1943-03-15

ANGLO-AMERICAN CONSULTATIONS CANADIAN REPRESENTATION-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 31

Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave to move the adjournment of this house for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance. I refer to the matter of Canada's participation or non-participation in the present talks being carried on by representatives of the British government and the President and other officials of the United States.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Under standing order 31 an hon. member, desiring to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance rises in his place and gives notice and sends to the Speaker a statement of the reasons for his motion. The matter must be one of urgent public importance. If the matter is not in the opinion of the Speaker of such urgent public importance he may not put the motion to the house. In the suggestion made by the hon. member now I do not think there is such urgency as to justify the motion he has made; therefore I do not present it to the house.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Did the government authorize the director of selective service to announce that single men
[Mi. Wright.]
eligible for military training would be taken away from their farms in order to undergo military training?
2.	If so, was this announcement broadcast by the C.B.C., and when?
3.	Has the government authorized the same official to announce that single men as above mentioned, will be replaced on farms by unmarried men not qualified for military service?
4.	If so, was this statement, (a) broadcast,
(b)	when, (c) over what network?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	No.
2.	Not to the knowledge of the government and certainly not with the authority of the government.
3.	No.
4.	No.


PRAIRIE FARM INCOME BONUS-HOEY, SASK.
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: 1.	Was the prairie farm income bonus paid to either Dr. F. P. Moreau or W. A. Boucher, of Hoey, Saskatchewan, or any member of their immediate family?
2.	If so, what is the amount of the bonus paid?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


CANADIAN COLLIERIES LIMITED
[Stage Direction]
Mr. O'NEILL:
1.	Is any monetary assistance being given by the government to Canadian Collieries Limited, Dunsmuir, B.C.?
2.	If so, on what basis and what amount has been paid to this company to date?
Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(1) Assistance paid to Canadian Collieries (Dunsmuir) Limited in recovery of the cost of living bonus not covered by surcharge Sept. 1, 1941-Dec. 31, 1942, 174,373.88.
(2)	Assistance under Order in Council P.C. 3971 of December 5, 1939 in respect to coal sold for ships' bunkers calendar year 1942, 8103,950.96.
(3)	Payment by emergency coal production board as an accountable advance for production subsidy for November and December 1942, S62.850. This covers losses incurred due to increased costs and increased wage scales.


CANADIAN ARMY (RESERVE)-MARRIED MEN TINDER THIRTY
Mr. GREEN:: 1.	Are married men under the age of thirty years eligible for enlistment in the reserve army?

Questions
2.	If so, when was the change made which enables them to enlist?
3.	Have there been any other changes since July 1, 1942, in the qualifications for enlistment in the reserve army?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Yes, provided they are not within the age classes designated by proclamation for military training under the national selective service mobilization regulations. Married men under the age of thirty years are therefore eligible for enlistment in the reserve army if
(a)	they are between the ages of 17 and 19;
(b)	born during the years 1917 to 1924, provided those born in 1924 have attained their nineteenth birthday and (1) they have been granted postponement of military training; or (2) they have been called but are found to be in a medical category below that prescribed as acceptable for military training under regulations made pursuant to the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940.
(c)	they were born prior to the year 1917;
(d)	they belong to the classes of persons to whom the national selective service mobilization regulations do not apply, such as judges, clergymen, members of municipal police forces or fire brigades, etc.
(e)	students undergoing approved military training under the national selective service mobilization regulations.
2.	February 17, 1943-Canadian army order No. 86.
3.	No. The only change made by Canadian order No. 86 was to provide that all married men born prior to 1917 are now permitted to join the reserve army, whereas previously those under the age of thirty were required to be in a medical category lower than "B".


INVENTIONS BOARD
Mr. SHAW:: 1.	When was the inventions board established?
2.	Was this board established by act of parliament or by order in council?
3.	Who are the members of the board?
4.	What is the procedure with respect to the handling of proposals, suggestions, etc., submitted to the board?
5.	How many have been submitted to the board since it was established?
6.	How many have been accepted in whole or in part?
7.	What is the usual procedure with respect to the compensating of persons whose inventions have been accepted?
8.	Who are the members of the examining committee of the inventions board?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	January 24, 1940.
2.	Order in council, P.C. 239.
3.	The acting president, National Research Council, Chairman; acting deputy minister,
72537-78}
Department of National Defence (Navy); deputy minister, Department of National Defence (Army); deputy minister, Department of National Defence (Air).
4.	Proposals relating to inventions that are received directly by the board or referred to it by government departments, are submitted to an examining committee for investigation. The committee endeavours to ascertain if the invention contains any feature of practical utility not already known to those responsible for the prosecution of the war and is empowered to seek the advice of appropriate scientific or military consultants. The consultants include members of the scientific staff of the National Research Council and specially qualified officers of the armed services. Inventions considered to be worthy of development are referred to appropriate government departments or other organizations. Inventions are rejected on the grounds of impracticability or lack of novelty, or because the invention, though sound, is not needed, is already in use, or would require too long a time to develop to the effective stage.
5.	To December 31, 1942 the total number of inventions received was 10,424.
6.	The inventions board is not empowered to accept inventions. Its functions are to examine inventions, reject impracticable and unsound proposals and to assess the value of promising ideas and place them before the appropriate government officers. From 10 to 15 per cent of the proposals received are of such evident merit that they must be referred to the appropriate panel of consultants before a decision can be reached regarding them. About four-fifths of the proposals now being received deal with ideas which have been previously considered by the board or that are of slight technical interest but of no immediate military value.
7.	The department which accepts the proposal is responsible for making all necessary agreements.
8.	The secretary of the board, Mr. H. V. Haight, Mr. P. L. Pouliot.


CORDON MURCHESON
Mr. CARDIFF:: 1.	Is Mr. Gordon Mureheson an employee of the government?
2.	If so, what is his position?
3.	When was he appointed to this position?
4.	What is his salary and allowances?
5.	What was his former occupation and where?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Director of soldier settlement, and director, Veterans' Land Act, 1942.
Questions

3.	Appointed director of soldier settlement
on March 1,	1938. Appointed director,
Veterans' Land Act, with effect November 25, 1942.
4.	$8,000 per annum for the combined positions. No allowances other than travelling expenses.
5.	Chief executive officer of the Canadian Farm Loan Board for the province of Alberta at Edmonton.


WAR SAVINGS STAMPS AND CERTIFICATES- VICTORY BONDS-SALESMEN ON SALARY
Mr. GREEN:: 1.	How many persons in each province are in receipt of a monthly salary from the national war finance committee for the sale of war savings certificates, war savings stamps and/or victory loan bonds?
2.	Are such persons engaged on a full time basis or are they at liberty to carry on some additional business or occupation?


Mr. ILSLEY:: Total personnel as at
1.	Province	January 31, 1943
British Columbia	 46
Alberta	 27
Saskatchewan	 43
Manitoba	 22
Ontario	 192
Quebec	 112
New Brunswick	 5
Nova Scotia	 6
Prince Edward Island...	2
Total	 455
2.	Of the above number, 78 persons are engaged on a part-time basis and are at liberty to carry on some additional business or occupation.	,


MOBILIZATION ACT-POSTPONEMENTS OR DEFERMENTS OF CALL
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many men of call-up age, by provinces and/or military districts, who are serving in the reserve army, have thereby secured deferment from call under the National Resources Mobilization Act, or have not been required to report for medical examination, or have been granted postponement?
2.	Of these, how many hold, (a) commissioned rank, (b) non-commissioned rank, in the reserve army ?


Mr. MITCHELL:: To obtain the information to answer this question would involve an examination of the individual files in each mobilization administrative division which would necessitate a special staff and additional office space, neither of which is avail-

able. It is not considered in the national interest to undertake the work which would be involved in answering this question.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-PRICES AND SIZE OF NEWSPAPERS
Mr. TUSTIN:: Does the control of the price and size of newspapers come under the wartime prices and trade board?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; however newspapers have been exempted from section 7 of the maximum prices regulations since in general it is not possible to arrive at a common measurement of value for publications, nor to establish for the publishing business any general principle to determine what price increases should be permitted and what the extent of such increases should be.
The size of newspapers is not directly limited by the board but the supply of newsprint to publishers of newspapers is controlled by the wartime prices and trade board through the administrator of publishing, printing and allied industries.


SHACKLING OF WAR PRISONERS
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Are there at present any Canadians in shackles in German prison camps? If so, how many?
2.	Have protests against this practice been made through neutral sources by the Canadian government?
3.	If so, have any assurances been received that this practice will be discontinued?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The indications are that some prisoners of war are still shackled in German camps and those shackled include Canadian prisoners. Exact figures of the numbers involved are not available. Representations have been made through the Swiss government acting as protecting power, but it would not be in the interest of the prisoners themselves to indicate at this time the status of the negotiations.


TIMBER CONTROL-A. S. NICHOLSON
Mr. REID:: 1.	On what date did Mr. A. S. Nicholson become associated with the Department of Munitions and Supply?
2.	On what date was he made timber controller?
3.	What was the total amount paid him by way of salaries, expense account and living allowances?
4.	On what date did he tender his resignation?
5.	During the period of his association with the Department of Munitions and Supply, what amount of purchases were made through or by the Department of Munitions and Supply from Nicholson and Cates, Burlington, Ontario?

Questions


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	July 16, 1940.
2.	Appointed assistant timber controller, July 16, 1940; appointed timber controller, June 15, 1941; appointed associate timber controller, Nov. 2, 1942.
3.	No salary or allowance was paid to A. S. Nicholson but actual expenses from the date of his appointment, July 16, 1940 to January 19, 1943 to the amount of $17,072.76, were paid.
4.	His resignation was tendered verbally and went into effect on January 19, 1943.
5.	$87,259.47.
women's land army


Mr. ERASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Has Canada a women's land army?
2.	If not, does the government contemplate the organization of one?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	In Ontario during the last three years the dominion and provincial governments,
under the terms of a joint agreement,'have organized various groups of women, including the women's land brigade; the farmerette brigade; the farm girls' brigade; the farm commando brigade; and the canning industries. This type of organization has proved most effective and is considered a more satisfactory and practicable method of organizing women farm workers, particularly in those provinces where the seasonal requirements fluctuate very extensively. A uniformed women's land army as such has not been organized.
2.	Yes, in any province where this type of organization seems advantageous and is recommended by the provincial government.


DECENNIAL CENSUS-FAMILIES AND CHILDREN
Mr. DORION:: According to 1941 census, what is for each of the provinces, (a) the number of families, (b) the number of children, (c) the number of children of every family?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Preliminary figures from the 1941 Census based on a 10 per cent sample
(a) Province	Total families	(b) Province	Total number of children at home, 24 years of age and underCanada 	.... 2,486,920	Canada ...	... 4,628.000Prince Edward Island	.... 21.370	Prince Edwar	d Island	... 40,730Nova Scotia	.... 128,730	Nova Scotia.	... 246,900.New Brunswick	New Brunswick	... 207,040Quebec 	Quebec 	... 1.498,360Ontario 	Ontario 	... 1.372.660Manitoba	Manitoba ...	... [DOT] 271,430Saskatchewan 	
Alberta 	... . 187,840	Saskatchewan	... 386,600 341 720British Columbia... (c)	.... 196,330 British Columbia	
Families by children per family	... 262J55QProvince	0	1 2	3 4	5	6	7-9 10-fCanada 	782,000	583.200 432.790	261.160 160.220	98.500	63,240	84,920 20.890Prince Edward Island	7,030	4,750 3,340	2,250 1,340	950	660	930 120Nova Scotia	38.690	30.800 21,600	13,600 9,040	6,010	3,540	4,390 1,060New Brunswick	25,700	19,340 13,930	9,950 6,750	5,050	3,810	5,460 1.150Quebec 	174.330	123,030 92,020	64.630 47,490	34,340	25,760	43,170 13,220Ontario	315.430	228.760 163.610	89,910 48.330	26.130	13,950	14,800 2.460Manitoba	4S.740	38,5,50 30,900	17,620 10,270	5,080	3.160	3,310 690Saskatchewan	49.440	42,200 34.850	23,800 14,750	9,510	5,510	6,510 1,270Alberta	49.200	44,680 35.690	21,570 13.370	7,240	4,760	4,570 740British Columbia....	73,440	51.090 36,850	17,830 8,8S0	4.190	2,090	1,780 ISO


PRICE CEILING
Mr. ROY:: What were the price ceilings per hundred pounds, of milk purchased in 1942 from producers by the distributors in the different zones in Quebec and Ontario?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There are no price ceilings on milk or butterfat sold by the primary producer to manufacturers or distributors. A producer is only affected by price ceilings when he sells milk or butterfat directly to the consumer.
Questions


NEWSPRINT PRODUCTION-SHORTAGE OF ELECTRIC HORSE-POWER
Mr. BRUNELLE:: What was the shortage of electricity in h.p. which caused the federal government to reduce newsprint production, in 1942, (a) in Ontario, (b) in Quebec, (c) in other provinces?


Mr. HOWE:: To insure against shortages of power required for war production it was decided that power use would be required to be reduced:
(a)	200,000 h.p. in Ontario (Niagara system).
(b)	200,000 h.p. in Quebec.
(c)	Nothing (not in shortage area).


SELECTIVE SERVICE-TRAINED PERSONNEL EMPLOYED BY DISTILLERS
Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: 1.	Has the selective service department taken any steps to ascertain whether any of the distilleries in Canada are retaining more chemists and other trained personnel than are absolutely essential?
2.	Have any steps been taken by selective service to ensure that such surplus personnel is being transferred to essential war industries?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, and it has been ascertained that there is no surplus. At the moment the distilling industry has asked for nineteen chemists or chemical engineers who have not been supplied.
[DOT][DOT]STEEL CONTROL-SALE OF IRON FENCING


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: 1.	Did any officer of the salvage department of the air force receive permission from the steel controller's office to sell by tender, or otherwise, Any quantity of iron fencing on or about October or November, 1942?
2.	From what office did this iron fencing come into possession of the air force?
3.	To whom and for what price was the fencing sold?
4.	Was this fencing shipped to Toronto?
5.	Was the cartage paid by the seller or the purchaser ?
6.	What was the amount of cartage paid?
7.	How many pounds of such material were sold?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	No. There was, however, a quantity of iron fencing accruing from the construction of the building on Cartier square which was referred to the scrap disposal branch, Department of Munitions and Supply, by the engineer in charge of the job for disposal. This was in accordance with procedure promulgated by the Department of Munitions and Supply as received by air force headquarters under cover of letter from the treasury office (salvage division) letter S.3592-A F.D .83 (dated 3rd September.
.
2.	This iron fencing was authorized to be disposed of as indicated previously, by the deputy minister, Department of Public Works, province of Ontario.
3.	To Louis Rubin, Esq., 42 Beatrice street, Toronto, under salvage minute 20913 for $167.50, later corrected by salvage minute 21409 and the addition of $44.89, making the final selling price $212.39.
4.	Yes.
5.	By the purchaser.
6.	$58.33.
7.	12,680 pounds.


FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL-PROPERTY INVESTMENTS AND BANK DEPOSITS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Did the foreign exchange control board require every person, firm or corporation to report property investments and bank deposits held in foreign countries?
2.	If so, what is the total amount of investments held by Canadian banks in Cuba?
3.	What is the total amount of investments, held by Canadians, other than banks, in Cuba?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 
REPORTS ON COBALT, LORRAINE AND GOWGANDA ARSENICAL ORES
Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: What are the essential differences between the report on arsenical ores at Cobalt, Lorraine, and Gowganda, submitted by Mr. John A. Reid, M.E., to the metal controller within the last month and that submitted by Mr. Reid to the metal controller on or about the end of October, 1942?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no essential difference in the two reports.


RADIO BROADCASTING-NEW'S
Mr. GAUTHIER:: 1.	What were the names of the news broadcasters over C.B.C. from November 1, 1942, to January 20, 1943, on the French and English networks, stations CBF, CBM, and CBY?
2.	What was the salary of each?
Mr. LaFLECHE:
1.	(a) Roger Baulu, Miville Couture, Georges Lambin, Marcel Ouimet, Marcel Pare, Marcel Sylvain-over stations CBF and CBV of the French network.
(b) Clarence Grant, Douglas Monk, Guy Vaughan, Lamont Tilden-over station CBM of the English network.
2.	The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises that it would not be in the interest of the corporation to give this information.


RADIO BROADCASTING-SKETCHES
Mr. GAUTHIER:: 1.	What number of programmes (sketches) are broadcast by authority of the federal government over the English network of the CBC?
2.	What is the name of each programme or sketch and the name of the commentator?
3.	How many times weekly are these programmes broadcast?
Mr. LaFLECHE:
1 and 2. The national war finance committee, Department of Finance, has requested the services of the CBC's network to broadcast the following programmes:
"Highlights for Today";
"They Tell Me";
"Soldier's Wife".
At the request of the Department of National Defence (Air), the R.C.A.F. is broadcasting over the CBC a "Quiz Show".
No commentators are attached to the above programmes.
2.	(a) "Highlights for Today" is broadcast once weekly;
(b)	"They Tell Me" is broadcast five times weekly;
(c)	"Soldier's Wife" is broadcast five times weekly;
(d)	"Quiz Show" is broadcast once weekly.


Mr. GAUTHIER:: 1.	How many programmes or sketches are broadcast by government authority over the French network of the CBC?
2.	What is the name of each programme or sketch and the name of the commentator?
3.	How many times weekly are each of these programmes broadcast?
Mr. LaFLECHE:
1 and 2. The following programmes are given by arrangement with the department indicated:
(a)	"Le Courrier du Jour"-Wartime Prices and Trade Board, Department of Munitions and Supply ;
(b)	"La Metairie Rancourt" and "Notre Canada"

National War Finance Committee, Department of Finance;
(c)	No commentators are attached to these programmes.
3.	(a) "Le Courrier du Jour" is broadcast five times weekly.
(b)	"La Metairie Rancourt" is broadcast five times weekly.
(c)	"Notre Canada" is broadcast twice weekly.


GANARASKA RIVER WATERSHED
Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: 1.	Was a survey made recently of the Ganaraska river watershed?
2.	If so, what are the findings and to what extent is the flooding of that river in springtime caused by the dams built and owned by private individuals and industrial corporations?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: The survey of the Ganaraska river watershed is still in progress, and only an interim report will be available at the end of the present fiscal year. The final report will include chapters on all the physical features of the area, and on all aspects of conservation and employment projects. At least one of these chapters will assemble such information as is

Questions as Orders for Returns
available on the flooding of the river, both in the past and at present; but this chapter has not yet been written.
The survey is a cooperative project in which staff of the provincial government and of the dominion government are each making contributions; but the direction of the actual field survey, and the preparation of the final report, are in the charge of the chairman of the interdepartmental committee on conservation and rehabilitation of the Ontario government.
The objectives of the survey are referred to in P.C. 97/8097, September 9, 1942, which authorizes the dominion share of the financing, as follows:
(i)	To ascertain in detail the measures and techniques needed for the rehabilitation of this deteriorated area.
(ii)	To evaluate the amount of employment which can be provided by the conservation projects required to rehabilitate this area.
(iii)	In general, to serve as a demonstration study and a yardstick by which other areas in Canada could be appraised for similar purposes.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	To what printing firms in the province of Manitoba has the king's printer, or any department of the government, let contracts, between April 1, 1941, and the present?
2.	What are the amounts and the dates of such contracts?


Mr. McLARTY:: Return tabled.


OFFICE ECONOMIES CONTROL
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	On what date was Colonel John Thompson appointed director of government office economies control?
2.	Do his powers extend to all departments of government? If not, what departments are excepted from his jurisdiction ?
3.	What is the value of, (a) furniture, (b) rugs, (c) other supplies, which have been purchased for use in government offices in the city of Ottawa since his appointment?
4.	What is the value of purchases or expenditures made for, (a) furniture, (b) rugs, (c) other supplies, that did not receive the approval of the said director, or were purchased without requisitions having been first submitted to him for approval?


FARM WORKERS IN WAR PLANTS
Mr. SHAW:: 1.	How many farmers and farm -workers have been authorized to take work in war factories since October 31, 1942?
2.	How many who have received such authorization have actually taken work in war factories?
3.	Will any of those who have been granted such authorization be permitted to continue in factory work after April 1, 1943?
4.	Who will have the final say as to whether or not a fanner or farm worker who has been authorized to engage in -work other than farm work is essential to the work in the war plant?
5.	How many applications have been received from such employees asking that they be permitted to remain in war plants?
6.	How many applications have been received from employers of such persons asking that the employees be left in war plants?
7.	How many farmers or farm workers who have taken work in war plants since October 31, 1942, have been authorized to remain in such war plants after April 1, 1943?


DUTY ON PARCELS RECEIVED BY CANADIAN FORCES OUTSIDE CANADA
Mr. McCULLOCH:: Do soldiers, sailors and air force personnel in, (a) Great Britain, (b) Bermuda, (c) British West Indies, (d) Newfoundland, (e) Iceland, (f) or any place where they happen to be stationed outside of Canada, have to pay duty or any other charges on parcels forwarded them, post paid from Canada?
NATIONAL seamen's ASSOCIATION-H. N.
MCMASTER-RIKER's ISLAND INTERNMENTS


Mrs. NIELSEN:: 1.	Has the government any information regarding the activities of H. N. McMaster and the national seamen's association, of which he claims to be the governor?
2.	How many Canadian seamen have been interned on Riker's island as a result of representations made by the above named association?
3.	Will the government investigate the past activities of this man and this association?


COST-OF-LIVING BONUS IN INDUSTRY AND CIVIL SERVICE
Mr. BOUCHER:: 1.	What is the maximum salary in private industry upon which the payment of a cost-of-living bonus is compulsory?
2.	What is the maximum salary in government employment on which the payment of a cost-of-living bonus is compulsory?
3.	What is the maximum salary in the civil service upon which the payment of a cost-of-living bonus is compulsory?
4.	What are the reasons for these differences, if any?

Questions as Orders for Returns


ELDORADO REFINERY, PORT HOPE, ONT., GUARDS
Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: 1.	By whom are the guards at the Eldorado refinery in Port Hope hired and paid?
2.	How many of such guards are employed at that plant?
3.	Are they all discharged soldiers?
4.	Are any of these guards liable for present military service?
5.	Has the government granted any loans, or given any financial assistance, to this company for building, or equipment, or any other purpose?


NAVAL SERVICES-DEEP BROOK, N.S., PROPERTY
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Has property been acquired for the Department of National Defence for Naval Services near Deep Brook, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, for what purposes was it acquired?
3.	From whom was property purchased stating the acreage of each lot and the prices paid or offered each owner?
4.	Were contracts entered into for improvements and buildings, if so, state names of persons or firms tendering and amounts of different tenders?
5.	To whom were contracts let, stating the bases of contracts, the amount of same and the nature of the work contracted for?
6.	What is the total expenditure to March 1, 1943; also the total estimated cost of completed project for, (a) land, (b) buildings, (c) grading and roadways, (d) drainage and water supply, (e) electric services, (f) wharves, (g) dredging, (h) furnishings and equipment, (i) other expenditures, (j) total?
7.	Were any persons in training March 1, 1943, at Deep Brook, Nova Scotia, and what number were on the operating staff?
8.	What number of persons is it planned to train at one time when completed; also how many will be on the staff?
9.	What is the estimated annual operating cost when completed?


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD- ADMINISTRATOR OF SHIPS STORES
Mr. STOKES:: 1.	Is D. R. Townsend administrator of ships stores under the wartime prices and trade board ?
2.	Is D. R. Townsend an officer or owner of shares in Townsend Company Limited, dealers in ships supplies of Montreal?
3.	Did Townsend Company Limited supply all stores (deck, engine room and steward's provisions) to six Swedish ships that were loaded at the port of Saint John with Red Cross supplies for Greece this year?
4.	Were orders issued by the agent of these ships at Saint John, N.B., that no firms were to submit prices to the masters of these ships for necessary stores required for ship's maintenance and provisioning of the steward's department while at that port, and if so, on whose authority were the orders issued?
5.	Were Townsend Company Limited the only company allowed to supply these ships on previous loadings at Montreal?
6.	Have Townsend Company Limited the sole privilege under the metal controller of supplying zinc boiler plates for use in steam boilers, both industrial and marine, at Montreal?


CANADIAN FORCES-SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES
Mr. ROY:: 1.	What is the subsistence allowance of each branch of the army, the navy and the air force according to their respective rank, and where are their barracks in Ottawa?
2.	Is the subsistence allowance the same in all parts of Canada?
{See also page 1325.)


JAPANESE FISHING VESSEL DISPOSAL COMMITTEE
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	Has the Japanese fishing vessel disposal committee spent or incurred the spending of any sums of money beyond the $80,000 authorized for that purpose by P.C. 3737, dated May 5, 1942, for the payment of claims made upon the government for damage to vessels owned by. persons of Japanese racial origin?
2.	If so, to what extent and how was it authorized?
3.	Are there any claims still outstanding or anticipated, or has the matter been closed?
4.	If it were necessary to spend such large-sums to put these boats into position for resale, were the expenses of so doing allocated to each individual owner and charged to him when sale was made and, if not, why not?
5.	Order in council 6787, dated July 31, 1942, providing for the payment for claims for skiffs, lifeboats, galley equipment and personal effects, why was it necessary to make payments for the-loss of any of these articles if they were actually on the boat at the time of the seizure and the boat was kept under complete government control and guard from that time until sale?
6.	What is the amount of claims authorized under P.C. 6787?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Frédéric Dorion: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents in the possession of the government, dated during the past two years, relating to the building of a road on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river between Tadoussac and the Atlantic military stations-situated on Labrador coast.


Mr. RALSTON:: I have no objection to the motion passing, Mr. Speaker, with a reservation in regard to any correspondence which it may not be possible to produce for reasons of security. As a mater of fact I do not think there is anything which cannot be produced, but I just want to make that formal reservation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers

Mr. KNOWLES:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and memoranda, and other documents from November 1, 1941, to the present, exchanged between the Department of Labour, or any official of said department, and the Department of Labour of the province of Manitoba, Manitoba regional war labour board, the national war labour board, the Department of Justice, and any other departments or officials, relating to alleged underpayment of wages on dominion government contracts, as discovered and submitted by the Department of Labour of the province of Manitoba with respect to the following firms: Claydon Co., Ltd.; Rayner Construction Co., Ltd.; Tomlinson Construction Co., Ltd.; and Duff Construction Co., Ltd. Also for a copy of all correspondence and documents, dated from November 1, 1942, to the present, relating to any other cases of underpayment of wages on dominion government contracts which may have been reported to the government.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have no objection to
this resolution passing, except in regard to the last four lines, which read:
Also for a copy of all correspondence and documents, dated from November 1, 1942, to the present, relating to any other cases of underpayment of wages on dominion government contracts which may have been reported to the government.
It does seem to me that if the hon. member has knowledge of any particular case, he might list that case as he listed the others. It does not seem practicable to go on a fishing expedition, if I may put it that way, into the large volume of correspondence we receive in the Department of Labour in connection with matters of this kind.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. POULIOT:: For a copy of all correspondence and requisitions of Colonel John Thompson with the Department of Public Works in his capacity (a) as chairman of the board of pension commissioners and also of the Canadian pension commission from 1919 to 1924, and (b) as dominion franchise commissioner, first, for his office and its personnel; second, for furniture and other accessories, stationery, etc., since 1919, as well as all correspondence and memoranda of the Department of Public Works on the same subject.



REGINA, SASK., BUILDINGS PURCHASED AND OFFICE SPACE RENTED BY DOMINION GOVERNMENT

Mr. BENCE:: 1. For a list of all the buildings purchased by the government, or its agencies, in the city of Regina since the commencement of the war, together with the following information in each case, (a) the name of the vendor, (b) the selling price, (c) complete description of the property acquired, (d) the purpose for which the prop-

erty was used immediately prior to purchase, (e) the assessed value placed thereon by the city of Regina, (f) the purpose for which each building is used.
2. A list of all the buildings and other space presently rented by the government, or its agencies, in the city of Regina with the following information, (a) the name of the landlord, (b) the purpose for which each building and other space is used, (c) the date of the first leasing by the government, or its agencies, (d) the yearly rental, (e) complete description of the property, (f) the value as placed thereon by the city of Regina, (g) the length of the lease and whether there is a termination clause.


Mr. BENCE:: With the consent of the
house I should like to have the word "assessed" inserted before the word "value" in clause (f) of paragraph 2.'


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: That is probably the only information we would not have in the department; that would originate in the city of Regina. I am not sure that we have the assessed values of those properties.


Mr. GRAYDON:: If you have it you should give it.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes.


Thomas Vien: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion as amended?


Alfred Henry Bence: Subject to the change in
wording.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Alfred Henry Bence: For a copy of all orders in council relating to the powers and authority of Mr. E. M. Little, former director of national selective service, at the time of his resignation from the government service.



AMNESTY TO FARMERS' SONS OF MILITARY AGE

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, memoranda, and other documents, in the possession of, (a) all departments of war services, and (b) the Department of Labour, with reference to an amnesty project applicable to farmers' sons of military age.


Humphrey Mitchell: This will be subject to
the usual reservation, that privileged documents, from officials to the minister, will be excepted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of memorandum of Mr. Claude Melanqon, of the selective service, with reference to an amnesty project applicable to farmers, and sons of farmers of military age.

Questions on Orders oj the Day


Humphrey Mitchell: I submit, Mr. Speaker,
that this is a privileged document. It is a memorandum, if such exists, addressed to the minister from an official of the department.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Is there
such a memorandum?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know.
Motion dropped.



RIGHT HON. ANTHONY EDEN VISIT TO THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA- QUESTION OF HIS ADDRESSING MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
ask a question of the Prime Minister. I note that an item appearing in the press indicates that the British Foreign Secretary, the Right Hon. Anthony Eden, may very shortly honour Canada with a visit. Is the Prime Minister in a position to tell the house when he may be expected in Ottawa, and whether or not it is the government's intention to invite him to speak to the members of the House of Commons?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I was advised some weeks ago that it was the intention of the Right Hon. Anthony Eden, Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, to visit the United States, and that at the time of his visit to the United States he would also visit Canada. Since Mr. Eden's arrival in Washington I have been in communication with him to ascertain just when we may expect the honour of his visit to our country. The Foreign Secretary is not in a position to say at once how long he may be in the United States before coming to Canada. I think the time may possibly be a fortnight. I have already extended an invitation to Mr. Eden to address the members of the House of Commons from the floor of the house, when he visits Ottawa, should he find it possible to do so.



QUESTION AS TO FOREIGN SECRETARY APPEARING BEFORE CERTAIN HOUSE COMMITTEES

Ernest George Hansell: May I thank the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Graydon) for asking the question I was going to ask. Might there not be the possibility not only of Mr. Eden's addressing this honourable chamber but also of his appearing, either as a witness or otherwise, before the special committee on post-war reconstruction or the standing committee on international relations?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let us win the war first.


Ernest George Hansell: If we do not win the
peace we certainly shall not have won the war.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall be pleased to bring the hon. member's question to the attention of the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, and will let him know of the hon. member's desire to have him appear before a committee of this house. I imagine however that the Foreign Secretary will have many engagements, and I cannot say how much time he may have to spend in Ottawa. I know his desire will be to stay as long as his time will permit.



TAXING OF POOLS-STATEMENT OF MR. SPEAKER AS TO QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OF THE DAY

["I would also like to discuss the fuel problem. A statement from the Department of Munitions and Supply has told us what w'e, who are from rural sections, already knew, namely, that the fuel situation has become alarming. In the town of Riviere du Loup where I live and which is close to huge timber limits, there has been a lack of cord wood during the coldest part of winter.\nAll lumber yards were empty and the St. Vincent de Paul society perforce levied a few logs here and there from private cellars containing barely sufficient stocks, so that large families might be kept from freezing. This scarcity was due to a lack of men for wood cutting operations. The dollar bonus granted by the government on each cord of fuel wood is good policy, but I would recommend extending the time until September. This particular work requires hands which must be found and the solution of this problem is up to the selective service if a part of our population is not to freeze to death next winter.\nMy allotted time precludes any discussion of farm problems which are not without importance. I will take the matter up on another occasion.\nFrankly I do believe such claims as I have put forth are quite legitimate. I have no intention of embarrassing the government and my only wish is to make them fully acquainted with the legitimate feelings of the electors. Let the government, even in war time, follow a truly social and Canadian policy, let them implement their plans for the social security of our population in the post-war period, let them see that everyone is treated fairly, that the minority get its appropriate share, not only of responsibilities, but of rights as well, and thus the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will be assured that harmony will easily be established at least among his supporters. This is the heartfelt hope of eveiy one of us.\nOn motion of Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw) the debate was adjourned."]
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: May I ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson), of which I have given notice? Has the department reached a decision with reference to the matter of taxing the wheat pools of western Canada? If so, what decision has been reached?


Thomas Vien: Order. The matter of asking questions on the orders of the day was discussed last week. The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) has now asked whether the Minister of National Revenue is in a position to make a statement respecting policy in his department. This is a question of the kind which I have said hitherto should be placed on the order paper. I should like to state more clearly what the position is respecting questions asked on the orders of the day.
The attention of the house ought to be drawn to the growing practice of asking, when the orders of the day are called, oral questions which should be placed on the order paper.
We must not forget that putting questions to the ministers at that phase of the day's proceedings is not allowed here by any rule, whilst in the United Kingdom house an hour is set aside for questions under a special standing order, which also requires that-
-notice of any such question must appear at latest on the notice paper circulated on the day before that on which an answer is desired.
On that point May, at page 243, says:
After private business has been disposed of, and not later than three o'clock on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the Speaker calls on the members who have given notices of questions to which oral answers are

Questions on Orders of the Day
desired, but.no questions can be taken after a quarter to four o'clock, except questions which have not been answered in consequence of the absence of the minister to whom they are addressed, and questions which have not appeared on the paper, but which are of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business. As each member is called, he rises to ask the question, standing in his name; but in case the member responsible for a question does not answer to the Speaker's call, a minister may rise and make such statement upon the question as the public interest demands.
As long as our standing orders are unchanged, the only questions permitted on the orders of the day being called must be confined to very urgent matters, personal explanations, inaccurate reports of speeches delivered in the house, denial of charges, dilatoriness in obtaining returns, or other similar matters closely connected with the routine business of the house. These questions must be brief and must not be prefaced by any argument. Standing order 44 gives members ample opportunity to place on the order paper any number of questions they desire with respect to public affairs. Reading telegrams, letters or extracts from newspapers as an opening to a question when the orders of the day are called is an abuse of the rules of the house. It is not good parliamentary practice to communicate written allegations to the house and then to ask ministers either to confirm or to deny them. It is the member's duty to ascertain the truth of any statement before he brings it to the attention of parliament. This has been decided long ago in the United Kingdom House of Commons. On June 14, 1882, Mr. Speaker Brand, in preventing a member from reading a telegram from a newspaper and founding a question on it, pointed out the extreme inconvenience of founding questions on every telegram in every newspaper. "I am bound to say," he added, "that it does appear to me that before questions of . such gravity are put, an hon. member should take some measures to ascertain the truth of the telegram." This quotation is from Denison's and Brand's Decisions, page 230.
I feel it is my duty to explain to the house the procedure with regard to questions, and I hope that in applying it I shall have the cooperation of all members of the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order which has just been discussed, may I point out to Your Honour that I am not asking the minister for a statement of policy; I am asking him if a decision has been reached with reference to a matter of interpretation of law. I would point out to Your Honour also that the matter of urgency is present,

because the question of issuing interim dividends is involved and the decision which has been reached by the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Justice is important.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: What I have stated
already with regard to the question asked by the hon. member, and which I quoted at the beginning of my remarks as I had heard it, was that he was asking for a statement from the minister with regard to the assessment of cooperative elevators. Am I correct in that?
Mr .DOUGLAS (Weyburn): Yes.


Thomas Vien: Prima facie there seems
to be no doubt that a question such as this is a matter of perhaps anxious consideration, shall I say, on the part of the minister, but the minister should not be required to give a ruling on a question on the floor of the house at this stage of the proceedings. It is true that the hon. member has asked that a statement be made as to what the decision was, if such has been arrived at; yet that question could be included and placed on the order paper.


Gordon Graydon: May I just say a word
on this point? My understanding of the question asked by the hon. member for Weyburn is a little at variance from that of Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that the hon. member for Weyburn simply asked the minister if he was in position to answer a question which previously had been propounded to the minister.


Thomas Vien: No.


Mr. COLDWELL:: That is right.


Gordon Graydon: Every hon. member has a perfect right to ask that.


Thomas Vien: The leader of the opposition did not get the question as I obtained it from the hon. member for Weyburn. His question was: Is the minister in position to make a statement with regard to the assessment of cooperative elevators. I think he confirmed that when I asked him.


Gordon Graydon: I understand that that was predicated upon a question which had been asked previously.


Thomas Vien: It was not so phrased. I have already given my ruling and the house will of course recognize it. As I said before, these questions are always difficult for the Chair to decide upon, but I have reason to^ believe that I shall receive the cooperation of all hon. members of the house in endeavouring to apply this procedure.

North Ajrican Campaign



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to refer to a report in a Toronto paper of the speech made by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) at the annual meeting of the Dominion Progressive Conservative association on Saturday. The portion of the report to which I should like to refer reads:
Canadian military officers wished to send a contingent to participate in the North African campaign but lack of reinforcements prevented it, Hon. W. Earl Rowe, M.P., hinted at the annual meeting of the Dominion Progressive Conservative association held here to-day.
"To-day we have the humiliation of listening to rumours that many military officers wanted our forces to enter the African battles but it was not possible because there were not sufficient reinforcements over there," said Mr. Rowe.
I just want to say that the statement or the rumour or the suggestion that it was not possible for Canadians to participate in North Africa because of insufficient reinforcements is without foundation in fact. The composition of the force for North Africa was determined by those who had the responsibility for allied strategy in Europe and who were in a position to judge what employment of allied troops, both for these and for other tasks, would best serve the common cause. From personal inquiries which I made when I was over there I am quite satisfied that their decision in respect to the composition of this force was based upon that principle.


Gordon Graydon: In view of Your Honour's ruling of a moment ago that anyone raising a question in the house shall first of all verify the truth of the statement involved, .1 was wondering if the minister had gone to that trouble.


James Layton Ralston: I assumed at least that the newspaper wms truthfully stating what the hon. member had said. I indicated that I had verified that the statement he made was not correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think he made the statement.


TRANSPORT SERVICES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Michaud) a matter which is causing a great deal of inconvenience to the travelling public at the moment. I sent him a notice that I would do so to-day. I do not wish any remarks I may make to be considered as criticism of the railways, whose task at the moment is a tremendous one,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.
Mr. BRUCE -but the travelling public are experiencing a great deal of inconvenience.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I am coming to the question in a moment, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Vien: When the hon. member is asking a question he may not preface it with a statement of fact or anything that is argumentative. He should simply ask the question; and I expect him to follow this procedure.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I should like to know if some arrangement could not be made so that passengers travelling on the day coaches will have an opportunity of getting a seat when they get into those coaches. At the present time there is a mad scramble-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: -to get to the entrance and on to the train, which is unseemly and dangerous to the public.


Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Transport) :: I shall make it my duty to bring this matter to the attention of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


MILITARY SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Humphrey Mitchell: On Friday last the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) quoted the following paragraph from a weekly publication:
Tasks of tracing evaders is to be carried on by Associated Credit Bureaus of Canada Limited, an organization with some 58 offices across the country.
My comment on that was that there was no truth in it. Actually the answer I gave my hon. friend was correct, because we have not made any definite arrangements with the Associated Credit Bureaus of Canada or any similar organization to trace evaders under
The Budget-Mr. Perley

the National Resources Mobilization Act. It is a fact, however, that consideration is being given to the possibility of using any organization there may be in Canada already established for tracing the addresses of people who cannot be found. The national selective service officials are studying the matter, and if a plan of this kind can be developed usefully and with less expense to the dominion government it certainly will be given careful consideration. It goes without saying that we are using every possible avenue to trace those who may be delinquent under the National Resources Mobilization Act. We are making use of the names compiled by credit agencies, street directories, telephone directories and in fact any other information available. Up to the present this work has been done by special staffs employed for this purpose. If we find that we can use existing agencies effectively and with less expense we will do so.
It is my desire at all times to give hon. members of this house all the information I can, and the correct information. Therefore in fairness to the hon. member for Lake Centre, I felt I should make this statement to the house.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 12, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. L. Ilsley (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Blackmore, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can be charged with having taken up too much time of the house this session, but as you accorded me the adjournment of the debate on Friday last I should like to make a few observations and one or two constructive suggestions on the budget.
This is a war budget. We might be asked, what are we going to do about it? So far as the opposition is concerned I think the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) set out clearly what we are going to do about it. Since no amendment was moved by the opposition, this budget of course is going through so far as we are concerned. The hon. member for Danforth reviewed in detail and in a very moderate tone the proposals of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) and

offered some constructive suggestions. I commend his speech to every reader of Hansard in Canada. Since he covered the subject so well it remains for me only to refer to the budget in so far as it affects the province of Saskatchewan, one of the constituencies of which I have the honour to represent.
Like every other budget, this one contains some good features and others that are not so good. The minister budgeted for a deficit, not for a surplus. But we are at war, and that deficit will have to be met in some way. It may be taken up by the people in loans, and perhaps a supplementary estimate will also be brought down. But the winning of the war is the first and all-important thing for this house to consider. I am sure that the Canadian people are willing to pay any taxes that may be necessary and do anything within reason to win the war.
The Minister of Finance in presenting his budget said that his income tax proposals contained no very great changes. But when you come to dissect those proposals, Mr. Speaker, you find that we have to pay two and a half years' income taxes within two years and that $105,000,000 more is to be extracted from the people of Canada this year, at the same rate of taxation, than was taken from them last year. As I have said, the people of Canada are willing to pay any taxes that may be necessary, but certainly they want to be assured that in the expenditure of this money there will be no extravagance and no graft and that every cent will be expended carefully.
There are three main problems before the country. First there is labour; second, the soldier; and third, industry. Much has already been said and more will be said about labour; therefore I shall not dwell on that; suffice it to say that labour undoubtedly has the right of association and the right to organize. Labour has also the right, and the people of Canada expect it of them, to give a full day's work for a full day's pay, and to receive fair treatment. I shall refer to labour a little later in connection with the farm labour shortage.
Next is the problem of the soldier, not only the soldier in the armed forces here and overseas, and the question of reinforcements, but the question of taking care of the soldiers when they return from the war.
Industry is the third factor, and I refer to agriculture in particular because I think it plays the .most important part in the industrial life of Canada to-day. The minister said that so far as taxes are concerned

The Budget-Mr. Perley
the farmer does not fare too badly. I shall refer to that later. What I wish to say at the moment is that both during the war-and it is not ended by any means; nor is the end even in sight-and during the reconstruction period more will be expected of agriculture than of any other industry. Agriculture up to the present has met every demand made upon it and will continue to do so, but the most serious obstacle to the production programme which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has asked the farmers of Canada to carry out is the man-power shortage, which demands immediate consideration and a prompt solution. The price problem also looms large. If the lack of man-power shackles the farmer, unsatisfactory prices must weaken his desire to produce. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious problem.
In this connection the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) referred to an order in council passed recently, P.C. 246. Hon. members will find his statement in Hansard of February 26. One would judge from that, that the Minister of Labour was going to follow the principle on which the Minister of Agriculture acted on March 23, a year ago, when by order in council he froze farm labour. The Minister of Labour is going along practically the same lines. I wish these two ministers would get together, because if the policy which the Minister of Labour enunciated the other day is not carried out any better than was the order in council of the Minister of Agriculture last year, we shall continue in the same mess we are in to-day.


Mr. GARDINER:: If I may correct my hon. friend, the regulations of a year ago were brought in by the then minister of war services.


Ernest Edward Perley: But the Minister of Agriculture took all the credit. There is one satisfaction I have in speaking to this house, that before very long I have the Minister of Agriculture rising to object.


James Garfield Gardiner: Because you were wrong.


Ernest Edward Perley: The farmer is working under serious difficulties. To no class has the war brought more production problems than it has to the farmer. At the present time, as we all know, he can get scarcely any new machinery. Even repairs are difficult' to get. This may be on account of war production. Shortages of labour, gasoline and tires are some of his headaches. He cannot compete in the matter of wages with war industry. So I say there are many problems brought about by the war with which the
farmer is confronted. Some hold that his difficulties would be solved by an increase in the price of farm products; but the situation to-day is such that the farmer does not know whether he will be able to continue in business.
Let me at this point make a brief comparison between the position of the Canadian farmer and that of his cousin across the line. I recently brought to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) the fact that when the quota restrictions over there were lifted, wheat went to SI .50 and oats to the highest price in eighteen years. In the last three weeks under their new regulations they sold a hundred million bushels of wheat. The farmers over there have a storage allowance of one cent per bushel per month for seven months for grain stored on their farm, and advances have been made to them in respect of the grain stored there. What have we in Canada? Our farmers are still under the quota restrictions: wheat remains at 90 cents, and for oats 51i cents is the limit. There is no farm storage allowance, and no advance against grain within the quota still undelivered, on the farm. This is not fair to our farmers.' What has brought about the increase of price in the United States? In three days the United States houses and mill3 bought fifteen and a half million bushels of wheat on the Winnipeg market. The situation was so serious that the minister called an emergency meeting of the Canadian wheat board,-one of whose members, I regret to say, passed away on Friday last. I should like the minister to make a statement as to what is to be done. What are the circumstances under which the Americans are buying this wheat? Why is it going over there?
I come now to the debt burden of the western farmer. Under our quota delivery system, the creditor, whether a loan company or any land owner who has leased land to a tenant, gets one-third of the crop delivered under the quota; I refer to the undeliverable portion of one-third of the crop which is grown on the farm. But the loan company should not be allowed to charge the farmer interest on the amount or value of the undelivered portion. He would deliver it if he could; and I hope this grievance will be rectified as a result of the conference which is now being held in Ottawa. I hope too that the conference will result in some arrangement respecting the handling of farm debts in the west. I suggest, without going into detail regarding the situation in each of the prairie provinces, that a permanent board of review be established with power to adjust, either up or down, the payments which any
The Budget-Mr. Perley

farmer has to make in a given year. I would give the board blanket power to cover the province-I speak now particularly of Saskatchewan-in any one year to meet circumstances such as a general crop failure, and I would recommend that their rulings apply to all farmers, not to individuals, as they generally do.
Another suggestion I would make with respect to debt adjustment is this. For years I have consistently urged in this house that if the government had written off the debt arising from soldier settlement in respect of the last war, the country would have saved money. I advocate that as part of the proposed debt adjustment the soldier settlers' debts be written off. I have a letter from one district in which, of the twelve original soldier settlers, only one remains, and he is making a great effort [DOT] to carry on. After all, this concession would do no more than repay these men in some small measure for what they are doing in the present war. Their sons were the first to enlist and their daughters have followed-they are in the army too. Many of these settlers have left the farms to join the reserve forces or are members of the home guard. Their wives are carrying on with Red Cross work, preparing parcels for overseas, and engaging in other war activities in their districts. After all, the amount of the writeoff would be comparatively small.


Mr. McNIVEN:: What would you do for those who have already paid for their land?


Ernest Edward Perley: That is one of the things which would remain to be considered-what we should do for the others.
Let me now refer briefly to the matter of parity prices. I believe this principle should be adopted at once. The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) and I introduced a resolution two years ago calling for the enactment of this principle, and I have now on the order paper a resolution on the subject. I believe farm prices, particularly the prices of grains, should be adjusted in relation to the farmer's costs of production. I will not read my resolution, because time is short, but will simply say that because of the important part which wheat plays in our national economy, there should be taken into consideration the setting of an initial price of SI. 10, as a step towards a parity price. I would then set the domestic price at SI .25, and I would pay storage for grain remaining on the farm which comes within the quota; also I would make an advance on grain still on the farm coming within the balance of the deliverable quota, up to seventy-five per cent of its value. That has been my stand for years.

In 1938 I moved in this house a resolution calling for a thorough consideration of prices from the long-term point of view, and suggesting one dollar for wheat. I was right, and those in authority are beginning to see it now. It is a matter of satisfaction to me that the federation of agriculture has approved the figure of one dollar, with SI .35 for wheat required for domestic consumption, and has made representations accordingly to the government. The pools ask for that. The grain men go a little further. I contend that so far as the domestic price is concerned there is no sound argument against it. We have the principle adopted to a certain extent in the processing tax. It has to come.
In a copy I have before me of the Leader Post, reference is made to the Votes and Proceedings of the Saskatchewan legislature, and to the fact that a Liberal member there, Mr. Danielson, moved in the house a resolution of which this is part.
That it is essential to the economic welfare of Saskatchewan that production of wheat be recognized as our major source of income and that the federal government be urged to accept through the Canadian Wheat Board no less than 280 million bushels of wheat at parity prices with an initial advance of not less than $1 a bushel.
It is with some satisfaction I see these men catching up, but they are several years late. I hope the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) and other wmstern men will support my resolution when it comes up. They are closer to the government than I am and may be able to convince the cabinet. I know what some will say when we take up this resolution. The hon. member for Moose Jaw will say, what are you going to do with the surplus? I venture to say that before this debate closes there will be many pages of Hansard setting out figures with respect to our crop production and surpluses, how they have disappeared in other years, how they may disappear now. These figures are so much ejmwash. The principle of parity prices is there and this surplus need not cause any worry. I am not a pessimist. If the war ended to-morrow this surplus would disappear inside of six months. If the war ends next year the surplus may prove a blessing, because it will be needed to feed nations who are fighting beside us. I am not worrying about the surplus.
Another important matter, that of reconstruction, has been pretty well discussed, so that I shall not go into it now.
As to social security, the best form of it is an opportunity to rvork and an incentive to save, so that people may make sure of their

The Budget-Mr. Perley
own security. When the men come back from the war we shall have to be ready to give them employment, to reestablish them. Many of them were high school students or graduates of universities who never had a job. When they come back our economic system must be so managed that we can provide them with food, clothing and work. There must be no lapse of time between their discharge and their finding full employment at reasonable remuneration. Here again much will be expected of agriculture; it is one industry that can do much in absorbing these men. Many of the men will go back to their farms and take up farming as their life work. When we realize the contribution the farm makes every year to the national income it is something worth considering. Having regard to what has been done during the last two or three years in meeting the demands for increased production of animal products and other forms of food, and the contribution to the national income that the farmers have made, it is regrettable that they receive only about fifteen per cent of it in return.
I have a suggestion to make to meet this reconstruction period. It is that a thorough survey be made in Saskatchewan as to the possibilities of improving agriculture and farm as well as urban homes. The adoption or application of the housing scheme might be considered, as well as the question of power equipment for the farm home. Why should not every farm home, wherever it is possible, have electric light, refrigeration, and conveniences of the kind? There is also the possibility of developing power from our rivers and coal fields, as referred to by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) in this house on many occasions. Such a survey could do much towards providing employment for these men when they come back. There is the development of our oil fields and tar sands. I venture to say that in five minutes I could name five men as a board to make such a survey, and they could put 200.000 men to work in two months after the war in that province. These would be practical men who would do a job. The farms could easily absorb 100,000 men. I could mention also reforestation and roadbuilding. It appears to me that the government is not very anxious to have some of our natural resources developed as they should be, some of our products processed as they should be. The other day I asked the Minister of Agriculture if he had received a report from a Mr. Roston, who was head of a large power alcohol plant in eastern Europe, with respect to the utilization of agricultural products in
Canada. He said he had had a conversation with him and in a certain roundabout way had a report on this work from a Mr. Monahan. That report evidently might be of . value to us.
I have in my hand a clipping from the Chicago Tribune of February 13, 1943, reporting a statement made by one William J. Hale, of Minneapolis, who is research consultant for the Dow Chemical Company, of Midland, Michigan. He charges that an unpublicized reciprocal trade treaty had been made with South American nations providing for the destruction of all United States synthetic rubber plants after the war, which was the real reason for the reluctance of many companies to start rubber production. He went on to say:
We have signed an agreement in South America saying all plants built to make synthetic rubber will be wrecked after the war. . . .
He said that the rubber industry's birthright had been signed away. I am not going to read it all, but it is an interesting article. If such a thing is going on, does this government know anything about it? Does this government know of any agreement to destroy these synthetic rubber plants? Has it had any part in such agreements? I should like them to answer some of the questions put on the order paper with respect to the synthetic rubber plant that is proposed to be built at Sarnia. Under what conditions is that plant to be built?' Is it receiving any government assistance, and do they know anything about this agreement I have just mentioned?
Now I come to the income tax as it applies to the farmer. During the course of his address the minister said the farmer's tax had been eased in that it was proposed to enable a loss to be carried forward two years, so that if a farmer suffered a loss in 1942 he could charge it against the 1943 or 1944 tax. This is a step forward, and I commend the minister for having taken it, but I suggest that he is a little late, since last year that concession was given other businesses but was not extended to agriculture. In a return tabled not long ago it was stated that only 1,488 farmers in Canada had paid income tax last year, to an amount of $150,000 or an average of practically $100 each. There are 750,000 farmers in Canada, of whom approximately 150,000 are in Saskatchewan. I am going to offer a suggestion with respect to these farm incomes, because the tax collected really does not make it worth while bothering 750,000 farmers. I am going to suggest that the farmer, especially the farmer of western Canada, be allowed tq charge as part of his operating cost a fair
The Budget-Mr. Perley

wage paid to his wife and daughters and young sons who help him on the farm. I am going to go even further. If the minister will not consider taking that action, I am going to ask that every farmer in Canada be given exemption from the payment of income tax unless he can show $2,000 of a net income. These are two points I should like the government to take into consideration. I have received many letters asking me to bring them forward. Why should not the farmer be exempt? Industry is working on a cost plus basis; and compare the lot of the farmer with that of the salaried civil servant here in Ottawa. Why should not the farmer be exempt up to $2,000? I would remind the house that in many cases industries are writing off their capital investments in three years, and I believe the farmer should be given greater consideration along this line than he is receiving at present.
I come now to a matter which has been mentioned already in the house, the question of taxing cooperative dividend payments, or what are called patronage dividends. I trust the government will not consider imposing a tax upon the cooperatives of western Canada. The attitude of the Saskatchewan pool, which is the largest cooperative organization in the west, is that these dividends should not be taxed until they have been distributed to the individuals, who then would have to consider them as part of their income. I could place on record the position taken by the representatives of the pools in this con-, nection, but without doing that I trust the government will not consider the imposition of a tax of this kind.
Only a very small percentage of the revenue that will be raised through taxation will be returned to the farmer. The Minister of Agriculture has even reduced his estimates this year, and in some particulars I agree that this should be done. On the other hand, however, we had the announcement the other day of the setting up of a subsidies board, and it will be recalled that I asked the minister about this matter when it was first mentioned in the press, before he made his statement to the house. In the light of the statement of the Minister of Finance, however, in which it was estimated that nearly $60,000,000 will go to the producers this year, I venture to say that if they took only half that amount and added it to the price of grain in Canada, which on a 280,000,000 bushel quota would mean 10 cents a bushel, that would do more for agriculture generally than all the subsidies you could think of, having in mind all the boards and machinery that will have to be set up to carry out the administration of those

subsidies. When the Minister of Agriculture provides for more boards to operate in western Canada, with priority on gasoline, tires and so on, it looks to me like an election year, and we think we know what we will be seeing out there this summer.
I should like to refer briefly to the subamendment, which asks that old age pensions be increased, that our banks be nationalized, and so on. I take off my hat to no hon. member of this house in my advocacy of adequate pensions for the old, for widows and for the dependents of soldiers now in the armed forces. I have been consistent in my attitude in this regard, and I still support these pensions. I might not vote for the subamendment, because it involves other matters as well, but in any case I have made my position clear on that point.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, all I am pleading for is a fair deal to agriculture, particularly in the prairie provinces. I hope the government will take some action in regard to the man-power mess that now confronts us. During the short time I have been speaking I have advanced seven constructive suggestions: (1) an increase in the price of wheat to bring it more nearly to parity level; (2) a domestic price; (3) a permanent board to review the debt of the province of Saskatchewan each year, with blanket authority to deal with the matter; (4) farmers to be allowed to charge to the cost of operation a wage allowance for their wives and daughters and young sons; (5) exemption of the farmer from the income tax; (6) the debt of soldier settlers to be written off; (7) bonuses and subsidies and boards to be discontinued and half the amounts set aside in the estimates for such purposes to be added to the price of our farm commodities. One or two of these suggestions are new, and I hope they will receive consideration. I could take some considerable time to deal with matters such as price spreads, and so on, but they have been dealt with already this year.
Let me say in closing that no matter what may be our political differences we should now get down to work and devote every possible effort to the winning of this war. Let us do everything we can to see to it that when the time comes our men fighting on land and sea and in the air will be reinforced by trained men, fully equipped and properly fed and" clothed, so that in years to come we may have no regrets in connection with what we did in the year 1943. And may we be proud of the fact that we have placed Canada in the forefront of the united nations and of the empire, a place where it truly belongs.

The Budget-Mr. Mcllraith


Mr. G. J. McILRAITH (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I pay tribute to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) for the budget he has brought down, both as to its content and as to its method of presentation. Canada is indeed fortunate in having the present minister in charge of its finances during this time of stress. Financial measures are now such that we have a very large section of our population in the taxpaying class. There has been a great extension in this field.
Very little has been said in the debate about the commendable attitude of these taxpayers in meeting their obligations, as they have done in the last two years. I should like also to say a word of appreciation of the voluntary organizations, and the churches of all denominations, which have done so much war work and have done it so well. It seems to me that so many have done so much work in this time with so little expression of appreciation from any source.
I should like to draw the attention of the house to some matters concerning the administrative arm of the government. In recent years the trend has been for that administrative arm to become more and more important, and this trend has been accelerated since the outbreak of war. To-day the Canadian government is the largest employer in Canada. The civil service generally has done a magnificent piece of war work. It is interesting to note that we do not hear anything about absenteeism when we discuss this class of war workers. There are, however, some matters concerning them which I feel should receive immediate attention and correction. The act setting up the civil service commission comes directly under the supervision of the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty), and he is responsible for its administration. But his authority over the civil service generally seems to stop there, and we have a situation wherein the public service generally is not directly under the control of any minister of the crown.
Under the guise of controlling expenditures, the treasury board has gradually and continuously extended its authority over the personnel of the civil service, and has done this without giving the civil service any right of appeal, either to the treasury board or from its decisions. From time to time the Minister of Finance has dealt with matters affecting employer-employee relations in the public service. His responsibilities in this connection however are not clear. At the present time I believe we have the most competent minister of finance we have had since confederation; and yet, with due deference to him, I suggest
he ought not to be expected to deal with administrative matters affecting the civil service generally. They ought more properly to be dealt with by one of the other ministers who is not carrying the direct responsibility of a war portfolio. Either the authority of the Secretary of State should be clarified and enlarged, or that authority should be given to some other minister of the crown.
I have always held the view that the relationship between the dominion government as an employer and the civil sendee as a group of employees should serve as a model in labour or employer-employee relations for the country at large. In many respects long strides have been taken in the public service. In 1908 we had the adoption of the competitive system of appointments and promotions. That met with considerable opposition at the time of its adoption, and indeed at the present time there is still some little opposition to it. In 1924 we had the adoption of the present Civil Service Superannuation Act, which is probably the greatest boon ever given the public service in Canada. These two measures are indeed worthy of a model relationship. In some other respects, however, we have not gone forward. We are now at a point where there is some danger of these advances being to a very great extent nullified-nullified by the extension of treasury board control over the individual personnel of the service. It seems to me that this control by the treasury board is indirect control without direct responsibility.
There are many matters I could mention in this relationship as requiring attention. For purposes of illustration I shall deal only with four of them. I choose these four, not necessarily because they are the most important, but because perhaps they will better illustrate my point. The first matter has to do with what is known as the permanent-temporary quota system. Normally any person appointed by the civil service commission to a permanent position is given permanent appointment after serving a probationary period. The first serious interruption in this procedure came in 1932, when, by an order in council supplemented by a treasury board minute, the appointment of permanent employees was arbitrarily prevented, notwithstanding the nature of the work being done. That condition continued until July, 1935, when the ban on permanency was lifted.
The consequences of keeping an employee in a temporary category are grave. Apart from certain dislocations which must take place in the service there are two main consequences affecting such employee. One is
The Budget-Mr. Mcllraith

.that he cannot compete for promotion. He may have served many years in a temporary category; he may be the best employee for a certain kind of work, but notwithstanding these facts he is ineligible for promotion to the senior position next above the one he holds, in the event of its becoming vacant. The permanent employee, who may be doing inferior work, gets the promotion. In addition the temporary employee has not the right to contribute to the superannuation fund.
There are certain other inequalities affecting an employee who may be kept in a temporary category although doing permanent work. One of these is that he is not eligible for statutory increases. The unfairness and the dislocations can easily be seen.
After the lifting of the ban on permanency in 1935 the former condition was restored for some months. Then in 1936 the good wrork was undone by order in council 84978, and the temporary-permanent quota system was reestablished on a twenty per cent temporary basis.


Mr. REID:: During the short period in which the ban was lifted, can the hon. member tell me how many civil servants were granted permanency?


George James McIlraith: No, I am soriy I have not that information at hand.


Thomas Reid: I am wondering if there were any.


George James McIlraith: I cannot give my hon. friend the number at the moment. The order in council was not quite as serious as the . order in council of 1932, but it embodied most of its fundamental faults, and it was the subject of continued and strong protests. In 1939 a committee of the House of Commons was set up under the chairmanship of the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) to inquire into the administration of the Civil Service Act generally. Representations were made to that body, and as a result in 1939 the committee on the Civil Service Act recommended that the temporary-permanent quota system be done away with. The report of the committee will be found in Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons of Thursday, April 27, 1939. Paragraph 18 of the report reads as follows:
18. Your committee is of the opinion that:
(1) a departmental division of eighty per cent permanent and twenty per cent temporary results in discrimination in certain branches where the work is entirely permanent and -where twenty per cent have to wait years for any hope of permanency; and

(2) disapproves of any practice which will result in a branch creating work to bring in extra temporaries so as to absorb into the permanent quota those who otherwise would not be permanent.
As a result of that recommendation of the committee the ban on permanency was again lifted in 1939. There was again, general satisfaction throughout the service, but it was very short-lived. In May, 1940, the treasury board, by a minute of that body, established the quota system on a somewhat different basis but with all the primary faults of the old system. A percentage was established for each unit of the service on the basis of the total staff as of September, 1939. These percentages varied with the different units. It will be noticed that this is an absolutely rigid and arbitrary system and does not provide for any changing conditions in the departments. Under this system* we now have many employees working in the public service for many years in positions of a permanent character. These employees have no right to contribute to the superannuation fund, nor do they receive superannuation benefits. They have no right to compete for promotions in their own branches to positions immediately above the ones they hold. Not only is an injustice done- to the individuals concerned, but the public service suffers. These groups of employees are fairly well distributed across the country. The committee of the House of Commons dealt with this matter and made a recommendation thereon. Notwithstanding the fact that the government at that time saw fit to act on that recommendation, the treasury board reimposed this system upon the public service.
The second illustration I want to give has to do with prevailing rates employees and their exclusion from the benefits of the superannuation fund. The superannuation act has been in force since 1924, but a very large group of the public service of Canada are excluded from its benefits notwithstanding the fact that they may have worked in the public service for many years. The best example of this class of employee is to be found in the printing bureau at Ottawa. Many of the employees in the printing bureau have worked continuously for more than thirty years in the public service of Canada, yet they have no right to contribute to the superannuation fund, nor have they any right to receive the benefits from the superannuation or the retirement funds. We had an example last year of one man who had worked more than fifty years at the time of his retirement, but he was simply out, that was all.


Thomas Reid: Was he a temporary?

The Budget-Mr. Mcllraith


George James McIlraith: He was a prevailing rates man. This term is used in connection with employees paid on a certain basis, but it is somewhat misleading. To go into all the incidence of it would probably extend my remarks beyond my time. They are those who are paid on a basis other than an annual stated salary. They are paid on an hourly basis at the printing bureau but they do not receive overtime on the usual prevailing rates basis. The main point is that their salary is other than a stated annual salary.
A committee of the House of Commons was set up to deal with this situation in 1938, and it heard evidence during that year and again during the session of 1939. This committee made its final: report to the House of Commons on May 5, 1939, in which it recommended that the prevailing rates employees should be eligible under the superannuation act. This recommendation is contained in paragraph 8, which reads:
That provision be made in the statute to render prevailing rates employees eligible to become contributors subject to designation by governor in council on the recommendation of the treasury board of the various classes and individuals to be so rendered eligible.
Notwithstanding this recommendation, nothing has been done to extend the benefits of the superannuation act to this class of employee.
The third point I desire to make is that no holidays are given to certain prevailing rates men.	In 1925, by order in council
P.C. 1936, prevailing rates employees were granted one week's holidays with pay in each year, subject to certain conditions and limitations. Most of the prevailing rates men in the service have been brought under that ruling at one time or another since 1925, but in 1941 it was discovered that a group of these men in the mines and geology branch of the Department of Mines and Resources did not have this right. I took the matter up with the Minister of Mines and Resources and it was corrected. It was thought at the time that all employees in the department were covered, but in 1942 it was discovered that a small number in the forest products laboratory had not been brought under the benefits of the order in council. The matter was taken up with the department but the treasury board ruled that they were not eligible to receive one week's holidays with pay. The number involved is not large, but many of these men have worked continuously for the department for more than fifteen years, yet the treasury board ruled that they were not eligible to receive these holidays with pay.
It is interesting to note two things in this connection. Apparently the treasury board had jurisdiction and was able to rule on the matter, although it did not directly concern the expenditure of public funds. The second point is that a comparatively small number was involved in this routine administration matter, and yet the minister of the department could not deal with it. He did not have the authority, yet the treasury board were able to have jurisdiction and to deal with it.
The fourth illustration concerns a small number of prevailing rates men who are not paid the prevailing rates established by the Department of Labour. The number of employees is small and the amount involved is small, yet because of its effect upon policy it is a matter of major importance. I refer particularly to some of the prevailing rates men working for the Department of Agriculture at the central experimental farm. There are two classes of carpenters working there, and I deal specifically with them because I am more familiar with their status. There are public works carpenters hired by the Department of Public Works who are working at the experimental farm and paid at the prevailing rate of wages. Then there are two or more departmental carpenters hired by the Department of Agriculture, working at the same place and paid a few cents an hour less.


Mr. BOUCHER:: If the hon. member would permit an observation, is it not a fact that at the experimental farm carpenters who are brought in under contract are paid, under departmental regulations, at a rate in excess of the prevailing rate?


George James McIlraith: I was just coming to
that. The hon. member anticipated what I was going to say. The Department of Labour fixes the prevailing rates for skilled workmen in the various areas throughout Canada. Not only that, but in recent years it has been the practice of the dominion government to insert a clause in all contracts for government work requiring the contractors to pay the prevailing rate of wages to each particular type of employee. I have always been very grateful for that clause, because I feel it has prevented a good deal of exploitation. It certainly has in this area at least. But notwithstanding the well-known policy of the labour department of establishing a fair rate of wages for skilled men, and notwithstanding the fact that it carries out that policy by inserting in government contracts the clause to which I have referred, and notwithstanding that practically all the departments of government have adopted that same policy, we find this small example in one of the departments where the carpenters are paid less than the prevailing
The Budget-Mr. Mcllraith

rate. You may say: it is only a matter of a few cents an hour, and the number involved is very small. But that is not a sufficient answer. An injustice is being done. Further, labour generally sees this example, and, small as it may be, it tends to undermine their confidence in the will or determination of the government to carry through its policy as set out by the appropriate authorities. Therefore this becomes a very important matter and the situation ought to be rectified at once. It is interesting to note that these employees have not made a great deal of fuss about the situation ; they are not too strenuous in their representations, but the fact remains that they have no right to appeal to the treasury board, the one authority who could deal with the matter, and not only have they no right to appeal to the board, but they would have no right of appeal from any ruling which the treasury board might give.


Thomas Reid: Who are the members of the
treasury board?


George James McIlraith: I shall have something to say about that in a moment. I frankly admit that I have never been able to get the information I desire about the treasury board and its workings. If the hon. member or any other member is able to get all the information he desires about the treasury board he is more efficient in his duty than I am.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: You are closer to them.


George James McIlraith: Frankly I admit that I have not been able to obtain all the information about that board that I should like to get.


George Hugh Castleden: We gather that.


George James McIlraith: I am glad the hon. member has gathered it. I mention only four of the problems that arise in the civil service but there are a great many others I could mention. There is the matter in the Department of Agriculture of the pay of certain technical staff doing research work, and their general reclassification. There is the matter of the cost of living bonus, bringing it into line with the standard set when the cost of living bonus was applied to private industry generally. There is the question of statutory increases. There is question of the cost of living bonus for superannuated civil servants. There is the question of these so-called staggered hours of work which are causing so much irritation. A great many other questions could be raised and discussed here. But perhaps the four I have outlined will illustrate what I want to say, and the details of the other matters can be discussed on subsequent occasions.

The situation is that the treasury board is steadily and continually taking complete control of all matters affecting personnel in the government service, and this whether or not the direct expenditure of public money is involved. I am not aware that any government has at any time deliberately as a matter of policy decided that the treasury board should have this jurisdiction. The whole trend started in 1932. I am sorry to say that the then government was most ruthless and unfriendly towards the public service generally. That trend has not yet been checked, although many injustices have been removed.


George Russell Boucher: The ruthlessness has
continued.


George James McIlraith: No, the ruthlessness has not continued. The situation was corrected. The salary cut of ten per cent was restored,* the statutory increases were forced back, and certain other injustices were corrected. I do not think that any government, after checking over the history of what went on in 1932, will ever suggest such a move again. My hon. friend, even though he was a strong supporter of the Conservative government in office at that time, can hardly now assert that he would bring that policy into force again if he had the chance.


George Russell Boucher: I am glad to hear my hon. friend say that many of these practices have been discontinued, but the policy denounced by my hon. friend with respect to temporaries was restored in 1936 and still prevails in part.


George James McIlraith: It was restored in
modified form, and I am here protesting against it.
I have always held the view, Mr. Speaker, that we as members of the House of Commons are directly responsible for the expenditure of public funds, such is our traditional duty, and I feel perfectly sure that with the wide extension there has been in the number of taxpayers during the last few years we are going to be held answerable on that score. I do not think we should be under any illusions about it. Yet the present position is that in the House of Commons no minister is directly answerable as such for the administration of the public service.
The treasury board as a matter of practice has an enormous number of items coming before it for attention. As I said previously, I have never been able to get as full information as I desired about its workings, but I think it is reasonable to assume that the larger items receive the attention of the treasury board proper, while the smaller items, affecting small groups of personnel or individuals, are left to the staff of the treasury board. As

The Budget-Mr. Mcllraith
nearly as I can find out, and judging from the letters and documents that are signed, it seems to be the practice for the assistant deputy minister of finance to deal with these matters for the secretary of the treasury board.
Having regard to all the problems which have arisen, and other difficulties with respect to demobilizing some of the temporary staffs in the war departments, an advisory committee was set up in January of this year. It consists of five members. The chairman is Mr. Coon, an executive at the head office of the Bank of Nova Scotia. The secretary is the assistant deputy minister of finance, of whom I have just spoken. Another member is Mr. B. J. Roberts of the National Harbours Board, formerly assistant deputy minister of finance -the position now held by the secretary of the civil service committee-and the other two members are civil service commissioners. This committee is set up to advise the treasury board on matters affecting the civil service. Mr. Ronson, the assistant deputy minister of finance who is secretary of the advisory board, is to advise himself. Just how that process goes on I do not know; it is worthy of Gilbert and Sullivan at their best. I know very little about Mr. Coon, the chairman of the board, but I hope that the relationship between the banks and their employees is not to be the model for the relationship between the dominion government and its employees.
There is in Saturday's Ottawa Journal a report of an interview with Mr. Coon. I will read part of it:
For bankers, he-
That is, Mr. Coon.
-told the Journal this morning, spend their lives handling the "human element."
Where, he wanted to know, did a man take down his hair and talk over his problems, if he didn't do it when going to his bank manager for a loan?
The "human element" which now confronted him comprised some 40,000 civil servants demanding compensation for what they claim have been long-standing injustices, and on the other side, the treasury board standing guard over the government payroll.
The "human element" of this problem, he believed, was no tougher to tackle than that which he has been handling through the years as a banker.
I do not think this requires much comment. Although I do not know the relationship between bankers and persons seeking loans, I had not thought that the human element was particularly emphasized; I supposed that they used strict business methods. Nor do I suppose that persons seeking loans of bankers constitute such a wide section of the community, at that. In any event he is the chairman of the advisory committee, and I
have referred to the second and third members. As regards the two members who are civil service commissioners, I have nothing but the very highest praise for their work. Undoubtedly they would be the first witnesses called before any committee dealing with this matter.
The civil service generally has no confidence in the committee. I should have thought that a condition precedent to setting up any committee to deal with employer-employee relations would be that the parties concerned should have confidence in the committee. This is achieved usually in two ways. One is to appoint representatives of the employer on the one hand and of the employees on the other, and to have the chairman chosen by these two groups of representatives. That was not done in this case. The employees have no representation on the committee. Another method is to appoint an entirely independent committee, but that was not done in this case either. The complaint that the committee is not independent is, I believe, well founded, because the main representative, the secretary, is the person in the treasury board who deals with the matters out of which most of these complaints arise. A third method open in this case is a committee of the House of Commons. Such a committee could properly have been set up here, because the House of Commons after all is responsible for the administration of the public business and for the expenditure of the public funds. This method might well have been used in the present instance; it has been used in the past, and I have referred to some of the rulings of such a committee.
One thing I wish to say just before closing. In regard to the two members of the advisory committee to whom I have particularly referred, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not discussing their records as public servants. I am well aware that civil servants in general have no method of replying when anything is said about them in the House of Commons. I appreciate that fact, and I am not in any way attacking these gentlemen as public servants; so far as I know their records as such are quite good. What I am attacking is their fitness to function on this particular committee. I believe that should be made clear; otherwise my remarks might easily be misconstrued.
I have taken some time to go into this matter of the administrative arm of the government service. I have done so because I fear what is taking place will work injustice to the individual employees concerned and also be-
The Budget-Mr. Mcllraith

cause the trend in this connection is important and significant. Originally after confederation appointments to the public service were made in a quite haphazard manner, and I fear, in many instances, without much examination as to the fitness and qualifications of the prospective employee for the work to which he was to be assigned. In 1908 was instituted the merit system of appointments and promotions. That was opposed at the time, but the opposition is gradually dying out and the system in general is well established throughout the service. In 1924 a very fine superannuation act was set up, and it has since been extended. All these progressive measures, all the improvements made over a period of some thirty-four years, are now in danger of being nullified by this insidious extension of authority of the treasury board over the personnel of the public service. This is an extension without the treasury board having been directly and immediately given authority over the personnel of the public service as such. It is an extension in a form which does not charge any minister of the crown with direct responsibility as such so that he may be answerable to us here in the House of Commons.
It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I have taken the time of this honourable house to-day to bring these matters forward.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: I will not attempt to follow all the remarks of the hon. member (Mr. Mcllraith) who has just taken his seat, but I want to assure him of my sympathetic assistance in getting for, particularly, the low-paid civil servants, a better deal than they are having at the present time. Evidently they have very good support in this city because I see in both the Citizen and the Journal that the cause of the civil servants is before the house. I am wondering whether the case of those to whom I now wish to refer will have the same line of publicity.	.


Mr. MacNICOL:: The hon. member will have to send his speeches to the papers first.


Robert Fair: Fortunately or unfortunately I do not write my speeches, so that I am unable to do that. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie) the other night proposed that speeches here should be limited to twenty minutes instead of forty. I think the house will readily understand that the hon. gentleman is on the government side so that he perhaps feels that everything is as it should be. But some of us in the opposition do not feel that way about it, and therefore believe that we are entitled to at

least forty minutes to place before this house the views of those who are oppressed and to seek remedies for their troubles.
The budget address was one o.f the best I have' heard here so far as delivery is concerned, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has been complimented from all parts of the house. I can extend my compliments to him as far as the presentation is concerned, but I think condemnation would come from certain classes by reason) of certain things that are in the budget. I believe the minister is doing his best; he has a big job, and I am blaming to some extent his advisers and the system under which he is working for some of the wrongs contained in this budget. Before going further I wish to express an opinion which may or may not meet with the approval of the house, but it looks to me that there is an election pending. Not long ago the Minister of Finance went on the air, on a Sunday evening I believe, and announced a reduction in the price of tea, coffee, oranges and milk. We are now promised something in connection with tariffs. I will read the part to which I have reference, as reported at page 861 and 862 of Hansard:
The government has already, by an exchange of notes with the United States on November 30 last, undertaken to enter into conversations with that country, and with other countries, for the purpose of formulating programmes of agreed action direction toward the expansion, after the war, of production, employment and the exchange and consumption of goods, to the elimination of all forms of discriminatory treatment in international commerce and to the reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers.
Committed to these objects and having in mind particularly the vital concern of this country in access to the selling and buying markets of the world, the government is prepared to discuss with the government of the United States, the government of the United Kingdom, or the governments of other countries with which we trade, reciprocal trade arrangements wdder in scope and longer in duration than have hitherto been made, provided always that the advantages of such arrangements shall be open to other countries willing to adhere to the same terms.
I am wondering whether that is just a little bait. If a thing is good for this country, there is no poorer excuse for not putting it into effect than that there is a war on. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has told us on different occasions that reform must come, and if it is not brought about before the war is over, it will be too late. I realize as do all hon. members, that at the present time we are having better terms with the United States than we have had for some time past, and after the war is over perhaps

The Budget-Mr. Fair
we shall have difficulty in establishing trade relations with the United States which could be very easily obtained at this time.
I do not find any provision made in the budget for bringing up to parity the price of wheat. Perhaps before dealing with that question I might go back to tariffs, because I see the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) in his seat and because of what have been termed hand-outs to farmers of the west, particularly in the way of bonuses and acreage reduction payments, I wish to show that western farmers have been getting back during the past few years just a trickle of what has been taken from them in the past by way of tariffs as one instance.
The late Hon. Norman Rogers made a survey in 1931 which is the last survey that has been made as far as I know. That survey showed that Manitoba in that year paid by way of tariffs $29,185,740, equivalent to $13.25 for every man, woman and child in that province. The corresponding figures for the other western provinces were:
Total paid by
wTay of tariffs Per capita
Saskatchewan	
$29,228,285	$28	16Alberta	
27,909,396	26	93British Columbia____	37,737,247	22	33
The total of these figures is $124,060,668. That would not be the average over a number of years past because in 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934 we had very low prices for grain and for that reason were unable to purchase much of the supplies that were needed. So that for an average year we would be penalized at least $150,000,000 by way of tariffs.
Coming east, we find that in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario the shoe is on the other foot. In the case of Quebec there is a gain of $31,685,885, equivalent to a benefit of $11.03 for every man, woman and child in that province, and for Ontario, which has been referred to as the good old milch cow which has been milked by other provinces, we find the total was $51,989,761, or $15.15 for every man, woman and child in the province. The total for those two provinces is $83,675,646.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the people of Ontario had received the interest due them on Alberta bonds the hon. member could have quoted much higher figures.


Robert Fair: It looks as if the people of Ontario have milked Alberta dry so that Alberta was not able to pay the interest, and rather than pay it the government of Alberta had the good sense to see that they kept their people alive. I commend them for doing so. Give the people of Alberta a square deal and 72537-79
they will pay their interest. Furthermore, if they had had a square deal it would not be necessary for them to borrow all that money so that the interest would not pile up.
I said I sympathized with the hon. member who spoke just before me. Some time last month we find that the wartime prices and trade board passed an order giving restaurant keepers a right to increase the price of tea and coffee served with meals by five cents; that is, ten cents for tea, coffee or milk served with meals. They are also allowed to charge ten cents if a person sits down at a lunch counter and has a drink of tea, coffee or milk. On February 22 I placed some questions on the order paper in this connection; they were made an order for return and as yet I have not received the information; but as far as I can see, the restaurants were not justified in demanding this increased price, if they did demand it. Some say they did, while we find that other restaurants have not increased their prices. It seems to me that those who have increased their charges could very well get along without that increase, because I do not believe the restaurants of Canada ever had as much business as at the present time. Usually increased business tends to decrease the overhead, and I believe that is so in the restaurant business as well. In addition, we find that the servings have been very considerably cut down. When you get a serving of meat or fish, in many cases you do not get more than one-third the serving you got before the war; and when it comes to sugar with which to sweeten your tea or coffee, you find that the lump has been sliced in three. You are given three of those slices, which means you receive the equivalent of one lump.
In addition, I believe these restaurants are saving a little in connection with dish washing. Some of them are so rushed that they cannot keep their dishes properly washed. I was in a restaurant in this city not long ago when I saw five cups being given to five customers without the cups having been washed. One of the customers drew the attention of the waitress to the marks on the side of the cup where the other person had drunk the coffee. The waitress took a paper napkin, held it under a hot-water tap, went around, wiped off the cup and placed it before the customer. That customer had only about five minutes in which to get back to work, so that he had to go ahead and drink from a cup that had not been washed. This is not good enough. The people who go to the Chateau Laurier or some of the better restaurants do not get that

The Budget-Mr. Fair

sort of service; but the people who imposed this tax do not eat in the small restaurants of this or any other city in Canada.
Now we come to the low salaried workers, for instance the group who have $660 left after paying their income tax, of whom we have some thousands right in this city. My information is that it costs these people an average of $20 a month for a room, or $240 a year. Then I believe they are entitled to $1 a day for food, figuring 25 cents for breakfast, 35 cents for lunch and 40 cents for dinner. Certainly they will not overeat at that rate. This amounts to another $365, and when you consider the extra 15 cents a day that is charged by a number of restaurants in connection with beverages, you have another $54.75 tacked on to the living expenses of those compelled to eat in restaurants. That gives you a total of $659.75, which leaves a worker in this group with 25 cents with which to buy clothing and other necessities, soap, towels and all that sort of thing. Then people in this group are also asked to buy war bonds, war savings certificates and stamps; to help the Red Cross, the aid to Russia fund, the milk for Britain fund, the Chinese relief fund, and all the other funds that call upon the public for contributions. During the past two or three weeks I have had in this connection a number of letters, of which I am going to read two. One is from the city of Montreal; the other is from the city of Vancouver, which will indicate that people all across the dominion are feeling the effects of this new tax. The first letter reads:
Dear Sir,
I trust you will pardon the liberty I have taken in addressing you.
I note your remarks re "coffee price boost" and that any person obliged to eat in restaurants would increase the cost of living by about $55 a year.
If you lived in Montreal and was obliged to limit the cost of your meals to 30 cents, as I have to do, it would increase your living costs to $76.65 a year.
All meals of 35 cents and over are taxed 5 per cent, which means your 30 cent meal would cost 37 cents, made up as follows: meal, 30; beverage, 5; tax, 2. The party responsible for this unnecessary increase should have his head examined.
That is signed by J. Anderson, of Montreal. The letter from Vancouver is as follows:
_ Your remarks regarding the recent increase in the restaurant prices of tea, coffee and milk used as a beverage made in the house yesterday and reported in this morning's Vancouver paper are very much to the point.
This agency, which deals chiefly with the problems of unattached men, the majority of whom are in the low income group, and who live in rooming houses and obtain their meals in [Mr. Fair.j
restaurants, has already found it necessary to give supplementary aid as a result of the higher cost of meals.
Of this group, the old age pensioners and recipients of war veterans allowances are particularly hard hit. The majority of these cases are unfit for employment and are unable to supplement their $25 a month income.
A rough breakdown of their living costs shows rent averaging $8 a month, miscellaneous items including clothing, laundry, soap, razor blades, car tickets, etc., $5, balance for food $12. On an average of a thirty day month this means that the man is required to purchase meals within a limit of 40 cents a day. The general practice is the purchase of two 20 cent meals. The five cents a meal increase for beverage amounts to $3 a month.
Unless some action is taken either to rescind the wartime prices and trade board order or to give a supplementary grant to recipients of old age pension and war veterans allowance, the already inadequate standard of living of these groups and other small pensioners, etc., will be considerably lowered.
I am wondering if the government or industry will pay a cost-of-living bonus to those who eat in restaurants, to recompense them for this inflationary rise in the cost of their meals. If that is not done I suggest now that labour see to it either that this bonus is paid or that the increase in the cost of these beverages is removed. There is no justification for it, in my view, and I should like to see something done.
If we listen to after-dinner speeches we will not believe that there are hard times anywhere in this country. I do not believe we can ever attain the golden age of economic life while we are living in the stone age of economic thought. We have to do much better than we have done in the past. On December 2 of last year the Prime Minister was in New York where he spoke to the Pilgrims of America. He is reported as having used these words:
The only path to prosperity and peace is the path of equality of cooperation and of human brotherhood. The new order must be a world order. It must be governed by a universal rule of law. It must be based on human rights and not on the right of property, privilege or position. An end must be put to monopoly of power by any country and by any class.
Again I remind the house that the Prime Minister has told us on many occasions that we must have reforms before the war is over; otherwise it will be too late. What are we doing about it? As I said at the commencement of my speech this afternoon, if something good can be put into effect, then the war would seem to be the poorest possible excuse for not taking action,
In Canada we have a problem respecting people who are not able to supply themselves with medical and hospital accommodation.

The Budget-Mr. Fair
I am suggesting now to medical men in the house, and their friends outside the house who are well organized throughout the country, that they demand from this and from any other government which may be in office later, that free medical service and hospitalization be granted to all those unable to provide it for themselves. Prevention of ill-health would be the cheapest possible way of cutting down the number of heavy bills now being paid for these services.
Canada can produce sufficient to satisfy all the needs of our people, but apparently we are not able to produce enough for the human greed being practised. In respect of old age pensioners I do not think it is necessary for me to go into detail. Already several hon. members have brought the case affecting these pioneers to the attention of the house, and the letter I read in connection with the increase in the price of meals gives information respecting the distribution of the small amount they now receive. We continually receive letters from old age pensioners and potential old age pensioners asking that the age for the receipt of pension be lowered, and that the amount be increased to at least $30 a month, also that a pensioner be allowed a net annual income of 1500 a year instead of $365 as at present. This I believe would not be any hardship on the country. We could make adjustments which, would not injure anybody, but would greatly help these old people. Pensions paid other people, such as persons in other parts of this building, might very well be used along this line.
Then we must give consideration to veterans of the great war of 1914-18. A number of these men need assistance, and I am speaking particularly for the veterans who settled under the Soldier Settlement Act. I believe I stated their case fairly thoroughly and in some detail on February 3 last, and I shall not go into it at length at this time. I intend, however, to return to it on another occasion, and I hope hon. members will get some information respecting these men and be prepared before the close of the session to obtain something worth while, reasonable and just for these settlers.
On November 19 of last year order in council No. 10472 was passed. We were told that this order in council would improve the lot of soldier settlers. Having read it, I feel that it is no more or less than a sentence of another twenty years to the hell these people have been enduring for the last twenty or twenty-five years. This is not good enough. As their representatives, let us see to it that something reasonable and just is done.
Looking back over the years I have been in the house, I think of the letters I have received and of the delegations of widows of veterans of the last war. Very little has been done for them up to the present time. However I see in the estimates an amount is provided to make provision for these people. I do not believe the amount is large enough.
We now come to the men and women returning from the present war. On another occasion I asked that they be given a square deal now, rather than twenty years after the war is over. In this connection I received a resolution from the Lloydminster branch, No. 39, of the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League. This resolution, dated March 10, is as follows:
Be it resolved that the Lloydminster Branch No. 39, Canadian Legion, B.E.S.L. records its protest against the inadequacy of the maintenance and unemployment benefits of $9 per week for single men, and $13 per week for married men, as set forth in Acts and Orders in Council governing the rehabilitation of returned soldiers; that we condemn the limitations contained in those Acts and Orders in Council, and deplore the fact that reestablishment measures, so far, have been based upon the presumption of the existence of a set of post-war conditions which we feel should not be taken into consideration in the framing of an effective rehabilitation programme.
C. Bexson,
Secretary, Lloydminster Branch, Canadian Legion, B.E.S.L.
This question will be dealt with later on, and I trust that hon. members and particularly those who served overseas in the last war, will see to it that something worth while is done for those men, upon their return; and that preparation be made before the war is over, because, according to our Prime Minister, that will be too late.
I hold in my hand a clipping from the Saskatchewan Cooperative Consumer. I have used it before in the house, but I shall read it again because I believe it illustrates in a form better than I could offer the conditions now existing. It is headed with the word "Parable", and reads:
Count Leo Tolstoy has written a parable concerning the private profit system, which portrays in realistic fashion a state of affairs that is all too true.
I see mankind as a herd of cattle inside a fence enclosure. Outside the fence are green pastures and plenty for the cattle to eat, while inside the fence there is not quite enough grass for the cattle.
Consequently, the cattle are trampling underfoot what little grass there is and goring each other to death in their struggle for existence.
The Budget-Mr. Fair

I saw the owner of the herd come to them and when he saw their pitiable condition, he was filled with compassion for them and thought of all he could do to improve their condition.
So he called his friends together and asked them to assist him in cutting grass from outside the fence and throwing it over the fence to the cattle.
And that they called Charity.
Then because the calves were dying off and not growing up into serviceable cattle, he arranged that they should each have a pint of milk every morning for breakfast.
Because they were dying off in the cold nights, he put up well-drained and beautiful sheds for the cattle.
Because they were goring each other in the struggle for existence, he put corks on the horns of the cattle, so that the wounds they gave each other might not be serious.
Then he reserved a park in the enclosure for the old bulls and the old cows over 70 years of age.
In fact he did everything he could think of to improve the condition of the cattle, and when I asked him why he did not do the obvious thing, break down the fence and let the cattle out, he answered:
"If I let the cattle out I should no longer be able to milk them."
On behalf of those who are overseas fighting and those who are returning from the war and who in the future, if we do not take action, will be in the same class as those who are to-day old age pensioners, I would say that they are in the same category as and would compare with those referred to as cattle inside the fence. It is about time we broke down the fence and made available to these people the good things that this country can produce.
We have in this country an instrument that nullifies the rights of the elected representatives of the people. In another portion of this building is a body of men without any particular qualification except service to their political parties. These men under our present constitution have the right to nullify any act passed by the elected representatives of the people. We are told that many years ago the Liberal party tvere going to reform that particular house. We are told that there is a constitution which stands in our way, but as far as I am concerned that constitution is man-made and it can be man-changed and made to serve the people to-day rather than those interests which saw to it that when it Was drawn up it would serve their purpose.
Perhaps we are not prepared to make this change in our constitution because we have not a quill pen to do it with. I understand that when this document was drawn up years ago a quill pen was used, but to those who would put forth this kind of argument I would suggest that we have many geese and

turkeys running around our farmyards and it would be quite easy if it were thought necessary to take a quill from one of their wings to make the change. By doing this we would make available for other purposes thousands and thousands of dollars every year, and a number of offices now inhabited by people who are making no good use of them would be made available to others. We could stop appointing people to this house, and those who are there who can qualify for the old age pension could be granted $30 a month.
No reform can come to the common people unless the lawmakers are of the same mind as the common people. This may be a clumsy way of putting it, but I say that unless the common people get a majority of members in this house who are in actual sympathy with them, we cannot expect to have much change in favour of the common people. God must love the common people because he made so many of us. I have not much time left so that I shall have to hustle along a little faster than I intended.
We must have a firm foundation for our new set-up; other-wise it will crumble. In order to have this firm foundation, I suggest that there should be a better deal for agriculture. After all, agriculture is the basic industry of this country, the one that must stand the brunt of taxation, directly or indirectly, and the one that must provide the food for all of us in Canada, as well as many of the men who are being sent overseas to fight our battles. In order to give agriculture a square deal I suggest that there should be parity prices for all agricultural products.
We should have a long range programme so that the farmer can go ahead and make plans for a number of years instead of having to confine himself to a one-year programme. Farm debts have been accumulated under unjust legislation. When the prices of our products are forced down there is no talk of scaling down either interest rates or the debts themselves. The result is that our farmers are now in an impossible position and cannot hope to get on a sound footing until something is done along the line I suggest. I am suggesting that the wishes of the western debt conference which is meeting in Ottawa to-day be implemented and placed upon the statute books here because this government and the privy council claim that the provinces have not this power.
Tariffs should be removed. I think I gave enough figures this afternoon to convince anybody that an imposition has been placed on

The Budget-Mr. Gregory
the farmer in this connection. I have some rather interesting information here in connection with income taxes paid by farmers. Between 1930. and 1942 an average of 1,191 farmers paid income tax, the average amount a year being $92,163. Because our farmers work longer hours than any other group; because they are not allowed wages for their wives or members of their families who may help them, I suggest that the government would not be losing much money to exempt the farmers from income taxation. This may seem to be class discrimination, but I think I am justified in asking for it on account of the conditions under which our farmers have been compelled to live during years gone by. If exemption cannot be granted, I suggest that the term for computing income tax be five years rather than the two as suggested in the budget. Proper steps should be taken to care for our aged pioneers who are underprivileged through no fault of their own, as well as for the veterans and veterans' wives of the first great war and the veterans and their families of the present war.
There is one answer and key to this-social credit. Since coming here in 1935 we have been laughed at on different occasions. As suggested the other night by one of the hon. members in front of me, hollow laughter means idle brains or empty brains, if you want to call them that. We do not have so much of this laughing now, and I think in future more consideration will be given to our suggestions. Up to the present time social credit has not been implemented. Let me say in conclusion that it is better to fail temporarily in something that must inevitably come, than to succeed in something that must ultimately fail.


Mr. J. A. GREGORY (The Battlefords):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) upon bringing down a budget for the Canadian people which has added very little burden to their shoulders, notwithstanding the fact that Canada's contribution to the united nations has increased enormously. I believe that the budget delivered at this session will go down in history as one of the great documents in the life of Canada. I believe further that the name of the Minister of Finance will find a niche in the halls of the celebrities of Canada. I can only wish the minister a growing distinction, an added stature and increased usefulness in the public life of Canada.
I was very much impressed by an article written by the United States newspaper commentator, Ernest Bindley. This was written for United States consumption and is in praise
of Canada's policy step by step in financing the war. He narrates these steps in controlling inflation, in establishing a price ceiling, in our payment of bonuses, in the refundable tax feature of the income tax and in the fact that the provinces were being reimbursed for vacating the fields of income tax, corporation tax and succession duties. He ends this notable article by saying:
The war tax programme of the Canadian government has revealed a firm grasp of the essentials of wise management of the war economy which our tax programme-
He is referring to that of the United States: -has lacked.
His concluding remark is:
Congress could profit by studying the Canadian budget messages.
I am sure that we as Canadians have reason to be highly gratified that we have been the forerunners, that we blazed the trail along these lines and that our great neighbours to the south of us are now following in our footsteps, at times rather haltingly, rather hesitantly, it may be, but nevertheless endeavouring to follow step by step the plan as set forth by the government of Canada.
When I last spoke in this house on February' 8, I was predicting a change in the fiscal policy of Canada after the war. I had made certain statements to the effect that we would all be free traders or at least believers in low tariffs after the war is over, and I had started to develop that argument, sir, when my time was exhausted. I wish first to-day to finish that argument.
I said on that occasion that in the primitive days of Canada's industrial growth the home market was the only market Canada had for her manufactured products. Thus a policy of protection of the home market by a high tariff was built up as a policy for the protection, of industry in Canada, and it has continued ever since the "national policy" of 1874 was first initiated.
As Canada's industries expanded, its surplus products looked for foreign markets. Thus arose our export trade. But the home market being the main market was still protected. This doctrine had its fullest practical scope during the Bennett regime of 1930-35.
We have, however, gone through an industrial revolution during the last two years. We have become a prodigy of industrial production. When peace returns and war orders cease, our factories must turn to peacetime production and there will be a feverish search for export trade to keep the factories
The Budget-Mr. Gregory

going, to continue the employment of those at present engaged in those factories and to create jobs for the soldiers returning home. The tables then will have completely reversed -the home market will be the insignificant market and the export market will be the important one. It seems to me that the whole psychology of the people of Canada will change when this is realized. The psychology of the producer and the consumer, of the farmer and the businessman, of the worker and the management-the psychology of the whole Canadian people will have gone through a radical change. They will realize two great urges which will induce a change of tariff policy in Canada. May I indicate those two urges.
Efficiency and cheapness of production will be the essentials in order that Canadian goods may compete in price and quality in the open competitive markets of the world. I submit that high tariff protection is not conducive either to efficiency of operation or to cheapness of production.
The second urge may be put in this way. Exports have to be paid for, and how are exports paid for? Well, sir, the farmers of western Canada have always understood that very simple problem in arithmetic. Exports must always be paid for by imports. Hence the western farmers' consistent belief in free trade or low tariffs to permit a two-way traffic in commodities. I repeat what I said the last time I addressed the house, that after the war there will be no crusted high tariff Tories, that after this war is over we shall all be free traders or low tariff believers. The farmers of western Canada will welcome that day. It will mean the striking off of their chains of economic slavery. Poverty has been enforced on the western farmer by the heavy toll of freight rates on what he sells and on what he buys, by the artificially high prices which protective tariffs have compelled him to pay, and by a banking system unsuited in its structure and in its practices to be of service to the farmers of western Canada. I shall have something further to say as I develop my speech with respect to another kind of financing of western Canada, both in its activities and in its policies.
Leaving the question of a change which we believe is imminent in the fiscal policy of Canada, may I lay down the second proposition which to me is equally important. Not only must there be, after this war is over, a free interchange of commodities for the prosperity of Canada and the welfare of Canadian people, but there must be a free exchange of people. In other words, we must go back
(Mr. Gregory.]
once more to an active, generous, comprehensive immigration policy for the Dominion of Canada, subject always, of course, to the application of certain approved standards of physical, mental and moral fitness of those who seek entry into this country. Just in passing, after forty-five years' residence in western Canada and having seen nearly all the immigration into western Canada, may I say that often in the past these standards of physical and mental and moral fitness were applied with most inexcusable laxity. I believe that vast groups of European people will be eager to come to Canada after the war, to leave behind them forever the regular periodical recurrences of invasion of their homes, the fleeing for their lives and abandoning of their possessions which has been the history of countless generations throughout the whole history of Europe. I wonder if we do not at times forget that the same hills and rivers which Julius Caesar fought for, the same hills and rivers which nations and tribes, before those nations, fought for throughout the ages of Europe, are the same hills and rivers which our soldiers fought for in the great war of 1914-1918 and which the German armies in this war seized in their conquest of Europe.
Canada will have an opportunity such as she has never had in the past of selecting and choosing, that is hand-picking, the kind of immigrant that she will accept after this war. This policy will not be, like past policies, agricultural, designed to fill up vacant lands, because all the good vacant lands in western Canada are already filled. It will be one of selecting skilled tradesmen, artisans, technicians and industrialists. Prior to the outbreak of this war the breaking-down of mass population and centralized industry had commenced. Indeed, the decentralization of industry and population was well on its way. The bombing plane has simply hastened this movement by destroying the physical assets of thousands of factories in Europe and ending the lives of tens of thousands of skilled artisans working therein. The urge to get away from this kind of thing, from this incessant scourge in Europe, will induce innumerable industrialists to pack up what remains of their plant and machinery, their assets, their currency, their finances and credit, bring with them their technicians and artisans, and cross the ocean to Canada and this great land mass of north America, where they can reestablish themselves on a smaller scale, and, if not entirely free from bombing planes, at least live on this new land mass of north America where no wars break out, and to

The Budget-Mr. Gregory
attack which, bombing planes first have to cross two thousand miles of the Atlantic ocean or seven thousand miles of the Pacific ocean.
I believe that very often we fail to realize how fortunate we are in living upon this great land mass of north America. It is God's gift to the unfortunates of this war. Canada can be the land of the second chance for those who have lost their first chance in Europe because of the devastation of this war. I believe, then, that Canada will have a wonderful opportunity to enrich its economic life through a vast stream of wealth and credit, of industrialists, technicians and artisans, and the creation of a new population based upon secondary industry. The opposition of farm groups and farm organizations in western Canada to further immigration, an opposition which has been so prominent for at least the last fifteen years, will vanish, and the dawn of a new day will break on the horizon for western Canada.
What will the establishment of secondary industry mean to western Canada? Let me enumerate the answers in the following manner:
First, it will mean an increased home market for the consumption of commodities grown on the farm. It will mean the bringing of millions of new mouths to the grain fields of western Canada to consume our flour, meat and dairy products. Also, ini time, it will mean the building up of a domestic price for flour, meats, dairy products and other farm produce; and the export price which now governs the price of western farm products, and which has been the economic curse of our farmers as long as I have known anything about the effect of markets upon our producers, will apply only to that small balance which is left over, which we will call the exportable surplus.
Second, it will mean employment for our boys and girls. I do not wish to enlarge upon one of the saddest stories with which we are afflicted in western Canada. In only the second generation of pioneers who went to the prairies-unlike Great Britain, which looked after succeeding generations, even to the tenth generation before its emigrants scattered over the world-our people have had to suffer the sorrow and ignominy of seeing their boys and girls, born in the west, growing up there, attending its schools, for the cost of which we were responsible, when they reached the age when they are bubbling over with enthusiasm and energy and the desire to do something in this world, look in vain for jobs in the country of their upbringing, and become compelled to go to other provinces and throughout the United States of America,
where by their efforts they are enriching the life of other provinces or another country at the expense of the province in which they were born.
In the third place, it will mean relief from the heavy burden of taxation which weighs upon the towns and cities of Canada.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


John Albert Gregory: When the house rose at six o'clock I was trying to answer the question which I had put to the house, "What will the establishment of secondary industry mean to western Canada?" I had come to the third effect in answering that question. I had said it will mean relief from the heavy burden of taxes in our towns and cities, due to the increased assessment of factories, houses, warehouses, stores and all the development incidental to turning western Canada into a province of secondary industry.
Fourth, it will mean the turning of deficits of our two railway systems into permanent surpluses. Fifth, it will mean a reduced burden in servicing our bonded indebtedness, federal, provincial and municipal, on account of the increased realty values which will result in our towns and cities and farm lands and 'by reason of the increased number of wage-earners, the reduction of the per capita debt automatically will mean the reduction of per capita taxation. And sixth, it will permit the extension of increased social services for the reasons which I have stated.
It must be borne in mind that Canada has built up an overhead structure capable of maintaining a population of 50,000,000 people, in her railways, schools, civic improvements, legal structures of all kinds, publicly owned equipment, and in our mercantile and financial institutions. The burden of this structure on 11,000,000 people has become almost intolerable.
Following this war, certain things must be done to ensure the proper development of Canada along these lines. This evening I intend to lay three stones as a foundation for greater prosperity, greater happiness and a growing population in our national life.
I take the first stone, and a prominent stone in that foundation, to be the creation under the Bank of Canada of regional banks for the four natural regions of Canada. In order that this may be very plain may I answer the question, What are those four natural regions? In my judgment they are the maritime provinces, the central provinces, the
The Budget-Mr. Gregory

prairie provinces, and British Columbia, all having natural resources and an economy all their own and a geographical position in accordance with the position which they must occupy in that national whole which we call the confederation of Canada. The creation, I say, under the Bank of Canada of regional banks for the four natural regions of Canada. For what purpose? To use the credit that can be created against the wealth in production of each of these regions. It will be done through subsidiaries of existing banks, setting up agricultural banks, long-term credit banks, by our present institutions or the setting up of a special agricultural bank structure under the Bank of Canada in each of those regions to encourage the development of new resources and industries based on those resources and the general balanced development of that region which it is its duty to advance.
I realize that in laying a foundation for a new Canada this immediately breaks up the present situation, whereby through the present banking set-up the credit of this dominion has been and is being used for the maintenance of the industrial and financial preponderance of the central provinces at the expense of the other provinces of the dominion. I do not need to explain this point; I have spoken fully concerning it in the past in connection with the unfortunate breaking down of the conferences having to do with the Sirois report. I do not intend to take time now to expand this point; I just say that in one short lifetime I have seen the obliteration of industrial and financial institutions and their subsidiaries, insurance and trust companies in the maritime provinces, either by absorption by or removal to the central provinces, or by bankruptcy. In one generation I have seen the prodigious wealth of the prairie provinces flow in irresistible tide to the central provinces, leaving those prairie provinces barren of wealth, sucked as dry as a squeezed lemon.
Surely, sir, this was not the design or pattern intended or anticipated by the fathers of confederation. Surely the fathers of confederation never visualized a lopsided development such as we have in Canada at present. Surely those famous fathers never intended to pour into any such lopsided mould from the melting pot of the four crown colonies comprised in confederation. I would rather think that the fathers of confederation conceived the idea of each part of the new Canada contributing to the welfare of each of the other parts, each contributing something to the common cause in making a greater, happier and more prosperous Dominion of Canada.

I believe the time has come to do something about this problem. We should start now and reshape this distorted growth that we call the Dominion of Canada.
The second stone to which I would refer as a foundation of a new and better Canada is the setting up of an economic board for each of those four regions to conduct a rigid research for raw products within that region and to aid in their manufacture.
Without dwelling on that point, I come to the third stone, setting up of regional research laboratories to conduct research into more varied use of the products and commodities native to each of those regions. Speaking of my own particular part of the country, I refer to such commodities as wheat, wild weeds, low grade coal, oil, gas, clays, and timber native to the region.
It may be said that it was the purpose of the Sirois report, if it had been implemented, so to equalize things in Canada that all these grievances to which I have referred would be remedied. It is true the Sirois report proposed the setting up of subsidies to the less favoured provinces in order to equalize the standards of living of all the provinces, to equalize educational opportunities and other standards in all the provinces, and to assist in the servicing of the provincial debt of these provinces. But even if we assume for a moment that all these things had been accomplished, there would still remain the hollow shell of economic deficiency in parts of Canada, in my part of the country, arising from lack of production, not primary but secondary. Eventually this will lead to economic discontent which may place a socialist or other non-demoeratic group in control in some of the provinces, and merely postpones the date of the internal disruption between the federal and provincial authorities.
Now, sir, I should like to mention, in addition to the three stones which in my judgment are essential as the foundation of a new and better Canada, certain aids to make this structure a success. I say, first, that we should begin now, particularly in the prairie provinces, to carry on the technical training of our youth in order to prepare them for the new day in secondary industry. You may say that the dominion-provincial youth training scheme is already in existence. That is quite true, and I am pleading simply for a continuation of that scheme following the termination of this war. Second, the time must come in western Canada when there must be more intensive farming to diversify and raise the value per acre of our crops and put more labour content into their production. Next I plead for a greater

The Budget-Mr. Gregory
application of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, to take unsuitable land out of cultivation, and put it into community pastures, and to conserve water at every opportunity. I plead with this house and this government that larger and still larger sums be voted under that rehabilitation act for the purpose of carrying on conservation work in western Canada.
This brings me to the question of irrigation, and for a moment I should like to refer to an irrigation project which has nothing whatever to do with the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. It so happens that near my home, in the valley of the Saskatchewan river, there is a thousand acres of pasture, scrub and alkali which in the early days of the northwest mounted police, when their headquarters were in Battleford, was used as a pasture for the horses. As a member of the provincial legislative assembly I had something to do with bringing to the attention of the government the possibilities of this thousand acres of pasture land if it were irrigated. Not long ago a start was made; a few hundred acres of this land were placed under irrigation, and the results obtained have been simply amazing. This project is under the control of the provincial mental hospital, with the staff and patients doing the work from spring till fall. The mental hospital is responsible for the care ef the crops, but those crops have become so immense that even with all the stock on the farm and the population of three thousand people in the mental hospital, it is not possible to consume what is produced there. I should like to give one or two figures in connection with this project. I am not in a position this evening to give the exact number of acres under cultivation for the growing of vegetables and roots, but a very large part of the land being cultivated is used to grow oats, alfalfa and other fodder for the stock on the farm. There is a twenty-three acre field of oats which yielded a crop at the rate of 114 bushels to the acre. The alfalfa crop amounted to several tons per acre; I have not the exact figure per acre. Then we made a start in the growing of small fruits and vegetables, with these results:
Pounds
Strawberries	 1,176
Raspberries	 787
Currants	 930
Gooseberries	 441
Crab apples	 104
Plums	 650
Beans, green	 5,584
Beans, dry	 4,500
Beets	 69,975
Carrots	 144,694
Cauliflower	 9,329
Pounds
Cabbage	 125,413
Lettuce	 1,000
Mangels	 100,000
Onions	 17,411
Potatoes	 722,700
Peas, green	 11,333
Peas, dry	 10,800
Parsnips	 29,870
Radishes	 1,967
Rhubarb	 1,695
Swiss chard	 5,324
Turnips	 204,560
This project has been under cultivation for only three or four years, but the results obtained already are almost beyond comprehension; it is necessary to go there in order to appreciate exactly what has been done. Since coming to eastern Canada I have heard critics in this house, more particularly those coming from Ontario, say that the western farmer is too lazy to go into mixed farming. It may not be known to many hon. members that in Saskatchewan there are large areas in which sufficient water cannot be obtained for domestic requirements and where stock cannot therefore be raised. In other regions the quality of the soil and the absence of moisture are such that coarse grain cannot grow and mature. However, in some sections we have made vast strides in regard to mixed farming. For the first time Alberta has led all the provinces in hog production. Saskatchewan has made progress also, and in a few moments I propose to read a few figures with respect to what has been done in that province. Before doing so, however, I would warn eastern farmers that if their advice were taken literally, the production of hogs, cattle, sheep, horses, eggs, butter and cheese in western Canada would swamp the market and break prevailing prices.
Now just a word with regard to stock production in Saskatchewan, as between 1941
and 1942:	1941	1942Horses 	803,893	830,000Cattle	1,245,537	1,395,200Sheep 	330,110	410,000Hogs	949,000	1,325,400Hens and chickens..	9,649,460	13,127,000Turkeys	990,650	1,616,000
Now just another figure or two with respect to another form of production. In 1942 our production of creamery butter amounted to 41,306,000 pounds, bringing us to third place in Canada, as against a production of 37,126,694 pounds in 1941. There is an equally remarkable increase in the production of honey, which amounted to 5.000.000 pounds in 1942, or an increase of 2,000,000 pounds over 1941. We ranked second in Canada in the production of honey, Ontario being in first place with

The Budget-Mr. Gregory

7,800,000 pounds. The number of sheep shorn in Saskatchewan during 1942 was 226,900 and the wool production was 1,815,000 pounds. In 1941 the number of sheep shorn was 183,100, and the wool clip amounted to 1,501,000 pounds.
Mr. Speaker, I see my time is passing quickly. I had intended this evening to make some reference to the growth of cooperative organizations in Saskatchewan and their purposes. As many hon. members know, Saskatchewan is the home of cooperation, leading all the provinces of Canada in its cooperative effort. This movement has been fostered almost entirely under Liberal administration in that province. On various occasions the provincial government has loaned large sums of money for the creation, development and maintenance of cooperative organizations.
There are two kinds of cooperatives in that province, namely, producer cooperatives and consumer cooperatives. I had intended giving the house to-night some figures showing the number of the various kinds of cooperatives, something of their membership and something of the branches they are operating at the present time in large numbers. I shall leave this subject to a later date. I had intended developing the subject further, after stating the purposes for which cooperative organizations are created, stating something of the nature of the various organizations, and stating just what producer cooperatives and consumer cooperatives are doing in that province. I had intended carrying the matter a trifle further to-night.
However, I shall leave this for another occasion. I had intended going into the question of just what atmosphere cooperatives operate in. Cooperative movements always operate in capitalistic or free enterprise provinces or countries. The cooperative organization is for the very purpose of assisting the producer, if it is a producer organization, or the consumer, if it is a consumer organization, to obtain a saving through operation in the cooperative set-up. They operate only in capitalist organizations; they have no place in socialist organizations. That brings me to a speech delivered a short time ago in Saskatchewan, having to do with the proposal that cooperative institutions should be used in a socialist state, in that province. But for to-night I shall leave the question right there.


Mr. D. KING HAZEN (St. John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday afternoon when the orders of the day were called I rose to address a question to the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) for

the purpose of learning if there were any truth in the report which appeared in the Telegraph-Journal of Saint John, New Brunswick, on the 9th instant to the effect that the government intended closing the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve training centre at that port which, for some time past, has been known as His Majesty's Canadian ship Brunswicker.
You ruled at that time, Mr. Speaker, that the question should have been put on the order paper. Consequently I was unable to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, and to learn from him whether or not the report was true.
I do not rise this evening to criticise Your Honour's ruling, but I do wish to inform the minister, and through him the government, that the people of Saint John are very much perturbed over this report. I rise to ask the minister, and through him the government, that, if such move is being considered, it be not proceeded with, but dropped. I rise to ask him if such a decision has been come to it be reconsidered and that His Majesty's Canadian ship Brunswicker should be permitted to remain at the port of Saint John.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: May I reassure my hon. friend by saying that if it is at all possible to continue the establishment at Saint John, it will be continued there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It has been there for twenty years.


Douglas King Hazen: I am very glad to have that assurance from the minister. This branch of the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve was established at the port of Saint John two decades ago. In the years preceding the war many of our boys joined this unit. They obtained useful training there, and made friendships within the unit, with the result that an esprit de corps has been developed. The unit has its own traditions. It has become part of our community life. Many of the boys, both officers and men, enlisted when war was declared, and have given good accounts of themselves.
Since the outbreak of the war the work of the unit has been carried on in a more intensive manner. While I am glad to have the minister's assurance, I must tell him that if the report which has appeared in the press turns out to be true, and the unit is removed from Saint John, such action on the part of the government would be deeply, and I submit justly, resented by practically everybody in the community, irrespective of poli-

The Budget-Mr. Hazen
tical affiliations. I must confess I was pretty hot under the collar when I read the item in the newspaper. I hope it will not prove to be true.
The feelings of resentment and indignation engendered by the report are not based on any loss of business, or any loss of dollars and cents. They arise from feelings which lie closer to the human heart and which., in the long run, are of greater importance. They are engendered by the fact that our people live in an old but modern and active sea port, one which has generations of sea tradition behind it, that has known great days in the past when it was the fifth largest shipowning port in the world1, and it looks forward, too, to greater days in the future, as our country develops. Our people regard this unit as part of its community life and part of its sea tradition.
I should think the feelings of the people of Toronto would be very much hurt if they were informed that the Queen's Own, or some other militia unit belonging to that city, were to be moved bag and baggage to the city of Quebec. The people of Ottawa would be equally disturbed if they were to hear that the Governor General's Foot Guards were to be transferred to Truro. And1 I say that the people of Saint John are very perturbed over this report.
There appeared in the Telegraph-Journal of Saint John, New Brunswick, on Tuesday last, an editorial, which I believe voices the feelings of the people of that city to a considerable extent. It is headed "Prevent this Injury", and states:
The incomplete news received as regards what is to happen to H.M.C.S. Brunswicker gives rise to serious misgivings. If things actually proceed as they appear to be shaping, it will mean that the training of R.C.N.V.R. ratings will cease, or almost cease, here and be moved to a Nova Scotian port, leaving few more than a recruiting staff. The news is indefinite, but it contains a threat that hon. Angus L. Macdonald, Minister of Defence for Naval Services, has in mind some plan that, as at present represented, will be definitely detrimental to Saint John. No reason has been given.
This, coming on top of the establishment of a naval signals training school in an inland town in the province of Quebec, seems to challenge every New Brunswick member of parliament and senator to combine and make their influence felt to prevent the plan being carried through. New Brunswick has no desire to attack Mr. Macdonald, but it has not the slightest intention of sitting down and permitting neglect and discrimination. When these are foreshadowed they must be prevented. During war time we all have enough to do to fight the enemy, and in New Brunswick at least we have more sense than to wish to join battle with a minister of the crown. However, if the latter starts some-72537-801
thing harmful to us, he will find us not backward in self-defence. Therefore it is to be hoped that joint action by all New Brunswick representatives in Ottawa, irrespective of party, will succeed in averting that which has the makings of very hard feelings.
When the war appropriation bill was before the house in committee last May and the minister's estimates were being considered, we were informed by him that $635,500 was being set aside for the erection of piers, buildings and the provision of other services in Saint John. Of this amount, $190,000 was a carryover from the previous year. This amount was small compared with the $7,500,000 which we were told was to be spent in Halifax, with the $4,469,000 which we were told was to be spent at the Sydney base and with the $2,500,000 which we were told was to be spent at Esquimalt. We were not told on that occasion about the $20,000,000-I have not the exact figures-that was to be spent at Deep Brook in Annapolis county, Nova Scotia. No mention of the fact was made that a development was to take place there, and as far as I can recollect no mention was made of the fact that $2,624,000 was to be spent in constructing a naval establishment at the inland town of St. Hyacinthe in Quebec, although the plans for these establishments must have been well under way at that time. The Minister of National Defence for Naval Services told us at that time that an administration building was to be built at Saint John at a cost of $25,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Very
modest.


Douglas King Hazen: Very modest, but we would have been glad to get it. We were told also that barracks costing $40,000 and a recreation building to cost $7,000 were to be erected. These are not large sums compared with what was being spent elsewhere, but we would have been glad to get them. However, as far as I know none of these building has been erected. If any building has been erected, I should like the minister to tell us just which one it is.
The Minister of National Defence for Naval Services has not found the time to visit the port of Saint John although he has found time to go about delivering lectures in different parts of the country. I suggest that he should come to Saint John and inspect the naval facilities there in order to see just what is needed at the port. It is about time that he came there. Judging from what has occurred since the outbreak of the war, I do not think we can look for much assistance from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Michaud) who is
125S
The Budget-Mr. Hazen

supposed to represent New Brunswick in the cabinet. He has failed to look after the interests of our province. There is no naval establishment of any considerable size in the whole province of New Brunswick. I again ask the minister to visit our province and inspect the facilities there so that he may learn at first hand just what is needed.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Would it be quite safe?


Richard Burpee Hanson: We will have the bagpipes out for you.


Douglas King Hazen: I shall be glad to go with you to point things out.


An hon. MEMBER:: As a bodyguard.


Douglas King Hazen: I am glad to have the assurance of the minister that there is a probability -I think I understood him correctly-that this unit will not be removed from Saint John. If the government have in mind any such plan as I have mentioned I urge them to drop it and to see to it that the port of Saint John and the province of New Brunswick get what is justly coming to them.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, so far the debate on the budget has provided each of the political parties in the house with an opportunity to set forth its monetary policy. I wish to speak for a few moments on the amendment to the amendment, particularly the first paragraph. I gathered from listening to the debate that all members of the house are agreed on certain points. I think we are all agreed that money is the medium for the exchange of goods and services and that the chief function of money in our national economy is to provide for an equitable exchange of those goods and services. I think we are agreed also that the success of any policy can be determined by the degree to which it succeeds in distributing these goods and services equitably.
At least four of the parties in the house have expressed their opinion regarding the soundness of the government's policy. I think the financial critic of the opposition is more optimistic about the soundness of the present government policy than is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). For that matter the Minister of Finance and the financial critic expressed some concern over the fact that last year it was necessary to borrow so heavily from the banks-1983,000,000, according to the minister's statement, $790,000,000 of which was borrowed from the private chartered banks. The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) made no distinction between the money bor-

rowed from the Bank of Canada and that borrowed from the private banks. To him they were all just bank borrowings. I think the minister made it clear that he would have preferred to borrow more than he did from the Bank of Canada. I am sure if I am wrong in that he will set me right. I think I am correct in saying that he made it clear to us that the only reason why he could not borrow more from the Bank of Canada was that for every $1,000,000 he borrowed from the Bank of Canada the private banks would thereby be automatically able to advance by way of credit another $10,000,000, thereby multiplying the danger of inflation tenfold. Apparently the policy he followed was that of borrowing $1,000,000 from the Bank of Canada, and then taking up by government loan the $10,000,000 which the private banks could advance by way of credit on that Bank of Canada security. The chief concern of both the minister and the financial critic of the opposition regarding this transaction was the inherent danger of inflation. Another danger brought to the attention of this house by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) was that while to-day the interest charges on those loans are comparatively low-I think the minister said 2-6 per cent over the whole borrowings-we have no assurance that in the post-war period we shall not be obliged to revert to pre-war interest rates. We have no assurance that the taxpayers of this country will not be required in future years to pay higher interest rates than those prevailing to-day.
The picture as I have been able to see it, listening to the minister and to his critic, is this: It is not this government which in the final analysis determines the monetary policy of the country. In so far as the minister is restrained from borrowing from the bank of Canada because of the power which that borrowing gives to the private banks, to that extent the private banks are determining the monetary policy of this government. I do not think any hon. member can escape that conclusion. There may be differences as to what the remedy is. We in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation have attempted to make it quite clear and to set forth in our amendment that as far as we are concerned we do not believe that any control short of the socialization of the entire banking system which will make the branches of the private banks branches of the government-owned Bank of Canada will solve the difficulties of our monetary policy and make money what it should be, the servant and not the master of our economy.

The Budget-Mr. Noseworthy
There is a second feature of the government's fiscal policy with which we are in disagreement, namely, the level at which the government has found it necessary to freeze wages and farm prices. I know the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) does not like to hear that word "freeze."


Humphrey Mitchell: It is not true.


Mr. NOSE  WORTHY@: I will use some
other word if he likes it better, but the meaning will 'be the same.


Humphrey Mitchell: Say stabilization. My
hon. friend knows better.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Without going into details let us review a few of the most significant facts, and I ask the Minister of Labour to correct me in this wherein I am wrong.
The dominion bureau of statistics sets forth, as this house has already been told, the fact that in 1941, eighty-three per cent of the wage-earners of Canada were in receipt of incomes of less than $1,500 a year, or $29 a week. The next fact is that there are many industries, both essential and non-essential which were depressed and in which wages had not been adjusted at the time the government's policy came into effect. There is still a very wide variation in the amounts paid to workers by way of cost-of-living bonus oftentimes in industries in the same location and engaged on the same type of work. Increases or adjustments have been made from time to time by the war labour boards but I submit that in by far the majority of those instances the adjustments have been made where labour has been sufficiently organized to bring the case of the workers to the attention of the minister and his department, and in all those industries where labour is unorganized, where the workers have no spokesman to present their case to the minister or his department, wages still remain low. The argument which we hear raised particularly when large numbers of workers are involved is that adjustments will wreck the government's price-fixing and wage-fixing policy. I submit that any government policy which has to depend for its success upon the government's ability to keep vast numbers of our workers and vast numbers of our farmers in receipt of incomes below minimum standards is socially unsound. That, to my mind, is the weakness of the present government policy regarding farm prices and labour. Its success depends upon the extent to which the government can succeed in keeping those who are in receipt of low incomes at that low income level.
There is not an hon. member who does not agree that some restraints are necessary to curb the purchasing power of consumers or to keep it in line with the supply of consumer goods. We all realize that workers would suffer probably more than anyone else should inflation take place. But I ask the government, is it necessary, in order to prevent inflation, to keep eighty-three per cent of our wage-earners in receipt of income lower than that accepted by the government itself as a minimum standard of living? Surely not. If consumer purchasing power must be restricted- and I agree that it should-certainly those restrictions should fall upon all citizens impartially. Taxation and compulsory saving do just that; they make the burden fall fairly impartially if the taxes are properly distributed. But keeping wages in one industry lower than wages in another, or keeping wages in one province lower than wages in another, does not distribute the restrictions equitably; it has just the opposite effect; it imposes a special set of restrictions upon those in the lower income brackets.
The threat of inflation is used, I fear, as a bogey to prevent equitable adjustments of wages and prices. If we are not willing to make those necessary adjustments on purely humanitarian grounds, surely it has been made quite clear by private hon. members in this house that this policy, by reducing production, is defeating the very purpose we set out to achieve in our war effort. On this ground, if not on humanitarian grounds, I contend that we should find some way of preventing inflation without having recourse to a policy of depressing so many of our people.
I do not agree with or accept the remedy proposed by the financial critic of the opposition, the hon. member for Danforth.	He
advocates reducing the tax rates and spreading the tax. I should want to know what taxes are to be reduced and where they are to be spread before I could accept that solution.	He
quoted from the New York Herald Tribune, and I take it he thereby sanctioned the quotation he read and committed himself and his party to the opinion expressed therein. This is what he gave as the reason for absenteeism. It is reported in Hansard, at page 1078:
"It is that we are spoiling our war workers with wages which most of them never before dreamed of earning."
Later on he says that absenteeism-
. . . arises because the taxation brought down in the last budget has made it easy for labour to stay away from their places of employment. . . .
The Budget-Mr. Noseworthy

I submit that these charges against the industrial workers of this country in war time are serious charges when laid by the financial critic of the newly formed or re-organized Progressive Conservative party, whose proclaimed mission was to bring light and hope to the masses of our people. I shall make no comment except to say that I cannot accept that as an explanation of the cause, the fundamental cause of absenteeism and reduced production.
One other remark made by the hon. member for Danforth calls for consideration. He exhorted the wage-earner to build up for himself "a cushion" for the after-the-war period. Had the hon. member already abandoned hope of his party ever being returned to power? Surely he was not thinking in terms of that marvellous Winnipeg programme when he spoke of the necessity of cushions to help us over depression, unemployment and so forth. Was he conceding the next election to the Liberals when he made that statement?
In speaking on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I tried to show that in Great Britain they had controlled inflation without having recourse to the freezing of wages and prices to the extent that it has been done in this country. The minister was not satisfied with some of my explanations. Let us get the record straight. I have looked into this matter as carefully as I possibly can. This is what I find.
From the beginning of the war to the end of 1941, wage rates increased in Great Britain between 26 and 27 per cent. In 1941 wage rate increases added eight million dollars a week to the national payroll. Wage rate increases plus the longer hours of work and the greater number of workers increased the total weekly earnings of the people by 42 per cent.


Humphrey Mitchell: Is that not the point I made when my hon. friend spoke?


Joseph William Noseworthy: That is the point the minister was making, and I want to put this straight for my benefit as well as his. In 1942 wage rate increases added another $6,400,000 to the weekly earnings of approximately six million workers. Notwithstanding this vast increase in total wage-earner purchasing power the cost of living in Great Britain has risen only three per cent since the end of 1940. Since May, 1941, there has been virtually no increase in the cost of living. In the light of those facts I find it hard to believe that the government's wage and price fixing policy is designed exclusively for the prevention of inflation.
There are a few other matters in the budget on which I should like to comment. One is the change introduced in the income tax payable by officers in the armed forces. I confess I was unable to understand what the changes meant, and therefore I wrote to a friend of mine, an army officer who was a university graduate in mathematics. I concluded that no one who was not a specialist in mathematics could possibly interpret the regulations that the minister brought down. This is what my friend wrote in reply:
I think that the attitude of the officers in this centre towards Mr. Ilsley's proposals could be summed up in two words, "incredibly stupid". We cannot understand why Mr. Ilsley found it necessary to create a Chinese puzzle in order to provide some measure of relief for junior officers.
As far as I can discover, the net result of those changes is that a few first-class warrant officers will pay a small income tax. Junior officers will receive relief to the tune of $150 or possibly $200 per year.	Captains will
receive a slightly reduced income rate, and all above the rank of captain will not be affected by the changes.
There are one or two things the minister should have kept in mind in this connection. In all fairness to these men we must recognize that many of them have assumed their present responsibilities at some sacrifice. In many cases that I know of personally there was considerable sacrifice. I think we can accept the statement that the salary an officer receives does not necessarily indicate a purchasing power of that sum. A salary of $3,000 in that position is equivalent, I am informed, to about $2,400 in civil life. Officers in the armed forces are the victims of a racket as far as clothes are concerned. I think every army officer in this country will agree that the prices being charged to officers for uniforms are unwarrantably high. They are the victims of another playful habit that Ottawa has, that of changing the regulations frequently as to what an officer shall or shall not wear. These regulations are changed so frequently that considerable expense is involved on the part of the officer in trying to keep up with the changing regulations.
The suggestion I would make in regard to this particular class is that the military pay and allowances of all ranks up to and including a first lieutenant be totally exempt from income tax, and that the tax on officers' pay above that rank be on a graded scale in accordance with the spread between their pay and that received by a first lieutenant.


IS, 1943
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Noseworthy
Tlie minister said that he had received not a single complaint from an army officer. The minister knows that the king's regulations prevent army officers from communicating with the government or with any officers of the government, and that they are liable to disciplinary action if they do so. That undoubtedly accounts for the minister not having received a single complaint.
Mr. ROSS (Calgary East):: Where does the hon. member find that regulation?


Joseph William Noseworthy: I think the hon. member will find it if he studies them carefully.


George Henry Ross: I do not think he will.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I am informed not only by officers but by privates that that is the situation. In fact there is such an injunction imposed upon practically all government employees, particularly in the Department of Munitions and Supply. I find that my own constituents cannot talk to me about what is happening, cannot express any criticism of government policy on account of obligations they have been required to assume.
I am not sure that the distinction between those serving at home and those serving abroad is fully justified, certainly not in the light of experience up to the present time. Most of those men serving at home are at the government's disposal; the reason why they are not overseas is that the government wants them here. A great many of those who have gone overseas have been occupying administrative positions in England not radically different from those occupied by the men who have remained on this side.
A third matter on which I wish to offer some comment is the change in the regulations regarding the encouragement given to producers of oil. I brought this matter up in the house on several occasions last year. The point I am interested in is that we are not producing a very great quantity of oil in this country, and that we have resources which we are not developing. If these changes will facilitate the development of our own resources, I am sure we will pardon the minister, in order that we may get that vital necessity at the present time, even if some of these exemptions go to vested interests. In Alberta is produced ninety per cent of Canada's total production of oil, coming largely from the Turner oil fields. The Calgary Oil Bulletin, a fairly authentic publication, gives this information:
A week ago there were seventeen actively drilling wells in that field, whereas a year ago
there were thirty-four. We were producing in February 25,000 barrels of crude oil per day as against 28,000 a year ago, a decrease of
3.000	barrels per day.
Notwithstanding the fact that there are 100 proven drill sites withheld and undrilled in that field by one major oil interest alone, we are to-day importing into western Canada from
200.000	to 300,000 barrels of crude oil a month. Seventy per cent of the oil of Alberta is produced from the independent wells, operated by independent companies which are financed through the sale of royalties, for the most part in the industrial centres of Canada. When the oil controller's regulations were put into effect last year the men who had been devoting their time to the sale of these royalties and the promotion of the development of the independent wells of that district were refused anything higher than category A, the same category that was given pleasure drivers. I personally went to the oil controller in connection with the matter, but his statement was that we did not need that oil; that it was not a question of a shortage of oil but entirely a question of transportation. Apparently to-day the ministry has taken a different stand and is bringing in concessions that will encourage the development of oil in our own country. I want to ask the minister concerned how he can justify the granting of only category A, the category of pleasure drivers, to men who are engaged solely in the promotion of the production of oil in Canada. Is there any other reason behind that action? Is it that these oil interests object to the independent companies developing the oil wells of Alberta? That, I submit, is a question which requires some investigation.
I had hoped to make some comment on the situation with regard to cobalt. A month ago I asked, through the medium of the order paper for official information. My motion was adopted on February 22, but so far the only information I have is what I myself have been able to gather. Therefore I should like to be corrected if in any particular my statements are wrong. My information is that to-day there is an abundance of cobalt in northern Ontario; that we are importing cobalt for refining in this country; that the owners of these properties in northern Ontario can secure neither permission nor priority rights to develop these properties; and that one mining corporation is gradually buying up all these properties. I asked for information with regard to a report made by a Mr. Reid, of the Ontario department of mines, which I understand was submitted to the metals controller last October. For some reason that report was withdrawn and was not published, and I am told that the revised edition of the report was
The Budget-Mr. Kinley

made public only recently. I asked, through the order paper, what essential difference there was between the original and the revised report, and I was told there was none. I should like to ask the minister if it is not true that to-day there is only one small refinery for cobalt in northern Ontario; that the producers of that metal must accept a relatively small share of the returns, and that there was a recommendation in the first report that the government should assist in the erection of a refinery for cobalt. I understand there is no such recommendation in the revised report.


Mr. J. J. KINLEY (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the thought uppermost in the minds of all of us each and every day is with regard to the progress of the war, more particularly with regard to our duty in this parliament. We are all concerned about the fortunes of our arms in the field, with their support and maintenance; and at the same time we must invoke the aid of science, industry and labour to the fullest possible extent in order that our country may become powerful and strong. Then we must use this power in the most intensive way in order to help our allies, the united nations, to achieve victory and thus secure the safety of the land.
It seems to me that the budget presented a little over a week ago will give to many the best possible picture of how great is the war effort of this country. It gives us a record of the achievements of the year just coming to a close, showing what our people paid in taxes and what they provided the government by way of loans. With balances it gives us the information so that we. can go ahead intelligently to the year ahead. The budget also provides estimates and commitments, and shows us that during the year to come our burden will be greater than, at any time in our history.
This budget has been before the house for over a week, and in that time has been criticized by the opposition and commended by hon. members on the government benches. The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris), in a long, exhaustive analysis, made some criticisms, and perhaps made some suggestions of value, which will have salutary effect upon the administration. He was most cordial about it all-and it seems to me he might well be, a man who had two weddings in his family in one day, just before his speech in the house. A man in that position might very well be cordial.
It is the duty of the opposition to be critical, and it is expected that the weak

points or those points which can be improved will be dwelt upon by opposition members. It is in that way we bring out the truth, and make stronger our efforts in the interests of the whole dominion. It seems to me, however, that nothing seriously wrong was found with the budget. The fault-finding was of a general nature. The opposition offered no amendment. I believe that members of the Progressive Conservative party accepted the budget, not as one of desire but as one of necessity, and that they were proud of the accumulated results of the effort of our country. Therefore that party did not oppose the budget.
There are three common faults oppositions find with budgets. First, there is excessive taxation; second, hard times-and that is something which is always held against a government. I think we can say that from a commercial point of view there are no hard times at present in Canada. Third, extravagance is a fault which can be well found in, respect of any budget or any government. Strange to say, however, from the groups in the far corner of the house came two amendments, both of which were unique in that they asked for more expenditure and more taxation on the people of Canada.
I admit that the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), in the earnest and forceful way wherewith he presents his ideas on money, offered an amendment which he believes is an easy way to finance the war. I am afraid that way is too easy to be of any abiding benefit. To accept it in any degree would be a sign of weakness, not of strength-and we want Canada to be a strong country.
Then, a subamendment was moved by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and this subamendment is something along the same lines, except that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation wants to nationalize the banks. They believe we should have government banks doing the business of the country. Well, from a general point of view it would appear to me that, whatever virtue there might be in change, now is the time not to try any change; rather we should have stability and unity to carry on the war.
I have no brief for the banks, but I think that along with the merchants and the people in charge of industry in Canada, in the past decade the banks have done a fairly good job. I can recall the days of the depression when the banks of the United States had to close their doors. They had financial chaos, but in Canada the banks carried on and were a

The Budget-Mr. Kinley
source of strength. But we must realize also that our banks succeed outside Canada, and it is a good thing when that condition prevails. The banks of Canada have agencies in the West Indies, Europe, Great Britain and even in New York, the centre of the money market of the world. I always thought that Canada was rather proud of her banking system, and that it was doing a good service and serving Canada in a healthy way.
We have the Bank of Canada, which is our national bank. It is a government institution. The Bank of Canada does control the activities of the other banks. If we had a government bank in every town in Canada we would have a political institution, and would thereby increase bureaucracy. While now a merchant or citizen can go to one bank and, if he is not satisfied, can go to another, if we had a government bank there would be no other to go to, and as a result he would have perhaps to submit to the arrogance and indolence of public officials.
It may be that the banks have a monopoly. I know one thing: They do not quarrel in public, and that is a pretty good sign. But if our friends in the far corner want banks, why do they not start banks in this country?


An hon. MEMBER:: You will not let us.


John James Kinley: Yes, we will let you.


Mr. QUELCH:: What about the Alberta
bank charter?


John James Kinley: A bill came in from Alberta during tire last parliament to create a provincial bank. It came before the banking and commerce committee. What did they want? They did not want to conform to the Bank Act of this country. They did not want to conform to controls of the government. They wanted a special act with special privileges in order that they could carry on banking as they would like it. There is no reason why provinces in Canada cannot start banks, and there is no reason why they could not carry them on successfully. The hon. member (Mr. Noseworthy) who preceded me spoke about borrowing money from the private banks. It is better to borrow money from the people, but the government used the private banks in an emergency, and borrowed at a price below the cost of doing business. Even if we had government banks I believe that the cost of doing business would be higher than it is at present, with the chartered banks, and that it would be just one step toward that state of socialism for which our hon. friends hope. At any rate the Bank Act is due for review, I believe, next year.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) does not like the profit motive in industry. May I point out that in a few weeks time seeding operations will be in order. The farmers of western Canada will have to plant. I wonder if they are going to plant their farms for fun?


Mr. MacINNIS:: That is what they have been doing for the past five or six years.


John James Kinley: Or I wonder if they will expect a profit. There is a bit of a gamble in connection with it. If they get rain; if they have the proper conditions of atmosphere; if they have good soil, they can expect a good crop and an increase. If they do not get it, we shall hear about it in this parliament. Furthermore, I want to say the western corporations are very astute. For years they have been able to manoeuvre themselves into a position where they did not need to assume their obligations by way of payment of income taxes.
This afternoon the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar asked whether the wheat pools in western Canada would pay income taxes to the federal government. He probably knew that the Department of Justice had given a decision that the pools were not real cooperatives. I believe the matter is likely to be referred to the courts. The other day the hon. member for Danforth sang a swansong in connection with the taxes to be paid by the so-called cooperatives. I suppose that is a connection that they made at the Winnipeg convention. It seems to me that when they ask the government whether these organizations are to have to pay an income tax, we can assume that they have profits. If they have no profits, why worry about it?
We all realize that real cooperatives will not be asked to pay an income tax by the government of Canada. The hon. member apparently forgets that in 1929 there was an amendment to the income tax act in connection with the cooperatives in western Canada and that the word "reserves" was inserted. The result has been the piling up of millions of dollars of reserves in western Canada by the wheat pools and they have no income tax. I think it is only fair and reasonable that these people should assume their fair share of responsibility. The other day the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) had something to say about cooperatives. He quoted from a letter, although he did not say from whom it had been received. I should like to repeat part of this quotation as reported at page 1168 of Hansard:
Last year these creameries paid five cents a pound less for butter fat than the farmers were
The Budget-Mr. Kinley

getting in northwestern Nova Scotia where the great Scotsburn cooperative creamery is the yardstick for the price.
I have nothing against the Scotsburn creamery because it is a well run organization in Pictou county, but I think my hon. friend is wrong. My information is that the Tatama-gouche creamery is privately owned and is one of the largest in Nova Scotia, doing about three times the business done by the Scotsburn creamery. It must compete with the Scotsburn creamery, otherwise they would not hold their business. The Tatamagouche jreamery is about twenty-five miles from the Scotsburn creamery. To say that private business is not able to compete is not true. The same thing prevails all over Nova Scotia in connection with creameries. There is a cooperative at Antigonish, and as a rule their prices are lower than those paid in western Nova Scotia. The government is running three creameries in Cape Breton, and their prices are usually lower than the prices paid in Middleton and western Nova Scotia. This I have in a telegram from an informed source in Nova Scotia.
I believe in cooperative creameries for the farmer because I think they are fine things, but we must realize that the private creamery has an extra burden to carry in the payment of income tax. When a member from Nova Scotia comes to this house and tries to teil us that private industry in Nova Scotia is being backed to the wall, that it cannot exist and pay the prices as against the cooperative creameries, he is not telling a story that is borne out by the facts.
We hear a great deal about profits. I do not contend that profits are divine, but I think they have a place in the divine order of things. There is not a flower or a tree that does not profit in increase by reason of the elements and by reason of its life. In fact, all life must have an increase and profit or it will die. I have no apologies to make for seeming to try to reach out to the spiritual because that is one of the four freedoms.
I am free to say that I am not against big business as such, but I am against monopolies. No country ever became great without big business. While the capitalist system is not perfect, it has served the world for many years and has made Great Britain, the United States and Canada great free countries that we hope will prevail in the struggle in which they are now engaged. I do not think it is the capitalist system that hurts the world; I think it is greed. Greed is a human characteristic; it has not to do with the capitalist system alone.
I think greed will be found in every system, 
and to control greed and those who would control others seems to me to be our object in the future.
It is not the capitalist system that hurts; it is the abuse of that system. War has purged the capitalist system and it has its benefits in that regard. No man can get rich during this war, no matter what services he renders. We hope that the cleansing that goes on, the cleansing that must come to every system from time to time, will prove of salutary benefit.
Our hon. friends talk about New Zealand. Distant fields look greener, and my hon. friends go about as far away from Canada as they can for their example. New Zealand is a little country of 103,723 square miles, half as large as Manitoba. It has a population of
1,500,000	and is completely surrounded by water. It has one government. It is a country largely engaged in pastoral pursuits, and the same viewpoint is largely prevalent. It is not hard for these people to divide their money and services among themselves as they want to, but it must be realized that they make their money by shipping their goods to capitalist England and other countries in the world.
The minister in his budget asked the people to work and save. That is an old and simple rule, but considerable resolution and discipline are required to carry it out. I read a story once of an ancient sultan who, when he sent his couriers over his empire, would seal his letters with a signet ring on which was this inscription-I translate into English-"You cannot go astray on a straight road." As far as work and save is concerned, the road is straight, but it is a hard road and I want to sound this note of warning. While the people will work and save, they also expect the government to work and save. They expect everybody down to the smallest official in the most remote place to save as much as they can and to stop improvident expenditure wherever possible. I do not mean that there should be cheese-paring, because the people of this country expect a little dignity and colour in their war programme and in the conduct of their officials. It will be recalled that Donald Gordon, chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, called on the housewives of this country to check on the merchants and storekeepers in order that the price ceiling would be maintained. I wrote a letter to the press in my riding telling my people that they should keep their eyes open and that if they saw extravagance or improvidence they should let me know and I would very soon bring it to the attention of the government.

The Budget-Mr. Kinley
While we are interested in the war effort, there is also a great wave of public opinion in this and other countries that we should be preparing for the future. It seems to me that there is to-day an atmosphere of good-will among the united nations which should be taken advantage of so that when the war is over and conditions are confused we shall be able to have something planned and ready. I think this atmosphere began with the Atlantic charter. That was followed by the mutual aid agreement between the United States and Great Britain. I wish to quote one article of that agreement which is contained in a publication put out by the magazine Fortune. It is a fine piece of institutional advertising for future unity. Article VII of the mutual aid agreement, February 23, 1942, reads:
In the final determination of the benefits to be provided to the United States of America by the government of the United Kingdom in return for aid furnished under the act of congress of March 11, 1941, the terms and conditions thereof shall be such as not to burden commerce between the two countries but to promote mutually advantageous economic relations between them and the betterment of world-wide economic relations. To that end, they shall include provision for agreed action by the United States of America and the United Kingdom, open to participation by all other countries of like mind, directed to the expansion, by appropriate international and domestic measures, of production, employment, and the exchange and consumption of goods, which are the material foundations of the liberty and welfare of all peoples; to the elimination of all forms of discriminatory treatment in international commerce, and to the reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers; and, in general, to the attainment of all the economic objectives set forth in the joint declaration made on August 12, 1941, by the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
That is a very fine paragraph, but I submit that the text of it is to be found in these words:
.	.	. but to promote mutually advantageous
economic relations between them. . . .
Note the words, "mutually advantageous". A pretty safe statement. It brings to our minds that notwithstanding the good feeling that exists to-day, in the future practically everything will have to be justified upon economic grounds, and not only shall we have to show that a thing is mutually advantageous internationally, but here in Canada, for instance, we shall have to show that a project is mutually advantageous to the different groups and sections of this country before we shall be able to make trade treaties with other countries. I believe that it will take all the ingenuity and all the good-will we have to prevent economic nationalism from arising in
the days to come, and it is just as well to start early and to have the people informed. While leaders and governments make agreements, they have the habit of passing. We had an example of that after the last war when the idealism of President Wilson failed to come to fruition partly on account of what happened at Versailles and also on account of what happened in his own country. The only safe thing to do is to have the people well informed because, unlike leaders and governments, the people are always there and their will must prevail. Therefore let us start now and see to it that everybody in this country is informed about the good-will and cooperation that we all expect in the world that is to be.
I think the members of the house should tell here the story of what is best for their own districts. Since I come from the maritime provinces my thoughts naturally turn to the sea. I believe that as it was in the past so it will be in the future, and that if Nova Scotia and the maritimes are to prosper as a part of Canada it will be by reason of their activities on the sea. The Sirois report gives us a colourful account of the economy of Nova Scotia in what they call the golden age, in the days of the sailing ship. Nova Scotia was then outstanding as a result of her sea-borne transportation. It was then that we had banks, too. It was then that we had a balanced economy and were the most successful part of Canada. There is no reason why that cannot happen again. But after the passing of the wooden ship Nova Scotia never had a chance with sea-going vessels. The coasting trade is the nursery of the seagoing trade, and Nova Scotia never had a real chance even at her coasting trade. In 1894 the British Merchant Shipping Act was passed, section 736 of which reads:
The legislature of a British possession, may, by any act or ordinance, regulate the coasting trade of that British possession subject in every case to the following conditions:-
(a)	The act or ordinance shall contain a suspending clause providing that the act or ordinance shall not come into operation until her majesty's pleasure thereon has been publicly signified in the British possession in which it has been passed:
(b)	The act or ordinance shall treat all British ships (including the ships of any other British possession) in exactly the same manner as ships of the British possession in which it is made:
(c)	Where by treaty made before the passing of the Merchant Shipping (Colonial) Act, 1869 (that is to say, before the thirteenth, day of May eighteen hundred and sixty-nine), her majesty has agreed to grant to any ships of any foreign state any rights or privileges in respect of the coasting trade of any British possession, those rights and privileges shall be enjoyed by
The Budget-Mr. Kinley

those ships for so long as her majesty has already agreed or may hereafter agree to grant the same, anything in the act or ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding.
That was the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894. Ministers went from Canada to Great Britain on various occasions in order to get control of the coasting trade. In 1931 came the Statute of Westminster, one clause of which reads:
Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this act, sections 735 and 736-
Section 736 is the one I quoted.

of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall be construed as though reference therein to the legislature of a British possession did not include reference to the parliament of a dominion.
That meant that the coasting trade of Canada would be in the hands of the Canadian government. That measure was passed on December 11, 1931. On December 10, just before the passing of the Statute of Westminster, the British commonwealth merchant shipping agreement was approved. It took away all that was given to Canada by the Statute of Westminster in so far as coasting shipping was concerned.
Part IY-Equal Treatment . . .
Article 11.-While each part of the British commonwealth may regulate its own coasting trade, it is agreed that any laws or regulations from time to time in force for that purpose shall treat all ships registered in the British commonwealth in exactly the same manner as ships registered in that part, and not less favourably in any respect than ships of any foreign country.
Article 12.-Nothing in the present agreement shall be deemed

(i)	to derogate from the right of every part of the commonwealth to impose customs tariff duties on ships built outside that part; or
(ii)	to restrict the right of the government of each part of the commonwealth to give financial assistance to ships registered in that part or its right to regulate the sea fisheries of that part.
The last paragraph is a little difficult to understand. Article 27 states:
This agreement shall apply to all territories administered under the authority of the government of any part of the commonwealth and to ships registered there, or in any foreign port of registry, and fulfilling the requirements as to ownership set out in article 2 (1).
It can be seen that there is no nursery here for the coasting trade, which would have been the start of a revival of shipping. With the advance of steam and the building of iron ships, Nova Scotia shipping gradually disappeared. The United States has always protected her coastal trade by means of her coastal regulations. She has a higher standard of 
living than any other country in the world. One of the things this government should do when negotiating the next reciprocity agreement with the United States is to ask for reciprocity in the coasting trade. The St. Lawrence waterway will be built one of these days; Fort William at the head of the lakes will be an ocean port, and all Canadians will be interested in our coasting trade. It seems to me that for the promotion of good-will between ourselves and' the United States, reciprocity in the coasting trade as between the two countries would be highly desirable. Now is the time for Canada to become sea-minded. Men from the Pacific coast, from Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Toronto and every port of Canada are on our coast at the present time manning the ships of the Canadian navy. The crews of our navy now number 52,000 men; there are 38,000 of our seamen in the merchant marine, and 22,000 who have foreign-going identification cards. To-day Canada is building ships. We are told that ninety-seven have been built in Canadian shipyards during the war, but only seven of them are operated through the Parke Steamship government owned company. For the dominion the others are operated and, I think, owned by the United States and other powers. I believe that shortage of crews has something to do with the limited number of ships we are operating, also that it is the intention that Canada shall operate twenty or thirty more next year. It is also my belief that we must take care to see to it that when this war is over we are operating enough ships to absorb the men who are now in the navy and in the merchant marine; that the future young citizens of Nova Scotia will be able to make a living on the sea, and that Canada will have a merchant marine of which she may be proud.
At this point I wish to say a word on behalf of the merchant marine. Herein is one fault I have to find with the budget. The losses of our merchant marine are upwards of a thousand men. Although I do not believe very much in tax exemptions, it seems to me, as a matter of right and equity, they should be extended to the men of the merchant marine as well as to the men in the armed forces. We call them our merchant navy. We have enough faith in the government to know that right will prevail, but right needs pressure and influence behind it if it is to prevail quickly.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if you lived on the eastern coast of Canada and knew at first hand the privations and hazards which the men of the merchant navy are facing, you would say that they, too, deserve all we can give

The Budget-Mr. Roy
them, and that whatever exemptions go to the soldiers and the navy should go to the merchant marine.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member has already taken forty minutes.


John James Kinley: Perhaps I may be allowed to finish. With the permission of the house I will continue. The deep-sea fishermen of Nova Scotia go out on the banks of the Atlantic and are subject every day to the hazards of the submarine. Not only do they not get exemption on income tax but they must pay on the part of their wages represented by the food which they eat aboard the ships on which they go. I believe an exemption in this particular was allowed to the merchant marine, and I think it should be granted also to the deep-sea fishermen, many of whom come from my riding.
I hope that in the future we shall have free trade in fish with the United States. We had it during the last war. There is a quota at the present time on Canadian fish, but I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) will see to it that we get free entry of fish during the war, because then we shall be on the threshold of keeping it after the war is over and so extending the good-will which is so desirable.
The thought I wish to leave with the house is that Canada must become marine-minded. Our citizens must realize that this country faces two oceans, and that in the trade of the world transportation is one of the big factors. Although Great Britain always had an adverse balance of trade, she compensated for it with unseen sources of revenue, much of which was provided by her merchant marine, also by her great insurance companies and her investments all over the world. Do not forget that, after this war is over, the people of the maritimes will need to be reestablished. They are now in the navy, many of them as volunteers, and if the government does this in a way that will stimulate our marine, give us a good big merchant marine, and keep our navy going as part of the protection of Canada to maintain her dignity and prestige, it will be doing something in the interest of the maritime people of this country.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would have desired to offer some comments on this budget submitted to us by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley). But since the question of the St. Lawrence has arisen again in the press, in the Quebec legislature and also in this house I shall
postpone my remarks on the budget and shall rather make an attempt to make a survey of this situation.
Since last summer I have been under the impression that an inquiry was to be made by the government as to the activities of the corvette which was supposed to have escorted a boat called the Jean Briand from Rimouski to the north shore. But as far as I know we have had no report on the said inquiry, if there has been one. I should like to tell the house what information I have about this corvette so that people will be better at ease about it. It might also kill the rumours that are circulating.
At the time that three ships were sunk opposite Cap Chat in the first days of July the boat I just mentioned was carrying some sportsmen going on a fishing trip on the north shore. Said boat was escorted by a corvette as far as to the north shore, but if my information is correct, this corvette did not complete the fishing trip with the boat, but came back to the south shore. My information is that the boat was escorted at the request of the Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock) because it was carrying the mail to the north shore. However, the boat never dropped off the mail on her way on but proceeded to the fishing trip for quite a few days. That is the information I have, and I do not think it can be denied. The captain of that corvette was later transferred to a "Q" boat which had since disappeared with him. The late captain was not to be blamed for having gone with the boat I mentioned.
Now I should deal with the number of boats which have been sunk in the St. Lawrence. This is quite a delicate matter. Since last November the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) has made quite a few statements saying that only twenty ships have been sunk in the St. Lawrence. On March 10 at page 1129 of Hansard he is reported as saying:
I could make a statement to the house to-day merely repeating what I have already said several times, that our records show twenty merchant ships sunk in the gulf and river St. Lawrence in the year 1942.
On the next page the minister continues, saying:
I have stated several times that twenty merchant ships have been sunk in the St. Lawrence gulf and river during the navigation season of 1942 as a result of enemy action.
From those two quotations one observes that the minister mentioned "merchant" ships. And we know that there have been some war vessels, such as corvettes, destroyers
126S
The Budget-Mr. Roy

and different types of war vessels; I do not know how to call them exactly, but there seems to be a play on words. I do not say there is; I say there seems to be. There might be a way for the minister to explain his statement when he says the number is twenty, and Mr. Onesime Gagnon of the Quebec legislature may be right also when he declares that there were more than thirty ships sunk in the St. Lawrence river and gulf. I will explain that. The population along Gaspe and the north shore-the population I know, to which I belong-our sailors in that section are accustomed to consider the waters of that section w7here Newfoundland is located as the waters of the St. Lawrence, because Newfoundland is located right in the mouth of the gulf of St. Lawrence. That makes quite a wider area than if you take only the middle of the strait of Belle isle and the strait of Cabot. One can find there an explanation of the differences between the minister, the Hon. Mr. Gagnon and myself because I sincerely believe that more than twenty ships have been sunk in that section. I will give an explanation of that. I have here a list of quite a few ships which are supposed to have been sunk in different places around Newfoundland.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Is this list an official one?


Joseph Sasseville Roy: If the hon. member will not interrupt me, I will give him information later on. For instance, there is supposed to have been one, the steamship Connecto, sunk at Otter Garnet, Labrador, but that is not in the waters included1 inside the two straits I mentioned. Also three boats are supposed to have been sunk at Conception bay; that is also on the other side of the Newfoundland coast. And I could give many other examples.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Does the hon. member call Conception bay part of the gulf of St. Lawrence?


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I remind the minister that a
few minutes ago I said that some people are taking this water around Newfoundland, which is located right in the mouth of the St. Lawrence, for waters which belong to the St.' Lawrence gulf, and I am giving an example of that. Some boats have been reported sunk all along the coast, which might not be in the figures of the minister on account of the different interpretation that is being made in the delimitation of the waters between the Atlantic and the gulf.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: If I may ask the hon. member another question, has he ever heard anyone call the east coast
f\Ir. Roy I
of Newfoundland part of the gulf of St. LawTenee? I must say I have never heard of it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does the minister not think twenty vessels sunk in the St. Lawrence is enough?


Mr. LACOMBE:: I rise to a point of order. The minister has no right to interfere in this debate, unless he raises a point of order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Any hon. member of this house has a right to ask questions of a. speaker, if he asks permission. The minister asked permission in this case, so that there is no point of order.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: As I have said, it may be a matter of the interpretation of the delimitation of the waters, or it may be a matter of determining which of the various services was concerned. If ever we have a general inquiry to consider this whole question, I can tell the minister one figure that will come out of the bag; it will be thirty-seven ships, As I have said, all these may not be within the zone which is officially regarded by the government as the waters of the gulf of St. Lawrence.
I do not claim that my information is always complete, though unfortunately on many occasions in the past the information I had was quite true, as it was proved to be by events which occurred, which became known later. In any event a member has the right to consider and depend upon the best information he can get from reliable sources. On the other hand we sometimes get information which is not correct. Thus last year, after some sinkings in the St. Lawrence, I wrote a private letter to the three ministers of defence pointing out the weaknesses of the defence of the St. LawTrence. I told them that we should have some radio facilities, a telephone line on the coast, and that the most important means of fighting properly the submarines would be to get some bombers at Mont Joli and at Gaspe. I received a reply from which I should like to quote a part. Some information contained in the letter is supposed to be secret, though it is not much of a type of secrecy. Let me read this part of the letter, in order to indicate that the information we receive is not always accurate. Speaking about the St. Lawrence gulf and river, the letter says:
The area is regarded as one of extreme danger to enemy submarines venturing therein and one which can be given maximum protection at minimum effort, due to the closeness of shore bases.

The Budget-Mr. Roy
In view of what has happened in the St. Lawrence since that time I venture to suggest that this information was not quite accurate. This brings me to speak again about the weaknesses of our defence on the St. Lawrence. After those first sinkings in May and July, and after what happened in this house, I kept trying to bring to the attention of the people of Canada the negligence and indeed the selfishness of the government in regard to the situation in the St. Lawrence. After the house was adjourned early in August I went back to my constituency and kept silent, but I did witness what was going on. For example, in the latter part of July, shortly before I reached home, on a sunny day exactly at noon, at Griffon cove which is right opposite my home, a battle was engaged between a submarine and two corvettes. As the battle was starting Mr. Laurent Giroux, a building contractor, rushed to a telephone and called the Gaspe operator, telling her to pass the word to Gaspe military base, where we were supposed to have some bombers. As a matter of fact we have some there, because day and night we hear them roaring in the air. As I have said, that occurred exactly at noon. The battle went on between the submarine and the two corvettes; I am told that later on there were two submarines, but I am not sure of that. The battle went on until half-past one, or for one hour and a half. No help ever came from Gaspe, though the distance to Griffon cove as a bird would fly is only about six and a half miles. No plane went over the area where the battle took place until five o'clock the following morning. Apparently the few boats we had there were not given adequate support by our air force. There was another attack made on the morning of September 16, at ten minutes after six, at Mechins; another at seven-thirty in the morn. mg of September 11, at Cap Chat; another at two o'clock in the afternoon of a nice sunny day at Cap des Rosiers. The people down there know that our planes have never participated in any battle in the course of which ships have been sunk by enemy submarines; and our people wonder why those planes should be overheard day and night when nothing is going on, and that there are none to drop bombs on these submarines when there are fights going on and ships are sunk. That is hard for the people to understand. That is one reason why the people there are alarmed, and they wonder why the government does not take some steps to give better protection to the ships which are carrying supplies to our allies.
Let me give another example of the weakness of our defences in that area. On September 15 one submarine was seen only one mile from the lighthouse at Cap des Rosiers, at exactly eleven o'clock in the morning. The keeper of the lighthouse, Mr. Joseph Ferguson, telephoned right away to Captain Cote, who is in charge of what we call the A.D.C. and also in charge of the telephone exchange at Cap des Rosiers. He is also manager of the telephone exchange at that point. The same Mr. Ferguson telephoned to Fox River, to another man of the A.D.C., Mr. Walter Lequesne. He said he had seen & submarine exactly one mile northeast of the lighthouse, and had placed a board to indicate the right spot where he had noticed the submarine. That was exactly eleven o'clock in the morning. A few minutes later from the lighthouse a convoy could be seen coming up from the southeast, toward that very spot. It was evident that something was going to happen to the convoy when it would reach there. There is about ten miles as the bird would fly from Fox River to the place where the submarine had been seen and where two boats were sunk a few minutes later.
The young ladies of Mr. Walter Lequesne, through the call from Mr. Walter Ferguson of Cap des Rosiers, had been informed of the fact that the convoy was coming up, and that the submarine was there. These young ladies, and the young ladies of Mr. Albert Morris of Fox River, climbed up inside the church steeple to watch what was going to happen down there. A few minutes later the convoy was coming up, right on top of the submarine. The torpedoes started to run on the waves, and two ships went down. The first one was struck at 12.21 p.m. and the second one at 12.22 p.m. The first one went down at 12.28 p.m. and the second at 12.32 p.m. No aeroplane showed around there to help the corvettes. There were some corvettes and destroyers in the convoy. But why is it that the naval officers of the Gaspe base and all the men who could have taken care of the situation, and who are supposed to have the necessary powers to act by themselves, without being obliged to call for orders from Halifax or Quebec, did not give the proper orders to change the course of that convoy? They had plenty of time to do it. The civilian population knew what was about to happen. They were watching the events. It was only the navy and the air force which did not seem to be aware of those facts. There surely was a lack of organization. I could mention a few other events of that kind.
The Budget-Mr. Roy

As I said, this happened on September 15. Some two weeks later, after I was sure of all the facts, I came up to Ottawa. I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) asking him to convene parliament in order to discuss the gravity of the situation in the St. Lawrence. To be fair to the Prime Minister I must say that quite a few days later he wrote me a kind letter giving me the assurance that something was to be done, that the question was getting all the attention of the government, and that all means would be taken to improve the situation in that area.
May I be allowed to show that some declarations are not always wise, before proceeding with what occurred at the time the Prime Minister wrote me this letter. I wish to recall the declaration of the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) on July 13, 1942. I find the minister's statement at page 4126 of Hansard, when he answers the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), and when he deals with a statement I had made the week before. This is what the minister said:
I am not ready to change the disposition of one ship of the Canadian Navy for him or all the questions he may ask from now until doomsday.
I was not asking anything for my own sake. It was not for my own sake that I was giving information about the situation there. I was asking for more and better means of defence, for more protection. It was not for myself.
At the time I received a letter from the Prime Minister I had the pleasure of learning -I cannot give the date, because I do not think it would be wise to do so-that an important step had been taken by the British Admiralty to give chase to these submarines in the St. Lawrence gulf. It was worth while to take these steps in order to meet the requirements of the situation, but at that time the battle of the St. Lawrence gulf was lost, through selfishness and lack of organization.
These very points I have mentioned, enlarged by a great number of rumours of all sorts, sometimes assumed fantastic proportions, and alarmed the people seriously. It is not only a question of the number of sinkings, but the point is that we could have saved some of those ships if we had adopted better means, and had paid more attention to them. That is the question. There is also the point of saving money for the country. Had we saved only five or ten ships out of those which had been sunk, and had those ships made only one more trip before the closing of navigation, we probably would not see so much war material on the sidings here and there. If

some hon. members travelled between Montreal and Quebec I am sure they must have seen tanks and other war materials lying there to rot, through lack of means to send them to the places where they are so badly needed.
Further, the people think that if the St. Lawrence protection had been better organized last year, and if better protection had been given to our ships for the maintenance of that water route, there would not have been so much harm done to the harbours of Montreal and Quebec. They claim that the single-track railroad going to Halifax has been overloaded because of all the materials which have to be transported. They claim this water route deserves to be better protected, that it is the cheapest route, the shortest one, and the one with the greatest capacity for transporting materials overseas.
I now quote from an editorial appearing on Monday, March 10, in the Quebec Chronicle Telegraph. This is the last part of it:
The St. Lawrence is a strategic factor of first-rate importance in the battle of supplies, as we have said before. It ought to be kept open and in use and there is no reason why it cannot be kept open and in use with reasonable safety-as much safety as can be claimed for any other Atlantic route. Hon. Angus Macdonald apparently prefers the easier way and the Ottawa Journal and St. Thomas Times-Journal are quite willing to let him take it without question. We are sorry but, even at the risk of irritating the former or of being disciplined at the behest of the latter, we cannot let so vital an issue go by default.
That is the opinion of business men and of the population in Quebec. That is why you hear so much talk there.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Does the hon. member think he is helping the river St. Lawrence traffic by making such a speech as he is making to-night?


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I will answer that.


Jean-François Pouliot: He is showing that the
minister is incompetent.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Is this another threat from the minister to try to prevent the disclosing of facts that have been hidden from the population of this country? I am going to say this as long as I feel sure that it will not give information to the enemy. I believe I am doing my duty. Conditions would be better if the minister of the navy had paid more attention to what was told him. It would also have been better not to write letters such as the one I have mentioned which I received from one minister last summer to the effect that this section was the most dangerous for the enemy venturing therein and that it could be given the maximum protection with the

The Budget-Mr. Lizotte
minimum effort. That is the sort of declaration that was made to me last summer when I was trying to do my duty as a good citizen. I was told by the minister last year that he was not going to move one of his boats for my sake or because of my asking. It is things like that which have aroused the population of Quebec and myself and made us lose confidence in the minister. We know that these things are going on as we have witnessed them every day. We know what it means to the cause we are supporting at the cost of so many sacrifices.
I think it is important that if we should know the exact number of ships which have been sunk in the St. Lawrence, there are yet more other important matters which should be investigated in order to bring about better conditions next summer. Therefore, I submit respectfully that there should be a complete inquiry made by a royal commission so that the population, may be exactly informed, and all responsibilities established.


Mr. L. P. LIZOTTE (Kamouraska) (Translation) :: Mr. Chairman, lest the house be apprehensive I would state that I have no intention of speaking about U-boats which have visited the St. Lawrence during last year. It is a most important question and a fitting subject for a special debate after the adoption of the budget. I would fain, at this late hour, risk spoiling the sleep and repose of the hon. members of this house who well deserve their rest.
Ever since the opening of this important session, I have patiently awaited until now to speak on the grave problems which this house is called upon to discuss. I have deliberately taken time to observe what is taking place at present in this country and particularly to listen carefully to what is being said both here and among the electors at home. This will put me in a position, I trust, where I can express myself with more moderation, with greater impartiality and appropriateness.
As we look ahead, in this fourth year of the war, we find ourselves proceeding along a road to which there is as yet no visible ending; the horizon is hidden from us by the dense smoke arising from the most formidable struggle yet known in history.
Are we on the road to a victory which will reward us with happier days as a compensation for the sacrifices we have willingly accepted? I trust and believe this will be so. Will the road lead us on to material ruin whereby peace itself will be lost even while victory smiles upon us? I do not want to believe it, but like everyone else I am far from feeling reassured.
The problem which now confronts us is such that we should stop to ponder it. It is not by hiding our heads in the sand that we shall have a clear view of the situation. However, it seems to me that at this crucial stage all criticism should be constructive, that an}7 discussion made for the sole purpose of furthering political interests, playing upon popular emotions or attacking individuals who are not here to defend themselves should be banned from this house. Some may not see eye to eye with the government on certain matters, but I believe that merely destructive criticism, or blind and systematic opposition against the present government are calculated to injure our fellow-citizens' interests. That is why, like most of my colleagues who have been wrongly represented as being rebellious, I have so far wanted to remain in the ranks of the party which has sent me here, while reserving the right to oppose again any measure which I consider detrimental to the interests of my fellow-citizens and this country, as well as the right to agree with whatever good this government may do. I believe that only by fighting fearlessly for those principles which we consider just, by endeavouring to change the opinions of those who do not think as we do, and by remaining consistent with ourselves and faithful to our pledges we can make ourselves truly useful here.
Is not the endeavour to reform our own political party preferable to the creation of a new one? In order to destroy political partisanship which is so often discussed why should some people want to form a new party which, in turn, if it would endure, would have to foster partisanship? I do not regret the stand I have taken so far, as I feel that I enjoy the full support of the good people who elected me as their representative.
We are now discussing the budget for the coming fiscal year. In his speech, the hon. the Minister of Finance has told us frankly about the financial situation of this country. As could be expected in this time of war, the main object of the budget proposals is to obtain an unusual military contribution in terms of money. For the coming fiscal year an expenditure of about $5,500,000,000 is foreseen, and it is estimated that the revenue will amount to about $2,500,000,000; there will thus be a deficit of about $3,000,000,000, which will increase our debt by a like amount. Thus, on March 31, 1944. Canada's national debt will exceed 810,000,000.000, being about $1,000 per capita. These are staggering figures. Yet they bear out the situation in all its alarming simplicity. One has to be a great mathematician not to become dizzy at such a state of affairs and no doubt confronted by
The Budget-Mr. Lizotte

these figures our good people, like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), and hon. members of this house, will lose all notions of the old dollar sign.
According to estimates, an additional 284 millions of dollars will accrue this j'ear from the income tax on individuals. It has been mentioned, quite seriously, by someone in the Progressive Conservative group that this must be an election budget on account of its being so mild. I hardly believe that the people will be very grateful over this election budget. It will rather be looked upon as a gift from the Greeks. In his speech, the official critic of the Conservative party (Mr. Harris, Danforth) has managed to blame this budget for not being heavy enough, saying that it falls short of a total war effort and that it does not call for all that the Canadian people can accomplish. Just think of it! Just imagine what it would be should his party be in power! After such extravagant language, one almost feels like thanking the Minister of Finance for his present gift.
In spite of present happenings, I say that the Canadian people will realize that they did well, in 1940, when they returned to office the party which is now directing our war effort instead of the extremists who would have caused strife and bloodshed had they succeeded in securing power. Last year, we have handed Great Britain a gift in war material and food aggregating a billion dollars, a step which I refused to countenance. We are now contemplating a grant of another billion dollars this year in favour of the allied nations and I reserve the right to object to such a measure. We have called to the colours about 800,000 men, organized a navy, air force and war industry of such tremendous proportions that they exceed all anticipations; still, we are told, in all earnestness, that our effort is insufficient, that our expenditures have not reached their proper level. It would be unbelievable had we not personally heard that statement.	'
I feel no hesitation in saying that I prefer the frankness with which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) honestly told us that the current budget was really heavy, that the taxes were truly high, even in comparison with what the Americans and Englishmen were called to Pay.
Fathers of large families will feel the pinch to a greater degree than others. Will they be able to bear this burden without the health and morale of themselves, their wives, and especially their young children being adversely affected? I am afraid not. They are the hardest hit and they are more numerous in

Quebec than in any other province; this is their reward for having given more children to their country. The minister's budget may well be considered as detrimental to the raising of families, unless some readjustment is made in favour of these fathers of numerous children.
What stand should we take on this budget when considered as a whole? To my mind some parts of it are good, others bad. I have just mentioned an evil which I detected in it. Here are some of its good points: the remission of half the tax on 1942 incomes, the imposition of certain new taxes as, for example, the tax on cigarettes and alcohol, which will, * I am sure, occasion no hardships to women and children. During the last war, the government in office had access to the imperial treasury for the financing of the war. It is true that the sums so advanced were repayable with interest. During the present conflict, not only does our own treasury finance our understakings, but it must also supply funds for the imperial treasury as well as that of some allied nations. Both situations must be compared if we are to get an adequate idea of the adventure we have launched upon at the present time. In all fairness, we must also compare the magnitude of the two wars in which we have been engaged in the course of the past twenty-five years. The conflict of 1914-18. was called the Great War; but what name shall we give to the present world war, to this universal slaughter which we are witnessing with a sense of horror?
At this time when our liberty is at stake, we are not always in agreement as to what action should be taken. Our opinions have been widely at variance, but I think there is a point on which we all agree and that is, the absolute necessity of winning this war if we want life to be worth living. The financial sacrifices imposed upon us are tremendous; they may at times involve certain irregularities and social injustice, but these are nothing compared to the air raids, and to the slaughter of the peoples subjected to the assaults of the enemy. May Divine Providence keep such bloody devastation away from our shores. It is far better to pay taxes, to produce goods, to work night and day, if necessary, in order to avoid these misfortunes, and accept, if not with cheerfulness, at least with Christian resignation, the necessary financial sacrifiecs which we are asked to make.
We have gone to war, we can no longer avoid what is inevitable. It is a fit and proper time to say: "the wine is drawn, it must be drunk." I am afraid we shall have to drain the cup to the dregs.

The Budget-Mr. Lizotle


Liguori Lacombe: I am afraid it will be gone before that.


Louis Philippe Lizotte: We must, however, realize the situation without losing our heads and make the best of the situation we have to face. A well conceived war economy requires that the national revenue be sufficient to meet our war expenditures and to maintain our production. To achieve that end Canada must have a normal and well balanced distribution of its man-power resources. To ensure a fair distribution, the Department of Labour must take time to investigate conditions prevailing in our production services. It is in order that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) might have time for that investigation that, on the Address, I voted for the amendment of the hon. member for Riehelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin). Even men married before July, 1940, are now being called up. We might give thought to this problem calling for a better distribution of our man-power.
I am particularly interested in the problem as regards agriculture.
It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that at a time when the allied nations are asking us to supply the food required for their sustenance and that of the armies fighting our battles, some of our Canadian farms are either idle or slowing down production for lack of experienced farm workers. This condition should not and indeed would not exist had we kept close watch upon the selective service machinery set up for that purpose. We should not have allowed the calling-up, under the Mobilization Act, of men essential to agriculture. Both publicly and privately, I have repeatedly urged the authorities concerned to grant these Tecruits a postponement of a permanent character for an indefinite period. Elsewhere, I have expressed the view that the Government ought to recognize, not by words, promises and advertisements in the newspapers, but by order in council, that agriculture is an essential industry and that experienced labour should be dealt with accordingly.
Conditions obtaining in my own constituency, which is essentially agricultural, surely exist also in other rural areas of this country.
The farmers' outlook is one of mistrust and misgivings, and not without reason. How do you expect a farmer, with the sole help of one or two sons, to undertake large scale production if he is hounded by the fear that his indispensable help will suddenly be taken away from him and called into the armed forces? The three and six month deferments hitherto allowed have been inadequate and have kept farmers in uncertaint3' and suspense. These
temporary extensions have deprived the farmer of his initiative and paralysed his courage and energy. I can sense it each time I come in contact with that worthy section of our population. There lies the main reason for the sluggishness and lessened efficiency in production.
It is however gratifying to realize that, this year, a wave of common sense seems to temper this frenzy of mass enlistments. From the ranks of the opposition, in and outside this house, we have had it dinned into our ears that the war effort amounted merely to building up large armed forces, and calling up men between the ages of 18 and 45 for the purpose of despatching them overseas. Those who dared to fight that crazy idea and who were in favour of a balanced war effort and of special treatment for the farm workers were called quitters. When these counsels of moderation were given by some one from the province of Quebec, he was called an isolationist, which was supposed to be the worst insult. What a fine revenge it is for all those who, like myself, have never ceased calmly to appraise the situation, without prejudice and in the interests of Canada, when they see our principal adversaries each in turn admit, in their speeches at least, that we were right. It must be admitted that we did not speak to the wind since those who did not want to listen to reason and who, in their morbid agitation, were ready to deprive Canada of her best workers, are now quieting down, retracing their steps, coming back to their senses, and asking that farmers' sons essential to agriculture be left on the farm. I suppose that the rationing of foodstuffs must have hit them in the right spot and inspired them with this wholesome conversion.
The government give us to understand, and I congratulate them in this regard, that they will ensure a more efficient co-ordination of our war effort in agriculture, industry and the armed forces through a better allocation of our man-power. At the beginning of February, the minister in charge of national selective service took the trouble to write to all mobilization boards in this country in order to tell them that the government's policy would tend to keep agricultural workers on farms, allowing them, after the working season, to accept temporary seasonal employment in lumbering or primary industries, provided they go back to farm work next season. That is an important concession we have secured. I hope we shall no longer meet with the difficulties we formerly had with the people whose duty it is to apply the Mobilization Act. Most of them, I readily admit, are well-intentioned,
The Budget-Mr. Lizotte

but their endeavours along the lines of tolerance and justice have often been hampered by the zeal of bureaucrats who are not accustomed to using their own judgment.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that it is eleven o'clock?


An hon. MEMBER:: No, it is not eleven yet.


Louis Philippe Lizotte: I would also like to discuss the fuel problem. A statement from the Department of Munitions and Supply has told us what w'e, who are from rural sections, already knew, namely, that the fuel situation has become alarming. In the town of Riviere du Loup where I live and which is close to huge timber limits, there has been a lack of cord wood during the coldest part of winter.
All lumber yards were empty and the St. Vincent de Paul society perforce levied a few logs here and there from private cellars containing barely sufficient stocks, so that large families might be kept from freezing. This scarcity was due to a lack of men for wood cutting operations. The dollar bonus granted by the government on each cord of fuel wood is good policy, but I would recommend extending the time until September. This particular work requires hands which must be found and the solution of this problem is up to the selective service if a part of our population is not to freeze to death next winter.
My allotted time precludes any discussion of farm problems which are not without importance. I will take the matter up on another occasion.
Frankly I do believe such claims as I have put forth are quite legitimate. I have no intention of embarrassing the government and my only wish is to make them fully acquainted with the legitimate feelings of the electors. Let the government, even in war time, follow a truly social and Canadian policy, let them implement their plans for the social security of our population in the post-war period, let them see that everyone is treated fairly, that the minority get its appropriate share, not only of responsibilities, but of rights as well, and thus the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will be assured that harmony will easily be established at least among his supporters. This is the heartfelt hope of eveiy one of us.
On motion of Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw) the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
f Mr. Lizotte.|
Tuesday, March 16, 1943