1944-07-11

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the house that I have received the resignation of Edouard Lacroix, Esquire, as member for the electoral district of Beauce. I have accordingly issued my warrant to the chief electoral officer to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Picard.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I should like to substitute for the motion that is on the order paper the following:
That on and after Wednesday, July 12, until the end of the session, the house shall not .be adjourned on Wednesday at six o'clock, notwithstanding anything in standing order No. 6.
I may say that the motion as it appears on the order paper would preclude us from carrying on the understanding we had about Wednesday afternoons and the motion as it is now put will continue the same procedure on Wednesday afternoons as we have been following; that is to say, that members of the war committee would be free to attend meetings of that committee on Wednesday and not be expected to be in the house.


Mr. CHURCH:: Why pick on the 12th of July?


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: In view of the situation which has now arisen with respect to the change in sitting hours, I would ask the Prime Minister if the government would not permit some slight modification of the previous arrangement in regard to Wednesdays, so that the orders of the day may be called. If that were done, with the understanding that as usual there will be no divisions that day, perhaps that would be satisfactory as far as we are concerned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That means we would have questions and so on?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Yes. Why not? That is what you started out to do.
LMr. Shaw.]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe hon. members have found it a little more expeditious to proceed at once on Wednesdays with the business; to have one day when the house is not liable to be held up by questions or motions. I would say to my hon. friends that it would be embarrassing to members of the government if they were not in the house in the event of certain motions being moved on Wednesday afternoons. It will be necessary for the members of the war committee to continue to meet on Wednesday afternoons as they have met in the past.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am sure there is no desire to embarrass the government or the war committee of the cabinet; I want the Prime Minister to understand that at the very outset of any remarks I have to make. The arrangement entered into early in the session, on the Prime Minister's own initiative, under which the house did not sit on Wednesday, did not work out as he had anticipated. So far as I am concerned, and I think so far as most of the private members of this house are concerned it was a day wasted.' The Prime Minister then permitted the business to be dealt with on Wednesday afternoons, and that has continued up to the present time. Now, near the end of the session, he brings in a very proper motion that the order of business on Wednesday shall be the same as on other days. That is the motion on the order paper, but for some reason, which he suggests as being interference with the cabinet or the war committee, he wants to take away from private members on Wednesdays one of the few privileges remaining to them. I do protest against that limitation, and others I could mention. This notice of motion on the order paper is the proper notice that should be given if we are to cariy on the business of the house in a proper way. Evidently the government have had a change of heart and a change of mind, but I do not believe they are justified in attempting to take away from private members at this late stage of the session, one of their few remaining privileges.
I protest against it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There has been no change of heart or of mind on the part of the government. As a matter of fact if I had not intervened yesterday, at the time I spoke of the house sitting Wednesday evenings, I believe the motion would have been put at that time and what I am now suggesting would have been adopted. I asked that a motion be placed upon the order paper providing that the house would resume its sittings on Wednesday evenings. I did not

Mobilization Act
see the motion until I was coming into the house. I then sent for the Clerk, and pointed out to him that the motion appearing on the order paper would make it necessary for members of the war committee to be in the house Wednesday afternoons; that I felt it imperative that we should have Wednesday afternoons for the meetings of the war committee; I asked the Clerk to give me a substitute motion which would permit the proceedings on Wednesday afternoons being carried on as they have been since hon. gentlemen opposite were kind enough to make what they said was a constructive suggestion, that by omitting questions on the orders of the day we would save a great deal of time. I thanked my 'hon. friends for the suggestion at the time; I should like to continue to thank them for making it possible to have the house carry on as they originally suggested. It is in every way preferable that we should save time which, as hon. members know, is liable to be taken up with questions and unexpected matters which otherwise would come up on Wednesday afternoon. If hon. members are desirous of having the business of the house drag on; if that is their real wish, for my part I do not mind if I stay here until the month of December. I am prepared to remain in this house and follow its proceedings to the end, but I do think everyone is anxious to expedite business, and that has been the sole motive in presenting these motions.


Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: May I ask that a definite understanding be arrived at in regard to divisions on Wednesdays?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are to be none.	'


Grote Stirling: There are to be no divisions? Are we to understand that this will also cover votes in committee? A couple of Wednesdays ago an incident arose which made me wonder whether that general understanding was supposed to cover votes in committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My understanding was that any contentious question would be postponed, that we would not have a division that day. It had better be the definite understanding in regard to both divisions and votes in committee. It is just a matter of dropping the particular item for the time being, and taking it up at a subsequent time.


Grote Stirling: But that does not cover the matter of committees.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. in regard to both.


Gordon Graydon: During the debate on the aeronautics bill or the transport bill a couple of weeks ago, if my memory serves me correctly, the question of an appeal from the ruling of the Chair came up, and in my temporary absence from the house the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) said he was quite sure I would support his contention that there could not be a division in the house while this arrangement was in effect, which of course placed us in an awkward position. I think there should be some clarification in that regard, because it might bring about an embarrassing situation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think we might understand that if hon. members object to any matters being discussed further at that stage, that matter might be dropped for the time being and something else taken up.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the address which General Charles de Gaulle delivered on parliament hill this day, 11th July, 1944, and the other addresses delivered on that occasion be included as an appendix to the official reports of the debates for the fifth session of the nineteenth parliament of Canada.
He said: This motion is in terms similar to the one passed by this house at the time President Roosevelt addressed us.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(For text o/ address oj General de Gaulle,
with speeches oj welcome, see page J7JS.)


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to direct a question to either the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Labour, having to do with a Canadian Press report dated yesterday which states that Premier Godbout reiterated the statement made by him on Sunday that farmers or farmers' sons and farm hands can secure their release from the army no matter what may be their military situation if their services are needed on the farm, provided that they have certificates from the parish priest, the mayor and the agronomist. The question is this: Is it a fact that such a policy or pro-

The Budget-Mr. Shaw

gramme as that outlined by the premier of Quebec is now in effect, under which men are being discharged from the army when they make application, supported by the three certificates mentioned; and, if so, when was that policy brought into operation?


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: So far as the Department of National Defence is concerned, that is not the policy.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: Is this correct?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is not correct.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Godbout must be talking through his hat.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Don't fight the election here.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, July 10, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. L. Hsley (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe.
Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of my remarks last night I indicated my intention to make reference to certain observations made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). I do that, not because that hon. member happens to be involved, but because of the necessity for stating more clearly certain things which altogether too frequently are represented in an entirely improper light.
I refer to page 4684 of Hansard, where the hon. member said:
I entirely disagree with the government on their man-power policy and am not afraid to say so, but I must say at the same time that every party in the house made the same mistake in 1940.
So far as the Social Credit party is concerned, that statement is not correct. I shall endeavour to show the house in a moment or two, as we have shown before, what our stand was at that time. Again the hon. member said, as reported on the same page:
The fact of the matter is that none of us was prepared to face the public and say that we would put conscription into force from the drop of the hat, although we represented the people of Canada.

Again, so far as the Social Credit party is concerned, that statement is not correct. Third, and finally, he said:
None of the parties had courage to face the public and say that it would put conscription *into force at the very outset, as the United States and Great Britain did.
The Social Credit party is the one party which did have the courage, and to that extent the hon. member's statement is not correct.
Let me go back to 1936, when members of the Social Credit party first entered the House of Commons. I have referred to this statement before. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), house leader of this party, referring to the general prospects and the existing dangers of that day, said:
The increase of armaments that is in prospect is a most disappointing development to all who want to see the reign of law established in international affairs and an end put to war. But where the responsibility lies is quite clear. No matter bow peace-loving a nation may ibe it has to consider the conditions which exist in the world to-day and act accordingly. Britain has been exceedingly anxious to avoid adding to their armament burdens but in its present situation has no alternative. Nor can Canada be content with merely expressing the desire for peace.
The hon. member for Lethbridge went on at that time and indicated that this group would support such steps on Canada's part as would render her powerful enough in all respects to plan an effective part in any world crisis with which the League of Nations might be called upon to deal.
Then, he made other statements. I could take Hansard from 1936, right up to the present time, and prove conclusively to the house that the Social Credit party not only took the correct stand at the beginning, but is the only party in the house which has been consistent in the stand it has taken.
I wish to refer to statements made in the house by the then member for Medicine Hat, Mr. Mitchell, who, incidentally, is now a major in Canada's active army. Referring to those of our group on September 11, 1939, he said:
The new democracy group has laid down the principle in Canada and in this house that when Canada^ is at war the whole of Canada is at war. You cannot conscript men and have industry and finance volunteer. You cannot conscript finance and industry and have men volunteer. This is a sound principle; it is an elementary principle of good business which it would seem imperative for this parliament to accept, if we choose not to do so now, circumstances will eventually compel us to do so. I sound this solemn note of warning to the government, that we cannot afford not to begin right. The experience of the last war, if it taught us anything, taught us that. Why is it that we refuse to learn? Must we in this crisis repeat the initial blunders and wastage of resources

The Budget-Mr. Shaw
and man-power that took place in the last war? If we must, then let us decide to do it frankly and openly; let us not pretend that we are not doing it. But if we would learn from the experience of the last war, then let us face the matter frankly and clearly now', and admit that the answer lies in national service-not national service of men alone, of finance alone or of industry alone; anything less than national service of all three together as Canadians would be a supreme demonstration of inefficiency.
And then, the next few lines:
The government have declared against universal conscription; the Conservative opposition have officially declared themselves as against universal conscription; the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation have declared against universal conscription. This means that these parties are allied on a principle which means suicide for Canada.
Dealing with the word "conscription" I wish to read just one paragraph from the speech delivered by the hon. member for Lethbridge in the same debate. He was referring to conscription, as it applied to manpower,- and said:
Let us look at what the wrord means to-day. Consult your dictionary and you will find all it means is forceful enrolment of men or money that they might be available for use at the discretion of the government. It does not necessarily mean that every man conscripted will don khaki, or that he will appear in the battle lines of the world. It does mean that he shall be available to be placed where, in the opinion of those in charge, he might best serve his country. Who hesitates to be placed in that position? I do not.
It should not be necessary for me to quote further from the official record. We resent very much the attempt on the part of some people, at different times, to ally this group with them in the attitude which they adopted toward this whole question, not only before the outbreak of war, but actually after the outbreak.
More than that, I think there is one other purpose served. Sometimes we find spokesmen for certain groups, who to-day justifiably feel very much ashamed1 of the stand they took over the years, endeavouring to say, since they have changed their stand: "This is what we have always stood for." I say with considerable emphasis that we are the only ones who can claim to have been consistent from the start.


Mr. POULIOT:: What does the hon. member say about my own stand?


Frederick Davis Shaw: I am speaking of our group, as a group. True, there are some individuals who may have taken a consistent stand. My references have been made to groups.
There is another matter to which I find it necessary to make reference this afternoon. It does not always please me to have to
100-296i
make these references, but sometimes we have no choice. I refer to certain statements made by the leader of the C.C.F. party during a recent press interview. The hon. member, referring to the Social Credit party-and I think he was making special reference to the government of Alberta-said, according to the headlines, which are more or less confirmed by the text, if he was reported correctly- "Social Credit on Way Out-Coldwell". I take no exception to that, because I say we are on our way out-to demonstrate that we are capable of rocking their candidates back on their heels as they have never been rocked before.
One amazing thing in connection with the interview was that there seemed to be a certain amount of ill feeling on the part of the leader of that group in that we had not sought his advice before calling an election in Alberta. He seemed to indicate that there was a degree of indecent haste. Let me point out to him that wherever by-elections have not been held in Canada he has taken a prominent part in actually seeking redress in the courts, or has encouraged others to do so. Moreover,, where certain provincial governments have extended their normal lifetime, he has been most vociferous in his contention that this procedure was undemocratic. The Social Credit government in the province of Alberta will have completed four years and four months in office by the time of the election. We are giving the people an opportunity to express their views. We feel that it is inopportune and improper to impugn motives in connection with the holding of an election. The leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party in Alberta for a period of months before the four years were completed endeavoured to convince the people there that we were afraid of an election, that we were afraid to go out and seek a mandate from the people. Then almost immediately after our announcement of an election he cried to high heaven that there was trickery somewhere, that there was indecent haste.
I do not like to do this, but I must reply to the further charge that we have carried on against what he called the democratic policies of the C.C.F. In this house, in the province of Alberta and across Canada we have endeavoured to point out to the people the dangers which exist. We are very much opposed to a rigidly regimented economy, and we are not at all backward about making those facts known. We base our fears upon the statements of certain persons whom we regard as being authorities. I have made an analysis
The Budget-Mr. Shaw

of the publication "Social Planning for Canada" put out under the auspices of the League for Social Reconstruction, which I -believe is regarded as -the Canadian socialist organization.
I should like to draw attention to the authors of this publication. They include Eugene Forsey, J. King Gordon, Doctor Leonard Marsh, J. F. Parkington, F. R. Scott, Graham Spry and Frank H. Underhill. I should like to quote from page 227 of that publication, where it says:
If we want planning, then "we", that is, the generality of Canadians, have to delegate the task of formulating and administering a plan to some particular group or groups of men. These men will have great power over the lives and fortunes of their fellow citizens.
That is the type of thing we are opposed to. There is altogether too much governmental meddling in the affairs of our people. Then I quote from page 493 of the same publication:
Every time we set up a new permanent independent commission to carry on some function of government, we deny in practice the naive theory of democracy in which we still profess to believe-that all power lies with the "peepul" to be exercised by their elected representatives.
We as social crediters certainly do not subscribe to that. Then I quote from page 225:
Wide powers placed in the hands of a central planning board undoubtedly involve the possibility of interference with personal initiative and freedom.
We are very much opposed to any such proposition as that. We' do not wish to have a greater amount of interference with the personal initiative and freedom of our people. Then I go to page 494, where it states:
The proposals for economic reconstruction which have been set forth in this book will certainly, if they are adopted, strengthen both of the tendencies which have just been discussed-the growth of the power of the executive at the expense of the power of the legislature, and the extension of the practice of government by independent experts.
Here is another one to which we take the most violent exception. This outlines the philosophy of life which some are trying to bring about in this country. I quote from page 225:
National planning is also important as a very real step towards the realization of that international control.
I quote these to give the house a complete picture of the things to which we are opposed, no matter by whom they are advocated. I turn to page 498 where it states:
And if a socialist, government coming into office in a period of emergency seeks power to

proceed by order in council without day to day reference to the bouse, it will only be doing what -has been already done in both England and Canada by those bulwarks of constitutional traditions, Conservative or "National" governments.
There is a clear-cut indication that these people are prepared to adopt a policy of government by order in council as a permanent-feature of our Canadian life. I should like to quote from another publication, " Democracy Needs Socialism." I could hardly believe this one, which readis:
The introduction of inventions could' foe controlled if great displacement of labour is apt to result.
That one just about stunned me, because it is a clear-cut indication that if the introduction of inventions affects in any way the putting to work of all our people, those inventions will be controlled. I do not know whether the leader of the C.C.F. party subscribes to what is contained in that book, but I do know that many of those writers are associated with bis movement. I see F. R. Scott and Eugene Forsey listed, and what is remarkable, in view of our social security proposal, is that I see also the name of Doctor Leonard Marsh.
I should like to refer to another paragraph in " Social Planning for Canada " which indicates that those who are responsible for writing the book are fully in accord with the present financial system. I quote from pages 286 and 2S7 as follows:
Anxious to provide the victims of depression with a scapegoat, the monetary cranks-
Referring to us, I suppose.
-have nominated the banks for the position, by means of oversimplification or fallacious analysis of the nature of our economic system, they assert that the cause of our difficulties lies in the contraction of credit. Or in the debt-creating system, or in the "gold racket" or whatnot-with all of which it is easy to identify the hanker.
While the men responsible for the writing of this book may he willing to adopt a change in the ownership of the bank, they assert that they do not propose to make any fundamental change in the system of banking.
AVe have said as social crediters that socialism is anti-Christian. I know that is a strong statement, but I know also that all I need to do is to quote from the official publications of the socialists in order to show their views in that regard. A declaration was made at the 1912 convention of the American socialist party-I have never heard any repudiation of this-that the ethics of socialism and religion are directly opposed to each other. I should like to quote from "The Ethics of Socialism," by Belfort Bax, as follows:

The Budget-Mr. Esling
The association of Christianism with any form of socialism is a mystery. No good socialist can be a Christian.
Then I desire to quote Liebnecht, who happens to be a German socialist, and who says
It is our duty as socialists to root out the faith in God with all our might. Nor is any one worthy of the name who does not consecrate himself to the spread of atheism.
Then I should like to quote Professor Karl Pearson, an English socialist, as follows:
Can a greater gulf be imagined than really exists between the current Christianity and the socialistic code?
Then in "Science of Political Economy" Henry George says this:
Modern socialism is without religion and its tendency is atheistic.
I could go on to quote a number of others, but I think what I have quoted demonstrates the fundamental reason why we have opposed socialism, why our organization in all parts of Canada has opposed socialism. If the publication "Social Planning for Canada" means anything, then as a party who oppose centralization, who oppose regimentation, who oppose greater government interference with the lives of our people, we could not do otherwise than to oppose, with all the vehemence at our command, socialism or any form of totalitarianism. So that when the leader of the C.C.F. states that we are carrying on a radio and press campaign against fundamental democratic policies of the C.C.F., he has to do a bit of explaining, because our campaign has been against those very things which I have read as typical of certain of the leading socialists in Canada. If he wishes to ally himself with what is said in "Social Planning for Canada", then of course we shall have to admit that we have been carrying on a press and radio campaign against the C.C.F. I do not like to make any further reference to this matter, and I shall not do so. It is not very often that we find it desirable to take a course of action such as I have taken to-day, but at the same time we certainly are not prepared to sit down and gobble up all that some people are prepared to hand to us on whatever type of platter they may desire to use for the purpose.
As to the amendment to the budget, we find it unnecessary to take exception to the first five paragraphs of the Progressive Conservative amendment. We find that the intent of those five paragraphs is deserving of oui support. The next paragraph, paragraph (f) is susceptible of a number of interpretations. However, we feel that the value of the amendment outweighs its weaker and less desirable features, and we are therefore prepared, Mr. Speaker, to support the amendment.


Mr. W. K. ESLING (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members have made a very general review of the budget at this session, but one can hardly overlook the fact that the budget contains no suggestion of ways and means of providing for a broad comprehensive programme of employment in the post-war days. After all is said and done, it is employment that the ordinary man wants, whether he be war veteran or civilian. It is true that there is provision for vocational and technical training and for some special education. But the average wage-earner wants a scale of wages which will permit him to provide for his family the comforts of a modem home and the educational facilities enjoyed by his more favoured neighbour. He wants his children to be brought up to have the same advantages as the children of his neighbour.
Perhaps the most generous source of wealth and of employment lies in the development of the products of the forest, of the sea, of the soil and of the mines. But the mines differ from all these other sources of wealth and of employment. When the forests are denuded of their products, nature replenishes them, and so it is with the sea. When the soil gets run down, its fertility can be restored by fertilizer. But the wealth that is taken from the mines is taken for good. It can never be replaced. There is no such thing as reproduction of minerals.
I judge that every one of the ministers has received from the Canadian Mining Institute, and from every mining association across Canada, and from the various communities in which mines are located, briefs and appeals for a revision of mining legislation and of mining taxation, for the very reason that there is so much risk in the investment of funds in mining companies. There is no telling whether you are ever going to get your money back from a mine. The hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) the other day presented to the house in detail his technical reasons as a mining engineer, and other reasons gained from his experience, as to why there should be a revision of mining taxation if mining development throughout Canada is to continue. He spoke as a mining engineer. I want to endorse his proposals speaking from the experience of half a century in the mining districts of West Kootenay. I speak from personal observations.
Early in 1900, as the British Columbia Gazetteer states there were 2,500 registered mining companies in British Columbia. We will admit that some of the mining properties
The Budget-Mr. Esling

had experienced did its work, and the men became physically disabled. When they applied for pension the medical sheet was referred to and they were told that they were discharged as A-l and that the disability for which pension was asked was due to post-war services.
I have seen a disabled veteran stand before the tribunal, supported by the soldiers' advocate and by his own attending physician. He was unable to stand alone. Naturally one would be justified in assuming that that was due to exposure or shell shock or some overseas service, but he was told that he was discharged as physically fit, in category I, and could get no pension. But I shall tell you what the Consolidated Mining and Smelting company did in the case of that veteran. They put him in a wheel chair at the gate. They let him sit there and take messages from those who chose to enter, but he received no pension or assistance from the government. Therefore I think the greatest service that the relatives of friends of a man overseas can do for him, or that the government can do for him, is to advise any boy overseas to be sure that there is a most detailed record of every incident in connection with his services; any time he was in the hospital or wounded or had any disability whatsoever should show on his record so that when he is demobilized and receives his medical chart he has some grounds on which to make a future application for pension if he needs it.
I wish to return to the Minister of Finance for just a moment. In July of last year I brought to the attention of the government the fact that so many deaf and hard of hearing people were penalized because the high price of a hearing aid was beyond their financial reach. Those hearing aids sold for $150 to $200. I asked the government to have the Research Council of Canada go into this matter to determine what was a fair price at which those instruments could be manufactured. Well, they did not do that. What happened was this. It rested with a manufacturer in the United States to call in his research council. He told them to produce a hearing aid which would be within the reach of the general public, and I am glad to say that while those hearing aids at $40 were being distributed to veterans and paid for by the Department of Pensions and National Health, it was only last week that the same company opened its office in Windsor, Ontario, so that the deaf and hard of hearing people in Canada could secure that device at the same price in Canadian funds at which it is sold in the United States, namely, $40. The war exchange

tax and the sales tax are paid and it is delivered to the buyer's home.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I be permitted to interrupt my hon. friend for a moment? He referred to the fact that a suggestion was made that this be investigated by the national research council. That was done completely and thoroughly. I shall be glad to send my hon. friend a copy of the report.


William Kemble Esling: I thank the minister for his explanation. I wish to make one more request of the minister. There are to-day thirty manufacturers of hearing aids in the United States. Twelve of those have received the approval of the United States medical council. If those people are going to seek a Canadian market with a low-priced instrument, I ask the government and the minister to see that no instrument is sold in Canada unless it has the approval of the national research council. That is very important.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As far as our jurisdiction in the department goes, that will certainly be done, because we must have their approval.


William Kemble Esling: Your instrument has had that approval?
Mr. MAGKENZIE (Vancouver Centre); Yes.


William Kemble Esling: But I am speaking about instruments that may be brought into this market.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The same procedure will be observed in every case.


William Kemble Esling: While I am on this subject I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he will not just interest himself in this, and give thought to the fact that there are so many deaf and hard of hearing people who cannot carry on any vocation whatsoever unless they have a hearing aid. I wish to ask him if he will not provide for an allowance or a deduction in income tax for hearing aids and for the cost of maintaining the batteries, just as allowances for maintenance are made in the department of pensions. He might choose one of two things. If he makes that allowance, it permits people to earn their living. Deaf people and blind people can earn just as good a living, if they have the opportunity, as sighted people, but they must have help. The minister will have to choose between making that allowance or losing income tax from such people when they are helped into gainful occupations.

The Budget-Mr. Black (Cumberland)
I cannot see whether the Prime Minister is in his seat, but I wish to refer to the fact that I think it was last March I asked the Minister of Labour if the Japanese would be removed from the interior of British Columbia when hostilities ceased. He said that that was a matter in which it would be necessary for the government to determine as a future policy. I know that it is a matter in which one cannot jump to conclusions too readily, for the reason that there are international complications; but the Minister of National Defence during the absence of the Prime Minister at the conference in the old country stated that during this session the Prime Minister would make a statement as to the policy in connection with the Japanese. Well, the war has been going on for five years. This is a serious question, and I am just wondering whether we can keep these Japanese interned after hostilities end. If we cannot; if we must simply lift the bars and let them out, they are going to invade the business districts of Kootenay and the adjoining constituency of Yale. It may be said they can be sent to other provinces, but after the war there will be nothing to keep them there. They will come back to British Columbia and congregate wherever they please. I believe the government would receive popular approval if it took steps to deport these people. I do not mean that those born in Canada should be deported; that would be contrary to our constitution, which must be respected. I do not mean that those who have been naturalized should be deported, unless it can be shown that they were naturalized for improper motives; and most of them were naturalized for the sole purpose of getting a fishing licence. I do say that the nationals of Japan, for whom this country has no responsibility, who owe allegiance to the emperor of Japan, should be deported, and that they should be encouraged to take with them such others as may be willing to go.


Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I know it is the desire that this debate be terminated, and I do not wish to prolong it. I have been in Ottawa since about the middle of January, and it is now well on to the middle of July. Those of us who come from the outlying portions of Canada, particularly coming from Nova Scotia, want to be back home for part of the summer months. There are many matters having to do with the maritime provinces that should be discussed, but I am going to deal with only one or two this afternoon.
I want to bring to the attention of the house and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) one matter of very great importance, which I do
not believe has received the attention it deserves. I refer to the unfair taxation on electrical energy in Canada. I cannot understand why a system of taxation should be continued under which the central provinces are largely exempted, great public utilities are exempted, but smaller plants, all financed by private enterprise, are subjected to very heavy taxation. A short time ago Premier Godbout delivered an address in which he explained his action in taking over the Montreal Light, Heat and Power company, taking credit to himself for saving the people of Quebec very large amounts of money in federal taxation on the generation of electrical energy in Quebec. Any system of taxation on electrical service should have some basis of fairness to the companies producing the electricity, to the municipalities, the industries and the householders consuming it. Such is not the case in Canada to-day. Taxation should be adjusted so that the production of electrical energy may be encouraged, in order that rural electrification may be carried out as extensively as possible, to make electricity available to farmers and others in outlying districts. Why should electrical energy generated at great natural water power sites, financed by public money borrowed at low rates of interest, be free of taxation, while smaller plants, privately owned, are forced to pay heavy taxes? There is nothing fair or just in that.
I want to quote from the address by Mr. Godbout, as reported in the Montreal newspapers of June 29:
For household service the customer in a great city like Montreal paid $1.80 for power kilowatt hours, while the consumer in Toronto only paid $1.31. In St. Johns, Quebec, the cost was $2.10, while at Kitchener it was scarcely $1.24. . . .
For industrial and commercial services the difference was even more marked. Electrical consumption, which would have cost $97 in Toronto, a centre served by the Ontario hydro, would have cost $420 in Montreal and $510 in St. Johns. . . .
Well, the hydro has put an end to the ridiculous regime I have described. It has already reduced the rates by $2,210,000 a year in the district of Montreal alone, and three other hydro electric companies have followed in reducing their rates by more than a million dollars. The hydro has been able to do this because it is relieved of the federal tax of six millions a year. . . .
This has been accomplished because hydro Quebec was not created to benefit the provincial treasury, but to service the customers at cheap rates and permit us to complete as soon as possible the urgently needed rural electrification. The service as such has not changed. . . .
In Nova Scotia part of our electrical energy is generated by publicly-owned plants, and part
4710	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Black (Cumberland)
Dy private industry. Some communities pay heavy federal taxation on their electricity, while others escape such taxes. The people of Nova Scotia pay more than $1,000,000 a year because of this inequitable basis of taxation. I should like to read an extract from an article which appeared in the Halifax Herald as late as June 30, in connection with some publicity having to do with inquiries into the rates on electrical service. Due to war conditions there has been increased production and consumption of electrical energy, which automatically reduces rates:
Nova Scotia's position in the utility field is peculiar. Many of the plants are publicly owned and are exempt from federal and provincial taxation. On the other hand the biggest are in private hands and subject 'to levies :by Ottawa, which amount to a sum in excess of a million dollars a year. The remainder is the municipal and provincial taxation paid by these same companies.
I have made inquiries in my own constituency of Cumberland, where practically all the electrical energy is generated by private industry. About forty years ago a company established in that county the first electrical generating plant in the world at the mouth of a coal mine, utilizing refuse coal. This plant has been relocated, enlarged and modernized, so that it can compete as to cost with all but the largest of the hydro generating plants. To-day, however, enterprise is penalized and householders and industries depending upon this plant have to pay fifty per cent extra to provide for taxes. I wired the manager of that company, as follows:
Please wire me amount federal and provincial taxes during last year paid by your company, also estimate total amount such taxes paid in Cumberland. What percentage could rates be reduced if all such taxes were exempted?
This is the reply, dated July 3:
Provincial and federal taxes total $106,800; equal 21 per cent gross revenue. Municipal taxes in addition $19,900, equal 3-9 per cent. These do not include 8 per cent federal sales tax on lighting. Edison Company, Springhill, tax probably $12,000.
There is another privately operated light and power company generating electricity and serving the eastern portion of my constituency and the northern portion of the county of Colchester. All the companies in Cumberland, and a large number of those in Nova Scotia, are called upon to pay heavy federal and provincial taxes, while the electrical generating plants in central Canada escape.
There is no justification whatsoever for the continuance of a tax, when it is not levied equitably on the people in all sections of the country. There is no justification at all for imposing heavy taxation upon private enter-

prise established in pioneer days, and because of economies and efficiency in operation is now producing electrical energy so as to compete with government plants. Still these companies are taxed, and their charges are from 33i to 50 per cent higher than they would be if government taxes were not imposed.
I bring this matter to the attention of the minister, the house and country, and request that in view of the fact that the taxes on electrioal energy are not now levied throughout Canada on an equitable basis, and are unfair and unjust to many communities, these conditions should not be allowed to continue. A special amendment should be made to the budget resolutions in order that all federal taxation and, following that, all provincial taxation, be taken off the generation and distribution of electricity, so that people in all parts of Canada will be treated alike, and so that there may be a wider use of electrical energy in connection with rural electrification, and the establishment and operation of small industries.
I hope the minister and the government will accept my recommendation. Certainly in fairness to people throughout Canada no taxation should be tolerated when it is levied on the present basis, whereby the premier of a province can make an appeal to his electors on the ground that he has been able to take over a big utility and. because he is no longer compelled to pay any tax to the federal government, he is in a position to relieve the people of that province to the amount of $6,000,000, while smaller industries elsewhere are compelled to continue payment of these taxes. I make this appeal to the minister to see that this taxation is cancelled, so that all parts of Canada may be treated alike.
There are many other matters to which I should like to refer. I would speak particularly about conditions in the coal mines of Nova Scotia. A serious statement was made only a few days ago by the minister of mines of Nova Scotia, Hon. Mr. Currie, when he gave warning to the people of that province and the people of Canada, that if the cost of producing coal in Nova Scotia continues at its present level we will have seen the end of the coal-mining industry in eastern Canada. I hope that production can be increased and costs reduced.
I believe the discontent among miners and absenteeism can be traced largely to what they consider to be unfairness in taxation. I believe there is a general feeling among miners that taxation is excessive and unfair. If the proposals made in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) are acted upon, it will
The Budget-Mr. Gray don
have a very beneficial effect upon the morale of the people working in the mines, shipbuilding and war industries. They would no longer be subject to taxation on overtime. The taxation on single persons would begin at $800, and on married persons, at $1,600.
It is very important that this change be made, and that we assist in this way in building up the morale of workers in all parts of Canada. I feel that the amendment would have a very beneficial effect on the coal mining industry in my province, and I shall heartily support it.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might at this time have only two or three minutes. I have no desire to make a speech, but there are one or two things I should like to bring to the attention of the house.
In order that the Progressive Conservatives' position on the man-power problem shall be made incapable of the kind of misrepresentation attached to it by government supporters during the current debate and certain hostile sections of the press, I now reassert and reaffirm our policy relative to this vital issue.
It is clearly and unmistakably declared in the Winnipeg platform which reads as follows:
5. Recognizing that the world struggle in which Canada is engaged requires a total /war effort, we believe in compulsory national selective service, and that all those selected to serve in the armed forces should be available for service wherever required. We believe in the effective total utilization and proper allocation for war, by compulsion where necessary, of all the resources of Canada, including agriculture, industry and finance, as well as man-power, and that our aim should be at all times to bring about so far as human means can achieve it, an equality in sacrifice.
It has been reaffirmed by our national leader on such important occasions as the meetings at Massey hall, Toronto, a year ago and subsequently in the city of Quebec and elsewhere. It has been redeclared over and over in the House of Commons during this session and previous ones.
The statement of the director of national selective service that Canada was headed into the most acute labour shortage the country has ever faced, coupled with the urgent appeals for reinforcements made by the director of recruiting, at a time when our troops overseas were fighting to gain a bridgehead in Normandy, were followed by a speech by the national chairman of our party at Guelph, Ontario, on June 19 last.
At the same meeting the national leader of our party made this statement at the close of the national chairman's address, and this is what Mr. Bracken said:
One point in particular in Mr. McTague's remarks I wish to support and endorse. He pointed out that since the war we have had many statements from the Department of National Defence as to the urgency of reinforcements, and he added, "Surely national honour demands that without an hour's delay the necessary order in council should be passed making these reinforcements available." In this time of national emergency, surely there will be no Canadians who wall find it in their hearts to deny that appeal. Certainly it carries the endorsement of this party, and I would like to think of the great majority of people in all parties as well.
The Winnipeg platform was further followed by the financial critic of our party in this debate, as well as by those on our side who have spoken. It is incorporated in the amendment now before the house, which was moved and will be unanimously supported by our party. In other words, the policy adopted at Winnipeg is the policy of the Progressive Conservative party; and in accord with it I now call upon the government to pass immediately the order in council making the home defence army available for service anywhere and demand that the mobilization call-up be applied equally to the end that equality of service shall be achieved in all parts of Canada.


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, at this late date in the debate I do not intend to delay the house very long, but I think I should say a few words. So far as the constituency which I represent, Yukon, is concerned, the effect of the budget will not be very great. There will be a slight reduction in taxation of those in the lower income brackets. Before the war the income of the people of the Yukon was derived almost entirely from the mining of gold and silver. As I have stated before in this house, the recent high taxation, probably necessary because of the war, has made it very difficult for Yukoners to carry on. This high taxation added to the high cost of living makes it doubly hard for them.
As has happened in many parts of Canada, the war has brought what might be termed a measure of prosperity to southern Yukon. The United States have undertaken a number of projects up there, such as the Alaska highway, the piping of oil from Norman Wells, the establishment and operation of an oil refinery at Whitehorse, and the building of a splendid airport there by Canada. These have all added to the prosperity of that part of the territory. They have all entailed the expenditure of large sums of money, which has meant increased revenues to merchants, hotelkeepers, contractors and possibly to most of the general public.

The Budget-Mr. Black (Yukon)
As I have said before in this house, the government policy of establishing wage ceilings in the Yukon on Canadian employers and employees while United States employers and employees, working side by side with them in Yukon, were allowed to pay and receive much higher wages, has created a great and lasting dissatisfaction. At the last session I urged the government either to remove the ceiling on wages in Yukon or to make foreign employers and employees conform to the rates established by this government while in Canada. However, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) turned a deaf ear to the suggestion, and the unfairness to Canadian labour has continued.
The shortage of man-power has handicapped gold mining in Yukon, as it has throughout Canada. The shortage of man-power in Yukon is due to the fact that most of the young men there who were of war age quickly answered their country's call and are now to be found in the navy, the army and the air force on all the fighting fronts of the world. Due to high taxation and the shortage of manpower the output of gold in Yukon for the current year will not be more than one-third of the average production.
In order to show the effect of the government's taxation policy on mining in Canada I should like to quote from studies which have been made by competent authorities and which show that Canada's mining industry is in a precarious position. New mines are not being developed fast enough to replace those being worked out. Eighty-four per cent of Canada's 1942 metal production came from mineral areas discovered prior to 1920, and only five per cent came from mineral areas discovered since 1930. That is a serious state of affairs. The report of the committee on reconstruction appointed by the dominion government says of the mining industry:
An immediate radical change of national policy in regard to mining is clearly indicated in order for us to pull our weight in the war and to have a reasonable chance of maintaining a mining industry in the post-war period. If this policy is not changed there is little use in counting on the mining industry to help carry the post-war load or to help in the rehabilitation of our men now in war services.
The Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, in an official brief on taxation presented to the federal government on February 24, 1944, said:
Unless relief from destructive taxation is forthcoming :at an early date, the Canadian mining industry will continue, at an accelerated pace, on the road to exhaustion.

The brief on taxation of the Quebec metal and asbestos mining industries emphasizes:
The immediate future of the Canadian mining industry, and the part it may or may not play in post-war years an alleviating unemployment and the_ rehabilitation of other industries, is largely in the hands of the dominion government. On it must rest the responsibility. Drastic and prompt action by federal authorities is necessary provided the industry is to-survive.
The Ontario mining association brief says:
To-day, mining in Canada is on a salvage basis, with little or nothing being done to assure its continuance as an all-important basic industry.
The Ontario mining commission, appointed by the province, declares in its preliminary report:
Unless some favourable action is taken to overcome the handicaps under which the business is now operating, it will continue its present decline, and at an accelerated rate.
The Canadian mining industry does not ask preferential treatment as to taxes. Nor is it the aim of the mining industry to attempt to shift the necessarily heavy war-time tax load on to other shoulders. What the mining industry does ask, however, is that mining taxation be placed on a sound basis, and it recommends:
That depletion allowance of fifty per cent of the net earnings of metal and industrial mineral mines be allowed, and extended to dividends paid by such mines.
That taxes paid annually to provincial governments and to municipalities be allowed as a deduction from earnings of all mining companies before assessment for dominion income and/or excess profits tax purposes.
That all annual expenditures made by mining companies on outside exploration in any part of Canada, excepting cost of options or purchases of property, be allowed as a deduction from -earnings before assessment for dominion income and/or excess profits tax.
I am informed that the above recommendations represent the unanimous views of all investigating bodies appointed by government and industry alike as to the proper method of providing an over-all equitable plan of mining taxation and to place the industry on a footing where it will best be able to perpetuate itself to the lasting benefit of Canada.
In last year's budget, part of the amounts contributed by corporations and syndicates to be expended in exploration and prospecting were credited on taxation. In Yukon, not only corporations but individuals contribute to prospecting and exploration, but under the budget of last year the contributions by individuals were not allowed as credits so far as taxation was concerned. I wrote to the Minister of Finance suggesting that his policy be broadened, and he referred me to the Minister

The Budget-Mr. Black (Yukon)
[DOT]of National Revenue. Since then I have had the privilege of briefly discussing it with that minister, and I am inclined to think he is favourably impressed and that some relief will be granted.
A wide range of subjects has been discussed in this budget debate, but one which I think is of public interest, one which should be of interest to the house and the people of Canada, is the present unsettled condition of the civil service of Canada, a condition which has obtained throughout the past four years. My attention was called to this matter by a recent broadcast by Raburn. Instead of the claims and grievances of the civil service employees being referred as they should be to the civil service commission I understand that the Minister of Finance has undertaken by his *own efforts to a large extent to deal with these complaints and difficulties and that a national joint council on civil service affairs, consisting of sixteen members, has been appointed. It is not to be headed by the chairman of the civil service commission, who I think would be best fitted for the position, but by one with only a limited experience in civil service matters. As yet I do not think the house has been told, at any rate for my part I do not yet understand, what the functions of this national council on civil service affairs are to be. Is the council to supplant the civil sendee commission? Is it to take over their duties? If so, I think it would be necessary to have an amendment to the Civil Service Act.
I think the house should- be informed of the activities of the government concerning the civil service commission and the civil service generally. When the Civil Service Act was first passed it was considered to be the finest piece of civil service legislation in existence. Under it the returned soldiers were given a preference which satisfied them and was equitable, and for a long time the civil service commission saw to it that a member of the Canadian Legion sat on every board of civil service examiners. The civil service was reclassified by the commission on a duty-salary basis and on the readjustment the additional salaries paid to the civil service in Canada amounted to $10,000,000. I believe that the returned men of to-day would not have that well-established system abolished- or interfered with. But my information is that the civil service commission since the war began has been largely ignored and that thousands of so-called war workers have wormed their way into the civil service without reference to the civil service commission. Take the Bank of Canada, with its army of employees; the income tax branch, with its army of employees;
the broadcasting corporation and the unemployment insurance commission-my information is that none of these employees is subject to control by the civil service commission. New departments, new agencies, numerous special so-called war departments and agencies are being established, and my information is that the civil service commission is not consulted in regard to any of them. In fact, the civil service commission has become a joke and is ignored.
In the past the civil service commission and the civil service were looked upon as the right hand of the government. The civil service will have increased duties and responsibilities after the war and it should be strengthened and encouraged. As I see it, the policies of all parties should be: hands off the civil service. Positions for returned men which are now being filled by others should be reserved for the returned men. Only recently a radio broadcast from the civil service commission announced the establishment of some new agency and that the age limit for the employees of that agency would be sixty years. Heretofore the age limit was thirty-five years. Why that change of policy?
I think it would not be asking too much if I asked the Minister of Finance before the close of the session, if not in closing this debate, to tell the house of proposed changes in the civil service and in the civil service commission and of the reports that have been made to him or to the government by, I think, three commissions or committees which have been set up on civil service matters.
Canada is progressing in social legislation, which is all to the good, but the cost of administration of that social legislation may not be realized by some members of this house, much less by the people of Canada who pay the shot. For instance, take the unemployment insurance commission. In the present fiscal year it will cost over $5,000,000 in federal taxes to pay the expenses of the unemployment insurance commission. This is more than twice as much as the commission has paid in workers' benefits in the previous three years. Administration costs or expenses during those three years were almost five times as great as the total amount paid in benefits. Workers' benefits to the end of March last totalled $2,465,043.41. Administration costs for the same period totalled $12,187,993.64. These administration expenses come out of taxes and are an extra charge on the insurance contributor. I am all in favour of unemployment insurance, but surely it could be administered and handled at a lesser cost to the taxpayers of Canada.
The Budget-Mr. llsley


Mr. ILSLEY:: Mr. Speaker, I presume that my remarks now will close the debate on the amendment. Am I correct in that?


Thomas Vien: The minister is not closing the debate on the amendment. Of course, he has the right to speak but he is not closing the debate on the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe).


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are many other speakers, so that I will say what I have to say now, in the hope that we can take the division or divisions this afternoon.
The debate has gone on for some days. I am sorry that it has not been possible for me to be in the house all the time, but I have kept very closely in touch with the debate. It will be impossible for me, of course, to deal with all the suggestions that have been made. Two amendments have been proposed, the first by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), and then a subamendment by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). The subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was an addition to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe. That is, it placed the stamp of C.C.F. approval upon the proposals of the Progressive Conservative amendment, and then added a few proposals peculiar to the C.C.F.
That subamendment was voted on at a very early stage of the debate without any discussion, but since most of the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar were made before he moved his amendment, I should like to deal with some features of his speech.
I am going to take the position that the amendment proposed by the Progressive Conservative party contains certain inconsistencies and evidences a degree of irresponsibility; but I would not go quite that far in regard to the C.C.F. amendment. Irresponsible-yes; that is, irresponsible from the point of view of those who would like to see the framework of society as we have constructed it in Canada continued, but not inconsistent. To those who believe that business should be torn to pieces and that class antagonisms should be aroused to that end the amendment is a good amendment, and the speech of the hon. gentleman is a good speech and is consistent with the doctrine of the party which believes those things. But to those who believe that a good part of what we built in the past we should continue to retain, the amendment of course would not commend itself, nor would the speech.

Since I have been in the house I have heard a great many criticisms of budgets, and I have often heard this phrase, which was used by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, "rich man's budget." He used it in the concluding part of his remarks. Let me read to the house his words as reported in Hansard, at page 4353:
I feel that this is indeed a rich man's budget. It offers a sop to the poor and underprivileged, but on the other hand it contains most valuable concessions to the rich and powerful individuals and corporations who to-day control this land. That, Mr. Speaker, is what I wanted to say.
I cannot for a moment let these remarks pass unchallenged. I consider them entirely unjustified. It seems to me that any person who regards any budget which has been brought down during the course of this war as a rich man's budget has something wrong with his judgment. The budgets which we have presented to this parliament during the war have imposed very steeply graduated progressive taxation upon the people of Canada, have taken enormous taxes out of those with the higher incomes and those of wealth. That has been the policy which has been followed throughout the war. To adopt this old catch-phrase of a "rich man's budget" and tack it on to this budget is not in keeping with the sense of responsibility which the leader of a group or a party in this house should have.
"Big business" was the phrase which the hon. gentleman used; we were helping big business, he said. He left out of account altogether the fact that the means of encouragement which are proposed in this budget to business in this country, the assurances we are giving to business as to what it can expect in the post-war period and in the transition period, are privileges available not only to industry but to agriculture; they are available not only to big business but to small business; and they are a means of encouragement which we are giving for the purpose of providing employment and helping the rank and file of the common people of this country to make a suitable transition from the war period to the post-war period and to prosperity in the post-war period.
The hon. gentleman said something else in his speech which I should like to criticize. He said, as reported in Hansard, at page 4349:
The 'present concentration of wealth in their hands-
He is speaking about the speculators and the big holders who, he says, will be taking up the cashed bonds after the war.
-will in my opinion after the war be intensified because our present taxation methods make that almost certain. With this and other factors in mind the party which I have the honour to

The Budget-Mr. llsley
represent have proposed that the government guarantee victory bonds to the extent of one hundred cents on the dollar for the protection of the small holders against depreciation or speculation.
Now, will the present concentration of wealth-if any-in the hands of big holders of bonds be intensified because our present taxation methods make that almost certain? I challenge that statement, and I want to deal with it. It is true, I believe, although I have never checked the figures, that after the last war there was a tendency to concentration of victory bonds in the hands of big holders. But there have been two changes in our taxation system between that time and this which set in motion directly opposite forces. The first is that our income tax now taxes all the income from bonds. At the end of the last war, with a large number of the bonds issued during the war tax-free as to income, they took on a value in the hands of persons in receipt of heavy incomes which caused them to become concentrated in their hands. That is not the case at the present time. The case is just the reverse, because persons with large incomes, if they acquire victory bonds after this war, will have to pay a very large percentage-sometimes as high as eighty, ninety, or ninety-five per cent of the income which they receive on these bonds-by way of taxation, and concentration will be discouraged, instead of encouraged as it was by the taxation arrangements in existence before.
The other change in our taxation system between the last war and this is the change in succession duties. Succession duties are much higher. They are much higher in the provinces, and we have dominion succession duties as well.
The combined effect of the three factors- the factor of taxability of all victory bond interest, the factor of steeply progressive rates and very much higher rates of taxation on victory bond interest than was the case before, and the factor of succession duties- will make for dispersal rather than concentration, a fact to which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has given no consideration whatever.
Now as to the next statement:
With this and other factors in mind the party which I have the honour to represent have proposed that the government guarantee victory bonds to the extent of one hundred cents on the dollar for the protection of the small holders against depreciation or speculation.
The effect of that proposal which the hon. gentleman has made, and made repeatedly, and which has a certain plausibility, is simply
this, that no person would have any reason for accepting or buying a bond which paid less than three per cent. It would be utterly impracticable, utterly impossible to make a division between small holders and large holders. Any provision that if more than a certain value of bonds were presented the guarantee would not apply would be entirely impracticable; and if the guarantee were applied to all bonds, why would anyone buy a treasury bill or lend money on a deposit certificate or lend money for two years to the government? They would all buy the long-term bonds at three per cent, because their par value would be guaranteed throughout, and the result would be that we would lose millions of dollars every year, the advantage which we now get through our market for short-term securities.
These are very simple considerations, and I am greatly surprised that the leader of the C.C.F. party, occupying so responsible a position, should repeat and repeat this policy of his of guaranteeing that the bonds would always remain at par, having no regard whatever to the cost of financing which that would entail on the country. I have not very much more to say about the speech of the leader of the C.C.F. party. I think it was consistent with the attitude of the C.C.F. toward business and the economic problems of this country.
I now wish to direct some attention to the amendment proposed by the Progressive Conservative party. Before I come to that may I say that in the course of this debate some hon. members have expressed a considerable amount of concern at the size of the debt and the degree to which it is mounting. One of the hon. members who spoke very forcibly on this subject was the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer). I think he believes that we should have financed the war in an entirely different way, a way which would not have resulted in the piling up of the volume of internal debt that has been necessary under our present method of financing. I have gone into that question time after time in the house, but the more I think about it, and I have thought about it quite a lot since I heard the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, the more I am convinced that we have financed the war in the only way in which any responsible government and any responsible minister would dare to finance a war, for this reason: when the government is pouring out vast sums of money on war expenditures for goods, a large proportion of which are not consumers' goods, then unless the price level is to soar to great
The Budget-Mr. Ilsley

heights the money must in some way be brought back from the people into the coffers of the country.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: It cannot be done without debt.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If we take the annual interest charges on the amount of our direct funded debt outstanding at the end of each year, add to these the payments which had to be made by the government on behalf of government-owned enterprises which had guaranteed securities outstanding in the hands of the public, and deduct from the total thus obtained the annual cash return on investments held at the end
of the year, we will get the true picture of the net annual carrying charges of the government's direct and indirect funded debt. I am sure these figures will come as a great surprise to hon. members. They show $164-3 million as at March 31, 1920; $149-7 million as at March 31, 1939, and $183-5 million as at March 31, 1944. With the consent of the house I will place on Hansard the table showing this:
Net Annual Carrying Charge of Canada's Direct and Indirect Funded Debt
Deduct-
Annual return on investments based on
year-end assets	[DOT]	
C.N.R. surplus	
$	182,259,302	$	174,260,464
17,909,730
24,609,474
164,349,572
March 31,	March 31,	March 31,1920	1939	1944Direct funded debt	$ 2,596,816,821	$ 3,385,697,034	$10,689,490,757Guaranteed securities in hands of public- C.N.R. and predecessor companies	115,129,763	1,054,865,758	669,037,663National Harbours Board	21,200,338	21,005,682Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships	9,400,000	9,400,000Sub-total	115,129,763	1,085,466,096	699,443,345Total direct and indirect funded debt....	$ 2,701,946,584	$ 4,471,163,130	$11,388,934,102Annual carrying charge- Interest on direct funded debt (based on year-end debt)	$ 134,559,302	$ 119,197,190	$ 274,291,929Payments on behalf of government-owned enterprises which had guaranteed securities in hands of public- CdST.R. and predecessor companies	47,700,000	54,314,196	National Harbours Board- Montreal harbour	358,000	370,000Saint John	391,078	194,000
274,855,929
55,706,574
35,640,000
149,651,990	$	183,509,355*
* If C.N.R. surplus be not taken into account, this amount would be $219,149,355.
The surprising nature of these results is due to the fact that the government railway system was a considerable drain on government revenues in the earlier years and produced a substantial surplus last year. It may, of course, be contended that last year's Canadian National Railways surplus of $35-6 million is abnormal and could not be expected to be maintained under peace-time conditions. That may be true and hon. members are welcome to discount that factor to any extent they like. Even if we take no account whatsoever of last year's C.N.R. surplus, the net annual carrying charge of the direct and indirect 
funded debt outstanding at March 31, 1944, would be only $219-1 million, which is an increase of less than forty-seven per cent as compared with March 31, 1939, and of only about thirty-three per cent as compared with March 31, 1920. But these increases in the dollar amount of the net annual carrying charge do not reflect a corresponding increase in the weight of the burden, because they fail to take into account either the increase in population or the increase in national income or the increase in taxable capacity of the Canadian economy. If we take account of the increase in population we find* that the net

The Budget-Mr. llslev
annual carrying charge of our direct and indirect funded debt was $19 per capita in 1920 and $13.22 per capita in 1939, while to-day, even if we take no credit for the C.N.R. surplus, it is only about $18.50 per capita. More significant has been the reduction in the real burden of the public debt due to doubling or more than doubling the national income. The net annual carrying charge of our direct and indirect funded debt at March 31, 1020, was roughly 3-9 per cent of the estimated national income at that time; at March 31, 1939, it was still roughly 3-9 per cent; while at March 31, 1943, again not taking any credit for the C.N.R. surplus, it is only about 2-6 per cent of the estimated national income of to-day. Incidentally, in this connection I might point out that the annual interest charge on the British national debt in a year before the war, say 1936, was approximately five per cent of the estimated national income of the United Kingdom.
But if Canada's national income has approximately doubled since the outbreak of war, its taxable capacity has increased a good deal more. It is the surplus income over and above the cost of basic food, shelter and clothing requirements which is a significant indication of taxable capacity, and it is obvious that this surplus income has increased proportionately much more than total income. In relation, therefore, to national income, the net annual burden of Canada's direct and indirect funded debt is less than it was at the end of the last war and less than it was immediately prior to this war. In relation to taxable capacity, it is substantially less than in both previous periods.
The hon. member for Yancouver-Burrard quoted the following sentence from the annual report of the governor of the Bank of Canada:
In making these comments I do not wish to suggest that public debt could be increased at the present rate for an indefinite period without placing intolerable strain on our economy.
With that sentence I agree, but I also agree with the two following sentences in Governor Towers' report, which the hon. member failed to quote:
I do feel, however, that the war debt and the increases which will inevitably take place for a time after the war ends, can be handled without serious embarrassment. The key to this problem, as to many others, lies chiefly in the maintenance of a high level of employment and income.
I do not know whether I was justified in taking so much time in presenting these considerations to the house, but from certain hon. members I heard so much of a needlessly alarmist nature about our public debt that I thought it well for this house and the public to be told the true situation.
I now come to the speech of the hon. member for Dufferinr-Simcoe, the critic of the official opposition in respect of the budget. If the leader of the C.C.F. can be criticized for an irresponsible attitude toward business, that is an attitude which would be destructive and, according to the language he used, calculated to make an appeal on behalf of the little man against the big man-if, as I say, the leader of the C.C.F. can be criticized1 for that attitude, then certainly the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe can validly be criticized for making a speech which, in its effect, was very much of a big business or pro-business speech.
He made one very significant suggestion, namely, that, as he put it, we should eliminate double taxation in Canada. What does that mean? It means that we, now, in this year 1944 I presume, should take off altogether the corporation tax, at a time when the United States, the country which lies side by side with us, has a corporation tax. I have never fell that this was a practicable suggestion. 1 know, of course, that it is a most appealing suggestion to a great many people in the country. But make no mistake about it, the suggestion is that we take off altogether the tax on corporations, because that is the only way of which I know by which double taxation can be eliminated. That is his suggestion in this year 1944, at a time when our revenue requirements are so tremendous, and at a time when the critic of the official opposition is ostensibly laying stress upon the progressive part of the Progressive Conservative party platform, and talking on behalf of the farmers, labour and so on. That is the big suggestion he makes in his speech, that we remove the corporation tax altogether.


Mr. ROWE:: I did not say that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: 'I do not wish hon. members to overlook that, because it is an important suggestion. It may be that the time will come when we can recast our whole taxation system in such a way that we can eliminate corporation taxation. But-


William Earl Rowe: I did not say that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Then what did the hon. member mean, when he said that we should eliminate double taxation, and have a system such as they have in Great Britain, if he did not mean taking off corporation tax?


Mr. CASSELMAN:: Let the official interpreter answer that.


William Earl Rowe: Did it do any harm in Great
Britain?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is for the labouring man,
I suppose.
The Budget-Mr. Ilsley


William Earl Rowe: I know; nobody knows it any better than you do.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member is not making much progress in trying to get himself out of the suggestion he made. I do not say that that could not be done in time of peace-


William Earl Rowe: You know it can be done.


James Lorimer Ilsley: -but I do say that anybody who makes that suggestion at this time has a degree of irresponsibility which is not in keeping with the official critic of an opposition.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, that is a matter of opinion.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Then he went on to say that taxation of the farmers was unjust, and that the system should be reformed. Apparently he ignored a very important change in this year's taxation of business, including mining businesses, to the effect that losses might hereafter be carried back one year or carried forward three years. That is a tremendous reform along the lines on which, I believe, he professes to be working.
Then, with regard to dispersal sales of live stock, and similar problems, may I say that consideration was given to this at the time the budget was being prepared and I was assured that the matter was being looked after administratively. However, further consideration is being given to it, and if it is necessary for us to introduce a resolution, or make an amendment so as to give effect to the administrative practices carried on for some time past in relief of this situation, I, of course, would be glad to do it.
Then, I was struck with the silence of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe in respect of the removal of the duty on agricultural implements.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is only a gesture; it does not mean anything.


William Earl Rowe: The minister admitted, himself, that it did not mean anything.


Gordon Graydon: And the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) was not very silent.
Mr. ILSLEY": I would have thought that if the hon. member was speaking on behalf of the farmers he would have had a remark to make, one way or the other. I would think that at least one member of the official opposition, somewhere, would have said something one way or the other about it.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) did.
(Mr. Ilslev.l


William Earl Rowe: The minister told us that it made no difference.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Was it a case where silence was best?


William Earl Rowe: The minister said that it would not make any difference, and that we would not get any more implements, anyway.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Then, in connection with the suggestion about mining developments and encouragement to mining, I cannot say any more than I have said in my budget speech. I gave then, very fully, the reasons why I did not think the present was the appropriate time-before consultation with the provinces -to make very wide taxation concessions to the mining industry, along the lines advocated this afternoon by speakers from the opposition. In my budget speech I said:
Natural resources, of course, are for the most *part in the hands of the provinces, but the dominion, it is believed, can do much to promote *full development and wise conservation. Tax policy may be one of the devices which it may appropriately use to these ends, but it will be by no means the only one. The dominion's *programme should be part of an integrated programme worked out in cooperation with the provinces. At the forthcoming dominion-provincial conference this programme, it is proposed, should be discussed with provincial governments and agreement reached as to the contribution to be made bv the respective levels of government.
Then" I went on to enumerate a considerable list of measures we have enacted in the last two or three years to encourage the search for strategic minerals, and to encourage mining development generally.
Something has been said about the complexity of our income tax forms. The complexity of our income tax structure and of our income tax forms is due to one thing, and one only, namely, an attempt to introduce equity in many situations. Hon. members from all sides of the house ask us, in the course of a budget debate, and during the debate on the resolutions, to do something in regard to a particular situation, to bring a tax down here, or to extend a privilege there. Each of those requests acceded to results in further complexity in our tax forms and our tax structure.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it not due to the introduction of so many new forms of income tax, and so many new taxes?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, it is not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, yes,
it is.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, it is not. We could
make the income tax system just as simple

The Budget-Mr. Ilslev
as anything in the world by imposing a flat tax on everybody's income, with no exemptions. It would be so simple that no one would have any trouble in making out his tax return; but it would be unjust, it would be unsocial, it would be backward looking, it would be wrong. The complexity of our tax form and our tax methods is due largely, almost wholly, to the fact that we have tried to introduce equity into our tax system in as many situations as possible.
The removal this year of the compulsory savings will at one stroke do more to simplify our tax returns and our tax structure than almost any other step I can think of. When we introduced compulsory savings we realized that we would have to make provision for persons who had contractual obligations for savings, and accordingly documents had to be drawn up which would provide for the reporting to employers by employees of the insurance payments they had to make, of the payments on principal on mortgages on their residences, of their payments into pension funds and so forth. The fairer we made it, the harder the forms were to make out and the more complicated they became. With the removal of the compulsory savings entirely, all that vast amount of work by employers and employees, by the taxpayers, and to a certain extent by the employees of the income tax branch disappears. It is a great measure in the extension of simplification.
I want to come now to perhaps the main criticisms of the budget. One suggestion made is that overtime be untaxed, that there be no tax on overtime earnings. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) was making the argument the other day that money earned by overtime work should not be taxed. I want to thank the hon. member for the courteous and sympathetic reference to myself which I appreciate greatly, and I really regret that I interrupted him in the course of his speech. I felt that I had to interject and say that the untaxing of overtime earnings would be impracticable and inequitable, and I want to give my reasons for that.
Do not let any one in this house think that an immense amount of consideration has not been given to this proposal. I want to give the reasons why it would be both impracticable and inequitable. In the first place it is contrary to the basic principle of taxing according to ability to pay. Our whole taxation system is based upon the progressive principle that the more a person earns, the higher rate he pays. We do not try to ascertain whether one man works harder than another or works longer hours than another,
whether one man has more ability than another or anything like that. It would be entirely impracticable to try to make inquiries and form judgments on factors of that kind. We must realize that the higher the income, the greater the rate of taxation, and it would be a violation of that principle not to tax the amount earned on overtime.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does not that ignore human nature?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think it-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think it does.	.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Economists and critics of the income tax in the thirties and forties and fifties in Great Britain were arguing against this progressive principle of taxation. I do not know whether they said it ignored human nature, but they took very much that position. They said it was not fair to impose a higher rate on a man with higher earnings because he had earned that himself; it was due to him; he had earned it by his own industry or by his own ability or something of the kind, and therefore there should be a flat rate on all earnings. I used to read some of the articles in the British quarterlies on that and I found them very interesting. However, the enlightened opinion of mankind finally came to the conclusion that the progressive principle was the proper one.
If we were to lay down the rule, as the Progressive Conservative amendment suggests, that earnings on overtime were to be untaxed we would have to define overtime; we would have to define normal time. Would normal time be the same in every industry, or would it vary with different industries? I presume it would vary with different industries. In one industry a man would be taxed on what he earned between forty-four and forty-eight hours a week, let us say, and in another industry he would not.


William Earl Rowe: It would be all overtime.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It depends upon how you define overtime. How could overtime be defined in the case of farm help, in the case of domestic help, in the case of proprietors of small businesses, in the case of employees of small businesses where all kinds of informal arrangements exist? How could it be defined for the farmer? What part of the farmer's income would be untaxed because he had earned it in overtime? How could it be defined for the members of the armed forces in Canada who are subject to income taxation? What part of their duties are performed in overtime and what part are not performed in overtime?
The Budget-Mr. llslev


William Earl Rowe: What-


James Lorimer Ilsley: Would the hon. gentleman
please not interrupt. What about schoolteachers who work in the summer? Would what they earn then be overtime? It certainly would be surplus to their ordinary earnings. What about business men? What about civil servants? Many of these work overtime but they do not get paid for it. What about the professional men, the doctors and lawyers? What about the great mass of our citizens? It would be impossible to define their overtime or their normal time. What answer is there in justice or in equity to these people that overtime earnings should not be taxed?


Mr. JACKMAN:: May I ask the minister, if the overtime earned by war workers were not taxed, would it help to shorten the war by one less day? That is the only motive we have in suggesting it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think it would. Then there is the question of piece workers. How shall we define what is overtime for piece workers? Then there is the question of the returns to be made at the end of the year where a person would have to specify the amount he had earned in overtime and the amount he had earned in normal time. There would be the greatest incentive in the world to overstate overtime earnings and understate normal time earnings. We would have to ask employers to make annual returns breaking down the remuneration paid to employees into normal and overtime. There would be a complexity of accounting in connection with the withholding of tax at the source.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) suggests that it would lead to countless arguments between employers and employees. Would it have the effect of inducing people to work overtime for a few weeks and then stay away from work for a week or two? It may be suggested that I am reflecting upon the workers of Canada, but I have tried not to do that. We have the evidence of a great many members of parliament that taxation has something to do with absenteeism and with the refusal to work overtime. We have.had that evidence not only from members of parliament, not only from employers but from employee organizations. The untaxing of overtime would not solve the ordinary absenteeism problem, which means working less than standard time.
Finally, I cannot find any country where overtime earnings are exempted from taxation. It seems to me that that is an overwhelming case against a very plausible suggestion. Suggestions are put forward by employers here and there who think they could work it in their own industry, but they regard their own

industry as an integer, a unit unrelated to other industries of the country and to the great mass of the Canadian people. The more the thing was considered by the government, and it was very carefully considered, the more apparent it became that it would be impracticable and that it would be inequitable for us to exempt overtime earnings from taxation. That was one of the suggestions of the Progressive Conservative party.
Let us take the next. The next is that we should retain compulsory savings and that we should raise the income tax exemptions, and the reason given was that we must fight inflation, and that to release $110,000,000 of compulsory savings and try to get it back, or get back a great deal or some of it by voluntary methods, would mean that we would not have the volume of savings we otherwise would have.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You suggested that yourself.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We are going to try to get voluntary savings equal to the compulsory-savings we gave up.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The alternative suggestion was that the income tax exemptions be raised to $800 and $1,600. To begin with, apart altogether from everything else, I do not see how one member of a partnership, and Canada is in a sense a partner of Great Britain,, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and other countries, all of which have income tax exemptions-I do not see how Canada, a partner that has higher income tax exemptions already than these other countries, can with self-respect look her partners in the face and substantially raise her present exemptions. Ours are very much higher now than those of any other country I have mentioned, considerably higher.


An hon. MEMBER:: Total war.


James Lorimer Ilsley: 
Mr. GILLIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Kinley). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Percy Chapman Black: I was paired with the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. HAZEN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Hill). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, judging by the interest the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has shown in the province of Quebec one may wonder if he does not intend to run for a seat in that province at the next election. As a citizen of Quebec I was greatly surprised at the questions that were asked in regard to the statements made by the premier of that province concerning the postponement of military service for farmers. Hon. Mr. Godbout has said that he did not recall having made certain statements, and in addition he thought he had been misquoted by the press. I am not going to insist on that point; I am a supporter of the premier of Quebec, and his attorney general is my mate for one of the provincial counties forming the federal constituency of Temiscouata.

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot
There is a very good excuse for aayoae ia this couatry, evea aa emiaeat couasel, makiag a mistake ia iaterpretiag the mobilization regulations, because even those who drafted them do not know what they are about. I regret very much that these regulations are not in statutory form, for this would ensure stability of the law. I have no objection at all to praising the way in which the legislation of the union government was drafted; it was put on the statute books and not passed by orders in council which change as often as the rays of an aurora borealis. This question has been before this house and before committees of the house repeatedly, but no light has been thrown upon it. That is because of the intentional confusion as between those who have done part of their training and those who have not been to training camps; between those who have regimental numbers and those who have only call numbers from the registrars. It would be necessary to give a course of law to every citizen of this country to have everyone understand these regulations. The very day after the national selective service regulations were tabled in this house the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said, at page 1567 of Hansard for March 24, 1942:
Under the new regulations, farmers, farmers' sons and agricultural labourers will normally not be obliged to undertake compulsory military training and service.
Within three or four days, for the first time in the parliamentary history of this country, a cabinet minister contradicted a statement made by his chief, the Prime Minister. I have in my hand a release from the Department of Labour, of which the first paragraph reads as follows:
Ottawa, April 1. Essential faTm workers may be granted indefinite postponement but not exemption from military service under the new national selective service, Honourable Humphrey Mitchell, Minister of Labour, said to-night.
So that in connection with these regulations, which were in force for three or four days before being tabled in this house, we have one interpretation by the Prime Minister and another by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). Then I was told over the telephone by an official of the national war services department that the effect of orders in council 2251 and 2252 of March 21 was to displace the onus probandi, or the weight of evidence. Consequently a farmer, the son of a farmer or a farm helper who was exclusively or principally employed or occupied as a farmer on March 21 of that year would in future be presumed indispensable as such to agriculture, unless there should be contrary evidence. That was the tenor of a conversation I had with
an officer of the army who was the right hand of the deputy minister of national war services. The very same day the same gentleman wired the registrar, giving a shade of difference to the official interpretation that he sent me. This was his wire:
Substantially the interpretation given by Mr. Pouliot is exact. I shall have to make clear the interpretation that I have given to Mr. Pouliot, that the individual concerned shall make a request for postponement to the registrar. as before. And, naturally it is the mobilization board, the national war services board, which will decide whether the applicant is essential to agriculture, according to paragraph 14, subparagraph 3 of the regulations, as modified by order in council P.C. 2252 dated March 21. With the reservation of that supplementary explanation the interpretation given by Mr. Pouliot is correct.
This is signed by the director of mobilization.
Well, sir, it was entirely different. In the first place it was stated that the applicant, the farmer, had the modus vivendi in his favour, which meant that it was up to the board to prove that he was not a farmer and essential on the farm. On the other hand it was left to the board to decide what to do.
Who is the 'lawyer, even the most eminent counsel in the country, who would not be baffled by such a contradictory interpretation? And mind you, sir, when it comes to the interpretation of a statute, the member of parliament is a lawmaker. But when it comes to the interpretation of an order in council it must be the high officials in the department concerned who give the right interpretation. What can anyone do when that interpretation is as contradictory as this one was? It is most difficult.
Then, let us go In between. Other statements have been made by the Prime Minister, one of which is found at page 922 of Hansard for June 19, 1940. It is found at the bottom of the first column and the top of the second. That statement was made by the Prime Minister after I had suggested the raising of a whole battalion in my county for the defence of Canada. I had said that in the caucus room, and I was very much flattered when the Prime Minister reported to the house what I had said in caucus. My name was not mentioned, but since I have referred to the Prime Minister's statement I shall read it. Mark you, sir, I had shown my good will by offering to raise a battalion for the defence of Canada. It was in conformity with the law of the country at the time, when the mobilization act was about to be passed. This was only for the defence of Canada, and I was abiding by the law of the land and showing my good spirit.

The Budget-Mr. Pouliot

Here is what the Prime Minister said:
An hon. member on this side of the house made the statement publicly this morning that he felt he could go into his constituency and, by making it known to his constituents that this measure had to do with the protection of Canada and our own Canadian soil, bring forward in a very short time men from the forests, from the fields and from the factories, all prepared immediately to join the Canadian forces to resist any possible invasion, and that he would be prepared to guarantee that that could be done in constituency after constituency throughout the country, once it was understood that there was the necessity of defending our own Canadian shores. I pointed out to him that in doing tha-t he might be making the greatest mistake possible with respect to the national interest; that, to win this war, we might wish to keep at work in the forests the men who are now working in the forests, to provide .tile timber which will be required for docks and wharves and required immediately; that the men who are working in the factories may be a thousand times more useful to the government of this country in giving their skilled labour to the manufacture of aircraft, munitions or other weapons of war than they could possibly be in lining, up and presenting themselves for military service; equally that on the farms, if we are to perform what will be expected of us, we shall need all the production that can be effectively and rapidly carried out on tbe farms of our country.
I have stood by what the Prime Minister Said on that occasion. At the time there was no plebiscite. That was not said to gain any votes. It was said after an election. It was to be the voluntary policy of the government, and that policy was to keep the farmers on the farms. It was a good policy. And it was just the same for those in essential industry. I withdrew my offer afterwards and, when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) asked us to indulge in recruiting for overseas I wrote him- and said that since our chief, the Prime Minister, had precluded me from recruiting for the defence of Canada, how could he, as Minister of National Defence, invite me to do recruiting for overseas? I received no answer. Yet Judith Robinson published this in Toronto, and said that it should appear in every paper across Canada.
There are many other things I wish to say. Not only did the great lawyers not understand the contradiction between the statement made in the house by the Prime Minister, and that made outside the house by the Minister of Labour, but even the great brains of the Ottawa Journal used this title in an editorial which was published on Monday, April 6, 1942, "Government Lines Crossed." It reads:
There appears here needless confusion over a fairly important matter; confusion that starts grousing and harmful talk.
Not only lawyers, but even journalists, the brightest of all men, found that it was obscure
[Mr. Pouliot. J
and hard to understand. Not only that, but the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) has lent me a compilation from a return he received, in which were set out the number of boards, commissions, orders and actions. We do not count any more by small numbers; we count by millions. Nearly half a million orders have been issued by clerks, dollar a year men and everybody else. The exact number was 495,488, plus 45,000 orders in council. That is the number of orders issued since the war began. I doubt if there is a room in this building large enough to contain all those publications.
Some of those orders were most important. There is order A-1182 dated April 22, 1944, dealing with rolls of tissue paper. This amended another order and the object was to make the rolls tighter in order to save 'space. I regret having to mention these things, but it shows the scope of the law making by people outside parliament. There is order A-1201 dealing with water-closet seats. They have consolidated three orders in this one. There was the original order; it was amended and then this order amends that one again. There was another one dealing with felt hoods for ladies' hats. Many other things like that are covered. It is childish that orders are passed for such things and published in the official publication. It makes it difficult for those who want to know exactly what is the law.
Let us go a little farther and see what department passed the largest number of orders. Agriculture passed eighty-three; finance, thirty-five; trade and commerce, five; wartime prices and trade board, 1,684, and Department of Labour, 493,681. Nearly all the orders were passed by the Department of Labour which deals with the mobilization of man-power. The Department of National Defence is not mentioned.	.
Would it be possible for the premier of any province to check the 493,681 orders to know if something had happened affecting the mobilization regulations? Nobody could do that. Nobody knows anything about it. I spoke of this to a man well versed in the law and he told me it was due to the war. When I asked him if it would continue after the war was over he said that if it did it would be unbearable. It is a most abnormal situation.
I should like to refer to the way in which the national war services regulations have been amended. We heard a lot about one month, four months and the duration. When the change was made to four months it really meant for the duration, and I will explain why. The first order in council, P.C. 3905 of September 17, 1940, covered the thirty
The Budget-Mr. Poidiot
days training. Then on March 18, 1941, P.C. 1910 was passed for four months, which would expire on July 18, 1941. It was for that period or for such other period as the Minister of National Defence might from time to time prescribe.
On July 2, 1941, an army order signed by the Minister of National Defence was issued which extended the training period for the duration. Those who were in for four months from March could not get out in July because of the order signed by the Minister of National Defence. P.C. 1910 for four months was passed on March 18, 1941, during the season when many farmers were in the forests. It was the dull season and advantage was taken of this fact to extend the period for four months. The farmer had a little leisure and he could take one month's training.
Another great mistake was made in passing the national selective service regulations also in March during the dull season when many farmers were not on the land. The Prime Minister, who has a country place but who is not a farmer, said that the farmers were frozen on the land. I am sure he meant it, but on the other hand a large proportion of them were not there. This created a lot of difficulty which was increased by the press release sent out by the Minister of Labour.
1 regret deeply that there is not a different procedure in the Department of National Defence with reference to those who are badly needed on the farm. Many times I have asked for men who were needed in different places, by their brothers-in-law, by their close relatives, by their uncles and by other people. Although these cases were most meritorious it was impossible to get a satisfactory answer. The Minister of Labour has written to the premier of Quebec stating that farmers will be as well treated as they are everywhere in Canada. There is no exception for Quebec. When I fight for the farmers, as I said yesterday, I do not fight just for the farmers of my constituency or of my province; I fight for the farmers of Canada. What we get for the farmers of our province we get for all the other farmers in the country. There are many farmers who have met their obligations on time.
It was considered a favour to renew a postponement. That is precisely the reason why the chairman of the board in Quebec city was removed and replaced by somebody else. Every time a farmer went to the board and asked for a postponement of his military training the chairman said: "I grant you this favour," and he would grant the man a postponement once, and then a second time, but the third time he refused to grant a further 100-2974
postponement although it was impossible for the farm to be run without the man. To-day I have seen one man who comes from a county far from mine. He is in the army. One of his legs is one and a half inches shorter than the other; he suffers from rheumatism, and he has been put in category A. His father is old and ill; his mother has been ill for eighteen years, and this farmer's son would like to help his father with the cattle on the farm. He is of no use to the army. But all he could get was "no" from his commanding officer. At other times it is still worse because when a man makes his application for postponement he is told by his commanding officer that his application is approved although it is not. It is unfair to treat a man like that, but many a man has suffered injustice just by being treated in that way.
When an application for postponement is made to the commanding officer it is sent to a kind of technical board on which there are men who have no technical experience, especially in farming. Invariably the board decides that the boy is in the army and shall remain there. The board gives its decision in accordance with what the Minister of National Defence said yesterday in his remarks. So long as this thing is not corrected, and so long as the Minister of National Defence does not change his attitude regarding the farmer and does not understand that the farmers are essential to this country, it is unfair for the Minister of Labour to say that we have no conscription for farmers. Every possible means are used to bring the boys into the training camps, and once they are there it is impossible to get them out for any reason, because, as the Minister of Labour has said, the authorities consider that the first duty of a man is to get into the army. If I fight for the farmer, it is not because I am not supporting the army;
I believe that the army should be well fed; that the population of this country should be well fed, and that our allies should receive the surplus after the army and the civilian population of this country have been taken care of.-That is only reasonable.
If hon. members will look at Hansard of February 19, 1943, they will find that I put on the record a list of the members of parliament who have stated that the farmers should be exempted. That was said even by those who speak against the province of Quebec. Were they sincere or were they not? If they were sincere in saying that the farmer should be exempted from military training and that he is following an essential occupation in the war, they have no reason to complain against the province of Quebec. They have no reason to attack the handful of members of parliament who fight for the farmer in this house
The Budget-Mr. Pouliot

as well as for others engaged in other essential industries. They have no reason to attack the premier of Quebec. We are in common in fighting this war, and the farmer deserves to be recognized as being the equal of any other man in this country and, what is more, evidence should be given of that. We are the lawmakers. We should see that all the orders and regulations, even the orders in council, which do not do justice to the farmer should be corrected by legislation passed in the House of Commons, and that no one shall indulge in false pride by not saying a word on behalf of the farmer who is so essential in this war as well as in peace. It is the easiest thing in the world to uproot the farmer; but, mind you, once a farmer is uprooted he is finished with the land. He does not want to. return to the farm. I do not believe in these schemes to bring soldiers on to the land. There may be a few who will make a success of farming, but they will be the exception. I believe that in fighting for the farmer I am fulfilling a national duty.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to give a word of special praise to an old friend of mine, Alderman Joseph Matte of the city of Quebec, who wants to investigate the manner in which young draftees have been dealt with in British Columbia. These young men are so far from home that it is hard for them to get home on leave because it takes so long. These young men who abide by the law should be respected by their commanding officer. He should not try to make life impossible for them. Therefore I say that Alderman Matte and the city council of Quebec deserve special praise for their stand in this matter, and I hope they will be .successful in having a probe conducted into the manner in which these young men are treated. I hope also that Alderman Matte will be appointed as a member of the board conducting the inquiry.
All of this has been said, Mr. Speaker, to try to bring the house back to fundamentals, in order that we shall not forget the essentials while we are discussing the most important issues before the country.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, on June 23 last when I spoke on the amendment to the budget, I placed on the record certain figures regarding the country of New Zealand. On July 3 the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) in his speech endeavoured to correct some of the figures which I had given on June 23. I am sorry that under the rules of the house which prohibit a member from speaking more than once on the amendment, it has not been until this late date that I have had an opportunity to correct once for all the figures given and the

statements made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I am now taking the very first opportunity of placing accurate, authentic and up-to-date figures on the record.
I do so for two reasons. The first is that I have been very careful ever since I came into the house and into public life to be in a position to substantiate statements I make in public, and I am pleased with my record in that respect. Secondly, I do so because of the attitude of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, who for a number of years have gone through the length and breadth of Canada and on every occasion possible have cited conditions in New Zealand, pointing out that if the people of Canada had only a government like the government of New Zealand, a new heaven upon earth would1 open for the people of this country.
I propose this evening to explode that picture, because it is just a picture. I have noted that, whenever I make a statement in the house, immediately it becomes known, particularly in British Columbia, the henchmen of the C.C.F. run into print and, rather than quote entire figures, just say I am mistaken and am making a lot of false statements. I come before the house to-night with statements with which I challenge the factory of scientists which the C.C.F. have, and any hon. member in the house, because I shall quote the actual facts from New Zealand itself, and I have their records before me.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South was rather "cute"-I use the word advisedly -because when he quoted his figures he knew, I think, that I was quoting the latest available statistics, whereas he had gone back to the 1941 records, which gave the figures of 1940, and then endeavoured to compare them with those of 1942. But as every hon. member knows, especially in this time of war great changes occur in each country every year, especially in incomes and expenditures.
Before I have finished I shall-unlike the hon. member-give exact dates with respect to every figure I am going to quote. I shall endeavour to leave no room for complaint other than that hon. members opposite cannot contradict what I am going to say.


Clarence Gillis: It is correct to say that you
did not give dates in the first place, although you were asked to?


Thomas Reid: If what has usually happened before is going to happen again to-night, that interjections are made to try to throw me off the track and spoil my speech, let us have a free for all. It is all right with me. But I would ask hon. members to possess their souls

The Budget-Mr. Reid
in patience unless I say something very personal, and there is no fear of that for I shall endeavour to keep within the rules of the house.


Clarence Gillis: Try to stick to the truth,
though.


Thomas Reid: I object to that interjection,
and I am going to show that there is no truth in the figures the hon. member placed on the record. If he will be patient I will prove that he does not know the correct figures. That is what I am out to do to-night. If he got his figures from the factory of C.C.F. scientists I have great sympathy for him, because he takes what is handed to him; but if he dug them out for himself I need not say more.
He began by stating that the population of New Zealand was 1,640.000. I hold in my hand the New Zealand official year book, 1943. I have looked through it carefully; I have gone through the years from 1932 tO' 1941, the latest figures given, and there is no such actual figure in the whole schedule as 1,640,000. In the year book three statistical columns appear; they give the population for the periods ending March 31, June 30 and December 30, and then they take the mean of those three periods. I therefore am taking the mean average, and the latest figure given is
1,630,000.	I think that is plain enough.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
the population?


Thomas Reid: 
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there any provincial debt in New Zealand?


Thomas Reid: 
Richard Burpee Hanson: This is interesting.


Thomas Reid: I understand they had a socialist government in New Zealand away back in 1892, but the things they tried to do in those days did not take very well and they were kicked out. Following that, they had what the C.C.F. so glibly calls the "old-line parties". It may surprise hon. members of this house to know that the old-line parties put most of the social legislation on the statute books of New Zealand. Let me give the facts. In 1894 they had the first arbitration court on wages and conditions. In 1898 they had old age pensions. Mothers' allowances-


Mr. KNOWLES:: Long before we had them
here.


Thomas Reid: Yes, it was a long time ago. If the hon. member wants me to repeat it-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I said that it was a long time before we had them in Canada.


Thomas Reid: I know it is hurting him, but I shall try to be as easy as I can. Mothers' allowances, 1911; pensions for miners, 1915; that is, pensions for those with diseases of the mine such as T.B. and dust diseases; epidemic pensions, 1918; pensions for the blind, 1924; family allowances, 1926. It was not until 1935 that the New Zealand labour government came into power; yet this great propaganda is going out to the Canadian people: the New Zealand people down under can show us the way. Throw the government out and put us in, say the C.C.F., and you will get the same conditions in Canada as they have in New Zealand.
I am not going to call on a witness that I have before me, because I realize that perhaps it would be unfair to do so, but I can bring that witness before the house, since I have him on record before me in the shape of the

The Budget-Mr. Reid
leader of the opposition of New Zealand.
I could quote what he has to say about the New Zealand government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: By all means let us have it.


Thomas Reid: It is just terrible. This is not a Canadian, an American or a Britisher speaking, but the leader of the opposition in New Zealand. And by the way, before coming to that may I say I nearly overlooked this-


Mr. MacNICOL:: Do not leave anything out.


Thomas Reid: I may leave out a little because I may need to come back. I shall, however, put enough on the record to keep their scientific factory working overtime. When they are going through this country telling the people about the labour government of New Zealand being like the C.C.F. party I wonder if they would mind telling the labour unions and the labour people this story. In New Zealand they have what is known as the flat wage schedule. The artisans, the men of ability who may spend seven or eight years learning a trade in that country get on the average only five cents an hour more than the ordinary helper. I want them to go out through the country and tell our artisans that if we adopt the same kind of government in this country as they have in New Zealand we might have that here. I should like them to tell the people this also. On looking through the records I find that they do not pay the women in comparison to the men anything like what we pay them in Canada, because they pay them less than fifty per cent of what the men receive. I want the public to be told these facts; that is why I am making these remarks to-night. I have had some experience in British Columbia since 1935; if I had time I could tell many queer stories of what happened in that province during the years of depression up through the Fraser valley, but I am not going to deviate from the story I have to tell, because it is too good. I want hon. gentlemen of the C.C.F. to tell the people of Canada the truth, and I am giving them the truth to-night; not the political truth but God's truth.
New Zealand, it is true, is the most protected country in the world, but that does not give its people a particularly high standard of living. We should think that over carefully. I could quote the leader of the opposition - in New Zealand, who says of the labour government that it has left a trail of broken promises. I have something else of his to quote; it sounds very much like something that might have been said during the Saskatchewan campaign. By the way, I heard some
figures quoted yesterday in regard to the vote in Saskatchewan. I wonder how many hon. members know that the labour government of New Zealand got in with thirty thousand votes less than the combined opposition. They very nearly missed it. Here is what the leader of the opposition in that country had to say in 1943.
Labour tries to soft-pedal its socialistic doctrines for tactical reasons, but its fundamental goal is still the socialization of the means of production, distribution and exchange. And the "means of production" means farms- your farm!
Remember these are the words of the leader of the opposition in that country; I am sure my hon. friends will not be able to refute his statements:
This so-called security. There is not a farmer in New- Zealand who can say that his farm will not be wrested front him under the Small Farms Act. That is the "security" that socialism has given him!
I have one complaint and fault to find with the labour government and the finance minister of New Zealand, and I am speaking as one who at different times has urged monetary reform, in the realization that we must move forward. The government of that country has been described by the C.C.F. as socialistic. It has been similarly described by the leader of the opposition there, who says that the only way to get rid of the socialist government is to vote it out and put his party in its place. Let me read what Mr. Nash had to say, and I really think he might have copied this from the Minister of Finance of Canada, for it sounds exactly the same. Remember, this is the government that went in on the promise of debt-free money.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: Which was written
first?


Thomas Reid: Just wait till you hear this and perhaps you will not laugh so loudly. I do not have to remind the hon. gentleman of the saying about the loud laugh. I quote from Mr. Nash, in presenting the New Zealand budget of 1943:
An examination of the estimated cost of the war will show the futility of attempting to take the amount required by taxation, but inside the objective (the maximum production of goods and services) taxation should be used to the extent that it will give the best results. The goal set by the government has been to pay one-half at least of the cost of the war from taxation. Owing to abnormal capital expenditure during the year just past this goal has not been reached, although the proportions would have been closed had all income taxes been collected.
Here is where I am greatly disappointed; here is where I recall the promise made about debt-free money. Hon. Mr. Nash says:
The Budget-Mr. Reid


Clarence Gillis: You are going to have to make another speech after this one.


Thomas Reid: Well, it will not be because you will refute anything I have said, if one can judge from the last figures you gave.
Mr.	GILLIS:	You	will see,	after I get
started.
Mr.	REID: I	will	tell you	what I willdo with you. If you think you can prove these	figures wrong,	although	they were
quoted by Mr. Nash, and you are willing to place your seat in jeopardy, I am willing to do the same.
Mr.	GILLIS:	Your	seat is	in jeopardy
anyway.


Thomas Reid: If you will just come out to my constituency and make a speech I will be elected.


Clarence Gillis: I would love to.


Thomas Reid: You had better be careful or I may visit your riding and show up your figures.


Clarence Gillis: You have a standing
invitation.


Thomas Reid: I made my previous offer and statement and I stand by it.


Clarence Gillis: You have a standing invitation to come.


Thomas Reid: I notice the hon. gentleman has not replied to my offer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think you are both safe.


Thomas Reid: I am quoting figures from the actual records. If they are wrong, surely the hon. member who quotes them cannot be held entirely responsible. I am not just ferreting these out; I have the New Zealand official records in my hands.


Clarence Gillis: Graham Towers ferreted them out for you.


Thomas Reid: Well, Mr. Speaker, if we were outside this house I would say that the hon. gentleman lies if he says I had anyone help me with these figures. I spent three days looking them up, and I will back my mathematics against those of any member of the C.C.F. I spent my own time digging up these papers, with no one to help me. I obtained the loan of the records, and now the hon. gentleman has the temerity to make a statement like that. However, my statements stand.


Clarence Gillis: You are very sure of yourself.


Thomas Reid: Yes, I am. This is the old game; the hon. gentleman throws in a few remarks; then goes home and tells the boys, "Didn't we interrupt- his speech? Didn't we spoil it?" I can tell him now he will not be able to say he put Tom Reid on the spot. He is not able to say that, anyway.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Reid: You will have your chance. Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to keep order. I have been brought up in a tough mechanics union-


Clarence Gillis: Let somebody else tell the story.


Air. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I would ask the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) not to interrupt unless he brings up a point of order. I would ask him to stop his interruptions, and to address the Chair when he wishes to interrupt or ask questions.


Thomas Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, since my time has almost expired, may I say that I think I have put enough figures

The Budget-Mr. Gillis
on the record to keep my hon. friends working hard for a long time-including their scientific factories. I am apologizing to the house for jumping into the debate at this late stage, but I felt I could not allow those figures to go unchallenged. I felt that in coming before the members of the house I should bring the official records. I have given the figures honestly, sincerely and to the best of my ability; I have done it unaided, and I take the responsibility for saying it. There is no scientific factory of men behind me.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I have been amazed to-night to listen to the tirade the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) has seen fit to put on the record, in the dying hours of the budget debate. The government are very much concerned about getting the business of the house done; at least they are leading the public to believe that. That is their position, except when it suits their purpose to put over some political propaganda. The amazing part of this exhibition-


Mr. DUPUIS:: Mr. Speaker-


Clarence Gillis: I wish to have exactly the same amount of order, Mr. Speaker, that you demanded for the previous speaker.


An hon. MEMBER:: As much as you gave.


Clarence Gillis: The surprising thing to me is that the last night the hon. member for New Westminster addressed the house he rose in his place and occupied about fifteen minutes of the time of the house in assuring all and sundry as to how carefully he had dug up his figures, at the same time striking himself on the breast and telling all who would listen just how truthful his statements were. Oh, he did not make any mistake, because he dug his facts so carefully 1 Well, all he has succeeded in doing to-night, so far, is to prove to the house that the figures he put on record on the first occasion were absolutely incorrect. To-night he has changed completely every figure he put on the record at that time. I am wondering, if I go to the trouble to dig up further figures in this matter, whether his statement will not be just as much at variance the next time he speaks as it was to-night.
What I made clear, in the figures I put on the record, was this. First, I attempted, and I think successfully, to defend a sister dominion. Only a few days ago the Prime Minister of New Zealand stood at the head of the table in front of Your Honour. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) and his entire group, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) and every member on that
side of the house, eulogized New Zealand. They rose in their places and cheered the Prime Minister of that country. They paid tribute to the war effort that country was making, and to the contribution their soldiers are making overseas.
To-night the hon. member for New Westminster places New Zealand at the foot of the ladder, so far as nations are concerned.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Thomas Reid: I rise to a point of order.


Clarence Gillis: I have the floor.


Thomas Reid: I have a right to raise a point of order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Clarence Gillis: Do not do so much hollering. I am not easy to make sit down; get that under your hat.


Thomas Reid: The statement the hon. member has made is absolutely incorrect. I said I would not pit one dominion against the other, because they all had contributed to their utmost.


Clarence Gillis: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for New Westminster can place whatever construction he likes on his remarks. But I sat in my place, and I know the impression I got. That was the implication of his remarks.
The thing I am concerned about is this. Every member on that side of the house, and many members on this side applauded the Prime Minister of New Zealand in his remarks. If that is the attitude of this government and the leader of the opposition, then in my opinion their gestures to the Prime Minister of New Zealand were sheer hypocrisy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just leave us out of it.


Clarence Gillis: Just sheer hypocrisy. You will have a chance to make your speech.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order The hon. member has accused members of this group and our leader, who is not at the moment in his place, of hypocrisy. I wish him to withdraw that word. We have not discussed New Zealand in any way.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Clarence Gillis: I am not withdrawing. I am addressing the Chair.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On the point of order, I suggest that the hon. member must withdraw the charge of hypocrisy against the leader of the opposition. It will not do for
8EVISED EDITION
The Budget-Mr. Gillis

him to take the attitude that he will not withdraw anything. The Chair and the house must decide whether or not he will withdraw. I think, on an appeal to the hon. member's good judgment, he will withdraw it. If he will just withdraw that remark about the leader of the opposition, and other members of the group, and let them speak for themselves it would be much better. So far as I am concerned, when acting in the place of the leader of the opposition, while he is unavoidably absent, I do not intend to allow that charge to go unchallenged.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Clarence Gillis: I have the right to speak to a point of order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Let the hon. member speak to the point of order.


Clarence Gillis: I did not accuse anyone in particular on this side of the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, yes. you did.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Yes.


Clarence Gillis: What I said, and what I repeat, is this, that the remarks of the hon. member for New Westminster were roundly applauded on this side of the house.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What has that got to do with it?


Clarence Gillis: That you agreed with the remarks.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Absolutely.


Clarence Gillis: I say, then, that when your leader took that microphone and represented the opposition groups in the house, and said the things he said about New Zealand, and eulogized the Prime Minister of that country and the contribution they were making-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: To the war effort.


Clarence Gillis: -and you take this attitude in the house toward that country when they are not here to defend themselves, that in my opinion it was a gesture of hypocrisy.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Again I rise to a point of order.


Clarence Gillis: And that goes for both sides.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The hon. member has
accused the leader of the opposition and members of this group of hypocrisy.


Clarence Gillis: I did not; the leader of the opposition is not here.
VIr. It. B. Hanson.]


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The word itself is unparliamentary, and I will ask him to withdraw it,


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I believe the point of order has been well taken.


Clarence Gillis: I knew you would.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Standing order 41-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I just heard the hon. member observe, " I knew you would." That has to be
effaced, since it is a reflection on the Chair.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: If the remark was made, then I ask the hon. member for Cape Breton South to withdraw that insinuation.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, any insinuation I may have made with respect to yourself I gladly withdraw.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Citation 298 of standing order 41, page 97 of Beauehesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, reads:
The following expressions have also been ruled nut of order:	dodge; factious opposition;
hypocrites.
And so on. It is under that standing order that I ask the hon. member to withdraw his insinuation.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, if in your opinion-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Clarence Gillis: -I have not respected
the ruling of the Chair-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, if in your opinion I have said something that is not in accordance with the rules of the house I withdraw it.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I submit that the hon.
member is not withdrawing as he should. It is not a question of your opinion, Mr. Speaker; it is a question of the rule of parliament that you have quoted, and the hon. member must withdraw without any modification.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: In this case I believe the hon. member for Cape Breton South has made a proper withdrawal.


Clarence Gillis: In connection with that great ceremony my mind goes back to the ceremony we had this afternoon when we welcomed that great French soldier, General Charles de Gaulle, in front of the parliament buildings. He is a soldier who has fought the reactionaries of the world since 1934. He finally fought his way to a place of power and recognition by the peoples of the world. I

The Budget

Mr. Gillis
wonder how sincere many of us were this afternoon in that great ceremony. My stand is well known in the circles he moves in. It leaves me a little doubtful at times as to what the future holds for Canada.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) pointed out something this evening that is ancient history. Most members of this group know the fight for social reform that has been carried on for thirty-five or forty years in New Zealand. While many of those reforms were put on the statute books of that country when the old-line parties were in power it was done because of the pressure of the socialist and labour movements. We have a repetition of that history in Canada to-day. We have family allowances and other reform legislation which were promised by the Liberal party as far back as 1919 but which were never enacted. To-day this legislation is before the house. Why? Because they want to give it to the people of Canada? No. It is there because of the pressure of organized labour across Canada in its march in the political field. That has forced a general recognition on the part of the old-line parties that social reform must come. If the people do not get it from the government in power, they will do what they did in New Zealand; they will throw them out.
The figures that I put on the record are still there. If they are wrong, then the Canada Year Book for 1941 and 1942 is wrong. If they are wrong, then the New Zealand Year Book for 1941 is wrong. I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) made it abundantly clear this afternoon that in comparing debt, interest and so forth of different countries there are many ramifications to be considered. There is no exact blueprint and you cannot make any particular statement with respect to debt. You must take many factors into consideration.
When the hon. member for New Westminster put his figures on the record I searched for comparable information. I could- have taken the 1942 figures, but the only information I could find comparable with the figures he put on the record was in the 1941 and 1942 year books which gave the 1940 situation. The 1940 figures with respect to debt, social legislation and so forth are the only figures that can be taken as a comparison with the New Zealand situation.
I could go to-morrow and get the war debt, that has accumulated in Canada since the outbreak of the war and compare it with New Zealand's, because that is what the hon. member did to-night with his figures for 1942. The 1940 figures are the only comparable
figures that should be used in comparing the two countries and those are the ones I used. The hon. member for New Westminster carefully shied clear of what they get for their taxes. To make a general statement about social security does not mean anything.
I have put a clear, concise statement on the record with respect to taxation. I said that no one complains about paying taxes; no one quarrels about any tax imposed by a government if he gets something for it. That is the point. I do not want to go over my figures again and waste the time of the house, but they showed that in the field of social security and education Canada spends only $15.83 per capita while New Zealand spends $39.50.
Anyone who attempts to justify the existing social legislation in this country by comparing the debt and interest charges of Canada and New Zealand has a lot to do. New Zealand is a small country with a million and a half people. It is a barren island with little or no resources, but that country has given its population one of the highest standards of living in the world. It has done that with nothing to work on. We live in a country that covers the north half of the north American continent. We have unlimited resources and 11,500,000 people to provide for. To attempt to justify our situation by .comparing our country with a country like New Zealand is certainly not statesmanship.
Personally I recognize New Zealand's limitations. During the process of fighting this war I am accepting literally the provision of the Atlantic charter for free access to the raw materials of the world. I see Canada in the future helping to raise the standard of living of those countries which have not the wherewithal to provide for their people. I hope that not many hon. members are going to take small countries with few resources as an example in an effort to justify our own inactivity in developing our natural resources. We should not attempt to justify that simply because some other country has not done it. That is the position the hon. member for New Westminster takes to-night.


Thomas Reid: No, it is not.


Clarence Gillis: The position this group takes is that taken by Roosevelt and Churchill when they drew up the Atlantic charter, and that taken by Stalin and Roosevelt and Churchill when they met at Teheran and laid down the strategy for the annihilation of nazism and totalitarianism. Those are the things we are fighting for, and those should be the social objectives of each and every country. I am
The Budget-Mr. Gillis

very sceptical when a member of this house attempts to quarrel with the figures, as has been done on two occasions.
But more than that, I am afraid to-night of the statesmanship of the men who sit on the treasury benches opposite, men who should have the respect of the people of this country and should show more statesmanship than to laugh and applaud when someone occupies the valuable time of this house in trying to ridicule and belittle a sister dominion which is fighting shoulder to shoulder with Canada on every battlefront of the world. I am afraid of that kind of statesmanship. As a member of this House of Commons I take my duties seriously. I am here to see that the people of this country, in every section of it, are protected. I am here to see that our service men get a deal. When we talk of all the things that we have done for our service men, I say that what we have done so far leaves much to be desired. I am going to leave it to the service men to give their answer on that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You take in a lot of territory.


Clarence Gillis: A lot of territory was taken in by the hon. member for Newr Westminster whom I am answering, and I would not have occupied the time of this house at all at this time except for a direct attack upon myself.


Thomas Reid: After you attacked me.


Clarence Gillis: No; I merely corrected certain figures that you put upon the record. The figures that I put on the record came from the Canada Year Book of 1941 and 1942 and were 1940 figures. Anyone can rise in his place every two weeks in this house and show, when you take in the changing figures of the debt situation, that the figures put on the record a week or a month ago are not up to date to-day. If you want to do that, you can keep this house going for a long, long time.. I could dig up figures to-morrow that would contradict the figures put on the record tonight by the hon. member for New Westminster, just as the figures he put on the record to-night completely contradicted his own figures that he put on the record two weeks ago. But that sort of circus does not add to the prestige of this house. I am sorry that I have been inveigled into this, and for the first time since I came into this house I am doubtful about the future of Canada under the statesmanship displayed in this house to-night.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You have displayed that sort of thing ever since you came into the house.


Clarence Gillis: You are not here often enough to know whether I am here or not.


Mr. BROOKE CLAXTON (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) finished by saying that he was doubtful of the future of Canada in view of the statesmanship shown in this house.


Clarence Gillis: To-night, I said.


Brooke Claxton: I do not believe many people can be doubtful about the future of Canada as long as they know the facts and face them squarely in every argument and deal with them as Canadians.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South says that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) was belittling New Zealand, whereas the hon. member for New Westminster was actually belittling the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation arguments drawn from the case of New Zealand, and drawn incorrectly, as the hon. member for New Westminster pointed out.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South rose, he said, to defend a sister dominion. No one in this house in my hearing has ever attacked any dominion of the British crown anywhere, least of all the hon. member for New Westminster to-night. He never brought up these figures in the first place-


Clarence Gillis: Yes, he did.


Brooke Claxton: He did not. The figures were brought up by the C.C.F. on the hustings from one end of Canada to the other; and when figures are brought to meet them, to show how inaccurate they were, the C.C.F. raise objections and say that we are attacking a sister dominion. Who began these comparisons? Mr. Speaker, on two occasions I myself have urged that comparisons between different countries are misleading and should not be made except for the purpose of healthy emulation. But for a year and more past the C.C.F. in Canada have been using facts and figures, they say, derived from the experience of New Zealand, particularly for the purpose of influencing Canadian electors, and now when these alleged facts and figures are met, they say that there is an attack on New Zealand. The attack is on the C.C.F. figures on New Zealand and on their failure to take into account the total picture of New Zealand, which must be taken into account.
The hon. member for New Westminster did not mention to-night the great contribution which New Zealand has made to the war in the way of man-powrer, a contribution which is

The Budget-Mr. Claxton
surpassed by few countries on the face of the earth. He discussed facts and figures in the light of the facts and figures brought up by the C.C.F., and did nothing else. That drew the hon. member for Cape Breton South out of his seat to give a speech which did not add very greatly to our knowledge of this subject. Then the hon. member for Cape Breton South says that our side, when we meet his facts and figures, are producing political propaganda. Let us have more political propaganda if it produces.the facts and gives to the people of Canada the facts upon which they can base their decision in the days and months and years that lie ahead.
When I rose to speak to-night I had not intended to deal with this, but wished to deal with another subject related to it, the need of all the people of Canada getting all the facts about every subject. The prosecution of the war and the preparation for the peace are in the forefront of the minds of all of us, of members of all parties and of all the people of Canada to-day. Whether we are legislators or men working in the factories or on farms or soldiers fighting overseas, all our thoughts and energies and hopes are concentrated on these two objectives. The one essential ingredient for the effective prosecution of the war and for the preparation for the peace is that the people of Canada should remain united in will and in purpose. This has been frequently urged by members in all quarters of the house, but things have been said recently in the house and outside it which do not make for unity.
The unity of any Country depends upon general understanding. We must recognize our common interest in the common good. Any understanding can be based only on knowledge and truth. The effective working of a democracy depends upon the knowledge of all the people and in their interest in their own government. This is particularly so in Canada, with five geographical divisions, a country where most of the people are descended from the two races which have given to the western world its major civilizations. Judged by any standards, Canada has done well through the years of peace and through the years of war. Even if we look backwards it is hard to say where our total effort on behalf of the united nations could have been increased.
Moreover, the measures adopted by this government have led to the burden of the war being fairly distributed on the shoulders of the population in relation to their ability to bear the load. When one considers the differences which we must recognize do exist in Canada and the difficulties that have been overcome, the record of the people of Canada
stands up better than the record of the critics of Canada. The great majority of Canadians are anxious to remain united in the war and in the peace. The great majority of Canadians are prepared to face facts realistically and to make their utmost effort to get along together in the recognition that along any other road lies disastef. The great majority of Canadians deplore the attempt by anyone which has the effect of diminishing unity or dividing the country into separate races and creeds. Unfortunately there are in all parts of the country groups that respond to sectional and racial appeals, and there are unfortunately people who make those appeals.
My attention was recently called to a speech of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion), given at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere on July 3 of this year at the opening of the campaign of his brother, Noel Dorion, Duplessis candidate for the Union Nationale in Kamouraska. According to a report in L'Action Catholique of July 3, 1944, the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay said this and I may translate it:
I accuse the Godbout government of entering into an alliance with the Communists and with the Labour Progressive party, as witnessed by the declaration of Fred Rose in the National Affairs Monthly of July, 1944. I accuse the Godbout government of not having prevented King from putting into the hands of Russian Jews the Bank of Canada, the war information board and the national film board, in naming the Jews Rasminski. Petegorski and Kentchum to posts of command in these organizations.
As for the charge that the Godbout government is linked with the communists, I leave that to the good sense of this house and of the Canadian people and of the people of Quebec.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it not the usual type of campaign speech in Quebec, anyway?


Brooke Claxton: I have never heard that particular line developed in Quebec in any campaign which I have engaged in-


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member is learning something.


Brooke Claxton: -and it strikes me as being something unusual. However, if my hon. friend the member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) suggests that this is characteristic of Quebec, he must bear the burden for that reflection.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am asking you the question. You know.


Vincent Dupuis: No. That is the counterpart of Lake Centre.
The Budget-Mr. Claxton


Brooke Claxton: The second charge is that the Godbout government did not prevent King from putting into the hands of Russian Jews the Bank of Canada, the wartime information board and the national film board. Before going any further let us see what the facts are. The hon. member says that the King government put into the hands of Russian Jews the Bank of Canada, the wartime information board and the national film board. I wonder whether the hon. member believes this. Does he know who are the members of the board' of directors of the Bank of Canada, the board of directors of wartime information board, or the board of directors of the national film board? If he can find any Russian Jews in that company I shall be very much surprised.


Vincent Dupuis: It will be well for the hon. member to mention those who are in charge.


Brooke Claxton: And if he looks at the administrative officers-respectively Graham. Towers, A. D. Dunton, and John Grierson-I do not think he will find anyone there who answers to that description.


Vincent Dupuis: And St. Amour. He is not a Jew.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member bases his assertion in Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere on the facts that "Rasminski, Petegorski and Kentchum have been appointed to posts of command." Let us take "Kentchum" first. Undoubtedly, by "Kentchum" he intends to mention David Ketchum, who is an officer of the wartime information board. The family have been on this continent for some hundreds of years, and as far as their records go back their origin is completely Anglo-Saxon or Irish.
Let me come to Messrs. Rasminski and Petegorski. Both these men were born in Canada and they are of the Jewish faith. Mr. Rasminski was educated at the university of Toronto and the London school of economics. For many years he was on the economic staff of the League of Nations. He is now an assistant to the governor of the Bank of Canada. He is known in Canada and throughout the world as one of the outstanding banking economists of the whole world. If the people of Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere could meet Mr. Rasminski they would find a gentleman who could speak French, who would delight them and charm them with his knowledge of and love for their country, and who would impress them with the great services which he has given to oiu- country.
Mr. Petegorski is an employee of the national film board on loan to the wartime information board, where he had to do with

his own special field of labour relations. He is a graduate of Columbia university, and after taking a post-graduate course at the London school of economics he became a professor at Antioch. He is a born Canadian, and he has, like any other born Canadian, the right to serve Canada.
These two men and a handful of others who are of the Jewish faith are in the service of the government of Canada. Are they to be deprived of the responsibility of serving Canada because they are of a faith different from yours or mine? Is Canada to be deprived of the advantage of having their services? Are we to limit ourselves to people of Anglo-Saxon descent, or French descent or some other descent? The duty of serving Canada must not be limited to people of any one race, and the right to serve Canada is not limited to people of any race. It should be the glory of Canada that this is one place on earth where myths of racial superiority and racial prejudices shall not flourish.
We ought to recognize the facts. We are a country of minorities. Every race in Canada, whether English or Scottish or Irish or French or Ukrainian or Jewish or German or anything else, is a minority with reference to the whole; they are in a minority when viewed in the total picture of the people of Canada. Every person in Canada, with the exception of the Indians and Eskimos, is descended from immigrants. We ought to be proud of that fact, and proud of what our forefathers did for us in settling in this country and pioneering for us. Hitler advertised race theories and the world has seen what they mean. In fact his reign of terror is best expressed and understood by the violent anti-Semitism which has been, not his article of faith, but his stock in trade. When we join in anti-Semitism of any kind, when we join in giving voice to racial theories of one kind or another, we point Hitler's sword at our own breasts.
Since the hon. member who mentioned this is of the Catholic faith, may I recall to him- and I do it with the utmost respect-the word of his Holiness Pope Pius XI, who had this to say:
Abraham is called our patriarch, our ancestor. Anti-Semitism is not compatible with the sublime reality of this text. It is a movement in which we Christians cannot share.
Spiritually the people who give way to racial prejudice, who breed intolerance by their own intolerance, who create injustice by being less than just, are walking in the footsteps not of Christ but of all that Christianity and humanity stand and fight against in this war. The province of Quebec, my own native province, to which I am deeply attached, having

The Budyet-Mr. Claxton
been bom there and descended from people who lived there for three generations, is not to-day predominantly rural. It is no longer self-contained. Seventy per cent of the people of that province are urban. No part of industrial Canada is so dependent for its livelihood and prosperity on trade outside Quebec, with other Canadians and with the people of other countries. Quebec's interests are not isolationist, but above all places in Canada and, indeed, almost in the world, the interest of Quebec lies in the greatest possible cooperation with the people of other provinces and of other countries.
To-day we have been honoured by the presence of General de Gaulle. He paid his tribute to the sons of French parents who in the Canadian regiments were among the first to land on the beaches of Normandy from which their ancestors had come just three hundred years ago. For most of them it was their first return to the home of their ancestors. They went overseas to bring freedom to France and to humanity. Let us not lose that freedom at home. Freedom is a very civilized thing, and so is tolerance. Civilization is measured by the degree of freedom and the amount of tolerance there is in any community. We can be free economically and socially only if we have the advantages which come from united action and agreement on common objectives. And on those objectives we are not so far apart as the hon. member for Cape Breton South would like us and the Canadian people to believe. We can be free and united only if we have that respect for the individual which is the hallmark of Christianity. We can be united, provided that we keep before us the concept of Canada as a country second to none on the face of the earth.
A few days ago a friend of mine received from his son overseas a letter in which this was said:
It is a funny thing, I never really felt as proud of being a Canadian until I got down here with some of the best fighting men in the world and -found what respect they hold us in. Our chaps made quite a name for themselves in the last war and in this one they are living up to that name and doing one better. The more I see of people and countries I thank God I am a Canadian.
The Canada that boy is thinking of is the rivers and lakes, the open spaces and the dark woods, the mines and factories, the farms and the city streets. It is the history of Canada that it has roots in two civilizations that have led the western world; and it is in the geography of Canada with its back to the pole and its arjns stretching out to the two oceans, bound to Britain by no ties except -ties of interest and of affection, associated with the
United States in a friendly relationship, the depth and the extent of which other nations cannot even understand. When he speaks of himself as a Canadian this soldier overseas is not thinking of an English Canadian or a French Canadian or a Jewish Canadian, he is thinking of a Canadian, an unhyphenated Canadian, and so are his comrades in arms, and so are the vast majority of the people of Canada to-day. They want to keep away from all the isms, from all the hyphens and to be people living in this great country of ours, people not only with a past that anyone can be proud of, but people with a future better than that of any other country. That is the kind of Canada he is thinking of, and that is the kind of Canada we in -this house mean to give him.
The truth is that we can accomplish almost anything in Canada if we stay united. The war has shown that. But what advantage would it be to the people of Quebec or elsewhere -if the seeds of disunity are planted, flourish, grow up and separate race from race, creed from creed, province from province? Unity is not a lofty ideal; it is a stem neces- -sity if our welfare is to be served.
Mr. Speaker, I -referred by name to the gentlemen I did because of the speech of my hon. friend to which I have referred. I hold no particular brief for those of the Jewish faith or of any other faith. I say- that people who come to Canada and settle here have the right [DOT]to be treated as all other Canadians, that there should be no discrimination between people in Canada whether they be of one province or another, of one race or another, or of one faith or another. It is our job in this house to see that as far as it lies within our power everyone in Canada is given equal opportunity to give our country what he can give it and to make for himself, his family- and his descendants a life in this country such as only this country can give if we stay united.
But in any country having interests as wide as Canada's, national unity- can be founded only on a cause which is larger than the nation itself. Patriotism begins at home, but it must not stop there in this world of little distances. The unity we seek must extend beyond the national borders. The unity we seek is essential to prosperity at home. The unity we seek must include the larger unity beyond our borders, which is also essential to our prosperity. We have everything before -us if we stand united. We have nothing but weariness, difficulty and dissension if we allow these racial discords to be encouraged in our midst.
I feel that I make what may seem a rather prosaic statement in this house at this time, but I feel it deeply and I feel that I am voic-
The Budget-Mr. Dorian

ing the views of those men whom I have met in our armed forces and of those people in Canada whom I have met, who say that they want to see this Canada grow strong as Canada, as a country stretching from sea to sea, as a country which we can be proud to work for, to die for and to live for.
Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-
Saguenay) (Translation): I would certainly not have participated in this debate had not the honourable member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) made a direct allusion to me. Since those words have been uttered, I think I may appropriately point out some truth which seem to be all too often overlooked on the other side of the house. The hon. member has referred in highly eulogistic terms to the part played by the Liberal party in promoting national unity in this country. Well, I have already said and proved, and I shall repeat and prove once again to-night that the worst disunion propaganda in this country has for the last 25 years come from the Liberal party.
In 1925, *when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who had failed to be reelected in his constituency, returned to this house with 101 members while the Conservative party had 116, he was maintained in power through the cooperation of progressive members from the west. But, Mr. Speaker, among the 101 members who kept him in power, there were 60 members from the province of Quebec who had been successful at the polls because he had come before our people and advised them to stand up against their English-speaking fellow Canadians.


Vincent Dupuis: To whom are you referring?


Mr. DORION:: 
Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to take part in this debate, but I deem it my duty to say a word in regard to the numerous matters brought up during the discussion on the budget. As a Canadian of French origin, and with the experience which I have gained in this house I must say first that it gives me great pleasure to compare what I have heard yesterday from the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) with the moderate, well-balanced speech, fair and just to all classes of society, made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton). That is why, I am proud of the party to which I have the privilege of belonging. Indeed, after listening to such a speech, the broadness of outlook, the fair play and practical patriotism, of which do honour to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George who refuted the statements made outside this house by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion), I am doubly proud of my party. The hon. member attempted later to indulge in demagogy, for I believe that in parliamentary language this is the only word that can appropriately describe that speech.


Frédéric Dorion: Use words you please.


Vincent Dupuis: If my hon. friend allows me to go further, I shall be even, more frank, but it is contrary to my habit to direct strong language at my opponents. The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay, delivered a speech outside the house in the constituency of Charlevoix-Saguenay which formerly was represented by worthy members of the Liberal or Conservative parties, who held Canadian citizenship in high esteem. He leaves the House of Commons to help a relative during a provincial election to arouse racial and religious prejudices and distort facts, as proved by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.


Frédéric Dorion: On a point of order, I would ask the hon. member to mention one instance where I have aroused racial prejudices. If he cannot do so, I shall ask him to withdraw this statement.


Mr. LEGER (Translation):: In all your
speeches in this house.


Frédéric Dorion: I have just been interrupted by the Minister of National War Services (Mr. LaFleche). I do not intend
to disregard charges brought against me in this house. If the minister has enough courage to repeat what he said-
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): He said nothing.
Mr. LaFLECHF, (Translation): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay is wrong again, as has evidently happened quite often recently. I am not the one who spoke a while ago.


Frédéric Dorion: If you are not the one, I am sorry.
Mr. LaFLECHE (Translation): Then take back what you said. Go ahead and prove that you can still boast the qualifications you had in the last war. I believe the hon. member was a. commissioned officer. Is he a parttime gentleman?


Vincent Dupuis: Part-time
gentleman! What a splendid part he played in the last war!


Frédéric Dorion: Play your own part.


Vincent Dupuis: I served my country. I was turned down because of my health. I was then a student at McGill university, and with all my fellow-students-


Frédéric Dorion: I too was a student.


Vincent Dupuis: -I volunteered to serve. One of my brothers died on the battlefield and eleven of my nephews are in Europe at present where they are fighting for the freedom you yourself have not the pride to want to defend.
Mr. Speaker, it seems it is a good thing to keep one's head; not to allow oneself to be carried away by sentiment, and I will try to act accordingly. I want to be kind to my hon. friend from Charlevoix-Saguenay because I remember the words of the Carpenter's Son who said at the hour of his death: "Forgive them; for they know not what they do." It is Christian forgiveness that I offer him.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks us to prove that he has raised racial prejudices. Nonsense. Some people are so hard of hearing! The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has just quoted verbatim words that he uttered at a meeting held in honour of one of his relatives-
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Of his brother.


Vincent Dupuis: What an argument!
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): He is a Conservative member.


Vincent Dupuis: He said:
The Budget-*Mr. Dupuis

I accuse the Godbout government . . .
And I ask the hon. member to rise in protest if I do not quote the words he used and which are reported in UAction Catholique of Quebec.
I accuse the Godbout government of entering into an alliance with the Communists and with the Labour Progressive party, as witnessed by the declaration of Fred Rose. I accuse the Godbout government of not having prevented King from putting into the hands of Russian .Tews the Bank of Canada, the war information board and the national film board, in naming the Jews Rasminski, Petergorski and Kentchum.


Frédéric Dorion: I did not mention Kentchum's name.


Vincent Dupuis: Did the hon. member really say that?


Frédéric Dorion: I did not name Kentchum.


Vincent Dupuis: Did the hon. member really say that the King government entrusted its various services to Jews? I ask the hon. member who, at heart, must wish to remain worthy of the title conferred on him by his electors, to tell us if, at bottom, he really thought he was speaking the truth when he said that the national film board, the wartime information board and the Bank of Canada were controlled by Jews. Now tell me whether you think you spoke the truth or whether you knew that you were not speaking the truth. Now, is it true, yes or no, that you knew you were not speaking the truth?


Frédéric Dorion: The hon. member is a more experienced parliamentarian than I am, but he should learn, if it is indeed news to him, that no hon. member may speak twice on the same subject. I have not the right to answer him. He ought to know that. As far as his last remarks are concerned, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to have him withdraw them because no member has the right to say that one of his colleagues has lied.
(Text):


Vincent Dupuis: I am going to speak in English. I said that he lied outside this house, when he spoke in favour of his brother in Charlevoix-Saguenay, and when he said that the King government put the wartime information board, the national film board and the Bank of Canada under the control of Jewish people. I stated that when he said that outside the house he lied. I asked him to say that it was not true, and he just admitted that, by his silence.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On the point of order raised by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) I am positive that the words "lie" "lying" are not par-

liamentary. I will therefore ask the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Dupuis) to withdraw that qualification.


Vincent Dupuis: I withdraw, then. I withdraw the word "lie"; nevertheless-


An hon. MEMBER:: Be careful now.


Vincent Dupuis: Allow me to speak in
French. I know intimately members of every race and party represented in the house. I know them to be broadminded, and to recognize that the people of this country who belong to my race have at least some usefulness, sometimes, and they recognize that the French language is welcomed in the House of Commons. I do not know of any member, including the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), who would not like to speak French.
(Translation): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Chalevoix-Saguenay ran the last election under an independent ticket, although he was formerly a Tory.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): He still is.


Vincent Dupuis: I wonder
whether he will ask me to withdraw this statement.


Frédéric Dorion: No fear.


Vincent Dupuis: It should be an insult to him because when he made his campaign with the support of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), he was an independent of short standing, and this is the truth. Then he swore by everything to his electors, from the northern part of his constituency to the enchanting shores of the St. Lawrence river that, once in the house, he would be of an absolute independence, voting with one or the other party according to the merits of the matters involved. Since I have been here, only once have I seen him vote with the Liberals, that is on our side; perhaps he wanted to support the communist members who voted against the amendment at the time.


Frédéric Dorion: Since the hon. member does not follow the proceedings of the house, let him reckon up the votes I have cast last year and he will notice that I supported the government more than once.


Vincent Dupuis: On matters on which all the hon. members who have the least bit of common sense had to vote with us.
Mr. Speaker, it is most unfortunate that such happenings should occur among hon. members from my native province. We, citizens of French extraction, who, no later than this afternoon, were so proud to hear the voice of France through General de Gaulle; we who,

The Budget-Mr. Dupuis
in 1763 transferred our allegiance from France to Britain, and who, thanks to the spirit of justice which is predominant in all British citizens have obtained freedom of action in this country; we who, in spite of this freedom, have to fight those who oppress, through their might and their money, the weak and the working classes; we who form a minority in this country, who should always remain united, should ever work hand in hand when the interests of the province of Quebec are at stake, wThat have we seen in this house, especially during the last few years? We have witnessed, in the province of Quebec, the very same unfortunate events that occurred at the Bourbon palace in the years before 1939, when Frenchmen, instead of remaining united and preparing to fight Hitler, the modem tyrant, were divided and fighting among themselves.
Despite the inspiring example given by our former motherland, we, the citizens of the province of Quebec, give the same evidence of disunion, we give the sad example of that dissension which the great Mercier stigmatized in days gone by when he advised his fellow-citizens from the province of Quebec to put an end to their internecine strife and achieve union among themselves.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay is one of those people, I do not blame him personally for that, I rather ascribe it to an old habit and to a mediate cause arising from the intellectual training we get in the province of Quebec, to the individualism from which we suffer so much rather than to a personal and intentional shortcoming on the part of the hon. member.
He is neither a conservative, because he has disowned the conservative party, nor a liberal, for he has never been one, nor again a member of the Bloc populaire, because I think that group does not want him, nor a supporter of the C.C.F., because that would not do in Charlevoix-Saguenay since the C.C.F. is but a camouflaged communism and the Charlevoix-Saguenay people value their money too much to hand it out to parasites. He belongs to no party. He is his own party.
Next to him there is the Bloc Populaire party, whose members for reasons and motives I shall not mention, because in their conscience they know them all too well, have left the Liberal party to wend their way toward a region as dismal and cold as a block of ice, in an attempt to bring down to their own level a man whose shoe-laces they are not fit to tie, the honourable and distinguished leader of the Canadian government. I shall not call him the greatest statesman, because that expression has become too commonplace,
nor will I call him a great diplomat because too many people are labelled so, but I shall designate him as one of the liberators of mankind. Because of his contribution to the freedom of the working classes, some people have endeavoured to vilify him, to sully his reputation by resorting to all kinds of arguments with a view to bringing about his downfall in the province of Quebec. This has gone on to such an extent that people like the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay and young green-. horns who support the Bloc Populaire, when Ihey want to ruin the good name of the Hon. Mr. Godbout in the eyes of his fellow-citizens, accuse him of working hand in hand with the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, as if that were unworthy and scandalous, as if it were a humiliation to enjoy the friendship of the hon. the' Prime Minister of this country.
Mr. Speaker, far from being humiliating or shameful, for one to proclaim himself the friend of the Prime Minister of this country, I maintain that it is a great honour, because he has contributed to the supreme greatness of this country. Let the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay listen to this carefully: I say that it is providential, in these tragic times, when the world is plunged into the most terrible of all wars, a prey to the greatest scourge which mankind has ever known, I say it is providential that the government of this country should be led by a man as gifted, experienced, patriotic, broad-minded as the present Prime Minister. I challenge the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay to try to reach even to his shoe-soles.
The future Prime Minister of Canada, after extensive studies in economics, furthered his training in thought and meditation, in appropriate surroundings under the guidance of his mother, the daughter of a great patriot who joined us in 1837 in the fight for freedom.
In 1908, through the grandfather of the present postmaster general (Mr. Mulock), Sir William Mulock, he was appointed in Ottawa by the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier -to the position of editor of the Labour Gazette. Why did he take this responsible post? Because that young man had found that the labour classes-workers and farmers-did not receive justice in this country, or at least they did not receive the full measure of justice to which they were entitled. He gave such a good account of himself that the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier set up a department of labour with William Lyon Mackenzie King as minister. Since then, he has seized every opportunity to protect the interests of the working class, to fight abuses committed by capitalists.
The Budget-Mr. Dupuis

I would point out, however, Mr. Speaker, that I am not denouncing all capitalists, for there are honest capitalists. I am in favour of freedom of production, of private enterprise, and in this democratic country of ours I am in favour of allowing all young men to prosper and to develop the talents with which Providence has endowed them.
But, there are capitalists who overstep the mark and who may be compared to those who committed similar abuses in 1837 and against whom we rebelled.
That young man, destined later to become Prime Minister, devoted his life to devise and submit to the parliament of this country laws to protect the working classes, the workers, the farmers, and to prevent the trusts from making an abusive use of their capital. He had laws enacted against these capitalists, against the trusts, and he saw to it that they were complied with. For twenty-five years, he proposed laws in favour of workers, giving them the right to organize and to protect themselves against those who were not acting fairly. We shall celebrate, on the seventh of next month, the twenty-fifth anniversary of his nomination as leader of the Liberal party. And when our friends of the Bloc, or the so-called independent members or the other parties in this house suggest social legislation, they should remember once for all that they are merely following, and from a distance at that, the path blazed by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister of this country.
Mr. Speaker, it is true that if there is in the province of Quebec an insignificant minority of citizens who are against our participation in this war, who are against everything we do, who seize upon every opportunity to say that we are fighting for England, that we do not owe anything to England, that the English are not doing anything, that young Englishmen hide in this country, that we are defending England, I should like to take this opportunity to inform the house 1 and the citizens of my country, of the attitude of well-thinking citizens of Quebec and of those of the other sections of the country whose origin is the same as mine. Every human being in this world is actuated by a principle of primary importance, which is the ultimate object in life. It is the pursuit of happiness. While it is never reached, through our work, our energy, the virtues which we acquire through the principles which were instilled into our minds by our parents and by the clergy of any of the Christian denominations to which we may belong, we may hope on such solid basis to follow the path which was assigned to us by Providence.

The main factors in the achievement of such an ideal include the love of freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of action, freedom of expression, freedom for our Christian clergy to teach, freedom to own property, freedom for us all to use as we choose the reward of our labour or the income derived from whatever property we may own. Those are the great freedoms which to us mean more than anything else in the world. Since the last war, which had no character of finality, our traditional enemies prepared in stealth and through all the crafty means they could design to destroy that freedom. But, on our part, we merely relied in the first place upon the League of Nations because we always advocated peace, and secondly, in case of war, upon the Maginot line built in France, which in that country was held to be impregnable. That explains why the right hon. the Prime Minister of this country, the hon. the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power)-to whom my hon. friend from Charlevoix-Saguenay has referred-the former minister of public works, the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, whose memory we cherish, and all the government's spokesmen said, before the downfall of France: We shall wage a moderate war, Canada will send only a token army overseas. However, in June, 1940, after Czechoslovakia had been crushed and Austria invaded; after Poland had been attacked; after England and the other united nations had declared war; after all these events had occurred and France, our former mother country, with Belgium, had fallen and the French government, having taken flight to the south of their country, had been forced to ask for an armistice, where is the reasonable man who, considering the special events of these unfortunate times, would not have modified his views. The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay and the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Choquette), who honour me by listening to my remarks at this moment, had the greatest confidence in the Maginot line; however, when we saw it breached and when we witnessed the fall of France, would it not have *been sheer foolishness if, for the simple reason of stating with pride that our opinions had not changed, we had refused to alter our views with regard to our participation in the present war?
As General de Gaulle said this afternoon, in view of the easy flow of transportation, and thanks to modem inventions, the countries are all bound together; absolute sovereignty has ceased to exist in the world; all nations must help one another, and, in the present armed conflict not a single democracy was justified

The Budget-Mr. Picard
in remaining neutral. As for us Canadians of French ancestry, after our former mother country was crushed by the foe, we knew that Canada would have the same fate unless England resisted to the end; we knew perfectly that the freedoms we have enjoyed since the conquest would have been lost forever if we had not realized that our sacred duty was to take our share of this war and to help Britain who was struggling alone when all the European countries were under the nazi yoke.
Mr. Speaker, has my time expired? If the hon. members of this house will give me a few minutes more, I shall be through.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Continue.


Vincent Dupuis: When all other countries had been crushed, England, in her heroic resistance against the tyrant who had enslaved all the European territories, fought in a manner for which we should ever be thankful. The way for our country to express her gratitude in such circumstances, was to help to the limit of their resources those who had protected them against a tyrant whose victory would have meant enslavement for centuries perhaps.
(Text):


Mr. L. PHILIPPE PICARD (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of French descent, I feel it my duty, despite the lateness of the hour, in view of the speech of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) to make a few remarks. I had intended to speak on the budget, but had given way to others in order to shorten the debate, because we thought it might be over by the end of last week. I do not wish now to make the speech which I had intended to deliver. However, I feel I must rise to state emphatically to this house that the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay does not represent the views of Quebec but the views of a boisterous minority. To my mind no French Canadian does more to harm his people than one who stirs up prejudice for political purposes.
French Canadians have had long and strenuous fights to gain recognition of their rights, but, 185 years after Canada became British, seventy-seven years after confederation, it can be said that no rights are denied to our people. The fight is no more for rights; they are not denied, except by a few bigots who have no influence even with their own people. The fight is now for obtaining some of the privileges which derive from those rights. The fight may be to obtain more in the way of public appointments. I wish to point out to our friends of English descent that more harm is done to national unity by not recognizing this, and because in some
of the government services they do not give us our share, ammunition is furnished daily to ultra-nationalists and isolationists and others in Quebec who stir up prejudice. Were we treated more fairly in some quarters these people would be deprived of an argument which they bring up on the public platform in Quebec. If we did not have in some of the government services in Montreal people who do not know a word of French, although they deal daily with French people, and have to get an interpreter to sit by them when they have in front of them a Quebec farmer; if we did not have in the city of Quebec employed by the wartime prices and trade board a man who, although his French is confined to the equivalent of "yes" and "no" and a few other words, is retained under the pretext that he was formerly with a packing company-per-sonallj'-, probably, a nice chap, but one who can barely understand the people who speak to him-while such small incidents continue, although they are small they are aggravating. Every day our people meet these men and are incensed about it, and that sort of thing gives material to the ultra-nationalists to stir up prejudice.
Yet I say that it is not by raising racial prejudice that these people will help our race. It is by understanding, by discussing questions dispassionately, as in this house, with the best of faith and the best of intention to cooperate, that we can attain results. I repeat that it is by mutual understanding that these results will be achieved, not by going on the platform, as the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay has done in the present election, and trying to raise racial prejudice.
When hon. members hear such statements as have been made by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay and are occasionally heard in the Quebec house from some other members, they may have a small idea of the difficulty experienced by those of us who are trying, in order to bring unity and harmony in this country, to interpret English Canada to French Canada and French Canada to English Canada. On the one side we are faced with the intolerance of certain of the public servants who do not want to give us what is our share; on the other side we are faced with the intolerance of bigots of our own people who try to excite others against the English majority, and are now about to enter upon a campaign of anti-Semitism. Day by day some of these people, instead of granting to others the tolerance they ask for themselves, get up on the platform and make such statements as those which were made at Ste. Anne by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay. Nothing can be more harmful. I repeat, and I should
The Budget-Mr. Picard

like some of the "patriots" of my own race to understand it, that there is nothing more harmful than statements of that kind. When they are taken to task, as has been done so aptly to-night by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton), they do not deny it, but they hide behind a smokescreen and enter upon a tirade on political lines. That is what we have to face, those of us who understand that the country is larger than the limits of Quebec, that our country is Canada, extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific, that we as Canadians have a great role to play.
What are we faced with when we go .to Quebec? We meet the kind of propaganda, the counterpart of which is also found in other provinces and of which oftentimes we have evidence in this house in certain quarters when statements prejudicial to our people are made, and on a vastly larger scale, outside this house. If Canada is to enter again the era of intolerance, what of our future? I appeal to those who are trying to work for national unity. There are some such, I would say, in each of the political parties in this house, for I would not wish to monopolize for my own party all claim to goodness.in that respect. However, I believe that as far as Quebec and French Canada generally is concerned it has received more comprehension, more understanding and vastly fairer treatment from the present administration than it has from the friends of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay, the people whom he supported and whom he tried to elect in 1940.
Before resuming my seat

and I have promised that I will not speak at length-I wish to state emphatically that the statements of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay made at Ste. Anne, the statements he has repeated to-night, and others of the same type which are spread daily in Quebec, are not the views of the majority of the province. They are nevertheless a very dangerous current of opinion, and I appeal at the same time to my friends of other groups to try to understand our people. Those of us who are endeavouring to act as a go-between try to get the people of both sides to understand one another and to make compromises. Here again I repeat that never has the province of Quebec or the French Canadian minority in this country experienced fairer treatment than by the present administration, not in the way of favouritism, but in the way of fairness and equity.
The attitude of mind which we find in certain people on platforms in Quebec, that attitude of intolerance which is to be found in some people in other parts of the country, would not have the influence it has were it not for the press of the English language which, whenever a member in Quebec makes a foolish or rash statement, prints in big broad lines, "French Canadian says this"; but 'when, the next day, somebody makes a constructive speech, he will get two lines on the last page, if he gets that much. The same thing is true so far as our French nationalist press in Quebec is concerned. When a crackpot of some sort like Shields gets up and makes a crazy statement it is put all over the province. I admit that the fault is on both sides. I appeal to both sides now while there is yet time, not to carry on with the id on of prejudice and intolerance, but to work together in a spirit of harmony for the greatness of Canada.
Mr. S. II. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre): Mr. Speaker, had I caught your eye an hour ago I might have spoken for twenty minutes in this debate. However, I appreciate the desire of the government to conclude this debate to-night if at all possible; therefore I shall take only a few minutes in the hope that the debate can be brought to a close.
First of all I should like to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) and others who have associated themselves with him in his fervent plea for racial tolerance and understanding in this country. There is such a thing as a liberal democratic tradition. That liberal, of course, has a small "L". Those who share in that tradition are, as the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard) has just said, not confined to any one party. The fact is that on all sides of this house there are members who value deeply the ideals and the concept of humanity as stated to-night by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, as well as by some of the other hon. members who have spoken. I felt encouraged when the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George was speaking in connection with another point that is in the minds of some of us. I refer to the fact that in due course I hope we are to have an opportunity to do something about the miscarriage of this principle which occurred in connection with bill 135 some time ago; and I am glad to feel from what has been said to-night by a Liberal member that there are in that party a great many who share his view and who in the liberal democratic tradition will join with some of the others of us in what we hope will happen when that bill comes before us.

The Budget-Mr. Knowles
However, with an eye on the clock and remembering my promise, what I should have liked to have time to do would be to make a contribution-I feel it would be that-to the debate that we had earlier this evening on the question of New Zealand. Had I the time I would have given the house the information contained in material that I have in my hand which was prepared not by the government of New Zealand or any opposition group trying to discredit that country, but rather by the International Labour Office at Montreal. This material sets out in factual form the actual social benefits that accrue to the people of that dominion. To give even the headings of this material that I have would take more time than there is left at my disposal. But on some future occasion perhaps that opportunity will be presented, and I should like to give that material when that opportunity comes.
The point I wish to make has in fact been made by some of the others already, namely, that you get nowhere in this kind of argument when you attempt to compare tax rates and national debt and all that kind of thing. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) pointed out this afternoon, national debt has to be set against the ability of the country to carry it; it has to be set against the standard of employment and standard of living generally. Also, when you look at tax rates you have to find out what proportion of the total taxes collected by the country, not just the taxes of one kind, but what proportion of the total taxes are levied according to ability to pay; but even after you have done all that in the most complete statistical form it is still just about impossible to array two systems against each other in that way. I feel, however, that there is merit in looking at the things that the people of New Zealand actually have in the way of complete social security benefits, and on another occasion I shall, because I think hon. members should have it, place a digest of it on Hansard.
There is one other reference that I shall call to the attention of hon. members. This time it is a book from New Zealand entitled " New Zealand, the Working Democracy," by Walter Nash. I refer hon. members in particular to
appendix 3 of this book on pages 318 and 319, in which there is set out in tabulated form the benefits that were paidl to New Zealand people under the social security laws in effect when the labour government came into power in 1935 and the benefits in effect in 1943. This table answers one of the arguments made to-night.
Hon. members have already made many comments about our having so much to say about New Zealand. We have no apology to make for that. As a matter of fact we feel we have done the people of this country a service in printing by the thousands such a speech as that which was made in Ottawa in 1941 before the committee on reconstruction and rehabilitation of this house by Walter Nash, a speech in which he set out the things that they were doing in that country. I myself had something to do with that reprinting in Manitoba and I know the orders that kept coming in amazed us. They showed the interest of the people in what was going on down there. We feel that we are doing a service to the people of this country in pointing out what has been done in that sister dominion. As a matter of fact I am reminded of the words of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), who spoke in this present debate on June 30 as reported at page 4386 of Hansard. He said:
As one who was born in the same country, indeed in the same neighbourhood, may I pay my humble tribute to one of Scotland's sons who has made a name for himself by his public service to New Zealand and thereby to mankind.
I feel that in line with what the hon. member said on that occasion, rather than what he said to-night, we are doing a service to the people of Canada in making known to them as widely as we can the service that has been rendered to their people by the labour government of New Zealand.	.
Main motion (Mr. Ilsley) agreed to on division.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
474S
Address oj General de Gaulle


[Stage Direction]
Parliament Hill, Ottawa, July 11, 1944
(General de Gaidle was welcomed by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister oj Canada, and Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent, Minister oj Justice)
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Your Excellency, Your Royal Highness, ladies and gentlemen: We are met this morning to extend to General Charles de Gaulle a hearty welcome to Canada.
To you, General de Gaulle, as a French soldier, as a leader in the fight for world freedom, and as representing the unconquerable spirit of France, I am proud to offer this welcome in the name of the government and people of Canada.
Here, in the presence of the representative of the crown, are assembled before you the representatives in parliament of the Canadian people. Here also are assembled residents of our capital city. All are proud to honour the man who in the darkest days of this war rallied the forces of Free France, and who to-day is the symbol of the determination of the French nation to restore its freedom and greatness.
In welcoming General de Gaulle to our country, I can speak for the whole of Canada. In no country has the sympathy for France in her agony been deeper than in our own; in none have the prayers for her liberation been more fervent; in none has the growth of French resistance been watched with greater pride and admiration.
For the visit to Canada of General de Gaulle, the hour could not have been more happily chosen. At this moment, French and Canadian soldiers are fighting side by side in Italy. On the battle fields of Normandy, Canadian fighting men form part of the great allied striking force. Amidst these scenes of conflict and triumph there has been a proud renewal of the historic association between the people of France and Canada.
General de Gaulle comes to us fresh from his visit to Normandy. What emotion he must have felt as he set foot once more on the soil

of France! What a thrill of pride was felt in many Canadain homes when we learned that the first troops he met in Normandy were men of Canada's army! It was from Normandy that the first Canadians came to make a new home and found a new nation in the new world. We rejoice that Canada's fighting -men are helping to-day to free the ancestral home of so many of our people.
France is not only the ancestral home of many Canadians; in France are many shrines sacred to all Canadians. The Somme, Arras, Cambrai, Vimy, and a host of scenes of battle a generation ago, are names that will live forever in our history. In fighting for the liberation of France, Canada is fighting for what is truly a part of herself.
Within France a living spirit of resistance has revealed itself in countless acts of heroism and sacrifice. Behind the enemy's lines the French resistance has been undermining German power. Since the landings in Normandy, underground forces have been quick to strike. On all sides there is evidence that in the hearts of the French people there still burns an unquenchable fire of "liberty, equality and fraternity" which no dishonourable betrayal within, or fiendish tortures from without, have been able to extinguish.
In the revival of French military power, inside and outside France, General de Gaulle's role has been of incomparable importance.
In these years of war, we in Canada have sought to do our part to keep alive the flame of French civiliation. We have continued to cherish our admiration for France and all she has meant to freedom. WTe have never lost our faith that the greatness of France would be restored. The people of Canada are proud to have their part in the memorable events in which the liberation of France is being accomplished.
.TTJLY 11, 1944
Address oj General de Gaulle
In thanking you for your visit and in wishing you all that is best in your valorous leadership, I ask you, General de Gaulle, to take back with you an assurance from the Canadian people to the people of France. Tell them that all Canada is united in support of the determination of the allied nations to drive the enemy from the soil of France. Tell them we are not less united in the determination to destroy the power of Germany to terrorize Europe, and to end, once and for all, Germany's capacity to disturb the peace of the world. Tell them that we are with them heart and soul in these days of suffering and1 sacrifice; and tell them to fight on, for we are confident the day is drawing near when we shall be sharing with them their joys and triumphs in the supreme hour of victory.
Hon. LOUIS S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) (Translation): Your Excellency, Your Royal Highness, ladies and gentlemen: We are met this morning to extend to General Charles de Gaulle a hearty welcome to Canada. I am proud to associate myself with the right hon. Prime Minister to extend to you, General de Gaulle, a hearty welcome in the name of the government and the people of Canada. We welcome in you the great Frenchman who defends his country, a leader in the fight for world freedom, and a representative of the unconquerable spirit of France.
Here, in the presence of the representative of the crown, are assembled before you the representatives in parliament of the Canadian people. Here also are assembled residents of our capital city. All are proud to honour the man who in the darkest days of this war rallied the forces of Free France, and who to-day is the symbol of the determination of the French nation to restore its freedom and greatness.
In welcoming General de Gaulle to our country, I can speak for the whole of Canada. In no country has the sympathy for France in her agony been deeper than in our own, in none have the prayers for her liberation been more fervent; in none has the growth of French resistance been watched with greater pride and admiration.
For the visit to Canada of General de Gaulle, the hour could not have been more happily chosen. At this moment, French and Canadian soldiers are fighting side by side in Italy. On the battle fields of Normandy, Canadian fighting men form part of the great allied striking force. Amidst these scenes of conflict and triumph there has been a proud renewal of the historic association between the people of France and Canada.
General de Gaulle comes to us fresh from his visit to Normandy. What emotion he must have felt as he set foot once more on the soil of France! What a thrill of pride was felt in many Canadian homes when we learned that the first troops he met in Normandy were men of Canada's army! It was from Normandy that the first Canadians came to make a new home and found a new nation in the new world. We rejoice that Canada's fighting men are helping to-day to free the ancestral home of so many of our people.
France is not only the ancestral home of many Canadians; in France are many shrines sacred to all Canadians. The Somme, Arras, Cam-brai, Vkny, and a host of scenes of battle a generation ago, are names that will live forever in our history. In fighting for the liberation of France, Canada is fighting for what is truly a part of herself.
Within France a living spirit of resistance has revealed itself in countless acts of heroism and sacrifice. Behind the enemy's lines the French resistance has been undermining German power. Since the landings in Normandy, underground forces have been quick to strike. On all sides, there is evidence that in the hearts of the French people there still burns an unquenchable fire of "liberty, equality and fraternity" which no dishonourable betrayal within, or fiendish tortures from without, have been able to extinguish.
In the revival of French military power, inside and outside France, General de Gaulle's role has been of incomparable importance.
In these years of war, we in Canada have sought to do our part to keep alive the flame of French civilization. We have continued to cherish our admiration for France and all she has meant to freedom. We have never lost our faith that the greatness of France would be restored. The people of Canada are proud to have their part in the memorable events in which the liberation of France is being accomplished.
In thanking you for your visit and in wishing you all that is best in your valorous leadership, I ask you, General de Gaulle, to take back with you an assurance from the Canadian people to the people of France. Tell them that all Canada is united in support of the determination of the allied nations to drive the enemy from the soil of France. Tell them we are not less united in the determination to destroy the power of Germany to terrorize Europe, and to end, once and for all, Germany's capacity to disturb the peace of the world. Tell them that we are with them heart and soul in these days of suffering and sacrifice; and tell them to fight on, for we are
Address of General de Gaulle

confident the day is drawing near when we shall be sharing with them their joys and triumphs in the supreme hour of victory.
General CHARLES de GAULLE (Translation) :	The moving welcome that you have
accorded me seems to come from a double inspiration. No doubt you wish first of all to testify to the comforting solidarity which unites in the world across frontiers, oceans and continents, the men who fight together for liberty.
No doubt you have also judged it well to show here that France has not been, is not and never will be forgotten.
Well, gentlemen, I wish to say that for France, Canada is a dearer friend than ever.
Certainly the past accounts for a great part of this mutual sympathy. On the one hand your people, who have never been opposed to ours in any historical event; your people, whose men have always opened their minds and their hearts to the ideas and sentiments which have elevated the French spirit your people, in the veins of many of whom flows blood which has come from France, and on the other hand my country which remembers having been the first to carry Christian and European civilization to this immense land, my country which has never ceased to follow and admire the magnificent efforts of your ancestors and of your kinsmen in their struggle to bring about prosperity through the development of the natural resources of the country and to develop the minds of the people intellectually, spiritually and morally in order to create a state of full consciousness of its own valour and in loyalty to the Commonwealth of which it is a part. Your people and my country- may powerful bonds link them throughout time.
Nothing seemed more natural to old France than to see Canadian soldiers struggling on her soil for the same cause in the preceding world war and to bury reverently in her soil those whose heroic memory is symbolized by Yimy.
And let me say here that nothing has seemed more moving to the man who has the honour to speak to you than to have seen the Canadian Corps engaged on the banks of the Liri River in Italy recently side by side with the French army and to find first upon the beaches of Normandy, where they took a foothold at the beginning of the great battle, a fine and brave Canadian regiment.
(Text):
But, ladies and gentlemen, if the past holds so many special reasons why France and Canada should understand one another, I may say confidently that the present has added a great many more! It is in a time of crisis
fMr. St. Laurent.]
that friendship proves itself. Well, during these difficult years France has passed through many trying days. Submerged by the enemy, stunned by the disaster, betrayed or deceived by those who, having seized the state, did not use either their power or their reputation except to plunge it and maintain it in the shame of debasement, France might for a short time have presented to malevolent or superficial observers the appearance of one of those falls from which a nation does not rise when she has accepted it. But others, better informed because they were more favourable, quickly realized that my country, in the depths of its misery, refused to give up. These understood very soon that the determination, the hope, the spirit of the French people remained firmly at the side of those who refused to lower the flag and who at all costs intended to maintain their country in the camp of liberty.
I will not try to describe what such an enterprise has cost in effort, losses, often bitter disappointments, for the French who in every domain, whether it be in the interior of France or outside the country, have carried on this fierce struggle for independence and for national unity.
But it is my duty to say what comfort and support they have found in Canada, in its government and in its people. The French aviators whom you have trained here; the French forces whom you have helped to arm; the French prisoners whom you have fed and clothed; above all, perhaps, the innumerable French who, in their suffering and their fight, heard the echo of Canadian sympathy, are a witness to this fact.
To-day France is standing upright and united. If the living friendship which she has found everywhere in Canada has contributed to sustain and lift my country during her trials and thus has materially and morally strengthened the coalition of Free Peoples against their bitter enemies, to-day it becomes a very important factor in the task of reorganizing the world which will come out of this terrible war. At present, victory flushes the horizon. We feel in the hearts of the peoples who have united to assure the triumph of right and liberty, a tremendous aspiration towards a better future. For, if so many men and women in a free world have voluntarily suffered, fought, worked, if so many good and brave soldiers have died without a murmur, if so many towns and villages have offered themselves up in sacrifice for our common salvation, it would not be tolerable, it would not even be possible, that from so much death, sacrifice and ruin a greater and better humanity would not emerge.

Privilege-Mr. Lacombe
But, in a world where all intercourse has unceasingly tightened the interdependence of nations at the same time as that of individuals, how is it possible to conceive human progress if not within a system of real international cooperation? For the same reasons that a single war common to all covers the whole of our earth which has become so small, the peace which we will have to make must be a single peace, common to all. For the same reasons that what is being thought, produced, manufactured anywhere in the world has inevitable consequences upon the destiny of the most obscure combatant, thus to-morrow, the condition of man in the world, whatever his race, country or activity, will depend in some measure upon what will be achieved anywhere in the political, economic, social, spiritual, intellectual and moral spheres. In other words, it is impossible to imagine either assured security or solid and lasting progress for any nation or any individual if all nations among themselves, or within each nation, all citizens among themselves, are not willing to consent to work together in normal brotherhood.
France, emerging step by step from her temporary misfortunes, France enlightened by her suffering, France intending no longer to divide, but to unite her passion for progress and traditional wisdom, states herself ready to play her full part in this universal task. She is certain to find, at her side and in agreement with her, all the peoples who know her well- and first among them she will find Canada.
Wednesday, July 12, 1944