any other part of Canada.
This is due to two main causes:
First, that we have neglected the development of our natural resources. Our lumber industry, the most important of all, has restricted its operations to such an extent that if is responsible for at least three-quarters of our unemployment. Every timber limit between Sainte-Anne-des-Monts and Gaspe is rented but idle, save those controlled by companies operating at Marsouins and Mont-Louis, and the timber limit of Grande-Vallee where operations are rendered most difficult through lack of a wharf.
The federal authorities are in great measure responsible for the lack of development of our forest resources, because of their failure to build deep-water wharves at many places, among which are St. Joachim, Magdalen River, Grand Valley and Clorydorme. At Gaspe itself, three large companies still in possession of the same limits, formerly had an annual payroll of $1,500,000. This amount, increased by the payrolls of related industries, filled the needs of the people of the coast. Nothing has compensated for the disappearance of two of these companies whose very plants have been demolished. As to the International Paper company, they have started cutting wood again, but on such a small scale that it is not worth mentioning.
The Budget-Mr. Roy

Our fisheries, also, are suffering to-day from the consequences of our past errors. Though fishing has been poor in recent years, it must be admitted that we have lost to other countries important markets for our fish. It is only since 1936, thanks to the firm measures taken by the National Union government of Quebec, that we have begun to market in Canada a good part of the surplus of our reduced production; but the fact remains that the price is still below what it was before the depression.
The decline of our two principal industries, lumbering and fishing, has naturally had a considerable prejudicial effect on our third industry-agriculture. Although carried on to a fairly important extent in several of our parishes, farming yields very poor results in others where the soil is unsuited to agriculture, particularly in the overcrowded Magdalen islands where the distress of the people is sad to contemplate. If it is proper to bewail the sad lot of the war refugees whom Canada is showing herself ready to assist, how much more should we not show our sympathy for the patient and courageous people of the Magdalen islands whose unfortunate lot is too little appreciated by the authorities of this country.
Our section has another source of wealth which should not be underrated. The marvelous beauty of the country with its jagged outlines, its beaches, its cliffed shores and its reefs whose harsh eloquence evokes the memory of so many shipwrecks and of so much heroism; our mountains covered with a rich vegetation, our animal life, and our rivers abounding with fish. All this picturesque beauty attracts every year thousands of tourists who are a source of considerable revenue for the province and the country.
In a word, Gaspesia, that small-scale picture of the entire Canadian nation, has important and diversified resources; her immense agricultural wealth is still almost untouched; our forests are extensive and only await development. The fishery industry could be further developed and made more remunerative. Our sub-soil contains great mineral deposits as evidenced by reports from geologists like Ells, Mailhiot, Alcock and Dr. Jones. Moreover, Gaspesia has a seaport at the mouth of the St. Lawrence river; from a commercial as well as from a military standpoint, it is the gate to the Atlantic and can be used both in winter and in summer. To be fully equipped, this great sea-port only requires docks.
That brief sketch of Gaspesia's resources naturally brings one to ask himself why so much wealth accumulated there by nature
fMr Tioy.]
is still awaiting the time when human industry will make it available for the whole country.
On May 25th last, the Edmonton Journal reported the following statement from Mr. W. L. Leeper:
The possession or the lack of oil will be the decisive factor in the present war.
That is true as regard military purposes and the requirements of industry, which must depend on an ever increasing supply of oil and motor-fuel.
Have the federal government given serious and practical attention to the possibilities of Gaspe's oil field? Will they recognize, before it is too late, the urgent necessity of mobilizing a resource that is so essential to victory?
If we had heeded the insistent requests that have been made during a number of years for a railroad across inland Gaspesia, we would have brought about the development of that oil field and of mineral deposits many of which are held by powerful companies like Noranda Mines, Federal Zinz and Lead, National Smelting, of London, British Metal, Mining Corporation and Imperial Oil.
Such development would not only have prevented unemployment in giving rise to prosperous industrial towns, but it would also have provided the federal treasury with considerable revenue and made available for our war effort some essential raw materials.
To all that would be added the invaluable advantage of a well equipped sea-port which, during the present war, would bring us nearer, by two or even three days, to our first line of defence; not to mention the fact that in time of peace, our country would be brought that much closer to her overseas markets.
I will go farther. That almost stubborn neglect in taking advantage of all those assets which were challenging our spirit of enterprise, . has brought about, as an inevitable consequence, a migration of farmers toward towns, a condition which has upset the balance in our population and has been one of the main causes of unemployment.
Is it not alarming that our largest city, Montreal, should acknowledge itself unable to meet its financial obligations and powerless to provide the necessities of life for her too large population? Much could also be said about the financial difficulties of most of our towns or cities, overcrowded with unemployed who have abandoned the land because nothing was done to keep them there while it was still time.
Let us acknowledge that our greatest error, which is also the main and permanent cause of our weakness, is that in normal times, while our whole activity was available, we had

The Budget-Mr. Roy
neither the foresight nor the wish to use the workers of our thinly populated country in the development of our abundant resources.
We did aggravate that first error when the time of reckoning came; we were then forced to admit our lack of preparation.
But what did we do? Did we, as now, mobilize all our resources and call upon the spirit of enterprise and the industriousness of our people with a view to withstanding the effects of the depression? No. We overlooked our resources and only looked upon the poverty that was rampant in this country.
To use more accurate and realistic terms, I would say that we maintained poverty instead of restoring prosperity.
While, on the one hand we abandoned to indigence and public relief an entire generation which, from year to year, has become a prey to those subversive theories which we are now compelled to fight on the battlefield, on the other hand we failed to accumulate and store what our country urgently needs, at the present time, to support the allied effort against the power of enemies who are using reserves accumulated during a number of years.
Our policies have too long been inspired and directed by political considerations, which has led us to compromise with sectional leaders and to the dangerous game of sectional strife.
We have been too complacent in following a doctrine of laisser faire under the mistaken pretext of opposing state intervention, thereby forgetting that foresight should be the first quality of a government.
As a result, the dormant initiative of our people, left without direction or assistance, has remained fruitless. Is it not still more disheartening to see that in spite of the sorry failure of the system used in attempting to end unemployment, the government still consider this latter condition as a permanent evil, since they are promoting an unemployment insurance scheme?
The state is in duty bound to alleviate temporary distress, but, nevertheless, its most important duty is to ensure the welfare of the people by providing permanent work for them.
In view of the means of recovery that are available to us, such an insurance scheme is an insult to the spirit of enterprise of our people and a startling admission of incapacity on the part of the government. Is it also realized that such a contributory insurance will be for a more or less extended period, another tax upon wage earners?
Since we must, on account of the almost complete failure of the methods we have so
far followed, make the disquieting acknowledgment that we were unprepared for the enormous demands of this staggering war budget, have we not the duty, in our own interest, to alter the trend of our national economy?
From those obvious errors of the past, we should now draw lessons for the future. Let us broaden the frame of the picture I have drawn of Gaspesia when I outlined her possibilities and needs, and let us include within this enlarged picture the whole extent of our vast country.
There also we notice things which lead us to the conclusion that our economic structure is out of joint.
Ever since the beginning of this twentieth century, all our efforts have been concentrated upon making this a great century for Canada. It seems, however, that when we embarked on that course we neglected to find out whether Canada was sufficiently prepared for the purpose of bringing to a successful issue an undertaking which was to prove of such magnitude and to load us with such onerous obligations.
The immense prairies of western Canada opened such a field for our initiative and adventure that we failed to observe the wise rule that one must cut his coat according to his cloth. The frontier of Canada, which was then barely out of the development stage, did not extend further than the basin of the St. Lawrence and of the great lakes. The settlement of the prairies launched us in a feverish programme of unlimited immigration, in the building of a second transcontinental railway and in the creation of two new provinces. For the realization of this expansion we could count only on the resources of eastern Canada which might have been sufficient if Canada had not been drawn into the world war of 1914.
On the morrow of the armistice, rightly or wrongly, we thought that recovery in this country depended on the renewal of our western colonization policy. But when we resumed that unfinshed task, our means were still more limited than at the beginning of the century. In fact, to the all too heavy load of debt inherited from the war had to be added the debt of the national railways.
The financial collapse of 1929 brought about general depression and added to our difficulties. In the following decade we have been forced, so to speak, to meet emergencies with risky remedies which were no more than palliatives.
Last September, as Canada was struggling hopelessly against increasing difficulties, by means of a vacillating policy of experiments
13U4
The Budget-Mr. Roy

and improvisation, she was once more thrown into another war adventure which will entail an effort of far greater importance than any previously attempted. Though this year's budget is not so explicit on this point, that is what may be gathered from it.
Canada must win the war, even though it be a long one. We know when we voluntarily and freely declared war, but we do not know when we shall be able voluntarily and freely to end it. Of one thing there is no question: we must finance the war and produce all that is necessary to carry it on. To that end, we must shape our effort to conform with our economic development.
Prior to the opening up of western Canada and for more than fifty years, lumber was the dominating factor of our production. From 1900 to 1920 wheat rivalled in importance with lumber, but after the war our water powers, our pulp industry and our mining industry developed to such an extent that wheat and lumber lost their predominance and in certain instances their surpluses became embarrassing.
It is therefore clear that our prosperity and the result of the present war depend for the most part on our mining and oil industries expanding sufficiently to make up for the decline of our other sources of wealth. Here should be emphasized the important and necessary part which eastern Canada must play in the readjustment of our economic life. Indeed, there must be borne in mind the essential and undeniable fact that it is in eastern Canada that are found the most durable and abundant factors of our wealth- gold, nickel, asbestos, copper, oil, and wood pulp.
There you have, Mr. Speaker, on the geographical basis, what should be the two bulwarks of our whole financial structure- the northeastern coast of Quebec which undeniably secretes inestimable and little-known wealth and, to the south, the so sadly neglected Gaspe peninsula.
The St. Lawrence, that great artery which separates them, brings us quite naturally to central Canada and the wealthy mining districts of northwestern Quebec and northern Ontario, with, to the south, a vast industrialized area capable of making proper use of all these raw materials. In this way we do not neglect the physical aspect of the problem and we logically take into account the requirements as well as the advantages of the natural order of things.
We shall inevitably have to recognize that, in order to restore a true and stable prosperity to Canada and to save the west which is incapable of reestablishing itself by its own efforts,

it is not only essential but urgent that eastern Canada be placed in a position to produce to its full capacity according to the conditions peculiar to it.
Eastern Canada owes it to itself to help out the west, which it has helped to create. There is therefore no conflict of interests. The economic reestablishment of eastern Canada will bring forth a Canadianism which should have for its object and result the conciliation of the interests of both sections which complete each other by their diversity. Thus replaced in its true axis, Canada will more easily solve many of its other problems, such as that of its railways and of a balanced distribution of its population. It is not by making up year after year the deficit of our railway system that we shall solve our railway problem, and the back-to-the-land policy will never produce results unless it is preceded by a policy of bringing prosperity back to the land. In the same way, before thinking of attracting a flow of immigration to Canada, we should seek to ensure the welfare and the rational increase of our own population.
The government who will to-morrow deserve and receive the confidence of the people will be the one who, inspired by a spirit of true Canadianism, will work for the prosperity of Canada according to the interests and the needs of Canada. But, in order that such a policy may not be vitiated by narrow nationalistic and selfish monopolistic tendencies, it should be applied according to the eternal principles of social justice whose triumph we are seeking to ensure by the great sacrifices we are making in the present war.
If it is right and just to recognize that we are the heirs of the great nations of the old continent, it is no less right and just to say that we should not go so far as to follow them in their errors and even to die of their diseases. It is useless to seek theories, systems and doctrines to ensure this rebirth of our economy if we persist in looking only to the material and pagan side which offers us nothing but sophisms and utopias. The true methods are those which Christianity has long taught us. They interfere with nothing but the cupidity of shady finance, the defects of our monetary system and the venality of our public life.
The time has come, after so many warnings, to avert the danger, because there is not only evolution but revolution. We will manage to carry our heavy responsibilities if we set ourselves to our task with courage and resolution. Let us not doubt our strength, our spirit of sacrifice, our patriotism. We will fail only if we lack intelligence and determination.

The Budget-Mr. Hlynka


Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston) has presented us with a budget. This budget contains new impositions of taxes, some of them reaching into the money barrels of the rich, others reaching into the somewhat depleted pockets of the not so rich. The budget further promises to our people a deficit of some $750,000,000, and all of this is to be added to our already huge and hopeless national debt. Finally, there is a possibility that before snow falls, supplementary estimates may be introduced, and an additional revenue may be required over and above the estimates already presented.
I should like to make it clear at this point that the progressive views of the group in this corner are not at all in accord with any form of taxation. We believe in interest-free money created by our national Bank of Canada for the people of Canada. But in order "to make the best of a poor proposition," as the leader of our group so ably put it the other day, I have the following suggestions to make. I should like to suggest at least two new sources of revenue which have evidently been overlooked, and in return I should like to ask for a reconsideration of one of the proposals already included in the budget. In making these suggestions I have borne in mind that taxing unessential or dispensable services is fair, but taxing the fundamental necessities of life or low salaries is unfair.
I suggest first that the government tax large-scale advertising, yes, and tax it heavily too. Admittedly a moderate amount of advertising is necessary in order to familiarize the public with the products on the market; but this advertising should be strictly informative. You will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that a great deal of our advertising in this country is not strictly of that type. Those who have heard day after day the virtues of Lydia Pinkham's vegetable compound extolled; those whose wives have listened hour upon hour to nothing but soap programmes; those who have found their doorstep littered with handbills that nobody ever reads, will agree with me that some of these advertisements are nothing but business luxuries, and therefore should be taxed. In Great Britain the government has abolished brand names for many essential commodities. The British people are accordingly able to buy the goods they need. We on the other hand buy brand names, with some goods thrown into the bargain.
Advertising is not appreciably touched by either the income tax or the excess profits tax; therefore it should be taxed directly.
It is a well known fact that large corporations escape the excess profits tax by resorting to excessive advertising. A tax on advertising would assist in curbing this tendency. Let us suppose for a moment that a heavy tax on advertising would tend to reduce the volume of advertising. Then the costs of consumption will be lowered, and the good effects of such a move will be felt everywhere. The amount of money spent on advertising in Canada may be readily quoted and the revenue derivable therefrom estimated. But let it suffice at this time to say that this important source of a possible revenue has been pointed out to the government.
Now I wish to indicate the second possible source of revenue. The interest on Canada's national debt for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1939, is given at $127,995,616.75, the total debt of Canada being $3,710,610,592.87. There is also a good prospect that this debt will increase rapidly and culminatively. Suppose the government with its newly acquired powers over material resources cut all the interest in half. That would mean a saving of about $60,000,000 to the dominion government. And now what about provincial debts, municipal and private debts? The same formula could be applied to all debts, and if the federal government embarked on such a progressive plan I am sure that the provincial social credit government of Alberta would not interfere in any way.
Some may say that a number of small investors have their savings in government bonds. These can and should be exempt. But if the government invokes the sanctity of contract idea and the fact that interest cannot be cut, then I say, levy a tax on excessive savings, which would have the same effect. Call it by any name you like; apply any legal technicalities you like, but excessive savings should not be used as a profitmaking scheme by any plutocrat during this time of national peril. Why should one investing in property or a small business pay a tax while a mortgage company investing in a relatively safe security should be allowed to go practically scot-free?
I should like to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston) upon having inaugurated interest-free government bonds. That is a really progressive step, and I urge that this method of raising money be exploited to the fullest, not only for the response it will bring from our people but to induce our banks and mortgage and insurance companies to invest in interest-free government bonds. To call buying bonds carrying 31 per cent interest patriotic is ridiculous. Patriotism surely has a nobler meaning than that.

The Budget-Mr. Hlynka

I am happy also to congratulate the hou. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) on the progressive ideas he expressed in this chamber the other day on the subject of finance.
We must adapt ourselves rapidly to the ever-changing and threatening conditions of our day. Dinosaurs became extinct through their inability to adapt themselves to the changing environment in the earlier geological ages. Only those animals survived which were intelligent and adaptable. Let us not identify ourselves with those archaeological fossils which are now being dug up on the banks of the Red Deer river, but rather let us be among those who are sufficiently intelligent to adapt themselves to the new economics as our evolution demands. Let us be the survivors out of this chaos of war abroad and poverty at home.
The present war has forced upon this government the conscription of the natural resources of this country, and we hope to see a beginning made soon. The progressive element in this house has over a considerable period of time tried to convince the government of the necessity of adopting new ideas. After all, Mr. Speaker, how long will a hen have to sit on a round white object before she realizes it is not an egg but a doorknob? In my opinion orthodox finance is that door-knob, and I am sure I do not need to tell you, Mr. Speaker, who the disappointed hen is. No wonder that in the past the results have been so disappointing.
Translating these suggestions into cash value, I believe that the government could remit some of the national defence revenue tax by exempting it at the same level as the income tax, namely, $750 and $1,500 respectively. After all, this none-exemption hits the poor man most. Our people are willing to share the burden to the limit of their ability to pay, but when there are other unexplored avenues of revenue the government should not take away money which is earmarked for the fundamental necessities of life, namely food, clothing and shelter.
Let me summarize. I suggest that a higher level of exemption be set under the national defence revenue tax, and that in its place the government levy a tax on excessive advertising. I also suggest that the government reduce by fifty per cent the interest rate on debts, be they our national, provincial, municipal or private debts.
To reaffirm the position and the views of the group in this corner, I wish to quote from a book written by one whose name we cherish

dearly; I refer to the late John Buchan. In his book entitled "A Prince of the Captivity" he has this to say, at page 308:
As for the press, it does not greatly matter, since the press is not an independent power. But there is a great and potent world which the governments do not control. That is the world of finance, the men who guide the ebb and flow of money. With them rests the decision whether they will make that river a beneficent flood to quicken life, or a dead glacier which freezes wherever it moves, or a torrent of burning lava to submerge and destroy. The men who control that river have the ultimate word. Now most of them mean well, but they do not see far, and they are not very clever; therefore they are at the bidding of any man who is long-sighted and a master of strategy. Such a man has the future of the world-the immediate future of the world-in his hands.
Then on page 309 the writer, referring to the same subject, has this to say:
He is moving money but capriciously, without any wise purpose. I do not think that he cares greatly for wealth, but he is scornfully amassing it-nothing more. He has persuaded finance to trust him in America, in Prance, to some extent in Britain-and the trust is not misplaced, for he will earn for it big dividends. He provides loans for many lands, but at too high a price, for he exacts in return a control over certain things which in no land should be under foreign control. He has his pound of flesh, and the flesh is taken from vital parts of the body. Therefore his loans do not benefit. They tide over a monetary difficulty, but in the end they cripple recovery-and they may kill it.
And lastly, on page 310 the writer has this to say:
He is at present a dark angel in the world, but could his power be reorientated otherwise he might be an angel of light.
I ask the members of this hon. house to pay tribute to the memory of the author by taking to heart his noble and prophetic words.
In closing may I say that it appears to me, as a new member, that at this particular time the government does not care to have any criticism come its way. To me it is quite an experience to mark the attitude of the government. In perusing some clippings from newspapers I find some timely remarks on the subject of criticism. For instance, in the Ottawa Citizen of May 27, 1940, the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) is reported to have said in an address at the opening of the Canadian Legion's eighth dominion convention:
If you want to criticize be not afraid to criticize, for we need all the united strength and courage of this nation.
I was pleased to see this view expressed by the minister. In the same newspaper, on

The Budget-Mr. O'Neill
April 23, is a dispatch headed " Criticizing Decisions of Statesmen is Duty ". The report reads:
Toronto, April 23.-Citizens have a right and a duty to criticize "the difficult decisions of our statesmen," Doctor R. C. Wallace, principal of Queen's university, told 800 members of the Industrial Accident Prevention Associations to-day.
" We can only criticize, however, if we are prepared to assume a personal responsibility as citizens. Otherwise we should beep quiet."
I do not think I need make any apology for quoting from these articles, some of which may have been overlooked by hon. members. I will, however, cite only one other reference which appears in the same newspaper on April 26, 1940. Doctor R. C. Wallace, principal of Queen's university and formerly of Alberta university, addressed a meeting at Ottawa, and the report states:
He spoke of the perils to freedom from within, for which, he said, the people of Canada must ever be on guard. In looking for dangers outside, the dangers within were apt to be overlooked. If this responsibility was disregarded or was only a partial success, it was the fault of the individual. In speaking of persons with minority views, the speaker said they must be courageous enough to express them, and if this were not done, the democratic system would soon give way to a dictatorial rule.
Doctor Wallace asserted that, by and large, the people who stand for election are a "shade" more intelligent than the rest and usually had good judgment and were relatively wise. Opinions of those outside a government were always necessary, he said, and he spoke of the leaders of opposition in federal and provincial governments who strive to find flaws in governmental action and propose changes.
I quote these words in order to impress upon the government the importance of broadmindedness on every occasion, because theirs is the responsibility to-day. In this connection I recollect an interesting poem written by Alfred Noyes in 1914. When the British were fighting the Germans and throwing their searchlights over the sea in search for German submarines, the poet, in a little poem entitled " Searchlights ", urged his countrymen:
And "search in thine own soul", they cry;
For there, too, lurks thine enemy.
He gave the British people to understand that the real enemy is not always outside; and if there is no enemy in our own hearts, if there is no enemy right among us, among our own people, then there is no external enemy that can ever subdue either this nation or the British empire.
Mr. T. J. O'NEILL (Kamloops): May I first of all compliment the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston) upon his budget. I do not believe there has ever been a time when this nation has faced such dangers as it does
to-day, nor has there been a time when such huge taxation hfis been proposed in any budget, and I am of the opinion that there has never been a budget that has been accepted by our people more gracefully than this one will be. I am only sorry that the people in the country did not have the opportunity I had of hearing the minister present that budget. Those of us who had the privilege could not help being impressed with his sincerity of purpose. There are a great many people throughout Canada who will not agree with him, and I may say at the outset that the member for Kamloops is one of them. It would be impossible, however, for a Minister of Finance or of any other department of government to bring down measures that would meet with the approval of all the people. That cannot be. As I say, with many of the things in the budget I do not agree. In the first place, I do not think that even in a time of war we should interfere with essential services, and when I speak of essential services I mean the social services that exist to-day. Pensions to the blind, old age pensions and so on should not be interfered with. On the contrary, even when we are at war, I suggest that we should reduce the age limit and increase the amount to be paid in the form of old age pensions.
I regret that the Speaker himself is not in the chair, not that I have any objection to you yourself, sir, but the Speaker is from the west and what I shall say now he would probably understand better than you will, coming as you do from the east. At one time in Calgary we had a publication known as the Calgary Eye Opener. The editor, Bob Edwards, once formulated a prayer in which he said: "God grant that we do not lose our sense of proportion." In my opinion there are in this budget a number of places in which we seem to have lost our sense of proportion. There are throughout the budget many instances in which the same provisions are made this year as were made last year, and here I refer to statutory pensions of five, six, seven, eight and sometimes ten thousand dollars. We are told that the country is at war and that we are expected to have equality of service and of sacrifice. If that is to obtain, then I think one of the things we should eliminate, and eliminate at once, is the national defence tax of two per cent on incomes of $600 and $1,200. There should be no taxation on incomes lower than $750 and $1,500. It is a well known fact that these are the minimum amounts that are needed for people in these respective categories to obtain the necessities of life, to say nothing of the luxuries. I do not believe the people of
1308
The Budget-Mr. O'Neill

Canada want luxuries to-day, but in the interests of the nation I think they should have the necessities of life, and when you begin taxing below these standards the people cannot provide the necessities.
I have here an editorial taken from the Kamloops Sentinel. The people in my constituency are	mostly	farmers	and workers;there are no	people	of	the	wealthy class.There are many who	are	well	to do-in my
opinion people with an income in excess of $3,000 a year are well to do-but the incomes of the great majority of the people in my constituency do not exceed $1,500. The editor wrote an interesting editorial which I think ought to be put on Hansard. I quote: Attention Mr. Ralston.
If the talk	coming	to	the	Sentinel's ear
represents, as this newspaper believes it does, a cross-section of the public opinion. Colonel the Hon. J. L. Ralston, Minister of Finance and presently Minister of National Defence for Canada, has seriously underestimated the willingness of the citizenry to pay through the nose for the satisfaction of wiping Hitler and his noisome tribe from the face of the globe. The people of Kamloops, the Sentinel has been told by several, believe that Mr. Ralston's budget, brought down in the House of Commons on Monday, does not tax them severely enough. As ordinary wage-earners they are, of course, a bit pleased that so much of their pay-cheques remains their own, but as opponents of Hitlerism they say the levies imposed do not accurately measure their desire, even anxiety, to be done with the nazi corporal and his lackey, the butcher boy of fascism.
I quote that to show that while I disagree with some of the provisions of the budget, the people whom I have the honour to represent are of the opinion that we should pay more than the Minister of Finance has asked of us. But it is those who make more than $750 and $1,500, single and married respectively, who should bear the burden of the taxation.
One thing I regard as an illustration of false economy affects my own constituency, but I mention it not because it affects that constituency but because it illustrates the point. For a number of years we have had at Tranquille sanatorium a large herd of cattle which provided beef for the institution, the surplus being sold. In connection with that work the dominion government had an experimental range station. In the constituency of Kamloops large numbers of cattle are raised, and the experiments carried on there have been of great assistance to the cattle industry of that region. To give hon. members some idea of the size of some of those stock ranches may I say, Mr. Speaker, that one such ranch in the Nicola valley has 125 miles of fencing. The experimental work carried on there has not only increased the 
quality of the product, but has also increased the ability of these ranches to maintain stock. Now, however, to save $9,000 a year, principally in wages and salaries, we are going to do away with this station. I believe that the cutting out of essential services of this kind is false economy. This government has spent thousands of dollars to bring this work to its present point, but now the entire experiment is to be scrapped. It was intended to be a ten-year programme; it has been maintained for only six years and now it is to be dropped for the sake of $9,000. I do not believe that sort of economy will pay; I do not think that should be done. In the name of economy we are putting more men out of employment and on the relief rolls. If there is anything other than the war that should be considered at this time surely it is the unemployment we have had in this country for the last ten years. Nothing will undermine the morale of people to the extent that it will be undermined by their being unemployed year after year, with all their hopes frustrated and absolutely nothing in sight but to continue on relief.
As I have said already, there is no doubt that the Minister of Finance is one of the most sincere men in this house. I do not doubt that for a moment, but in my opinion the Minister of Finance, as well as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and every other member of the cabinet, do not have enough opportunities to get out and rub elbows with the common people, as the ordinary member of parliament does. I understand it is the intention to increase the size of the cabinet. If that is to be done, I think an extra cabinet minister should be provided to take the place of each minister for two weeks at a time so that the ministers may visit their constituencies, travel throughout the country and see for themselves the conditions that exist. They cannot do that while sitting behind a mahogany desk. Why, they do not even have time to read their correspondence. I know that for a fact, and I am not saying this with a desire to be critical at all.
To change the subject for a moment, on June 29 occurred one of the most important events to take place in British Columbia for a long time. I refer to the official opening of the Big Bend highway, the last link in the trans-Canada highway between Fort William and Vancouver. That road opens up about seven hundred miles of the finest mountain and valley scenery to be found anywhere on this continent. For some distance that highway goes over the old Cariboo road built by the Royal Engineers at the time of the gold rush to the Cariboo in the sixties, and portions of

The Budget-Mr. O'Neill
the old road are still in use. Any hon. members from the east who have any idea of visiting the west would be well advised to drive over that road, because I do not think comparable scenery can be found anywhere else in North America.
A few moments ago I said that the two per cent national defence tax should be lifted. I do not believe that tax should apply to people earning small salaries. Of course if the Minister of Finance removes one tax he must impose other taxation to take its place, and I have a suggestion to offer. No doubt this suggestion will make me about as popular as a skunk in a hen roost; nevertheless it is my firm conviction that this revenue could be obtained elsewhere. This is my suggestion. I believe any member of this house or any member of the government or of the civil service receiving more than $3,500 should accept a ten per cent reduction on their salary as long as this war continues. That would remove the necessity for imposing taxation on people receiving less than $750 and $1,500 respectively yearly. Personally I am quite prepared to accept a reduction of $100 on every $1,000 I earn. That would take $400 from me, but I am quite prepared to have that $400 taken, in addition to the taxes imposed under this budget.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I believe some changes are due in our tariff and patent laws with regard to radios. Some radio sets which can be bought in the United States for $9 cost about $15 in this country, and I am given to understand that this difference results from our tariff and patent laws. I believe something should be done to relieve the poor people of that burden. Many people cannot afford other kinds of amusement and must depend entirely on their radios. I do not believe those people should have to pay the prices charged for radios in Canada. Consideration also should be given to the removal of the licence fee on battery sets. The poor people in those parts of the country without electricity, who must depend on battery sets, pay enough for their radios without having to pay a licence fee of $2.50, and I think we might very well do away with that extra tax.
Yesterday the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) made this statement:
However, national sacrifice, as I interpret the term, means sacrifice by all the people of the nation according to their respective abilities to make and sustain sacrifices.
Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely in agreement with that, and I believe every member of parliament is included among those who are able to make that sacrifice, and to maintain
it. I believe that is in line with the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition if I correctly understand the phraseology.
Later on he says:
A sacrificial tax, which would affect even the humblest in Canada, would have had a tremendous effect in awakening our people. Others realize the necessity for such an awakening.
I am in direct opposition to that. I do not believe that is necessary. If there is one class of people in Canada which does realize what is going on, and which is ready to make the necessary sacrifice, it is the poor people who have made sacrifices for the last ten years. Even with the small degree of protection they have received under our democratic system they are still ready to pay, and they still believe in that system. I do not think we require a tax on those people to awaken them to their responsibilities; they are already awakened.
Concluding his observations yesterday the leader of the opposition made an impassioned appeal to get on with the war. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am heartily in agreement with that. But I can recall that since May 16, day after day and week after week we have been bombarded from the other side of the house with speeches dealing with the necessity for a national government. Hon. members opposite went so far as to say that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) should be removed from office. They even went so far as to suggest who should be his successor, and to name a number of other men who should be included in the cabinet. But I would call to your attention, sir, the fact that every one of those named at that time had been repudiated by the people of Canada, and in some instances repudiated by the Conservative party itself. Yet the suggestion was made that those people should be taken into the cabinet.
Any person walking into the House of Commons yesterday and hearing the leader of the opposition, and not having had-I was going to say the privilege, but one can scarcely call it that-the opportunity of sitting here during the past month and listening to what has been going on in the opposition benches, would have had the idea that the only people who really wanted to get on with the war were the members of the opposition.
I do not think that is the fact, at all. When we are speaking of a national government we must consider carefully the point of view. So far as I am concerned I believe the Liberal party as constituted in the house at the present time represents more truly a national party than does any other party in the
The Budget-Mr. O'Neill

house. I do not say that with any intention of criticizing any of the smaller groups. Naturally a group of eight men does not have the same opportunity to represent all classes as it would have if it were comprised of one hundred and eighty men. When I speak of a national party I mean a party representing all classes of people throughout the country. We do not have a national party if we have a .party representing nothing but labour Neither do we have a national party if we have a party representing nothing but professional men. That could not be a national party. I believe the Liberal party as at present constituted in the house more nearly represents a national party than does any of the others.
Following that argument one is led to the conclusion that those who agree with me must agree when I say that in order to have a national government, all classes must be represented in that government. Whether or not we have that to-day to the desired degree is, of course, a matter of opinion. I leave hon. members to decide for themselves whether in their opinion it is a national government.


Mr. HOMUTH:: We have decided.


Mr. POULIOT:: Shut up.
Mr. O'NEILL: I believe it was the day before yesterday the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) made one of the finest speeches to which I have listened during the present session. He spoke particularly with respect to excess profits, and pointed out that in his judgment they should not be permitted. May I say at once that I am in complete agreement with that observation. The very life, the very existence of our country is at stake, and the last thing industry should expect to have to-day is any measure of excess profits.
However, working from the same set of figures used by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, yesterday afternoon the hon. member for St. Antoine-'Westmount (Mr. Abbott) built up a case in direct opposition to that built up by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.


Major James William Coldwell: I will build up another one to-morrow.
Mr. O'NEILL: I shall be here to listen.
I do not know which of these highly informed gentlemen is correct. But one thing I do know: Any well directed organization, whether it be governmental, labour, or what have you, must be guided by the will of the majority. At the present time in the House of Commons the majority happens to be in the Liberal 
party. And while I do not agree with the Minister of Finance, yet I do say he has the backing of the very large majority of the Liberal party. That being so, and the Liberal party being the largest in the house, naturally I am going to go along with that majority when m the opinion of the minister the taxation he has laid out in respect of excess profits is going to go farther by way of taking excess profits from the manufacturer than the legislation in operation in England to-day. Whether or not that is right, as I said before I do not know. I do not think the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is a lawyer. If not, he has possibly missed his calling, because he did build up a very strong case, while the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount built just as strong a case to prove the opposite argument.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the hon. member leaves his eulogy of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, would he be good enough to inform the house as to whether or not he is going to support the amendment offered by that hon. member?


Jean-François Pouliot: That is his own business.
Mr. O'NEILL: Mr. Speaker, I have sat in this house for a number of sessions, and have listened with impatience to many long speeches. But I have not interrupted other hon. members, and I do not think interruptions come with very good grace from the leader of the opposition.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I apologize.
Mr. O'NEILL: I do not think it is good form for a front bencher in the party opposite to rise and question a back bencher who is attempting to make one of the speeches he makes only once in four or five months. So far as the question asked is concerned, when voting on the amendment I shall vote in the manner I believe to be in the best interests of Canada.
Yesterday, when listening to the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount, I was reminded of the observations of the hon, member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), who said there were liars, damned liars, and statistics. I believe he was quite right in what he said about Statistics. I do not know about the others, but with regard to statistics I would say that he was absolutely right.
Another suggestion I have to make to the Minister of Finance has to do with the interest rate on farm loans. I believe that rate is out of all reason and proportion. It certainly should be lowered. Another matter this government should look into is the profiteering that is going on in rentals. Rents

The Budget-Mr. O'Neill
are going up out of all reason. The hon. member for New Westminster made an appeal the other evening to the Minister of Finance to reduce the interest rate to 1J per cent. I am in agreement with that suggestion as far as it goes, but to my mind it does not go far enough.
I doubt if anyone understands our money system, but if I understand it, I believe that to-day we are not using money, we are using the credit of the country. I believe we have as good a financial system as any other country in the world, but I should like to see it maintained. In my opinion the only way by which it can be maintained is to take the national credit and use it without having to pay a tribute to any private individual. Unless we do that, we cannot hope to continue with this rate of taxation and adding to the public debt to the tune of approximately a billion dollars a year. If this continues there will be a total collapse of our present financial structure. Thousands of people have put all their savings into bonds in order that they may enjoy the interest therefrom in the afternoon and evening of their lives. If we brought about reforms in our monetary system and prevented its total collapse, that would be much better than to continue to go on in the way we have been going.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. O'NEILL: The members from Alberta say "hear, hear". I have a great deal of respect for the members of the social credit party, but I have not joined that party. The other day the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) called attention in an eloquent speech to the many fine things Alberta had done. I do not disagree with what he said, but that province has done some things which are hardly to its credit and which have reacted disastrously against my province, which I consider to be the banner province of the Dominion of Canada. Certain municipalities in British Columbia purchased Alberta bonds in good faith. They used the interest received from those bonds to keep up their schools. When the government of Alberta said arbitrarily that the rate was not to be what they contracted to pay, the revenues of those municipalities were reduced and they had to raise the money in some other way. 1 am not saying this in criticism of the government of Alberta; I am merely calling attention to it in order to point out that that is what the Dominion of Canada is going to have to do if it keeps on financing the way it has been.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Hear, hear. Now you are talking.
Mr. O'NEILL:	Mr. Speaker, you were
not in the chair when I first started to speak.
I want to tell you now that I am pleased that you have been appointed Speaker. So far you have been quite fair in your rulings and I believe you will continue to be. I am pleased to note the progress you have made with the other official language. Being acquainted with your pronounced and musical accent, I wondered just how it would sound when you said the prayers in the other official language. You have made wonderful progress. In my humble opinion the two official languages of this country should be made a compulsory study in our schools, both public and private.
Last summer I had the honour and privilege of attending an international labour convention in Geneva, being sent there by our late lamented former Minister of Labour, the Hon. Norman Rogers. Forty-six democratic countries were represented at that conference by 335 delegates. The majority of those delegates could speak another language in addition to their native tongue. About 90 per cent of them were not fluent in English, but they could speak French quite readily. French is one of the two official languages of the League of Nations and the international labour office. Since so many people of this type have a knowledge of French, and since it is one of the official languages of this country, why should it not be made a compulsory study in our schools?
Every member of this House of Commons could use a knowledge of French to great advantage. Many excellent speeches are delivered in French in this house, but those speeches are not available to many of us until they appear in Hansard the next morning. Therefore, quite often they are lost to us entirely. A knowledge of French would prove of great benefit to us. Very few of us who studied Latin in our school days get very much from that language. I agree that the time spent in studying Latin is not lost entirely, but one does not get the advantage from a study of that language that one would from a study of French.
Since attending this conference last year I have wondered what has happened to many of the people I met there. Right across from me sat the representatives of the Polish government. Since that time Poland has been overrun by Germany and Russia. Propaganda has been circulated, whether truthful or not we do not know, to the effect that the better educated people of that country have been done away in some manner or another.
The Budget-Mr. O'Neill

I should like to say a word in connection with labour. Many references have been made to our front line of defence. At this conference were representatives of labour, representatives of employers and governmental representatives. Almost without exception the 335 delegates were of the opinion that organized labour was the first line of defence in a democratic country. At the time when Hitler was aspiring to power, Germany was one of the most highly organized countries in the world. Hitler, in order to bring labour to its knees, enlisted the services of organized capital and industry and completely destroyed labour as such. His next move was to enlist the military for the destruction of capital and industry, and he brought about the complete destruction of industry as an organized effort. Then he had the purge of the army when generals who disagreed with him were shot. Knowing these things, the delegates were of the opinion that organized labour was the first line of defence in any democratic country, and knowing these things, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am out of order to-day when, speaking of a national party and a national government, I suggest that in order to have a truly national government, Labour and the farmers of this dominion must be represented.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make some observations on the budget I should like first to congratulate the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. O'Neill), who has just taken his seat. It has been most refreshing to hear a supporter of the present government express opinions which differ so widely from the government policies so far carried out. I was particularly interested in his protest against taxes being levied on single persons with incomes of $600 a year and on married people with $1,200 a year. I think his point was very well taken.
I should like to speak this afternoon chiefly about an industry which has been aptly described by a member of this house as the forgotten industry-agriculture. Perhaps I should not say forgotten because so far as the budget is concerned the farmer will carry his full share of the load of increased taxation. He will find that the cost of living and the cost of operating will drastically increase, without any assurance that he will receive for his product a price which will give him the cost of production.
I was interested also in the remarks made by the hon. member for St. Antoine-West-mount (Mr. Abbott) yesterday afternoon. I
[Mr. O'Neill.J
was interested in learning that he has in his constituency the largest group in any constituency in Canada who will be affected by the increases in the income taxes. May I also congratulate him upon having in his constituency five hon. members of this house, including the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston) and another cabinet minister. I was delighted to hear that he had not received from his constituents a single criticism of the increase in the income tax. But that is not surprising because the important thing is not how much income tax you pay, but how much, after you have paid your tax, you have left with which to keep the wolf from the door.
I have examined the minister's table at page 1027 of Hansard and have made some calculations with respect to the people living in the province of Saskatchewan. Referring to the column showing the amount of tax paid by married persons with no dependents, I find that with an income of $10,000 in Saskatchewan you will be required to pay dominion income tax, national defence tax and provincial income tax amounting in all to $2,658.25, but you will still have left to spend, on the basis of 300 working days in a year-50 weeks, 6 days to the week-the sum of $24.47 per day. Other incomes work out as follows:
Dominion tax plus national defence Amount left
Income	tax plus provin- per day
cial income tax
$ 10,000	
$ 2,658 25	$ 24 4715.000	
5,450	88	31	8320.000	
8,546	00	38	1850.000	
30,937	15	63	54500,000	
538,332	18	*127	77
* Minus.
The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman) asks me who pays the deficit in the case of the last mentioned income. I want to assure him he need lose no sleep worrying about anyone in Saskatchewan because there will be no such individual; he exists only in statistics. In the province of Saskatchewan we have very few people in receipt of large incomes. According to the information I have received, in the whole province of Saskatchewan last year, 1938-39, only four reported receiving incomes of $20,000 or over. I wished to find out whether we had any people in our province receiving incomes of $50,000, but I was told that it was not in the public interest to break down the figures in the larger brackets by provinces, and that it was done just for the whole dominion. In 1938-39 we had four in Saskatchewan with an income of $20,000 or over, and in previous years the figures were as follows:

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson
		Number in	Number of
Number receiving	Canada	farmers inover $20,000 in	receiving	SaskatchewanYear	Saskatchewan	over	paying$50,000	income tax1938-39 	457	1031937-38 	382	1801936-37 	300	1421935-36 	304	961934-35 	259	38
I was interested in the statement of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) yesterday that there were 457 people in Canada who had incomes over 850,000, and that they represented 17/100 of one per cent of the total taxpayers, yet they paid $17,289,365 in income tax or 36-17 of the total collected.
As I have said, I wish to confine my remarks chiefly to the problems of agriculture. Speaking on a previous occasion in this house I confined myself for the most part to the constituency which I represent, but this afternoon I should like to speak more about agriculture's place in our whole national economy.
Mr. Lew Hutchinson, chairman of the Alberta wheat pools, speaking before the Bracken conference on markets for western farm products, reminded his hearers that originally the tillers of the soil and keepers of the flocks and herds were The People. He pointed out that the business world we now. know was built up to serve the tillers of the soil and the keepers of the herds, and business has developed by serving those who produce the foodstuffs.
The farmers of Canada have been a generous group of society. They have worked long hours; they have lived simply, and they have provided for their servants in extravagant fashion. When I speak of their servants I have not in mind the dairymaid or the farmer's hired man, who share the hardships of farm life; I have in mind those other servants who live in large cities, who make the farmers' tools, who operate the grain exchanges, who supply the currency and the credit for the farmers. How extravagantly many of those servants have lived! A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of spending a week-end in the city of Montreal. There I saw some of the residential area. Although I am not familiar with the exact boundaries of the constituency of the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Abbott), I know that his riding includes Westmount, one of the finest residential districts of Montreal. I have visited other great cities; I have been in London, England; in New York, Chicago, Paris and a score of other cities internationally known, but I have never seen a larger number
of beautiful residences in one locality than in the district represented by the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount. As I drove through that part of the city I asked my friends, " What have these people done in Canada to entitle them to live amid such surroundings?" I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that to reside in those beautiful residential areas and support the type of life necessary in those communities one would need an income of $50,000 and up. I asked my friend, " What have these people done?" And I believe my conclusion was right when I gathered that people all across Canada have had a share in the building of those homes: people from the Atlantic to the Pacific have poured wealth into that great city in order that a small handful of the Canadian people might be able to enjoy every benefit known to modem society.
I stood in the city of Toronto the other night. I was through the constituency which is represented by the hon. member for Rose-dale. It is a beautiful district and contains many attractive homes. As I stood outside the union station and looked at the Royal York hotel, the friend who was with me said, " There is the largest hotel in the British empire." " Where did the money come from to build it?" I asked. Mr. Speaker, I thought of the farmers out in western Canada living on farms bought from the owners of that great hotel; farmers who work from early morning until late at night the whole year round, paying tribute in order that a big corporation might be able to build a hotel such as the Royal York. I submit that in our national economy we have not enabled those who provide the foodstuffs of the nation to live in the manner which is possible for those who have made their tools, who have run their transportation lines, who have operated the grain exchanges and the currency and credit of the country.
I do not wish to refer further to the constituency which I represent, but I should like to direct the attention of hon. members to a book, "The Case for Alberta", which will be found in the parliamentary library and which sets forth the problems of that province. I shall not weary hon. members with a lengthy
The Budget-Mr. Nicholson


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, July 4, 1940