1943-04-21

THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have teceived the following communication:
Ottawa, 21st April, 1943.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Sir Lyman Poore Duff, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber to-day, Wednesday the 21st April, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
1 have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



PRISONERS OF WAR


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement concerning the shackling of prisoners of war in German camps. The ' statement appeared in the press this morning.
It should, I think, also be of record in Hansard.
The following information concerning the shackling of prisoners of war in German camps has been made public by agreement between the governments of Canada and the United Kingdom.
Prisoners of the United Kingdom and Canadian forces are still shackled at stalag VIIIB and at other camps.
On February 11 a communication was made to the Swiss government with the request that the views of the governments of the United Kingdom and of Canada on the question of shackling set out therein should be conveyed to the German government. The reply of the German government has recently been communicated through the same channel

Prisoners of War
and it is now possible to make a public statement showing the present position of this distressing matter.
The Geneva convention lays down generally that prisoners of war must be humanely treated and the point at issue between the United Kingdom and Canadian governments and the German government is what constitutes such treatment. The Geneva convention does not attempt to define humane . treatment and lays down no rule about the shackling or binding of prisoners during operations. *
The German government assert that they will renounce measures taken against our prisoners only on the receipt of an assurance that instructions have been issued to our forces forbidding binding of German prisoners in any circumstances whatsoever. We informed the Swiss government in our communication of February 11, and they in turn informed the German government, that instructions had been issued to our armed forces to ensure that all ranks should be acquainted with and observe the terms of the Geneva convention, and that in those instructions it had been made clear that a general order to bind prisoners is illegal and that the issue of any such order is strictly forbidden. The instructions, however, went on to say that circumstances may arise in which binding of prisoners may be necessary and may indeed be in the best interest of the prisoner himself. It is the duty of a prisoner during operations to try to escape and to impede his captors, who must, of course, prevent such action. In such circumstances binding, which must be carried out in a humane manner, is permissible, always provided it is discontinued as soon as immediate operational necessity allows. These views were duly communicated by the Swiss Minister for Foreign Affairs to the German government which has now replied stating that the principle of shackling is made illusory by the above reservation of circumstances, and they, therefore, insist on compliance with their earlier demands.
The Canadian government have scrupulously observed, and will continue scrupulously to observe, not only the terms but also the spirit of the Geneva convention, article 2 of which lays down that prisoners of war shall "at all times be humanely treated and protected". It may be added that the article of the convention, of which Germany was a signatory, also provides that "measures of reprisal against them are forbidden".
It will be recalled that on December 7th last the Swiss government suggested both to the German government and to the governments of the United Kingdom and Canada that "without prejudice to ' the matter in dispute" and in order to "terminate a state of things manifestly contrary to the principles of humanity" all prisoners in their hands should be freed from .their shackles at an agreed hour on December 15. As evidence of their desire to respond fully and promptly to the spirit of the Swiss proposal, the governments of Canada and the United Kingdom gave orders that the German prisoners in their hands who had been shackled should be freed from their bonds on December 12. The German government continued, however, to shackle our men.
The Canadian government in consultation with the government of the United Kingdom is considering what reply should be returned, for the information of the German government, to the Swiss Minister for Foreign Affairs whose skilful and patient handling of this matter is highly appreciated.
The Canadian and United Kingdom governments will, of course, continue to press for the abandonment by the German government of the shackling now in effect.



ALBERTA LEGISLATION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of' Justice): Mr. Speaker, I wish to lay on the table order in council of April 7, 1943, P.C. 2S20, disallowing the Alberta Land Sales Prohibition Act of 1942, and the report on which it is based, as asked for by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) yesterday.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar) :: On February 8 the house passed a motion for. a return regarding the Abasand Oils Limited. The minister answered all the questions in the course of a speech last week, and I suggest that they be dropped.


Mr. HOWE:: I thank the hon. member. CANADIAN FORCES



ORDERS IN COUNCIL RESPECTING CLAIMS FOR INJURIES AND NEGLIGENCE-DISPATCH OF TROOPS TO ALASKA

Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to table the following orders in council: P.C.
Questions

3167, dated April 19, providing that no claim should be made by the crown for injuries sustained by members of the armed forces carried as gratuitous passengers in motor [DOT] vehicles; P.C. 3168, dated April 19, regarding claims against the crown caused by negligence of members of the armed forces; and P.C. 3238, dated April 20, respecting dispatch of troops to Alaska.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): Mr. Speaker, on a matter of privilege, I should like to correct a return which was brought down in the house a few days ago in response to a motion by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) on April 5. In that return the hon. member asked for the number of people engaged in the three services of national defence; and by inadvertence certain persons in the naval service in the province of New Brunswick were included in the figures for the province of Quebec. The figures as given in the return brought down show: New Brunswick, 137 men, no women; total 137; Quebec, 2,525 men, 7 women; total 2,532. The correct figures are: New Brunswick, 420 men, no women; total 420; Quebec, 2,242 men, 7 women; total 2,249.

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

Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Has the existing naval hospital at Victoria, B.C., been enlarged recently?
2.	If so, how many additional beds will the enlargement provide?
3.	What will be the cost of the enlargement,
including equipment?	[DOT]
4.	Was an offer made by the authorities of the municipally-owned Jubilee hospital, at Victoria, to the Department- of National Defence, to build an additional wing which would accommodate 250 beds at a cost of $250,000?


Mr. MacDONALD (Kingston City):: 1.	Ihe naval service has no hospital at Victoria, B.C. but has a sick bay at Esquimalt
naval barracks. This sick bay was enlarged in June, 1942. The wartime committee on hospitalization has also approved the design of a 250-bed hospital proposed for erection on the Royal Roads property for which plans are at present being perfected.
2.	The enlargement [DOT] of sick bay at Esquimalt provides for 64 additional beds. Four emergency beds can also be set up in the sunroom as well as one fracture bed.
3.	The cost of the sick bay extension including diesel electric power unit is $41,797.50. Cost of the equipment including estimated cost of linen, crockery, clothing, etc., was $10,552.41.
4.	A letter was received from the superintendent, Royal Jubilee hospital, Victoria, B.C., in July, 1942, suggesting the addition of a wing to that hospital for accommodation of personnel of the fighting forces, such new- wing to be erected at the expense of the Department of National Defence, with the use, at cost, of the facilities of the Royal Jubilee hospital in the matter of kitchens, operating rooms,. laboratories, X-Ray equipment and power plant. The letter contained an estimate of the cost of the proposed wing at $250,000. The letter was considered by the naval board and by the chiefs of staff committee. The chiefs of staff committee re-affirmed its previous decision that "decentralization of hospital facilities is-most desirable. The offer from the superintendent of the Royal Jubilee hospital, Victoria, B.C., was therefore not further dealt with, in view of the decision reached.


IMMIGRATION FROM BRITISH ISLES
Mr. BRUNELLE:: 1.	How many persons were admitted to Canada from the British isles in each fiscal year since September 1, 1939, as (a) immigrants;
(b)	non-immigrants?
2.	How many were, (a) British subjects; (b) aliens?
3.	How many were, (a) adult males; (b) adult females; (c) children under eighteen?
4.	How many entered at, (a) Canadian ports; (b) United States ports?
5.	How many women and children were temporarily admitted as evacuees from the British isles ?
6.	On attaining military age, are the evacuees required to return to Britain or, if not, what becomes of them?


Mr. CRERAR:: Questions
1, 2 and 3.	Immigrants	N on-immigrants	Adult	Adult	Children	Adult	Adult	Childrenmales	females	under 18	males	females	under 18Sept. 1/39-Dec. 31/39-	British 	.... 226	361	170	491	291	89Alien 	... 14	14	12	9	7	5British 	... 311	630	436	1,688	2,595	6,457Alien 	... 34	46	29	134	139	87Calendar year, 1941-	' British 	... 103	201	115	783	649	343Alien 	... 14	8	2	66	25	13Calendar year, 1942-	British 	... 121	378	150	247	564	286Alien 	... 10	8	7	33	27	84. Immigrants through	Canadian	ports	4. Yes.	between September 1, 1939, and December 31,	5. Not determined.1942, 8,761.	6. Answered by No. 5.
Immigrants through United States ports
between September 1. 1939, and December 31, ' KAMOUliASKA ELECT0RAL district ration office 1942, 2,537.	Mr. LIZOTTE:
5.	4,099 women and 7,175 children under 18, were temporarily admitted via Canadian ocean ports between September 1, 1939, and December 31, 1942.
6.	No. Evacuees are not required to return to Britain on attaining military age. A number have returned before attaining that age; others have enlisted in the Canadian services. Those who reside in Canada for one year become subject to Canadian service regulations.


HALIFAX HARBOUR-FAIRVIEW ENTRANCE
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	What steps, if any, have been taken by the Department of Transport to improve the so-called bottleneck at Fairview entrance into the city of Halifax?
2.	Have any representations been made to the Department of Transport in this regard since January 1, 1943?
3.	If so, by whom?
4.	Are any plans under consideration at present for improving this railway underpass?
5.	If improvements are undertaken, will they be financed solely by the Department of Transport (railways), or as a joint expenditure?
6.	If a joint expenditure, what parties will be included?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	An engineer from the department visited the site and has prepared a report outlining what he considers should be done.
2.	Yes.
3.	A resolution was passed by the house of assembly of Nova Scotia on March 31, 1943, requesting the government of Canada to investigate the situation.
1.	Is there a ration office in the electoral district of Kamouraska?
2.	If so, at what place, and in what premises?
3.	Who is in charge of such office?
4.	By whom was he recommended for such position?
5.	What is his salary?


Mr. ILSLEY:: _
1 and 2. There is no ration office in the electoral district of Kamouraska. However, there is a local ration board located in the municipal secretary's office, village of St. Pascal.
3. Mr. C. A. Blondeau, the local ration board secretary., is in charge of this office.
4.	Mr. Blondeau was recommended for this position by a motion of the local ration board.
5.	Mr. Blondeau's salary is $240 per annum.


BASIC TRAINING CENTRES-PROMOTIONS ANI) INTERCHANGE OF OFFICERS
Mr. DESMOND:: 1.	On what basis are promotions granted in our basic training centres?
2.	Has the interchange of officers from one centre to the other proven beneficial to training?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Promotions at basic training centres are based on the selection of suitable, qualified personnel to fill vacancies which occur within the authorized establishment. Promotions are recommended by the officer commanding the training centre and are made in^ the first place to acting rank. In accordance with training policy, officers and other ranks with field experience are brought in

Questions
as instructors for a temporary tour of duty. Any acting higher rank held during such tour of duty would be relinquished on return to their own formations or units.
2.	Yes.


WARTIME INFORMATION BOARD-COMMUNICATIONS WITH WASHINGTON
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Does the war information board operate a private wire and teletype service between Ottawa and Washington, D.C.?
2.	If so, what has been the cost to operate the same, including salaries, rentals, etc., monthly since the said board commenced using such facilities?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


APPOINTMENT TO THE SENATE OF MEMBER OF QUEBEC LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmoreney):
1.	Was Mr. Pamphile R. DuTremblay requested to resign as member of the legislative council of the province of Quebec, before his appointment to the Senate?
2.	Is the governor in council approving the fact that a person may be at the same time a member of the Senate at $4,000 per year, and of the legislative council at $3,000 per year?
3.	Did negotiations take place between the premier of the province of Quebec, and the Prime Minister of Canada, with respect to the dual offices held by Mr. DuTremblay?
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No.
2.	There is no legal obstacle to a member of the legislative council of the province of Quebec being at the same time a member of the Senate. A number of senators through the years have continued to hold office as members of the legislative council of Quebec.
3.	No.


WARTIME HOUSING LIMITED-KINGSTON
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	What is the cost per unit of the houses erected under the wartime housing plan in the city of Kingston, Ontario, or in the township of Kingston ?
2.	Does such unit cost include all expenditures made? If not, w'hat is the total of all other expenditures connected therewith?


Mr. HOWE:: 1. The cost of houses in Kingston, erected by Wartime Housing Limited, including land, sewers, sewage disposal plant, water, roads, walks, fencing and all services is: HI and H2, $2,931.80; Hll and H12, $3,582.93; H21 and H22, S3,066.98.

2.	The total expenditure to date is $801,280.02 which includes in addition to the above an administrative building, furnishings for community hall and school alterations.


AIR FORCE BUILDING, OTTAWA-RUGS
Mr. STOKES:: 1.	What was the cost of the rug on the floor of the board room in the air force building on Lisgar street?
2.	When was it purchased?
3.	By whom was it purchased?
4.	From whom was it purchased?


James Layton Ralston: There' is not nor has
there ever been a rug in the board room.


ELEMENTARY FLYING TRAINING SCHOOLS- CONTRACTS WITH COMPANIES
Mr. CLEAVER:: 1.	Have the contracts with companies operating elementary flying training schools been renewed? If so, why?
2.	In the renewal of these contracts, has the government made any changes or modifications in the terms and conditions?
3.	If so, what are the principal changes or modifications?
4.	Have the companies been requested to redeem the subscribed capital stock? If so, why?


James Layton Ralston: '
1.	Yes, as on 1st April, 1943.
*	(a) Because of proven efficiency and
economy;
(b) In order to retain the services of aero-engineers and other experts who, for reasons of age or physical disability, are ineligible for any of the Services.
2.	The renewal agreement clarifies certain of the clauses in line with the operational experience gained over the past three years.
3.	The principal changes or modifications are as follows:
. (a) Elimination of fixed management fee feature;	.
(b)	Elimination of flying hour profit;
(c)	Reduction of company's share of savings in operation and management cost from 25 per cent to 20 per cent;
(d)	Any profit on the termination of the contract "shall then be paid to a flying club approved by the minister failing which it shall revert to the crown".
4.	Yes. These companies with a few exceptions were paying, as authorized, dividends at the rate of 5 per cent per annum on the subscribed capital and where accumulative profits are available the companies have been requested to utilize these in this manner, to save dividend payments.

Labour Conditions



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. JAQUES:: 1.	Have there been any prosecutions in Canada since the beginning of the present war for infractions of the law stipulating that names of printers and organizations must be included on all political, social and religious matter, printed and distributed?
2.	If so, how many, and what are the names of those so prosecuted?
3.	How many pieces of printed matter were involved in each ease?
4.	Have all such infractions been prosecuted?
5.	Have any exceptions been made? If so, to whom ?


CANADIAN ARMY-FOOD RATIONS
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	What are the complete rations of food allowed per man, per day, in the armed forces stationed in Canada?
2.	What are the complete rations of food allowed per woman, per day, in the auxiliary forces stationed in Canada?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. KNOWLES:: For a copy of all correspondence, documents, memoranda, and orders in council, since the outbreak of the present war, relating to the matter of designating the Winnipeg Electric Company as a depressed industry.



IIANDSWORTH, SASK., POSTMASTERSHIP

Mr. NICHOLSON:: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents in the possession of the Post Office Department in connection with the appointment of the postmaster at Handsworth, Saskatchewan, since July, 1940.



LABOUR CONDITIONS-ALUMINUM COMPANY AND EMPLOYEES AT ARVIDA

Mr. COLD WELL:: For a copy of the report made to the Department of Labour by Mr. Bernard Rose in December, 1942, on the labour dispute between the Aluminum Company of Canada and its employees at Arvida, Quebec, together with a copy of the transcript of evidence taken in connection with the inquiry.



WAR REFUGEES


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, on April 16 the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) directed a question to the Minister
of Mines and' Resources (Mr. Crerar) concerning Canada's position, with relation to a conference at Bermuda respecting refugees. At the time the minister said I would give an answer later.
I would direct the attention of the hon. member to an answer I gave to the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, on April 5'. On that occasion I said:
The government of Canada was not asked to take part in these discussions, which are solely between the United Kingdom and the United States authorities. As stated on March 29, the government of Canada have asked, however, to be kept informed of the progress of the discussions, and are fully prepared to aid in seeking a cooperative solution to the problem.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply. I am in receipt of a telegram from the business agent of Aircraft lodge,, international association of . machinists, Vancouver, informing me that R. P. Bell, director general of aircraft production, had ordered the overhaul plant of the Canadian Pacific Air Lines at New Westminster to close because of a dispute over rest periods in the plant. Has the minister been informed of this situation, and has he a statement to make?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe it was the day before yesterday my department received advice that the employees of the Boeing plant at Vancouver were insisting on a fifteen-minute rest period in each shift. The men gave as their reason the fact that the Canadian Pacific Air Lines overhaul plant at New Westminster were giving a ten-minute rest period in each shift. Those shifts are eight hours long. It has never been the policy in any part of Canada to allow a rest period in an eight-hour shift. As soon as we were advised of the situation at New Westminster we wired out to have the practice stopped. The reply to that on the part of the men was to stage a fifteenr-minute sit-down. As a result, I instructed Mr. Bell to close the plant until we can have an understanding that we can have eight hours work for eight hours' pay. That is the, policy of the department, and it will be applied wherever the eight-hour shift is the practice.

Oil Production


Thomas Miller Bell: Was that period allowed by agreement between .the company and the men, or was it taken, by the men?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I rather think it was by arrangement, in the early stages; but our department was not advised. My hon. friend will understand that if the .practice of allowing a fifteen-minute rest period in an. eight-hour shift is established, every eight-hour shift in the country will demand1 the same right. We have allowed them, in ten-hour shifts, but not in shifts of eight hours, and it is not the intention to do so.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I should like to get the matter clear in my mind. Is the eight-hour day to which the minister refers a continuous eight-hour shift, without a break for lunch?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Clarence Gillis: That was what I wanted to have made clear.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is an eight-hour day with the usual lunch period. I cannot say what that is, but there is no dispute about the lunch period. This was a break in the afternoon when the men could leave the plant to smoke. It completely disorganized the work; it is not the practice in any plant in Canada, and it is not a practice that the Department of Munitions and Supply will countenance.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Does the minister mean any plant in Canada, or any plant under government control?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Any plant in Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I know of several plants which give fifteen minutes in the forenoon and fifteen minutes in the afternoon.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Those plants are not working an eight-hour shift; they are working longer hours. There are plants working ten-hour shifts; for a ten-hour shift I think the break is quite justified.



PRODUCTION ON ATHABASKA RIVER-ASPHALT FOR ALASKA HIGHWAV

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Ritchie MacNicol: I
should like to ask three questions of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. If my memory serves me correctly, when the minister made his statement respecting oil production on the Athabaska river he said, first, that the government Was going to set up a company to

produce asphalt for the Alaska highway. In that regard has the company been set up, and is it expected there will be production this summer? Then I understood the minister to say that exploration work is to be continued. In that regard, is the exploration work to be continued by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting company, or by engineers of the Department of Mines and Resources, let us say? I believe the minister said something about tabling the reports that were sent in by Consolidated Mining and Smelting. I should like to see all the reports-progress reports, interim reports and the final report.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I stated that the government had taken title to the Abasand property and had made an arrangement "with Abasand that the management of the company would be strengthened. The work we will undertake in that district will be undertaken by the reorganized Abasand directorate, and the work is now in progress. In reply to the second question, the exploration work will be continued by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting company. As to the third question, the last interim report by Consolidated Mining and Smelting, which was a comprehensive report, was tabled in this house the day after I made my statement. There was one interim report before that, I think, which contains no new information, but I shall be glad to lay it on the table.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I want to read them; I may go to that country again this summer.



BUCKSHEE FUND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
James Layton Ralston: It has been called to my attention that in a statement I made to the house on April 15 regarding cigarettes supplied to members of the forces overseas I inadvertently made the error of not giving proper credit for the support and organization of the Buck-shee fund. I intimated, as appears at page 2195 of Hansard, that the Buckshee fund is maintained by the Canadian Legion. My attention has been called to the fact that the fund was organized by Major General Gibsone and a number of other officers, and that it is maintained by the public of Canada through coin boxes and donations. It is the Canadian Legion War Services Incorporated which distributes the cigarettes overseas.

Supply Bill-Parliamentary Assistants



SUPPLY BILL

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 73, for granting to his majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1944.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-$33,333.33 granted for 1943-44.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to ask how this amount of $33,000 is arrived at. In reply to a question asked some days ago by the former leader of the opposition the Prime Minister stated that none of these assistants had been engaged; that they were not working in the departments but that some apparently were going in and out, here and there, though they were not in the service of the country. We are almost at the end of this month, and [DOT]the Prime Minister said the selections would be made during the Easter recess, so that there will be only eleven months left in the year. How does he arrive at this amount of $33,000 out of $40,000?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will recall that a few days ago the house voted interim supply for two months. The two months' supply already voted has been deducted from the S40,000, which leaves $33,333.33. Parliament has already voted the equivalent of two months; we do not need to vote it again.
Mr. MacNICOL Then I understand that payment wild not be made for any time previous to the date of appointment, which will be perhaps toward the end of the month?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The payments will start from the date of the appointments,
1 certainly; but I would say to the committee that some hon. members have been giving a great deal of their time to the work of some of the departments and at a later time, possibly in a supplementary estimate, I may ask that they be given some consideration for the time already spent in that way.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They would only be
running around the departments, trying to get their hands in. Surely they are not expecting to receive remuneration for that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is quite mistaken about the purpose of the position; he belittles it, unconsciously, I am
72537-152}	.
sure. I am sure if he realized how important the position has become in the parliament at Westminster he would not suggest for a moment that parliamentary assistants or under-secretaries are simply messengers. They have a great deal of very hard and highly specialized work to do.
Mr. GRA\DON:	I take a different view
of the situation so far as these appointments are concerned. The Prime Minister himself belittled the suggestion that anyone had been appointed to any of these positions, though he said there were certain hon. members who were helping the ministers from time to time. I took it from that statement that there was a loose arrangement of some description, perhaps in the nature of a preparatory period, so that when these men were appointed they would be able to take over the job and be perhaps a little more familiar with the work.
I do not want to take up very much time on this matter, because' I realize that it has been discussed already, but I should like to know whether the Prime Minister or the ministers generally have made tentative appointments. From what the Prime Minister has just said one would take it that these appointments have been made tentatively for some little time now. I think the right hon. gentleman ought to tell the committee whether or not that is so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend, as he mentioned, brought up the subject sometime ago. I said then that no appointment had been made, but that certain gentlemen were at that time giving assistance to certain of the ministers and that I might later ask the house to consider recognizing the services which they were then performing. But no formal appointments have been made as yet. There are only three or four altogether I understand who have been assisting ministers, and their names of course would have to appear and the amounts to be voted for them specifically set forth. The recognition would have to be given by way of a supplementary estimate which the ministers would have to defend. That would be for the period prior to the beginning of the fiscal year.


Mr. GRAYDON:: If the appointments have not already been tentatively made, and I take it there are only three or four who have been actually assisting the ministers in the manner referred to by the Prime Minister, at the risk of being accused by the Prime Minister of establishing a new theory of
2398	COMMONS
Supply Bill-Parliamentary Assistants
government, as he accused me once before, I hope that when he is appointing the assistants 'to the ministers he will not forget the legitimate claims of labour and agriculture.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: I gather from the statement of the Prime Minister that these assistants are, so to speak, in a probationary period until the final appointment is officially made, and that later in the supple-mentaries the ministry will ask for money to pay them for the probationary period. Why not just dismiss the probationary period?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would not call it a probationary period. I might mention a specific case. The Minister of Finance has been, as hon. members know, engaged morning, noon and night in connection with financial measures that have come before the house. He would I think have found it impossible to do what he has done in the time he has if he had not had the assistance of an hon. member of the house who it is anticipated will be appointed his parliamentary assistant. I feel that hon. members would regard it as wholly appropriate that assistance which has been most valuable to the government and to the house would not be permitted to pass unrecognized simply for the reason that we have not been able to get the item in the estimates before the house until this stage of the session. Any request that the government may make to recognize services thus far performed will of course be based upon substantial services to the government and to the House of Commons and to the country. I do not think the amount will be large.


Gordon Graydon: I assume the substantial services would have to be proved at the time the supplemental estimates are brought down?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is right.


Angus MacInnis: Do I understand that the appointments begin from April I, the beginning of the present fiscal year, and this appropriation is to pay the salaries of those concerned from April 1, 1943 to March 31, 1944?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The appointments will be from the date at which His Excellency the Governor General approves the order in council recommending the appointments. That may be in the course of another day or two. The appointments will not be made until after this bill has received the royal assent. I have just intimated that there have been, I cannot say many but I think two or

three, hon. members of this house who will be appointed as assistants to ministers, including the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Defence, who have been assisting ministers continuously for some weeks past, in fact for a couple of months. I do not think it would have been possible for the ministers to make the progress they have made with their work without that assistance. The government may ask that such contribution as has been made to the ministry in that period of time be recognized later in a supplementary estimate.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have always believed that the Minister of Finance has had perhaps the ablest assistants in his department of any minister of finance. We were told that the}-were exceptionally brilliant and capable, and I myself have marvelled at their industry and capacity. Am I to understand that the Minister of Finance had a member of this house helping him because all these brilliant financial men in his department were not able to assist him in doing the work he has done? I do not like to think that the civil servants in the minister's department are as incapable as that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member for
St. Antoine-Westmount has been assisting me fairly steadily since the first of February. He hoped to be able to relieve me in the house, but of course had no status which would enable him to do so.


Gordon Graydon: He is a member of the house.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But it would not be appropriate for a private member to answer questions on behalf of the government until he had some authority to do so. So far as that hon. member is concerned he has raised no question about remuneration.


Gordon Graydon: Because he has not been appointed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: He has not been appointed, but he will be, without any question, and he has been working. He is away to-day. In his absence I hesitate to say anything which he might prefer that I did not say, but my own idea of proper treatment in regard to remuneration was that his remuneration should begin from April 1, which vcould mean that for two months, that is February and March, he would have given his extra services without remuneration. That was my own idea and I know it would be perfectly satisfactory to him. Whether that is being fair to him I do not know; perhaps it is not. But I am sure he has no idea of trying to make this a remunerative thing in any way. The point as far as

Supply Bill-Parliamentary Assistants
he is concerned is a very narrow one, that is, whether his remuneration should begin from the date of the order in council appointing him, or from the first day of this month. I think it should begin from the first day of the fiscal year. I do not know what arrangements other ministers will make with their parliamentary assistants, but that is what I propose for the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount.
The hon. member for Davenport said that civil servants in the Department of Finance, to whom he pays deserved tribute, could do everything that a parliamentary assistant could do. But I can assure hon. members that they cannot. There are a great many duties which civil servants, by virtue of the fact that they are civil servants, cannot perform. The assistance I have received during the last two or three months has been necessary to enable me to carry on the work. I am very much pleased that I have been able to avail myself of it, and very happy that I shall have it in the future.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I should like to ask a question, and I might preface it by the old proverb-fools rush in where angels fear to tread. I happen to know who is going to be the minister's assistant, and in my opinion he is capable of being in any cabinet that Canada ever had. But what I want to know is-and it gives me a chance to get this in; some hon. members apparently fear to bring it up- whether this $4,000 is to be subject to income tax. As I understand it, an hon. member cannot get any exemption from income tax on account of his expenses at Ottawa, air mail and telegrams, and that sort of thing. I know this is not a popular subject; it would appear that some hon. members think they might not be reelected if it were mentioned that a member got some exemption for his excessive costs. My own opinion is that any hon. member who fears for his reelection because he tells the truth should not be in this House of Commons. I do not have to worry that the people in my riding will not back me because I tell the truth. It has been said by the Prime Minister, and I do not know of any better authority we could get, that he hoped, and rightly so, that the. parliament of Canada would be made up of representatives of labour, of agriculture, and if I remember his words correctly, particularly of soldiers who are doing everything for us to-day. I ask hon. members of this house how a soldier serving for $1.30 or $1.50 a day can save enough money so that when he comes back he will be able to run for parliament and possibly be appointed an assistant to a minister. For too long a time
members have said it around the corridors, have said it in the cafeteria, have said it on the streets, but they do not say it in parliament because they fear they will not be reelected. The people of the Fraser valley think that the labourer is worthy of his hire, and I have no hesitation about saying what I think in public. If I had, I should not be the member for Fraser Valley. It is all utter nonsense to say that a man has any hope of being a member of parliament, let alone an undersecretary, or, above all, attaining to the seats of the mighty in the cabinet under the present system.
I think it is an excellent idea to have assistants to the ministers. Many of the ministers have far too much work to do. They have to spend too much time in the house when they should be carrying on the war effort of Canada. They should not have to be here to answer questions put by myself and other members.
A deputy should be capable of answering these questions, and these deputies should be answering them rather than the ministers. Give . these deputies $8,000, give them $10,000, I do not care what it is, provided that we get results.
Members of parliament should have the courage of their convictions. I can look every party and group in the face when I say that. Apparently many hon. members are afraid to say in the House of Commons what they say around the corridors; they do not want to do that because it goes in Hansard. I was told by a good authority, a man who has been in political life just as long as anyone else in Canada, a man who happens to be in public life to-day, that it is his opinion that we should have this.
We have heard about the franking privilege, and we have heard about other privileges that we have. I am perfectly well aware that what I say now is going back to my riding. Yesterday I answered three telegrams and I had to pay $3.90 of my own money. The government did not pay for those; I did. The people in my riding do not know that. I must pay income tax on the $3.90 that I spent on those telegrams. Why not have the courage of our convictions? Why should we try to hide behind the man who apparently is afraid to stand up for his rights as a member of parliament? I am all for this.
I had nothing to say about the appointment of these assistants. They appear to be excellent men. We over here have heard certain names mentioned and we think we know who will have the appointments. We know some of them and we think they will be excellent
2400	COMMONS
Supply Bill-Parliamentary Assistants
men. I want the minister to tell me if this $4,000 will be treated on the same basis as the $2,000 allowance for automobiles which stand in the garages. If it is to be treated in that way, I am quite satisfied, but I want to know and the people of Canada want to know. If I have to go back to-night to my riding and ask farmers who are being forced into the peasant class, to buy victory bonds, I want to be able to justify every expenditure that is being made in this country during war time. I must be able to prove that it is in the interests of Canada and the whole allied war effort.
I think I can justify the appointment of these assistants to the ministers. I know in my own mind I am able to justify it. If I am able to satisfy myelf that they should not be taxed, then I have no fear of going to farmers who are living under conditions that no member of this house has ever lived under, who are working eighteen hours a day for peasants' pay. I know I can justify to them this $4,000 a year expenditure, and I know I could justify the fact that there will be no income tax on that salary. But I cannot justify to the farmers in my riding the fact that we are taxing men in the merchant marine who have to use their feet as bait in order to catch a shark, according to last night's press. I can justify anything in my riding provided that it is helping to win the war. But I will not be able to satisfy my people if I am afraid to come out in the open and state the entire truth of a matter. Is this going to be exempt from income tax?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It will be fully taxable.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Supply Bill-Parliamentary Assistants
these duties-and I point out .to him the example of others who have been able to do the like-with his great ability for choosing able lieutenants he should be in a position to divest himself of this additional responsibility and devote his entire energies to the coordination of the war effort.


Mr. JAQUES:: Are these appointments to be for the duration of the war only, or are they to be permanent? I gather from remarks made in this house that the government favours a supranational authority with power to settle questions of immigration, natural resources, treatment of minorities, repudiation of debts, finance, et cetera; and it seems obvious that if and when these .powers are handed over to this supranational authority the ministers will hardly want assistants; indeed I do not think there will be any ministers, there will not be any government, and so far as I can see there will not be any House of Commons.
While I am on this subject may I quote from a press dispatch dated April 5, from Washington. Referring to the plans to establish a fund for managed currency through an international bank, it states that they are vitally important-
-because it would mean countries would lose control over their currencies for world trade purposes. This control would be vested in a bank, not in parliament, or a congress, and if any country wanted the rate raised, or lowered, it could only appeal to the bank, not take action itself.
Finally I would like to quote from a recent statement given in the House of Lords by Lord Strabolgi. He said:
My noble friend referred to the IBank of International Settlements.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. I would like to read again to the committee standing order 58, citation 2:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
The Chair cannot see how the international banking system has anything to do with the bill now before the committee.


Norman Jaques: It has this bearing, Mr. Chairman, that if we are to delegate to an international bank the power or the control which this parliament has at the present time, it is as well that hon. members and the public should have some idea of the nature of this international bank. I was about to quote from a statement given in the British House of Lords; it is short and, I think, much to the point. I do not believe anyone can accuse me of taking up unduly the time of the house. For two sessions I was not in the house at all; and I do not think I have wasted very much time this session.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. It is not a question of time, it is a question of relevancy. We are in committee of the whole on a certain bill, and we must of necessity follow the rules if we are to pass the bill or make any headway with the work of the committee. So far as the Chair is concerned1, it has no freedom on that question.


Norman Jaques: I bow to your ruling.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend asked a very simple question,-whether the appointments which are being made are being made to continue indefinitely, or for a specified time. My hon. friend realizes, I am sure, that we vote supply only for one year and appointments cannot therefore run on more than a year without additional supply being voted. If these appointments are to be continued another year, this house another year will have to vote supply for the purpose. I made it clear, I think, in my introductory remarks that the government was proceeding deliberately in that way to give an opportunity to test out the advantages and also to see if there were disadvantages with respect to the appointment of assistants to the ministers. If, as I hope and believe will prove to be the case, the institution of parliamentary assistants is shown to be highly-beneficial, a bill, I should trust, will later be introduced setting forth specifically the duties of a position which will become a regular part of our parliamentary institutions.


Mr. STIRLING:: On several occasions
reference has been made to the fact that this item of $40,000 will not fully meet the necessities of the case. There are bound, I would think, to be other expenses, secretarial and so forth. Can the Prime Minister foresee at all what these expenditures will be, and out of what vote he anticipates making them, and if the legislative vote is at the present time not sufficient for that purpose does he foresee a supplementary item?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the view of my colleagues is entirely the same as my own. These gentlemen will be provided, in the department with which they may be associated, with accommodation where they can have at least a certain amount of privacy for purposes of their work; they will be given some form of secretarial assistance selected probably from a member of the existing staff. They will carry on in as limited a way as may be adequate for their duties, provision' for this being made out of the general expenses of the department. H it should appear that what we have in

Supply Bill-Parliamentary Assistants
the way of general expenses is inadequate, the house will be asked to make some supplementary addition,. I do not expect there will be much in. the way of additional expense


Mr. NEILL:: I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to make a few remarks which I tried to make yesterday afternoon, and when I had to give way to an hon. member from the "middle east", one of the group whose influence with the government and government officials seems to be rather out of proportion to their numerical importance.
As regards the question before us, I remember that the Prime Minister inaugurated this policy of assistants as far back as 1921. I believed in that policy then and I believe in it now. The success of it will, however, depend very largely on the personalities of the men appointed. If they are to be only a sort of fifth wheel, another private secretary, having subordinates under him and getting the idea which some private secretaries do have, that they are of more importance than the ministers, then it will be a failure. Some of these men may not be any better than the admirable private secretaries whom some of the cabinet have at the present time. There are some of them, mostly ladies, as I recall, who must be almost indispensable. They are of the greatest help to the minister and to members of parliament. I have been ashamed in the last two or three years to go and insist upon seeing a cabinet minister because I knew how busy he was, and I tried to do what business I had with subordinates, very often with the private secretary, who proved most useful and accommodating. On the other hand I have known private secretaries who come under neither definition. I recall some time ago going to the private secretary of one of the many cabinet ministers, and his secretary, that is the secretary's secretary, told me that the secretary was engaged and could not see me; he was engaged in the next room. I thought I would just stay there and see how long I would have to wait. I waited three-quarters of an hour; and, from the sounds of amusement which came through the door or the wall, I got the idea that it was not very important public business which was being transacted. At the end of three-quarters of an hour I was permitted to see the minister's secretary. He flipped a book in front of him and said that he might be able to give me an interview with the minister the following Tuesday. This was about Thursday. I said no, I had been waiting three-quarters of an hour and I wanted to see the minister, and I thought members of parliament had a sort of right of way. He said, "No, next Tuesday is the best I can do." I came down to the house
and spoke to the cabinet minister; and he said, "Certainly, I should be glad to see you; come up right now"; and in five minutes he transacted the business wholly to my satisfaction and presumably to his own. If we are to have some more of these extra men who must be placated and bowed down to before one can see the minister or even his secretary, we shall not be much better off than we are now. But if the parliamentary assistant is to be what I hope he will be, able to ease the busy moments of the minister and be readily accessible to members of parliament, it will be a very good thing indeed. I hope that is what will happen and that the experiment will be a real success.
I was in favour of the proposal when the Prime Minister said he would have to have the appointment of these secretaries. Some people have suggested that the individual ministers should appoint them. But, after all, the Prime Minister is head of the government, and I think that, as such, he should have the duty and the responsibility of appointing them. I also agreed with him when he said he thought he would have to select a man acceptable to the minister. Naturally he could not expect two men to pull together if they were not congenial to each other. But I entirely differed from him when he went on to say that he felt that the man appointed must be not only acceptable to him-which is quite all right-and not only acceptable to the minister-which also is all right-but acceptable to the deputy minister. I entirely differ from that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that point is being overemphasized. What I had in mind was that the minister would find it impossible to have as his assistant someone who, for example, was antagonistic to his deputy. This is just a matter of taking human nature into consideration. I would not want it to be thought I was saying that the deputy of the departments should be consulted, and that his wishes must necessarily be met. All I had in mind when I said what I did was that the assistant to the minister should be a person with whom the permanent head of the department could work. Otheiwise his own value would be greatly impaired.


Alan Webster Neill: That is exactly what I said, and it is exactly what Hansard reveals the Prime Minister said, namely that the man appointed has to be acceptable to the deputy. Presumably the Prime Minister must ascertain the opinion of the deputy minister. I know of no deputy minister with whom in many years past I have not been on the best of terms; so that I have no grievance from that point of view. But if I am a young man coming into parliament, if I am ambitious and wish to have success, I



Supply Bill-Parliamentary Assistants
must not only secure the approval and the good will of the Prime Minister-and properly so-and of the ministers, but I have also to secure the approval of the deputy ministers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, no. That is not at all what is implied.


Alan Webster Neill: They have to approve. I have to secure their favour before I can qualify for a position. The deputy minister is a civil servant, and I am a member of parliament. It is not the duty of a member of parliament to secure further advancement through the good will of a deputy minister. I repeat that I have every good will for deputy ministers; I have never had trouble with them. Nevertheless, as I say they are civil servants; they are not members of parliament. The Prime Minister has now said that the would-be aspirant must have thq approval of the deputy minister. If I have some reason to complain respecting the actions of a deputy minister, I must suppress my views, I must conceal them for fear a black mark would be raised against me in days to come. And this procedure is also placing the deputy minister in a peculiar position. To be dragged into politics is the last thing in God's world they want.
As we know, deputy ministers continue in office from cabinet to cabinet. They are not fired when governments change, nor should they be. They must carry out the policies of the minister of the moment. When one minister leaves office, upon a change of government, and another minister takes hold, the one who is taking office gets just as loyal service from the deputy who has given loyal service to the one who is leaving office. We find less difficulty in that regard here in Ottawa than is found in the country. When a political appointment is wanted one finds it generally comes from back home, rather than from the official head of the department. That is how they continue to give good service. For example, let us take a man like the late Mr. Hunter, of the Department of Public Works. Would he have desired to be dragged into a position where he would have to express an opinion as to whether so-and-so or so-and-so should act as assistant to the minister? If the deputy minister is going to do that, then why not let him have a say as to who should be elected as a member? I must object to that feature.
I suggest also that the appointment should be made by an act or, as it is said, by a bill. When the Prime Minister seeks to change any department it has always been the practice to have a bill introduced. When the Department of Munitions and Supply was set up some years ago a bill which set out the duties and scope of operation was introduced.
(Mr. Neill.]
But here are men appointed only through an item in the estimates, and I say it is a most peculiar way of doing it. It would have been much better if it had been by an act, even though of .a temporary character. It would have been quite easy to pass a bill and have these assistants appointed in the regular way. We could have discussed and defined, their duties and powers; all those matters would have been clearly understood, and probably such procedure would have led to a better and happier operation of the positions later on.
While I am on my feet I should like to ask the Prime Minister-'and this is purely a matter of curiosity-why it was necessary at this late date, before the Easter adjournment, when we have to rush business through, to have this one item of the estimates forced through to make provision for the pay of these new appointments. Is the government in the position of the Chinaman who said he would not work unless he got his money beforehand? If the Prime Minister had risen in his seat and said that he had arranged for the appointment of these gentlemen as parliamentary assistants, we would1 have allowed them to act. We would have accepted their positions, and payment of money to them could have been arranged in the usual way, through the estimates. I cannot understand why it was necessary to rush this one item of the estimates through at this time, by itself. It would have been much better if it had been done by way of a bill.
Perhaps in what I am about to say I shall be a little out of order. However, the previous speaker was allowed to introduce a matter which was not strictly in order, and I should like to say a few words respecting the remarks of the hon. member for Fraser Valley. Whatever I might think of his sentiments. I admire his courage. As he says, he has been ventilating in the house what has been undoubtedly common gossip for months and months. I do not think he explained it quite as clearly as he might have. The position is this-and I know I am speaking to the country as well as to the committee. Members of parliament are paid1 $4,000 indemnity. Deputy ministers are paid either $9,000 or $10,000, according to years of service. As a private citizen, the deputy minister can spend his money in any way he wishes. But the $4,000 we get for our services is, in large part, only a gesture. [DOT] We do not get [DOT]that S4.000; we get only a small portion of it. We are compelled as members of parliament to incur large expenditures-and very properly. It may be said that we knew about all

Supply Bill-Parliamentary Assistants
these obligations before we took the job, and that if we do not want our jobs other people will be glad to have them. All that may be so. I am not asking for any more salary, and I do not care what the taxation is, provided that I am treated fairly and squarely; but I do object to paying taxes on money I never saw, and never put into my pocket.
The expense of living in Ottawa is enormous in these days. Then we have expenses of travel. When I am home I have to have an office. If it were not my own office I would have to pay rent for it. I must pay charges for electric light and telephone, and I must keep a stenographer solely for political business. All these expenses come out of the $4,000. And there are other expenses as well. We must travel through our constituencies. The cost of living in Ottawa is much greater than that of living at home, and we must maintain two households. If I were in any other occupation whatsoever-if for instance I were a lawyer-and had to make returns of income I would be allowed, without a particle of doubt, to deduct from my gross income the expense of getting it. I would be permitted to deduct what I pay a stenographer in my office, and all the expenses connected therewith. But when it comes to being a member of parliament-oh, no; those expenses are supposed to come from some unknown source, and cannot be allowed as expenses incurred in connection with getting one's income.
For many years the legislature of British Columbia allowed its members to write off $2,000 against their income, for purposes of taxation. They did not have to itemize it, or anything else, but just took the $2,000 off their gross income before being charged income tax. Some years ago that was changed to $1,000. Of course in British Columbia we have now lost that privilege because income tax is taken away from the province and given to the federal government.
At one time, more for purposes of getting information than anything else, for one solid year I kept an account of my expenses, what it cost me in various ways, outside of actual living and personal expenses. I did not charge those, because I would have had to incur them anyhow. I made a fairly close check of it and I found that at the end of the year, after deducting the fair and necessary expenses of being a member, I had $1,100 left, and it would be much less now, and yet I am told that for taxation purposes I am to be assessed on the whole S4.000. I took up this point fifteen years ago with one of the officials of the department. I pointed to the clause in the act which says expenses should be allowed to 72537-1531
anyone who, in connection with his occupation or business, must be away from home. The official replied, "Yes, but being a member of parliament is not an occupation." I said I thought it was, but if not it was a business, but he said no. I then asked what it was, and he said it was an honour and therefore these expenses could not be deducted. In later years, since taxation has gone up, some hon. members approached another official, but he simply laughed and said, "No doubt you are right, but you have been fools enough to put up with it all these years."
Then the hon. member for Fraser Valley touched upon a point which does come home to us all. It is suggested that this might not be a very opportune time to go home to our constituents-if we have an eye towards the next election-and say, "We have reached out our hand and taxed you people heavily, but we have taken advantage of our power to cut down our own taxation." However, while that may sound plausible, and while no doubt it would be used by our opponents, the hon. member for Fraser Valley said he was not afraid of his constituents, and neither am I afraid of mine. The working man, the union man, the small wage-earner to whom you would put that specious argument of taxing him and not taxing yourself, is intelligent and reasonable. I think he would quite readily understand and agree that if we did our best to get justice for him here it would be all right for us to get justice for ourselves. I do not think there would be any danger on that account. Some people have a poor idea of the intelligence of what they scornfully call the common people. I will trust the common people every time. Let me remind the house of an incident that occurred some years ago, to show how the union man and; the wage-earner looks at these things. A provincial government in Nova Scotia was facing an-election, and the ministers thought they might make themselves popular and appeal to the working men and small wage-earners by cutting down their own salaries by a considerable amount, some $300 or $400. The next day they looked anxiously and hopefully at the newspapers, and the labour paper came out with a great big headline saying "Legislators Reduce Their Own Salaries." Underneath in slightly smaller print was the comment of the newspaper: "Cheap skates; they know their own value." That was all they got by playing politics and thinking they were going to help themselves in that way.
I think that is about all I have to say on this point. At the moment perhaps it would not be politic to take this action, since some people might look at it from the wrong point
2406	COMMONS
Supply Bill-Parliamentary Assistants
of view. As I see it, however, we have been unfairly treated. Now we are being taxed heavily, something like 40 or 50 per cent, on money we never see, money fairly and lawfully spent in order to obtain our salaries as members, which we know we are entitled to deduct for income tax purposes just as the working man or business man or anyone else may deduct his necessary expenses incurred in obtaining his gross income.


Mr. BOUCHER:: And serving our constituents as well.


Alan Webster Neill: Absolutely. I remember one gentleman who sat beside me in the local house many years ago, who sent down and got some office equipment. I asked1, "What do you want that for? You do not need it." His reply was, "Well, Neill, I am entitled to that, and, if I cannot be trusted to look after my own interests, how can I be trusted to look after the interests of my constituents?" A jest, of course, but with an element of truth. Do you think a man who is scared to fight for a fair deal for himself is likely to worry about a fair deal for his constituents? He will be wondering and fearing what will be the effect of this, that and the other thing on his own political fortunes. Let us be honest not only with ourselves but with the electorate. Let us go out and tell them the truth. I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, and I know he is expressing views which have been heard all over this house. I know it is too late to get any redress this year, but I applaud his frankness and sincerity.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope my
hon. friend will not mind if I do not follow him in the latter part of his argument. I have it in mind that last night, in stating the procedure to be followed to-day, I indicated that I would not have this bill made the first order of business if it were likely to interfere with my colleague the Minister of Finance getting through his income war tax measure which is now before the house. I had rather anticipated that the discussion of yesterday with respect to this measure would have sufficed. However, my hon. friend has asked one specific question, as to why I brought in this item at this time. I did so because I felt that in a matter so important as establishing a new institution in connection with the procedure and business of the House of Commons, and in making a number of appointments, hon. members and the public certainly would be critical of the government if I did not secure from parliament the appropriation necessary for that purpose before making any

appointments at all. I believe on reflection the hon. gentleman may wish to revise his statement that the house would have been generous in its attitude and would have allowed us to have regard for the recent past, when he recalls that this afternoon, when I did suggest that it might be reasonable to consider the services that had been rendered by one or two hon. gentlemen in the last two months, some exception was taken then to the suggestion. It is being done now only because there has been no item of the. estimates discussed thus far, and I did not wish to allow the Easter recess to go by before making some at least of these appointments which, at the outset, we had really hoped to have made immediately after the conclusion of the debate on the address.


Mr. GLADSTONE:: The question of salaries has been mentioned briefly by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, and I should like to take a moment to support the suggestion of the hon. member for Rosedale that it seems unfair that there should be uniformity in the salaries of cabinet ministers. I do not think the services these ministers are called upon to render are by any means equal. Some perform duties far more arduous and of far greater moment to the country than others, and I think it would be quite appropriate if there were some scale of salaries for cabinet ministers-


Angus MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think most of the discussion we have had so far on this item has been out of order. Any discussion of the salaries of cabinet ministers should be held on the appropriate item in the estimates. The subject that was discussed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the hon. member for Fraser Valley could have been discussed either on the income tax measure or on the item in the estimates providing for the indemnities of members of parliament. To-day we have only a limited time in which to deal with this matter, and surely we should not discuss anything that is not germane to the bill.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am glad the hon. member for Vancouver East has come to life.


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member for Vancouver East is always alive; he does not just come to life occasionally, like the hon. member for Fraser Valley.


Alan Webster Neill: That is a matter of opinion.


George Alexander Cruickshank: As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni says, that is a matter of opinion. Possibly the hon. member for Vancouver East, who prides himself on being the

Supply Bill-Parliamentary Assistants
only man in the house who thinks of the labouring man, will have a little explaining to do when he gets to his own riding-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am speaking to the point of order. I think I was perfectly justified in referring to salaries, when the Prime Minister is moving a resolution dealing with salaries.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On the point of order, there is a great deal to be said in favour of the statement of the bon. member for Vancouver East. No doubt we must always allow a certain freedom of discussion in committee, but I would remind hon. members of the provisions of standing order 58, and I hope future discussion will stay within the limits of the clause of the bill that is under consideration.


Robert William Gladstone: I shall relate my remarks to the matter of parliamentary assistants. I am sure I would have finished on [DOT]the question of salaries long before this if the point of order had not been raised. I hope two sentences may not be objected to, and I shall be through on that point.
I do think that to uphold the dignity of Canada and to give to the Prime Minister the place he should have in entertainment and in many ways requiring outlays from his pocket, his remuneration should be adequate to the place that Canada holds among the nations of the world. ,
I a.m amazed that there should be any divergence of opinion with regard to the services that can be rendered by parliamentary assistants. Vision is essential to progress, and the addition of members of this parliament to continuous service amongst the various departments will be bringing to these departments new vision and enhancing the parliamentary control that is so much demanded right across the country. It is totally impossible for a minister in one of the large departments to keep in close contact with the many thousands of men and women in the service which he is administering. Human nature is human nature; many things that should come to the attention of the minister may at times be covered up, and I should think that if the parliamentary assistant is of the right type and possessed of a ferreting mind his very presence may instil into some persons in the service a fear that their sloppiness of method or their disregard for public money may be uncovered. I consider that it would be a sound investment to have capable men serving the ministers of busy departments, for there is no doubt they will more than pay for themselves.
I am sure that the youth of this country and those of democratic spirit and ideals will expect this parliament to enlarge the scope of its usefulness and not to suffer the restrictions that are imposed upon it through some who are permanently in the service as our hired servants. We have a splendid body of highly trained and efficient men and women in the service, and again we have others who may not be so competent. I am sure that the addition of some representatives from this parliament as parliamentary assistants will in the end save money to the country and bring about increased efficiency.


Joseph Henry Harris: I am in accord with some of the observations made by the hon. member for Davenport. I concur in what he said with regard to the civil service of Canada. I am thinking particularly of the portion of the civil service which has to do with the Department of Finance. I have criticized, and criticized rather strongly, some of the incumbents of high office in the Department of Finance, thinking that their minds run in the realm of philosophy and conjecture through their early training in professorships and what-not rather than in the world of business. To assist the minister and his department I have been concerned for some time as to why the government has not seen fit to fill the posts now vacant in the Department of Finance and so relieve the minister of some of his burdens. An outstanding example is the position known as the commissioner of tariffs. The minister very properly takes the view that during a time of war this is a matter that should be left as is. I agree with him, and I think he will admit that he is getting the maximum of cooperation from all those concerned with that particular office and the functioning of that work. But at the same time, business is going on; that department is Still functioning, and matters which would ordinarily be disposed of by the commissioner of tariffs now have to come to the minister or to some of his deputies, and necessarily he takes the responsibility and is loaded with that extra burden. True, the previous incumbent, one of the most capable civil servants Canada has had for a long time, is functioning as president of the stabilization corporation, and undoubtedly is giving a good account of himself. He has a tremendous task; he cannot be diverted from it. In my opinion it is one of the most responsible appointments in the civil service of Canada to-day. It has to do with fighting inflation; millions of dollars are being worked out in debits and credits to one industry and another in order to hold down the cost of living and all that goes with it
2408	COMMONS
Supply Bill-Parliamentary Assistants
and to check the possibility of inflation. Therefore he cannot give any attention to his former task; he is definitely away from that position as commissioner of tariffs, and long after the war he will still be away, carrying on his present duties as president of the stabilization board. Assistants are doing the work of the other position, but I think an appointment ought to be made and made soon. The assistants, from what little I know of it, are doing a very good job; the cooperation they are getting is what they seek and comment on, and they are keeping the matter of movements of goods from one country to another running smoothly. They work long hours and should be given credit for the work they are doing.
Coming back to these parliamentary assistants, in my view they are necessary. But the burden on the ministers would be greatly relieved if they would fill the vacancies at present existing in their different departments, and so the necessity for these parliamentary assistants would not be as great.
Following the criticism I have made in regard to professors and what-not occupying high positions in government, it seems to me that these parliamentary assistants, through contact with their fellow members, will be in a much better position to be of real service to the country than persons who might be promoted from positions which they at present hold in the civil service. For that reason I favour the appointments, but I ask that the positions at present vacant be filled as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On the preamble:
John Ritchie MacNicol: Before the preamble
carries may I ask the Prime Minister whether it would not be possible to use, for a while anyj [DOT]way, while he is picking out those whom he can use as under-secretaries, the services of three or four'-I think I can say five-ministers, the work of whose departments has been greatly reduced as a result of the war? I would say that the activities of three departments have been materially reduced. Why can we not do what has been done in Australia? I am sure the ministers of these particular departments would be glad to help the other ministers who are overburdened with work. Why should we appoint ten assistants if we can use the services of three, four or perhaps five ministers who are all able-bodied men, and anxious to help out?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To satisfy him I would have to make a long dissertation to

my hon. friend. Perhaps we might some time spend an evening together and talk it over when I think I shall be able to explain it to him. I can assure him that as matters are arranged between ministers at this time of war, the ministers who are members of the war cabinet and who have on their shoulders the immediate day to day matters of the war are obliged to leave to the other ministers a great deal of their work that they would not otherwise leave to them. I think every minister of the crown regardless of his position is pulling his full weight in the cabinet.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is a new situation; I did not know that.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 20, consideration in committee of Bill No. 72, to amend the Income War Tax Act-Mr. Ilsley- Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 13-1942 individual reduced tax liability.
Clarence Gillis: Just prior to the adjournment last night I was making a few remarks on this section. While I regret having to harass the minister at this time, in view of the necessity of getting this bill through as quickly as possible, there are a few thoughts which I should like to leave with him over the recess with respect to income tax deductions, particularly as applied to industrial workers. My reason for bringing up this matter is a telegram which I received from the steel workers union, Sydney, Nova Scotia, dated April 20. It represents the view of some 5,000 workers and it reads:
Sydney steel workers union in regular session after lengthy consideration present widespread criticism income tax deduction scales. Respectfully urge revisions so that maximum deductions shall be limited to forty-eight hours' earnings each week.
I know this particular body of -men, and there is no more reasonable group in Canada.
I do not think there is a more efficient organization in the trade union movement in this country. When these officials send a telegram like that I know that there must be serious criticism by the membership of these income tax deductions. A revised table of tax deductions was issued by the department for March 31, 1943. I should like to suggest something which I think will offset the present resentment against these deductions.
I take as an example a single man earning 832 a week, which gives him an income of

Income War Tax
SI,660 a year, working a 48 hour week. The tax rate places him in the 30 per cent bracket for the first S500 and1 in the 33 per cent bracket for the balance. His tax deduction is $7.90 per week, S2.45 of which is refundable. This leaves him a net of $24.10 per week. The point I should like to make with respect to this particular man would apply to most of the employees in plants and factories across Canada.
There is an urgency in war work in steel plants, ship repair plants and shipbuilding plants. I think it will be admitted that a 48 hour week is about all that a man should be obliged to work. However, there is a necessity for overtime work because of war emergencies. It is a common thing for the employer, the personnel manager or the plant manager to come to a group of employees in the middle of the week or at the end of the week and say, "A ship has come in with a hole in her; there is an emergency job to be done, and we want you men to stay on this week-end." Those men may work three shifts over the week-end. Under their contract they are paid time and a half for overtime. Take the particular man I have cited. If he is willing to give up his leisure over the week-end and take the punishment of additional work, something the average man does not want to do, he will increase his earnings to $56 for that week. This higher wage takes him out of the income bracket he was in before, and his deduction. instead of being $7.90 will be $18.65, of which $4.25 is savings. His net balance will be $37.35. His tax deduction has been increased $10.75. The point I wish to make is that instead of his being in the income bracket of 30 and 33 per cent, he now finds himself in the 41 per cent bracket.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Only on a little bit at the top.


Clarence Gillis: No.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It does not run back into the whole thing.


Clarence Gillis: It takes in the total earnings. The minister has in mind the fact that the_ schedules are computed on the basis of yearly earnings, but this tax is being deducted on a weekly basis. The worker's gross income for the week determines the income tax bracket he will be in for that week. I know what the minister is thinking of

that the total income tax can be figured out at the end of the year and if there has been too much taken off in weekly deductions application can be made for a refund. But I am pointing out the actual situation, that present conditions make this a sore spot, and that the effect of the whole thing is for the man to hold back
because he feels that in working extra time he is punishing himself. Many of these men put on their working clothes and do not get home till the end of the week. In addition to taking that physical punishment, if they work long hours they are placed in a different income tax group for that week, and the net result is for them to feel that they do not want to take on extra work. That is how the steel worker feels. That is the single man in the low income group. On top of that, you have increased the deductions this year by some 25 per cent over last year. That was not expected; it has not been thoroughly explained, and naturally in all the big industries across Canada there is resentment against the income tax.
What can be done about it? I think the whole matter should be closely examined. If you are going to get your emergency war work done on the basis of extra time, you might well exclude for income tax purposes anything the man may make by way of overtime in contributing to the country's war effort in such an emergency. If you do not want to go that far, this might be considered, that the income tax of the worker shall be based on his 48-hour week; and if he puts in overtime, do not change the rate of taxation by applying the rate to his higher earnings, but apply the 30 and 33 per cent to his entire earnings for that week and leave him in the income group he is in at the present time.
I leave these thoughts with the minister because I know there is terrific resentment against the taxing arrangements.
I think somebody in the department has badly neglected1 the matter of publicity with respect to the savings portion of the tax. It is not generally understood. By and large, when the men get their pay envelopes they will look at the deductions and think that they amount to straight taxation. There is nothing to indicate that a certain portion of the deduction is refundable after the war. I have received several letters suggesting that the pay forms should be so drawn as to inform the man that he is paying so much by way of tax and that so much will be refundable, that the tax and the refundable portion are two separate items. That should be set out on the pay slip. There should be a record of it so that the worker will have a clear understanding that in the event of his death the refundable portion of his tax will be paid to his estate, or if he lives it will be paid to himself two years after the war. That is another point on which the workers are confused. Their general complaint is that they have nothing to show that a certain portion of the tax is refundable. It might not be a bad
Income War Tax

idea once a month, or every quarter or every six months, whichever the department considers most convenient, to issue a certificate to the worker showing what portion of his deductions is refundable. The department should issue a certificate to the man who is making that contribution, setting out clearly that he has that much money on deposit with the government and that it will be refundable after the war.
The psychological effect of making that clear to the worker is the most important job that the department has to do to-day. The letters I have received about the matter do not complain about paying the tax, but they deprecate the fact that the worker is not given a certificate showing what he has to his credit. There is nothing on their pay envelope to indicate that anything will be refunded when the war is over, or that if he dies in the meantime the money will be paid to his widow or his estate. These are matters which should be considered by the department, because they are causing a lot of complaint.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am very much obliged to the hon. gentleman for his suggestions. I realize that he has put his finger on two problems. One is how to arrange our income tax that it does not discourage overtime and perhaps to a certain extent discourage working every day in the week. I shall have to give consideration to his suggestions. There has been, as he knows, a great deal of discussion of that problem here during the last two weeks. The financial critic of the opposition dealt with it very fully in his speech, and other members have dealt with it. It is something for which we shall have to try to get a remedy if we possibly can.
The other problem is also an acute one.
I have tried to make it clear every time I have spoken on the subject that the refundable portion of the tax will be repaid, with two per cent interest, within two years after the war, and if the taxpayer dies in the meantime it will become payable at once to his estate. I have prepared a very emphatic passage from my budget speech on that, with a view to making the facts known as widely as possible, but it is very hard to get proper publicity f<jr these matters.
That does not touch the other question, which is whether the employee should not receive something, not from the government, but from the employer as he goes along, showing what he has to his credit in refundable savings. This matter has been giving us a great deal of concern ever since last September. Certain representatives of organized labour made representations to us 
last September that that should be done, otherwise the employee would have nothing to show and would think his money was simply gone and he would never get it back. There have been recent attempts by regulation by the Department of National Revenue to oblige the employers to give statements to the employees in certain contingencies. That is, when the year is up, and when the employee leaves his employ, he is entitled to a statement of what has been deducted and what is refundable. The reason why it is not possible to give a certificate of the amount of refundable taxes with every payroll period is that the amount of refundable taxes depends to some extent upon the man's yearly earnings. Therefore the amount deducted on account of refundable taxes is not conclusive. Consequently, if certificates were given that that much was there as refundable taxes, they might add up to too much at the end of the year; there might be some adjustment necessary; and then, of course, the employer or the government or both would be in trouble, because the employee would have the certificates and he would say: "Where *is my money?"


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: But that is the result of a system of taxation, is it not? It is by reason of the collection on weekly basis that exists.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


George Hugh Castleden: And if you did not tax any higher than on ordinary rates of pay, that would not occur.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, it would occur, because there is not complete regularity of employment. All I can say to members of the committee about the matter is that nobody realizes more clearly than I do that these are real, difficult and important problems, and that the solution of these two problems would help in the war effort a great'deal. We shall just have to give the best consideration to them that we can.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the minister referred to the statement which has to be given at the end of the year,, to what year did he refer? Fiscal, financial, or company?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The statement of the
employer?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The statement that the employer is obliged to give his employee.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is the end of the calendar year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does that apply to 1942?

Income War Tax


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; it applies to 1942. But the regulation was not passed before the end of the year. I will ask the Minister of National Revenue to explain it.


Mr. GIBSON:: At the end of the year the employer must file a return showing the names of his employees and the amount of compulsory savings and tax that he has taken from each employee. That was to have been filed in September of this year, because the employer was collecting from the employee on the basis of tax collection for the whole of last year. The return is now to be filed at the end of May, and the taxpayer's return goes in by the 30th of June of this year. Hereafter the return will be filed by the employer after the end of each calendar year, and the employee will be filing his return on April 30.


George Hugh Castleden: The deductions from salary or wages have to be made on a form that the employee makes out, and when he makes application for a refund he has to fill out form T.D. 20A. It seems to me that the trouble about this form-I objected to it about two years ago when it was brought in-is, in the first place, that about 90 per cent of the employees are not fitted to do this kind of work; they are not temperamentally suited to it; many of them do not like the job of filling out all these forms, and they would rather let the money go than bother to ask for a refund. They have to get a certificate from their employer stating how much is deducted from their wages, whether the wages are paid weekly, monthly or otherwise, and give full particulars, and then they have to sign it. On the other side, the man is forced to state his name and the address to which the refund cheque is to be mailed. The case I took up a couple of years ago was a test case. This chap had earned for a short period, enough to bring him within the income tax group. At the end of the year his income was less than SI,100, with the result that any deductions from his pay by way of taxes were refundable. But by the time he got down all the names of his employers for the whole year and their addresses he had a considerable difficulty. One of his employers happened to have died in the meantime. We chased this thing through the department for about eighteen months, and then gave it up as a bad job.
The employee must give full details with regard to his family, and any marital change during the year; he must declare everything with regard to those whom he is supporting, and their residences-if the dependent child or children reside in Canada, he must tell where they are residing, and, if the dependent is
residing abroad, he must state the method of sending funds and the amount sent-then he must give the income of the other member of the family-wife or husband

value of board, anything he gets by way of dividends, et cetera; then he must specify other income, and then sign the following statement:
I hereby certify that I have herein made a full and complete disclosure of my total income from all sources for the year 1942, and I verily believe that I am entitled to a refund of income taxes deducted at the source as stated in item 6B.
My opinion is that experience would be that about 90 per cent of those entitled to this refund would never obtain the deduction.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is not a compliment to the people, you know.


George Hugh Castleden: 
James Lorimer Ilsley: This section requires two or three amendments, not for the purpose of changing any principle, but merely changes in language. The proposed amendments have just been distributed. They are really clerical.
The first amendment is:
That the words "pursuant to section 9 of this act" occurring in subsection 1 of section 9A of the Income War Tax Act, as contained in section 13 of the bill, be deleted and the following substituted therefor: "under this act (except section 9B, subsection 1 of section 27 and section 88 thereof)"


Colin William George Gibson: I so move.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think I would be justified in asking hon. members almost to take that on faith. The purpose is just to state what personal incomes are subject to this fifty per cent forgiveness; that is a more accurate description of them than the former.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
James Lorimer Ilsley: The second amendment is:
That the words "commissioned officers in" in the last proviso of subsection 2 of section 9A of the Income War Tax Act, as contained in section 13 of the bill, be deleted and the words "member of" be substituted therefor.


Colin William George Gibson: I so move.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Hon. members will recall that we do not draw the line between commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers for taxation purposes; we draw the line at $1,600. This was an inadvertent remnant of the old language.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
James Lorimer Ilsley: The third amendment to this section is:
That paragraph (a) of subsection 4 of section 9A of the Income War Tax Act, as contained in section 13 of the bill, be amended, by adding thereto the words "any person taxable at the rates prescribed for corporations, or"
At the end of the section.


Colin William George Gibson: I so move.
Mr. ILSLEY! The words "a corporation" are not quite wide enough, because it is not intended that the provisions of this section should apply to persons who are taxed as corporations. Therefore the words "any person taxable at the rates prescribed for corporations" must be added. The chief noncorporate body taxed as a corporation, in fact the only one I can think of, is the trustee of a royalty organization for oil.


George Hugh Castleden: The minister says the only persons he knows of are such persons as royalty companies?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; what are called royalty companies. The royalty company strictly

speaking is not a royalty company; it is a trustee acting for a group- of unit holders. We tax it as if it were a corporation; we have done so since last year; it is, we contend, in substance a form of corporate organization. We tax them at corporation rates, as they do in the United States.


George Hugh Castleden: We have the minister's assurance that no other persons will get in under this?


James Lorimer Ilsley: They do not "get in under" it; it is a disadvantage to get in this list.


George Hugh Castleden: "At the rates prescribed for corporations".


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right. This does not change any taxation. The hon. gentleman should be alert to see that we do not put too many people in here.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Harry Rutherford Jackman: Would the minister explain to the committee why the rate in this section 9 (b) was fixed at two per cent rather than the going rate for government money, namely, three per cent for periods which I consider to be similar to the typical period under this section?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The two per cent is free of income tax. It is a very generous rate.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I take a contrary view of this whole section to that taken by the department. In the first place the failure to treat those who receive investment incomes above $3,000 on the same basis as that on which everyone else is treated, even executives with $10,000 to $50,000 salary, is not -understandable to many people. It was always felt that those -who had large incomes were taxed and that adequate recognition had been given in previous budgets to their ability to pay. I hardly think the minister would deny that ability to pay had been a factor that was given thorough consideration. He would have considered himself remiss if it had not been given adequate consideration.
A second point which I do not think was brought out particularly when the resolution was under discussion has to do with the fact that these investment incomes are derived largely through investments in companies on which a minimum tax of forty per cent is paid even on pre-war scale earnings, so that there is a very heavy rate of tax even before the people get any share of the earnings, which in turn is subject to personal income tax. In addition to that, as if these two taxes were not enough, a four per cent surtax on investment income is added to the other taxes which the individual must pay. It would seem to me,

Income War Tax
therefore, that if the minister cannot concede the main point he might at least have allowed these people the same rate on the prepayment of their tax-which again I claim is a third succession duty-at the going rate for government money, namely, three per cent. However, I do not expect to get, in this budget, very much relief for taxpayers, particularly in this bracket.
But I wish to ask this question. We have a great many sections of the income tax bill to review before we adjourn for the recess. If we are to adjourn at six o'clock until May 6 we shall have to go over matters very hurriedly. If, on the other hand, the minister- and the Prime Minister perhaps-is to be insistent upon our sitting after six o'clock-of course I realize it is only by unanimous consent that we can be asked to sit after six o'clock-I should like to know from the Minister of Finance just what the wish of the department is and what the reasons are behind that wish, because if hon. members are to be asked to give unanimous consent to these matters I think we should know precisely why there is this frightful rush to put the bill through and have it enacted. As we have seen, there have been, not only many discussions between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue on these various points, but many discussions with their deputies. With some of these matters they are not as familiar as they might be. They themselves have caused this house much more delay than private members have done. This shows once again that when we have such vital matters before us affecting the Canadian public as we have in modern budgets the only proper way is to have a committee where there can be cross-examination, where the ministers can develop their ideas and where hon. members can present and develop their own ideas and find out such things as they and the public require to know. Consequently I would ask the minister what are his plans for the afternoon and what are his desires for the evening, if it is necessary to sit after the dinner recess, because this will make some difference in our discussions of these various matters. If we are to be forced to get through with this bill at some time this evening there is no use in reiterating any arguments which have been brought up before or in asking the minister to make any concessions. We know he probably will not make any concessions, despite the fact that in his budget speech he said these resolutions were only recommendations to the house. I must say that I have seen very little changed here, no matter what arguments were advanced or what viewpoints
were expressed. I could mention four or five matters dealt with in previous budgets in connection with which we did argue quite strenuously; sometimes the minister became very heated at the time, but later, in subsequent budgets, he actually made the changes or gave effect to the suggestions that were advocated by the opposition.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I hope to get through with this bill this afternoon.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: And if we do not?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know. The question is whether- w-e should sit to-night, and I shall have to consult the Prime Minister and see whether he is willing to go on to-night.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: What is the urgency?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The urgency is that we have a sessional programme of tremendous scope and extent, and unless we fix some time for getting through certain parts of that programme it will become almost impossible to finish it. The hon. gentleman is quite right; this budget would provide discussion for weeks or perhaps months if people wished to discuss it in great detail. It has already received an enormous amount of consideration, and I do not think we ought to plan to come back and go into this bill again, but I am in the hands of the committee on that. I am only anxious to get it through. There is the mutual aid bill, which is most pressing; we have not touched the war appropriation at all; we have hardly touched any estimates at all, and there is a great deal of other legislation. Hon. members are bringing up matters all the time and saying they are urgent, and I think we ought to try to put this bill through this afternoon.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The need is general
rather than specific, then, in connection with all these bills.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, if there were any possibility of this being changed it would be very serious, and if there is no possibility of it being changed we might as well put it through. The Department of National Revenue has to get out its forms; employers are at the present time making the deductions under this scheme, and it is most important that we know at a very early date what the law is. I cannot discuss in detail what would be the effect upon the revenue department if we did not get through with this bill to-day. I suppose they would just have to send out the forms on the assumption that the bill would not be changed. They
Income War Tax

did that once, and they were savagely attacked in this house for it; they were asked what right in the world they had to do such a bureaucratic thing. Well, they have to do that bureaucratic thing, or else they have to get some legislation behind them.


Mr. McCANN:: I wish to say just a w'ord in relation to paragraph (b) of section 9A, having to do with the date of the deferred payments, which is set at April 30, 1944. Perhaps that date should be extended, for the reason that taxation is now the heaviest it has been, and probably the heaviest it is likely to be for a great number of years. If one wants to make that deferred payment and the date is set arbitrarily at April 30, 1944, it imposes on the taxpayer an obligation during the fiscal year 1943-44 which will be a hardship to a great number of people.-I suggest that as the section stands not many people are likely to take advantage of the discount of two per cent in making that deferred payment.
I wonder whether the officials of the department have given consideration to this aspect. Suppose a person's income tax is $20,000, of which $10,000 is deferred. He can make an arrangement prior to April, 1944, in regard to that payment, Suppose he arranges that the payment is to be made by his estate after his death. Then it becomes a liability against his estate and will be deducted from it. It stands to reason that as a result his estate will not pay succession duties on that $10,000. If he sees that as I do, his estate will be money ahead by not taking advantage of the deferment. My suggestion is that if the date is put back to 1946 or 1948, or even five years further, many people will take advantage of it and have the matter cleared up, and the government will be money in pocket in that they will get succession duties on the amounts represented by those deferred payments.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We gave much consideration to the selection of that date and finally decided that April 30, 1944, was the most appropriate date. It is a year. A person taking advantage of the prepayment and the discount can do so either in whole or in part, it will be noted from the section. The further the date is extended, the greater the opportunity to choose an option prejudicial to the crown.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I would be interested to see in this bill anything that is prejudicial to the crown.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The basis of the section is that the income tax payable on investment
[Mr. Hsley.l
income beyond the first $3,000 is payable on the death of the taxpayer, by his estate. He is given a chance under this section to discount that on the basis of expectancy of life, and naturally if he can find out something about his actual expectancy of life, and it is not great, he will avail himself of the discount. If it is in fact two years but the tables give him twenty years, he will take advantage of the discount.


James Joseph McCann: The minister is taking it for granted, I assume, that the expectancy of these people, whether because of fright or for other reasons, will be about a year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; lam not taking anything for granted, but I know that those whose actual expectancy is very much shorter than their mortality table expectancy will be the ones who will choose this system, while the others will not. The moment that fact sinks into the consciousness of the people, it becomes apparent that you must fix a fairly early date. If you made it 1946 or 1948 you would get a greatly increased scope for that choice, with the risk against the crown.


James Joseph McCann: What about the other question I asked, in regard to succession duties? I suggested that the crown would lose money in succession duties. Is that correct?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; that is correct. If the payment is made by the estate on the taxpayer's death, it escapes succession duties on that amount, which is deducted from the estate. If the taxpayer paid it before death, however, his estate would be reduced accordingly, perhaps not to so great an extent but at least to the extent of the payment. He will just have to select the alternative that he thinks is most advantageous to him.
By the way, I should like to say something about what was said by the hon. member for Rosedale the other day, when he pointed out that the older the man, the higher would be the tax. The older the man, the greater the relief would be without the tax. That is the answer, because in effect if we suppose the whole tax were forgiven, it would really be a relief of the estate. Substantially it is a relief of the estate, and if that relief is coming in two years it is worth much more than if it came in twenty years. So that the old man is not discriminated against, as compared with the younger man.


James Joseph McCann: In view of the admission the minister has made in connection with my question respecting succession duties, is it not a fact that in the long run the crown stands to lose something by this arrangement?

Income War Tax


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh no, it does not, unless this process of selection against the crown takes place. That is the reason for the early date.
Mr. MeCANN: That is why it is likely to.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If you extend the date, then that really does get the crown into trouble, comparatively speaking, because it gives that many more years for this selection to take place. Let us suppose the hon. member owed a 810,000 tax, payable upon his death out of his estate, and he discovers in 1945 that his expectancy of life is not great. He immediately takes advantage of the assessment, does he not, because his mortality table expectancy of life is probably, normally, twenty or thirty years? He finds out that his real expectancy is only four or five years, and therefore immediately takes advantage of the situation. If he has to make an election within a year, between now and 1944, there is not nearly as much selection. The mortality tables are based on the assumption that everybody took advantage of the discount system, at once. But when part can, and part cannot, it is important that the ones who can be put to their election as early as possible. '


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the Minister of National Revenue give some further information respecting acknowledgments employers have .to give employees in respect of compulsory savings? If I understood him correctly, he said that such acknowledgment, by regulation, would have to be given some time this year-May or June-for 1942. Is the acknowledgment to be part of that long, thin slip the employers give to the employees, or is it to be in some other form? Individual slips are torn off and given by employers to their employees, stating annual income and various deductions which have been made. Is there an item in the new form which covers compulsory savings, or is there something else?


Colin William George Gibson: Four copies of the form are to be completed, two of which go to the department, one being retained by the employer and the other, containing the information, is given to the employee. So that when the form is prepared there are four copies available.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And if is about that form you are speaking when you make reference to the amount of compulsory savings deducted by employers?


Colin William George Gibson: The employer informs the government respecting the total amount he has deducted. The amount that is credited to compulsory savings cannot be definitely determined until the tax returns have been filed by employees, and the assessment made.
No one can determine exactly what the compulsory savings are, from each weekly payment. The table of tax deductions shows the total tax, and the compulsory savings portion. That compulsory savings portion _ is there so that if an employee has offsetting savings, the employer knows he can deduct from the total tax payable the amount of savings made by the taxpayer, up to the amount of the refundable portion of the tax as shown on the table. That is the reason why the two are shown.
Consequently the tax the employer holds back from the pay, and turns in to the government, is the total amount of tax, less any deduction to which the employee is entitled on account of personal savings he may have made through mortgages, and life insurance up to the amount of the savings portion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to be clear on the statement the minister made that by a regulation recently passed employers were compelled, or obliged, to make a statement respecting their employees, in respect of two conditions the minister mentioned. One was with respect to the termination of employment, and the other was at the end of the calendar year. When I asked a supplementary question the reply was that it referred to 1942, but that these acknowledgments had not yet been given, and that they would be given after the report was made. I believe the minister mentioned either May or June.


Colin William George Gibson: Yes; companies have not yet filed them for 1942. They are due on May 31.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I get it clear, then, that employees should look for nothing else from their employers in addition to the slip they get at the end of the year, in which are shown their total receipts for the year, and total deductions?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes; that slip must show the amount the employer has sent to the government, and it will be that amount we shall have to check with the employee's return. We will check the employer's return with the amount claimed by the employee when he files his individual return.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that in my absence a question was asked as to the government's intention in the matter of proceeding with this measure later in the day, in the event of discussion not being concluded by six o'clock.
Let me say the government had hoped we might have cleared the order paper of all the items other than those relating immediately to the war and to supply, before the Easter recess. It is now obvious, if we are to adjourn

Income War Tax
immediately after the assent to bills it is not going to be possible to have any discussion on the two notices respecting committees, one in connection with radio broadcasting and the other, war-time expenditures. I believe we shall have to forgo consideration of them before adjournment of the Easter recess.
But with respect to this measure, the Income War Tax Act, the government would like very much to have it concluded before we adjourn for the Easter recess. May I say it is not the intention to ask hon. members, when once it passes this chamber, to wait until this bill has been considered in another place. What we are concerned about is that when the house reassembles on May 6 we may, from that time forward, proceed with war measures, and not have the attention of hon. members diverted back to a discussion, which might be prolonged, in respect of budget resolutions and bills based thereon. For that reason wre would like to have discussion on this bill concluded so far as this house is concerned before we adjourn'.
At a quarter to. six to-day there is to be an assent to bills which have already passed the house. I should hope it might be possible to conclude the discussion on this measure by that time. But if it is not, might I suggest that hon. members agree to coming back to this chamber immediately after the assent, and continue the discussion on the bill until such discussion is concluded. If that can be agreed upon I think I may say the government will not take up any additional measures after the conclusion of this one. If we came back immediately after six o'clock, it would permit hon. members to have at least a part of the evening free of the house. I hope, however, it may be possible to get through by a quarter to six.


Grote Stirling: The official opposition is always ready, as the government is aware, to assist in the passage of measures, where there is a clear indication that we shall accomplish something by so working. To my mind the difficulty has to a great extent been caused by heading for a fortnight's adjournment at this time, when so important a measure as this has still to be passed.
We have just about an hour until we shall be called for royal assent. There are sixteen more pages to be considered. The fact that this measure is obviously of the greatest importance can be judged by the discussion which has taken place on the different sections. The previous proceedings were held up largely because of the necessity of amendments which were being made by the government. Having got rid of the majority of the members of the

house, we now find present the faithful few who always stay on to endeavour to assist the government to get its measures through. So far as I can speak for those with me, we are ready to come back after the dinner recess if there is any reasonable hope that we can finish this important measure by eleven o'clock. However, as I say, there are still sixteen pages that have to be discussed.


Thomas Miller Bell: I agree largely with what the hon. member for Yale has said. There are a large number of sections to be considered, some of them very important. If we are to have the same kind of discussion that took place when the resolution was in committee, we shall need considerable time. We met at two o'clock to-day, and if we rise at six o'clock, come back at eight o'clock and make an attempt to get through before we adjourn to-night, I think hon. members would appreciate the break. The hon. member for Yale has suggested that there are very few members in Ottawa and in the house. Those of us who are here are, I believe, trying to confine what we have to say to the points in which we are particularly interested. That is certainly what we are trying to do. I think we should adjourn at six o'clock for an hour or so in order to come back a little more refreshed than some of us feel just now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say for the government that we appreciate the attitude of the acting leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. So far as the government is concerned we would wish to meet, as far as we are able to, what would best suit the convenience of hon. members. The fact that the house did meet at two o'clock to-day would possibly make it advisable to adjourn at six o'clock immediately after royal assent, and reassemble at seven o'clock rather than at eight.


Alan Webster Neill: With the understanding that we sit continuously until we get through; that we be not held up again at midnight but go right on?


Grote Stirling: Sit until midnight? No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Come back and sit until the bill is through. That is what the hon. member had.in mind. If the house is agreeable we would resume at eight o'clock.


Grote Stirling: The hon. member just suggested seven o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought some exception was taken to that. If we could agree on seven o'clock, that would be desirable.
I shall have to put a special motion because of standing order 2 which relates to the sitting of the house on Wednesday night. Mr. Speaker

Income War Tax
will have to be in the chair before I can put the motion. I would say to my hon. friend opposite that this government measure has not been delayed because it has not been brought forward by the government as rapidly as possible. As my hon. friend knows, there has been a discussion of many matters which has occupied a good deal of time before these measures could be reached. I mention that only because I want to make it clear that there has not been any negligence or delay on the' part of the government in bringing the measure forward. May I say also that I would not make the request I am now making if there had not been in the discussion on the resolutions a very full consideration of the matters to be taken up.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: By leave of the house I move:
That the house be not adjourned at six o'clock to-day, but that its sitting be then suspended until seven o'clock p.m. when it will be resumed under the same rule as at eight o'clock on other days.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: How long will the sitting continue after seven o'clock?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That will depend upon how long hon. members talk.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It will require unanimous consent to continue indefinitely this evening.


Mr. CASSELMAN (Grenville-Dundas):: Certainly it does.


Grote Stirling: Certainly it would need unanimous consent at eleven o'clock. I am ready to meet the wishes of the government, so far as I can speak for those with me, that [DOT] we should reassemble at seven o'clock, but I am not agreeable to sitting after eleven o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was hoping that the general consensus would be that if we came back at seven o'clock or earlier, having in view the completion of this bill within _ a reasonable time after coming back, it would not be necessary to consider at what hour the adjournment would take place. Certainly it would require unanimous consent if we wished to sit beyond eleven o'clock.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: I am sure the Prime Minister does not need to be reminded that it is not so many years ago that this house used to sit all night or late into the night. If it is necessary to get through the legislation now before the house I do not think it would
hurt hon. members to stay here. They are not so delicate that they must go home and go to bed at eleven o'clock, that is, if they do go to bed.


Major James William Coldwell: I agree to a large extent with the hon. member for Yukon. I would much prefer having the house rise at six o'clock to reassemble at eight o'clock and then stay on until we have finished this bill. I think a two-hour break would be preferable to one hour. I do not know how the hon. member for Yale and his friends feel, but I would prefer to reassemble at eight o'clock and stay until we have finished.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think possibly it would be wise to reassemble not later than seven o'clock. We shall thereby be a little more certain of having the extra time that may be necessary'. If the house agrees, we shall reassemble at seven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 72, to amend the Income War Tax Act-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Section 13 agreed to.
On section 8-Government annuities.
James Lorimer Ilsley: This section was held over at my request because I was not sure whether it was restrictive enough. Having given it consideration I am content to let it go through in this manner.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The point was whether or not a man could add to the amount provided by his contract. You are having it passed now?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The hon. member for Carleton-


James Lorimer Ilsley: He wins his point.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: A person who holds a dominion government annuity can pay what he likes on the contract.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Provided it is within his contract. If he had a contract prior to June 23, 1942, he can make any payment he likes under that contract.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: If the minister is as familiar with these contracts as I am, he will know that you can pay anything you please up to $10,000.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That was the objection to this amendment. I want to remind the committee that when I am accused of stubbornness, this disproves the accusation.
24 IS
Income War Tax


George Russell Boucher: I commend the minister for this. After all, the money is being paid into the government for the use of the government, so that I think it is a wise decision.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 14 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
On section 17-Reference to treasury board.
Harry Rutherford Jackman: Once again this is a section which gives the government power to declare illegal that which was legal. I asked the Minister of Finance the other day if he would give us examples of concrete cases which were aimed at in this legislation, and he said it was not his department. I therefore ask the Minister of National Revenue, if the Minister of Finance does not w'ish to take the responsibility for piloting this section through. Surely I have the right to ask some minister what some of the cases are.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not able to give the hon. gentleman that information. Just see what he is asking! He is asking me to outline types of transactions, many of which are extremely complicated. But the principles laid down here are the principles which underlie the transactions. The type of transaction indicated by subsection 3 is, I think, fairly clear; also the transactions that are governed by the principles of subsection 2.


George Russell Boucher: I think we should protest against this policy of giving the treasury board power to make the law. But I understand that the minister is adamant on putting this section through, and therefore I shall not labour my point further.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The minister-I will not say undertook the other day to give us some of these cases, buL-


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not give any undertaking.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I did not say he did, but I implied that somebody had and I referred to the Minister of National Revenue as being responsible. I certainly expected to find out what some of the evils aimed at were. The reason why I asked that is that the government is asking for blanket powers to declare that which was legal when it was done illegal now. It is putting the minister above the subject. As we know, the minister is relying upon his commissioner of income tax for guidance in these matters, so much so that neither minister apparently is in a position to give the facts of the cases aimed at. That leaves the whole matter in a sea of doubt.

Certainly if this section is to be passed both here and in another place and become the law of the land, it is not unreasonable to ask the Department of National Revenue or the Department of Finance to table at some time during the session every exercise of this very special prerogative for which they are now asking. Parliament has the right to know what legislation is being passed, particularly when it is the crown which is taxing the subject rather than parliament which is levying the tax. I have asked the minister to give us some idea of the evils aimed at by this particular section, and that does not seem an unreasonable request to me. If the minister does not know the facts and principles in a few cases which the new section is to provide against, it is not likely that as a member of the treasury board he will have time to give judicial consideration to the claims of the subject. The whole idea that the treasury board be made a judicial body to sift the facts and give decisions in these cases seems to me to be a figment of the imagination. The whole thing will depend upon the officials of the department who will advise the minister, and the minister, in turn, holding the confidence of the treasury board will once again rule in these matters. Otherwise it is a physical impossibility for the treasury board to deal with these cases.
Why is the government seeking to have this blanket power given to the administration rather than to have taxes levied by parliament as is the constitutional right of a free parliament? It is because they have found that they cannot catch a few cases. As, however, I suggested the other day, parliament is sitting for at least six months in the year, and if there is a particularly bad case at hand parliament can always legislate retroactively if it meets the conscience of the legislators. But in order to satisfy the convenience of the taxing officials the government is willing to hamstring business. Business is not being consulted on this matter, and what the repercussions will be is not known. Every piece of legislation that is brought down through the Minister of Finance in regard to the method of revenue collection is concerned with departmental expediency, making it easier for the department, with little or no consideration being had for the individual. Certainly I had never heard of the individual being asked bow' it will affect him or how it will affect business generally. Every time there is a sale of a business the question of taxation is extremely important. As I mentioned the other night, no longer must the transaction satisfy a reasonable business purpose ; but if the government can point out that the main purpose, - according to their own

Income War Tax
view, is to avoid taxation, not to evade taxation, but merely to comply with the law with a resultant saving in taxes, then the department may levy the tax according to its own ideas.
There is no doubt that at the present time, with the government collecting 40 per cent of all corporate profits and sharing in none of the losses, there is not the zeal to pay taxes that there might be. In fact, the government is in a better position than if it owned all industry, because it collects 40 per cent of the profits and shares in none of the losses. They seem to overlook the fact that capitalism, like medicine, buries its mistakes and that only those ventures which are successful are extant. It was put to me in this way by one gentleman, and I would ask hon. members to bear this analogy in mind. It is lawful for a man to walk down one side of a street in order not to have bricks fali on his head. But the effect of this law, when he does walk down the lawful side of the street, is to declare that in so doing he did an unlawful thing. Such arbitrary and ex post jacto powers take away from the individual his essential freedom of action, his liberty. For example, under such legislation a strike which may be legal may be declared illegal by some government-appointed committee. It is not set forth anywhere what is wrong and what is right. It is entirely in the minds of the ministers and those who advise them.
May I point out in this regard that the minister had some unkind words to say the other day about tax avoidance. Tax avoidance is merely complying with the law so that one will not have to pay more taxes than one has to. I have not heard of anybody who is desirous of paying more taxes than he has to. That is perfectly natural. But they are all willing, so far as I know, to pay their just taxes. So that there is no tax evasion; there is a lawful avoidance of tax wherever possible.
The minister said the other day, reading from an English tax journal, that tax avoidance was something different from what it used to be; that it was almost as bad as evasion; that it was perhaps not exactly treason, but something to be considered most unpatriotic and unsocial. May I say again that if he is going to leave the determination of law to the minds of individuals rather than have it on the statute books, where the people of this country can see for themselves what the law of the land is, we shall have a very peculiar situation. This matter of ministerial allowances for motorcars has been up a number of times, and I do not intend to speak upon that subject on the eve of a victory loan; but may I tell the minister
that when he talks about the action of some people in avoiding - taxes as very nearly treasonable, other people may have strange ideas about ministerial motorcar allowances.
The fundamental law of this land should not rest in the hands of an individual. If this law goes through, if I may employ a simile, there is no longer freedom of action to walk down either side of the street. It is no longer sound common sense to walk down the clear side and thus avoid falling bricks. You are to be treated as though it is your duty to walk where the bricks are falling. The minister is virtually saying that a man is not justified ini not acting so as to render himself liable to taxation but should have walked so 'as to render himself liable to taxation. Such a situation, the minister must realize, is contrary to human nature, even human nature in war time, when people are willing to contribute in accordance with what is the Law of the land' but not according to what some person may have in his mind for the time being. No matter how able that official, or even the minister for the time being, may be, we know that both officials and ministers are subject to change. So that, wheither it be overtime work or the saving of capital, it has always been found that, since human nature is what it is, progress depends to a large extent upon selfinterest; and that if people are to proceed and do their business they must know what the law of the land is, and the law must not rest in the mind of the minister or even of some official; it must be clearly set forth in black and white on the statute books of this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the minister during previous discussions of this matter made the statement that it was just about impossible for the department to keep up with devices imagined' and concocted by people who are engaged to help corporations to avoid paying income tax, he stated from his official position an opinion which is held quite widely, particularly among working people throughout the country. I recall also that, when questioned on this matter the other night, he stated that we were talking not about small potatoes but about big money. I concur in the remarks which were made by many others, including the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, that it is to be hoped that in days to come we shall find ways to do this slightly different from the way that is being used just now. But I am quite satisfied that the country will be with the minister in his endeavour, particularly now, where large sums are involved, and when
Income War Tax

people are making sacrifices for the war and feel that this kind of thing should not take place. I am satisfied that the people will support him in what he is doing in this section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 18 to 22 inclusive agreed to.
On section 23-Payment of balance of tax with return.
James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know whether an amendment is necessary or not. It is purely verbal, if it is. Let the section stand.
Section stands.
On section 24-Penalty for short payment.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is an amendment :
That section 49 of the said act as contained in section 24 of the said bill be amended by deleting the words "subsections two, three, four or five" thereof and substituting therefor "subsection two".


Grote Stirling: You have subsections 3, 4 and 5?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. We applied the penalty to too many sections. It meant that the added three per cent penalty applied in too many cases.


James Layton Ralston: I so move.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 25 to 29 inclusive agreed to.
On section 30-Western hemisphere.


Grote Stirling: I see the minister has excluded Iceland. On a previous occasion he said it was included. Would he say whether any of the islands of the West Indies are in or out?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know. I thought they were all in the western hemisphere, but after what I said about Iceland I shall not be too sure about anything.	.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 31-Tax credit for dependents.
Major James William Coldwell: This enables me to bring up the question which I raised last night. It seems to me that now is the time when consideration should be given to the type of case to which I then referred. I have reference, of course, to the case of the illegitimate child in the home of the mother who is unmarried and looking after her child and is subject to income tax as a single person. In the case which I had brought to my attention and to which I referred last evening, the mother I understand is on a small salary and is maintaining her child, and she is unable to make any deduction because neither can she

adopt her own child nor under the law is the child recognized as her dependent or her child. It seems to me that this is the time when something might be done to meet such cases. Since the matter was argued last evening I simply wish to say that in my opinion, when a child is born under such circumstances, and the mother can care for that child, it is better that the child should remain with the mother than be taken away or abandoned or placed in some charitable institution. The mother should not be placed in the position where she finds it difficult not only to maintain herself but to feed, clothe and educate the child properly. It seems to me that the ruling of the Department of Justice is wrong and that we are perpetuating the survival of a wrong principle that came to us through the ages, inflicting punishment upon the child for the misbehaviour of the parents. In my opinion 'we should wipe out this blot. After all, many of our aristrocratic families in the British commonwealth trace their descent back to the mistresses of kings. If we inquire into their pedigrees we find that illegitimacy in their case was regarded as a mark of blue blood. We have inherited one standard for one class of people and another for another class. As the hon. member for Vancouver East said last night, if you look at this problem in the proper light there are no illegitimate children, but there are illegitimate parents.
I plead with the minister that if the interpretation of the department is according to accepted law, some slight change might be made in the wording of this section in order to allow the unmarried mother to retain her child and raise it in a respectable manner in her own home, and receive the exemption that any mother should receive in order to bring up her child in her own home.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I thoroughly agree with
the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar as to the need for providing that an unmarried mother be allowed income tax exemption for the purpose of supporting an illegitimate child. I do not, however, agree with him that the Department of Justice is wrong in the decision tendered to the Department of National Revenue. Under statute law "child" has to be interpreted on a great many occasions. There are occasions when it is wise and' proper that the word be confined to its legitimate sense. In this particular case the remedy lies, I think, in the definition of "dependent" in the act itself. While the minister may hesitate to consent offhand to a change, the importance and extent of which he may not be able to determine quickly, I certainly wish to support the plea of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that the min-

Income War Tax
ister give consideration to the definition of that word "dependent" in this act, and that if at all possible provision be made for such a mother to have an exemption on behalf of that child.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not recall this particular request with regard to illegitimate children ever coming up in the house or in committee of the whole before. It has been presented very forcibly and in a way to appeal to our sympathies, and1 it may have considerable merit. But I point out that it would be a very serious and far-reaching departure from the principles which have been followed from the beginning of this act in 1917.
The principles have been fairly clear. So far as children are cbncerned, we recognize children who are children of the taxpayer in the legal sense, or children by adoption, but all through the years illegitimate children have never been recognized. The plea has been to recognize foster children of various kinds, two or three years ago it was British guest children; but we have never seen our way to change the fundamental principles of the act.
When taxation gets high I can understand that the question becomes much more acute, but I could not undertake to do such a far-reaching thing as this on short notice. All I can promise is that it will be given consideration. There is of course the possibility of action under the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, but offhand it would appear to me that one should hesitate very much before beginning to use that procedure.
However, I would be prepared to give consideration even to that in some of these extreme cases. It might very well be that if anything were to be done along this line there should be conditions. Insistence on adoption might be desirable. It might be that the surroundings were not such that income tax exemption is the proper thing from the social point of view; I do not know about that. It means a very considerable credit on tax bills, and as I say it would be completely at variance with the principles of our taxation system as they have existed ever since 1917.


Major James William Coldwell: Probably the reason why this question has not been raised before is that none of us knew of the existence of the problem. It is because a letter came to my desk yesterday morning from a point in Ontario that it was brought to my notice. I had no idea that woman maintaining her child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, was not entitled to the deduction. Not being a lawyer, I did not know the legal definition of "child".
I accept the correction made by' the hon. member for Swift Current. Perhaps I was inaccurate in stating that the ruling of the Department of Justice is wrong. Legally and according to precedent they are probably right, but I can find no moral justification for the ruling.


Roy Theodore Graham: There should be a remedy.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not know how the minister can find the remedy, but I hope he will give the matter earnest consideration. I realize that what he has said is from his point of view perfectly sound regarding the implications of an amendment.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It was brought up two
years ago.	.


Major James William Coldwell: I hope this phase will be duly considered and a remedy found.
I agree with the minister that if we are to allow income tax exemption on account of such children, it may be desirable that we should see the home is a proper home, and so on. But we do not do that in the case of persons who are married, where home conditions are sometimes poorer than in a home of the kind I described this afternoon, which is good. The point is that girls who have illegitimate children and wish to care for them cannot claim deductions from their incomes and cannot get the consent of the children's aid societies to adoption, because the societies maintain that the children are the girls' own children and that, therefore, there is no force in going through the form of adoption. Then they are in difficulties. I feel certain that sympathetic consideration will be given to our pleas.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I may interrupt for a moment, a bill has come back from the senate with a very slight amendment, simply giving the correct number of a subsection. It is necessary that this amendment be concurred in if the bill is to receive royal assent. I would therefore move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the senate to Bill No. 7, to amend the Department of Munitions and Supply Act.
He said: The amendment to which I have just referred is the substitution of the word
Income War Tax
[Stage Direction]
"eight" for the word "seven" at. line 40 on page 7 of the bill. It refers simply to the numbering of the subsection, and is the only change.
Gordon Graydon: It does not alter the purport of the legislation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not in any particular. The section was wrongly numbered; that is all.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 72, to amend the Income War Tax Act-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 31-Tax credit for dependents.
Harry Rutherford Jackman: Two or three years ago I brought up this question in regard to all foster children. I placed on the order paper a question as to how many of these children there were in Canada, and at that time the Prime Minister answered that the figures could not be ascertained without a special census being taken.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The only thing the hon. gentleman brought up was the question of guest children. He may have placed a question on the order paper in regard to foster children, but he was most zealous in trying to get exemption for these British guest children, and he did not bring up the general question of foster children. That is my clear recollection, and I should remember that, because I argued with him about it enough to know his position.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: There is no doubt about the zealousness with which I presented the case in regard to British guest children. I think I touched upon the others also, perhaps more inferentially than directly. Nevertheless I strongly support the point of view expressed by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. Last night I asked the minister whether he would not agree that every child in Canada who is not kept at an institution should be the subject of income tax exemption. There may be some factors which those of us on the . outside, who do not have all these questions coming before us, have not considered. If there are such factors I think the minister should tell us about them, in order that we may disabuse our minds of any wrong thinking on this matter. Otherwise we would be encouraged to hold our view that every child in Canada should be the subject of income tax exemption.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Why stop at children? Why not include all worthy recipients of private benefaction, all worthy recipients of support? If the hon. gentleman received the letters that we receive from people who say, "You should allow me an exemption because I am supporting a friend or relative who is ill in my home," he would realize what this means. We must have some rules and some limits to this thing. The general rule is that contributions to charitable institutions and organizations may be deducted from income for tax purposes up to a certain amount, I think, ten per cent of the income. The general rule in regard to dependents, however, is that if a person undertakes something which it is not his obligation to undertake, though .it may be very desirable to undertake, in the way of a private charitable activity, he does so on his own responsibility and the government makes no concession to him for it. Perhaps the government should step in; perhaps it should reward him for his good-heartedness, but this government does not and I do not know of a government that does. That is something he does himself. He does that out of his tax-paid income, not out of his non-tax-paid income. I may not be 100 per cent correct in this, but the almost universal rule is that the deductions are made for the support of dependents whom the taxpayer is under a legal obligation to support, not somebody whom he chooses to support or somebody whom he charitably supports. That is the basis of the act; that is why it applies to children, either legitimate or adopted, and not to illegitimate children; that is why it applies to a wife and not a common-law wife. Perhaps sometimes it should properly apply to a common-law wife, if we are to take a broad view of these matters. I do not know what is to be said about that; certainly we recognize it in the pension legislation. I am just pointing out that we are opening up a field here of tremendous extent, and the hon. gentleman cannot stop at children. He would have to include any child, a niece, a nephew, a stranger or anyone a taxpayer might take in and feed. He cannot stop there; he has to take in everybody whom he helps in this way, and it is not consistent with the principles on which our system is built.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps the minister will give consideration, as he has suggested, to the point raised, and see if it is at all possible to do anything under the present taxation regulations or if perhaps some amendment would be required. I think it is a point that the minister might well take into consideration.

Income War Tax


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; I have promised to do that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
James Lorimer Ilsley: Let us take up section 23 now; I have discovered that it is all right; that it does not need any amendment.
On section 23-Payment of balance of tax with return.
Mr. O'NEILL: This afternoon the hon. member for Cape Breton South was speaking about taxation on payment for overtime. In British Columbia we have a great number of shipyard workers, longshoremen and railway workers. Many of these railway workers who are on spare boards may work one week and earn $50 or $60, while the next week they may earn nothing at all. It seems to me that some plan could be worked out under which an average rate would be applied to these men working on spare boards, because during the weeks they earn S60 or $65 they are taxed at the rate at which they would be taxed if they earned that much for fifty-two weeks in the year, which they do not. Some consideration should be given in these cases. I do not know just how it could be done, but if you tax a man at a rate much higher than you should, a great deal of money will have to be returned.
I should like to say a word with regard to the refundable portion of the tax. I do not know whether the practice is the same in the Canadian National, but in the Canadian Pacific, when a man receives his cheque at the end of a work period, on the end of that cheque there is a stub. On the face of the stub is shown the amount of money he has made, and the deductions therefrom. Then there is an indication of what those deductions are for. It seems to me that in respect of this returnable portion of the tax some plan of that kind might be devised by employers. It is a good idea. When an employer gives his employee a cheque, with stub attached, the employee can keep the stub. Then at the end of the year he knows exactly what has been taken from him by way of taxation, and he can find out from the Department of National Revenue how much is returnable. Otherwise he has no record at all.
The vast majority of men to-day who have wage deductions through taxation do not believe they will ever get back that returnable portion. They believe that that is just so much hooey, and they have no way of knowing how much has been taken away from them. If a practice of this kind were adopted, they would at least have a record of the money taken from them. This is something which
the Minister of National Revenue might consider carefully, because I know it works satisfactorily in respect of the employees of the Canadian Pacific. It saves the railway a lot of trouble, and it saves the superintendent a great amount of correspondence when answering questions as to the reasons for deductions.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 32-Basic income.
James Lorimer Ilsley: I will ask that an amendment be moved to this section, with respect to the provisos. The provisos in the original section were too brief, and did not cover the ground sufficiently.


Gordon Graydon: That is an unusual
complaint.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Sometimes there is a danger of that.


James Layton Ralston: I move:
That the first, second and third provisoes to rule 2 of section 3 of paragraph A of the first schedule to the Income War Tax Act as contained in section 32 of this act be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"Provided that if such service pay and allowances (exclusive of subsistence allowances up to $1.70 a day and marriage and dependents allowances) are in excess of $1,600 per annum in the case of a single person without dependents (or such amount appropriately increased by marriage and dependents allowances which would be payable if he held the highest rank of warrant or non-commissioned officer in the service to which he belongs but not including any allowance for more than six children) the tax credit to which the member of such forces would otherwise be entitled shall be reduced by the proportion which such excess bears to $1,600 in the case of a single person without dependents (or to such amount appropriately increased by marriage and dependents allowances which would be payable if he held the highest rank of warrant or non-commissioned officer in the service to which he belongs but not including any allowance for more than six children);
Provided further that in the case of a member of the Women's Royal Canadian Naval Service, the Canadian Women's Army Corps or the Royal Canadian Air Force (women's division), the figure of $1,200 shall be used in lieu of the figure of $1,600 hereinbefore set forth in this rule;
Provided further that in the ease of a member of the said forces who is in receipt of service pay and allowances (exclusive of subsistence allowances up to $1.70 per day and marriage and dependents allowances) in the case of a single person without dependents (or such amount appropriately increased by marriage and dependents allowances which would be payable if he held the highest rank of warrant: or non-commissioned officer in the service to which he belongs but not including any allowance for more than six children) (or $1,200 in the case of the members of the said women's forces) and who has been in the said forces for only a portion of the year, the credit
Income War Tax

from the tax otherwise payable shall be that proportion which the number of days during which he was in the forces bears to three hundred and sixty-five, of the appropriate credit to which he would have been entitled if he had been in receipt of service pay and allowances throughout the year".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 33-Coming into force.
James Lorimer Ilsley: This section must be
amended. There is a great difference in the effective dates.


Gordon Graydon: Is there any change, with the exception of the numerical changes which oecome necessary?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct. The amende ment alters considerably the printed section, but there is no alteration from what has been stated throughout the discussions in committee. I have stated that certain sections affected incomes from 1943, and others from 1940. I have made it clear as we have gone along, and this amendment carries out that understanding.


James Layton Ralston: I move:
That clause 33 of the bill to amend the Income War Tax Act be amended by deleting subsections 1, 2 and 7 thereof and substituting therefor the following subsections:
33. (1) Sections one, four, fifteen, sixteen, nineteen and twenty-two, and subsections four, five, six and seven of section forty-eight of the Income War Tax Act as enacted in section twenty-three of this act, twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-nine, thirty and thirty-two and paragraph (t) of section four of the Income War Tax Act as enacted in subsection two of section three of this act, and paragraph (h) of subsection one of section nine of the Income War Tax Act, as enacted in section twelve of this act shall be applicable to income of the 1943 taxation period and fiscal periods ending therein and of all subsequent periods.
(2) Sections five, eight, nine, fourteen, twenty-one, and thirty-one, and paragraph (g) of subsection one of section nine of the Income War Tax Act as enacted in section twelve of this act shall be applicable to income of the 1942 taxation period and fiscal periods ending therein and of all subsequent periods.
(7) Paragraph (s) of subsection one of section five of the Income War Tax Act as enacted in section six of this act shall be brought into force on proclamation by the governor in council and shall be applicable to the fiscal period or periods designated in such proclamation.
Mr. STIRLING A word will have to be altered in this sheet.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is nothing to be
altered in the mimeographed sheet.


Gordon Graydon: There have been some
far-reaching amendments made to this act,

and I wonder whether the minister could arrange to have the act with these amendments printed as soon as this bill is passed. Many people are anxious to find out the exact provisions of the Income War Tax Act, and there will be considerable call for the amendments as passed by the House of Commons, regardless of the fate of the bill in another place.	[DOT]


James Lorimer Ilsley: There seems to be some
confusion as to whether the mimeographed or the typewritten sheet is correct. It would be very serious if we should do anything wrong now, and I ask the committee to give me a few minutes to ascertain which is correct.


Major James William Coldwell: This is a serious matter, and if there is any doubt I suggest that the minister and his officials look this over so that we may be certain when we reassemble a little later. It would be a mistake to hurry this thing through. It would be better to take an extra hour in order to be certain.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think we can get it in just a little while.


James Layton Ralston: We are to be summoned to another place and will have to come back in order to adjourn. In the meantime the minister may be able to settle the question, and possibly we can deal with the matter then.


Major James William Coldwell: That will be all right.


Gordon Graydon: There is some merit in
what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar says. After all, we are not in such a hurry that we can afford to take chances on any single provision of this bill.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Hon. members will be
returning to the house after royal assent, and in the meantime this section can stand.


Angus MacInnis: A moment ago the leader of the opposition spoke about printing the amendments, but I suggest that the complete income tax act should be printed. At present it is an enormous document, and to look up the amendments which have been made since 1927 requires a lawyer with an expert staff of assistants. I think the act should be consolidated so that we can obtain some information from it when we look it up.


Gordon Graydon: I took it for granted
that that would bq done when the bill had been passed, but I was particularly concerned with having the amendments printed at once.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall have that done.

The Royal Assent


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I suggested in other years that copies of the office consolidation should be distributed to hon. members so that they would not have to look through these bulky documents containing all the amendments since 1917. Apparently the hon. member for Vancouver East does not know that the office consolidation is available. I paid a quarter for a copy, but I believe the least the minister could do is to distribute copies to all members.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall see that it is done.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the house went up to the Senate.
And having returned.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to amend the Wheat Acreage Reduction Act, 1942.
An Act to' amend the Special War Revenue Act.
An Act to amend the Excise Act, 1934.
An Act to amend the customs tariff.
An Act to authorize an agreement between His Majesty the King and the corporation of the city of Ottawa.
An Act to amend the Department of Munitions and Supply Act.
An Act for granting to His Majesty a certain sum of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1944.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 72, to amend the Income War Tax Act-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: We shall revert to section 33-Coming into force.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have satisfied myself completely that the mimeographed amendments are correct in every particular. The error arose from the fact that those amendments were copied and that unfortunately two or three lines of the amendments were left out of the copy from which I was reading and which I sent to the Chairman. The documents which hon. members have in their hands are correct.


Gordon Graydon: Is the mimeographed
sheet which the Chairman read and which is also in the hands of hon. members, a correct copy?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


Gordon Graydon: And that is the one which has been actually passed?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think it has. I think the Chairman was reading from what I sent him, but I am not certain.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On the question asked by the leader of the opposition, I took the copy from another hon. member.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, that is all right. All I want to be perfectly certain about is that what we passed is the mimeographed amendments.


Gordon Graydon: Would it be asking too much to read this again, to make certain that we are not making any error and that nothing can creep in afterwards which may cause some difficulty? We must pass this correctly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 33 as amended agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. ILSLEY moved the third reading of the bill.	*
Mr. HARRY R. JACKMAN (Rosedale): I wish to call the attention of the minister as briefly as I can to section 1 of the amendments having to do with the annuity payments. I am not quite clear as to what the minister said last night, that he is not adopting a change in principle. The amendment reads:
Provided, however, that annuity payments or other annual payments received under the provisions of any will or trust which become effective prior to the first day of January, 1944, shall be exempt to the extent of the amount paid out of the corpus of the estate or trust but not exceeding $1,500 in any year.
The first small matter I wish to clear up
is,	does the SI ,500 refer to the total disbursements in a year out of the estate, which disbursements include income, or does it include the encroachment on capital alone?
James Lorimer Ilsley: The encroachment oh capital.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Alone?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I thought that would be
it.	I am still somewhat in doubt as to how these annuities,. first under wills and trusts,
Income War Tax

and, second', under contracts, are being treated. As I understand it, if there were no life contingency,, the minister would be willing to follow the practice now observed in connection with life insurance annuities, where the contract is divisible as to a term certain and as to a life contingency. Is the minister aware of what I am referring to?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Instead of taking out the straight life annuity now, you can, as I understand it, take one out for a period of twenty or thirty years. That is a definite contract with a definite term attached to it, and there is some formula-I have seen, it, although I dto not recall exactly what it is- worked out with the department whereby the sum of money paid for that definite term is divisible into principal and into income and the taxpayer pays only on that part of it which is income. Do I understand that the minister is willing to make a similar exemption or give like consideration to all annual payments or annuity contracts where there is a straight term certain rather than a full life contingency?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I understand that is the law.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That is the law?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I understand so, yes.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Because I was approached at two o'clock when I was about to enter the chamber by one who should be in a position to know, and there seemed to be some doubt in regard to it.
May I point out to the minister that in part I, section 3, under paragraph (b)
. . . annuities or other annual payments received under the provisions of any contract except as in this act otherwise provided. . . .
are taxable. With all the discussion we have just had here it is not possible to separate principal and income.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Exactly.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Let us take soldiers' insurance. Supposing a soldier's beneficiary who does not get the full amount of the contract, say So,000, when the soldier dies, but has an immediate payment of $1,000 and the other $4,000 is paid out over a five-year period in annual instalments. Under this act would those annual instalments be taxable as income?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I point out that Mr. Speaker is in the chair and that this is a speech on third reading that the hon. gentleman is making. Apart from that, I would not care to rule so rapidly on these problems he is putting.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: All I wish to say is that there seems to be some doubt in connection with these annuities, and it all flows from the fact that the minister will not adopt the accounting practice and logic of separating income from principal in connection with life contracts. There is still a hardship on the Canadian people.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman was putting a question about taxability of term annuities, and I told him what I understand the law to be. I am not saying that in any authoritative way, but that is my understanding of the law. There is a possibility of a life contingency being mixed up with a term annuity in such a way that it would be difficult to know whether it is taxable or not. Certain litigation is proceeding now on at least one of those cases. I do not want anything that I may have said to be interpreted as expressing an opinion as to the merits of any case that is before the courts.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. RALSTON moved the adjournment of the house.
Gordon Graydon: Before the house adjourns, may I ask the minister if he is in a position to give some indication of the government programme for business immediately we reconvene after the Easter recess?


James Layton Ralston: We expect to go on promptly with the mutual aid bill and the war appropriation bill; I cannot say in which order. I say "promptly", because there are one or two things which may come first. It may be, although I cannot be positive about this, that we may go into supply, the idea being that if we do go into supply, and if the Prime Minister is ready to make a statement, this will give him an opportunity to make a statement in reference to external affairs in connection with the estimates for that department. That is the department which probably would be taken up if we go into supply.
I am not limiting the government to that; there may be other departments which it may be desirable to take up, particularly since Thursday and Friday are the first days on which the house reassembles.
Also outstanding are two government notices of motion, one for a committee on radio broadcasting and the other for a committee on war expenditures, which ought to be set up reasonably early. They may be taken up as well.

Income War Tax
I am afraid that is very general, but that is the best I can do. Let me repeat what I said before, that mutual aid and war appropriations are matters which we are anxious to take up as promptly as possible.


Major James William Coldwell: If we could get the two remaining special committees set up at the earliest possible moment it should be done, because I think hon. members are anxious to get to work on them.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I should like to thank the members of the house for their extreme courtesy and consideration during the last few days. I have asked them to put up with a good deal in the way of last minute amendments and so on, and I greatly appreciate their cooperation.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 6.17 p.m. until Thursday, May 6, at three o'clock in the afternoon.
Thursday, May 6, 1943