1947-05-09

[Stage Direction]
Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre) presented the first report of the special committee on radio, broadcasting, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table P.C. 1668, amending the regulations under the. Veterans Rehabilitation' Act. The effect is to allow pensioners in receipt of training benefit to be paid full pension and full training allowance. Hitherto a. disability pensioner on training benefit has received less than the combined maximum.
Where there are dependents the pensioner will receive the full augmentation of training allowances applicable to dependents as heretofore and the total amount of pension to which he is entitled as a single man.
This amendment will ease the lot of disabled veterans attending university or other training courses and will, we hope, encourage others to take training.
The regulations permit outside earnings up to $75 a month, but the disabled veteran is less able than his physically fit companion to take advantage of this legislation. By allowing him to receive the full amount of both pension and allowances, we remove what has proved to be a real handicap upon the pensioner.
Mr. FULTON:: May I ask the minister when the order in council which he has just tabled will become effective, and whether its provisions are retroactive in effect?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: The provisions are effective forthwith, but they will not be retroactive.
_	FUEL OIL



STATEMENT ON DOMESTIC SUPPLY POSITION

["I shall investigate the situation. Certainly it is not the policy of the department to cut off any veterans' preferences, and if anything has happened to that end I shall see that it is corrected."]
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I should make a statement on fuel oil. Last summer I convened a meeting of the various oil producing and distributing companies for the purpose of reviewing the domestic fuel oil situation. Hon. members will recall that at that time there was very serious concern about Our coal supply, arising partly because of the coal strike in the United States and partly because of the shipping strike on the great lakes.
The oil companies agreed that if they were given assistance in the creation of storage facilities, they could meet the increasing demand for domestic fuel oil. Assistance was rendered by the steel controller to the oil companies and to the burner manufacturers. As a result, a considerable number of heating units were installed in domestic establishments throughout Canada,
I am now advised that the fuel oil supply for the next heating season is definitely limited, and that the producers and distributors will not be able to cope with the greatly increased demand. In fact it has been stated by some of the companies that there may be difficulty in providing oil to existing customer.
The demand for fuel oil has become so acute that even were it possible to provide substantially increased storage facilities, it is most unlikely that adequate supplies of oil could be imported or produced.
The government has no control at present over the production and. distribution of fuel oil. Responsibility for supply rests wholly on the oil companies and. their agents. I am bringing the matter to the attention of the house in order that the Canadian public may be warned of the situation that obtains. In our view, any householder who is proposing to instal an oil burner or oil burning space heater in his home should first make sure that he has a firm contract for the supply of fuel oil directly with the manufacturer or importer of fuel oil, or a contract that otherwise clearly ensures a supply of fuel oil from these suppliers.

Cement



Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to answer a question asked by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser): "Can the minister tell the house what is being done by the department to see that veterans are able to secure cement in order to construct their houses?" As my hon. friend knows, veterans have full priority in obtaining materials for house building. Examination of our records indicates that we have no applications from veterans for cement priorities in the Peterborough area. On a national basis cement is not in as short supply as formerly, and if the veterans in Peterborough will apply to the controller of priorities for assistance it will be forthcoming.


Mr. FRASER:: May I ask the minister a question on that? The veteran is allowed priority if he has his house 50 per cent completed. What about the cement for the first 50 per cent?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may tell my hon. friend that today the veteran has full priority in house building. The 50 per cent requirement has been eliminated.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Further in reference to the statement made by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply that full preference was given to the veteran building his own house, will the minister tell the house when the regulation was changed from 50 per cent to full priority?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot say the exact date, but I shall be glad to look it up. The notice does not seem to have received wide attention; therefore I shall make a statement in the house.


Mr. STEPHENSON:: May I address a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply? In the course of his statement he made reference to full priority being given to veterans. It is possible that veterans may have to get their nails from the local hardware stores. Will something be done to see that equitable distribution of nails is made to the hardware stores so that the veterans can get nails?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Under the system of full priority the veteran will get priority on nails. Arrangements will be made to see that nails are available to him.


TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES VANCOUVER AIRPORT-PROPOSAL TO TRANSFER FACILITIES TO ABBOTSFORD
Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) asked whether the Pacific terminal of Trans-Canada Air Lines could be moved from Vancouver airport to Abbotsford. I am afraid that the citizens of Vancouver would object, and I cannot promise him that that will be done.


REDISTRIBUTION
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: With the leave of the house I present to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in parliament assembled the petition of a number of Canadian and British subjects residing in Yukon, petitioning parliament that the district of Mackenzie and Northwest Territories be not included in or added to the electoral district of Yukon, and stating their reasons for the .petition.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Will the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply take this question as a notice? A report has just reached me that returned men in New Westminster and the Fraser Valley are complaining that priority credits have been eliminated and that all subsidiary preference given to them at the beginning of the year is now gone. Many of them are being cut off supplies.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall investigate the situation. Certainly it is not the policy of the department to cut off any veterans' preferences, and if anything has happened to that end I shall see that it is corrected.



PATENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 16, to amend the Patent Act, 1935.
Mr. GRAI DON:: May I ask the Secretary of State whether the amendments which the

The Budget-Mr. McCann

senate have made to this bill are acceptable to the government? In addition perhaps he might explain the change of date, which I notice in various places, and which corrects or alters the date the government originally proposed.


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: When the bill was first introduced it was to provide extension of time for the taking of certain actions required by the Patent Act. The bill has not passed as rapidly as had been hoped when it was first introduced, with the result that it is now necessary to extend the dates. The amendments provide the full time which it is believed should be given to the holders of patents. The government is prepared to accept the amendments.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, May 8, consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell (Muskoka-Ontario), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, my sole purpose in taking part in this budget debate this afternoon is to refute and correct some extravagant and inaccurate statements made in connection with departmental expenditures, statements made by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) during the debate on Mai' 6, and to answer a charge made by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) when he spoke in this debate on May
7.	However, before dealing with these two specific subjects I wish to make a few general observations on the budget as I see it, and as have been conveyed to me by my constituents since the budget was delivered.
It may well be said that "Solomon in all his wisdom" could not fashion a budget that would please everyone. In times like these it is difficult for governments in framing taxation policy to be both popular and wise. The government and the Minister of Finance, I submit, deserve to be congratulated on both counts.
This budget has been acclaimed as a popular budget, and the government has shown courage and statesmanship in the policy which it has pursued. The general reaction to the

budget has been favourable if one can take as a criterion the press comments and public conversation which one hears from day to day. It is true that there have been a few blasts of criticism in the house from the opposition. In the main they have been ineffectual and they have only helped to confirm in the public mind the merits of the proposals put forth by the government.
Interest in this budget centres of course upon the changes in taxation. This budget gives nine out of every ten taxpayers a 29 per cent reduction in income tax. Indeed, a great number get much more than that, up to as high as 54 per cent in the lowest brackets, and all told $110 million has been lopped off the collective income tax payments. As compared with the previous rates of 1942, the new rates announced represent an over-all reduction of 51 per cent in the total personal income tax burden of the Canadian people.
Tax relief has been given where tax relief was most needed, to the earners of wages or of medium salaries. I think it can be safely said that our middle class population and people on fixed salaries benefited less from war conditions and suffered more from war taxes than any other class. The budget is framed to ease the burden on those in this income category, which includes young professional and scientific men.
Relief too, and often more substantial relief, has gone to the wage earner. Under the budget of last year 550,000 workers and recipients of small incomes were absolved from taxes. That was brought about by raising the income tax exemption of $750 for single people and $1,500 for married people, which was made applicable from January 1.


An hon. MEMBER:: What did you do about them this year?


James Joseph McCann: I will tell you if you listen. Just be patient. There have been no further changes in exemptions, but under the present proposed reductions a married man with two children who earns $1,800 a year will pay this year only $16. Surely this cannot be considered unreasonable. In a great many instances the amounts of reduction have been equivalent to a ten cent per hour rise in wages.
The opposition have been urging the raising of income tax exemptions. It is very evident that they have followed this policy with an eye purely to the political rather than to economic consequences. It is true that there have been no immediate gifts for business. The excess profits tax remains for the present but will go at the end of the calendar year. The corporation tax remains at 30 per

The Budget-Mr. McCann
cent now compared with 40 per cent throughout the war years. Business men may complain, but they should try to remember that under existing taxes business has been doing very well. The corporation tax may be high and the excess profits tax high, but the fact remains that even after paying corporation taxes and providing for excess profits, most of our business enterprises have been showing substantial profits and doing far better than before the war, and in many cases much better than during the war years. Their statements prove what I have said. Furthermore, business must remember that the government has to find its money somewhere, that in the long run nothing could be more harmful to business than for the government to have an unbalanced budget.
This year we have been in the very happy position of having a surplus of S354 million.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where did it come from?


James Joseph McCann: Where did it come from? From taxation and from the sale of some surplus materials we had left over from the war and which gentlemen opposite of your party wanted as gifts to the municipalities to which you belong. In addition, we have been able to reduce the public debt by S354 million. I submit that that is good business and that that is the policy which should be followed when times are as good as they are at present.
A nation is no different from an individual, and any individual wdio does not attempt to liquidate his debts when his earning power is good, when times are good, has not the first rudiments of business instinct.
I have been in this house now, Mr. Speaker, for a period of twelve years. I have listened to a dozen or more budgets, and I think I can honestly say that this is the first time I have listened to a budget when there has not been one cent of new taxation. That I think should be borne in mind.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would remind the house that the hon. member who has the floor should not be interrupted without his permission. Moreover, anyone who wishes to interrupt an hon. member should rise and ask permission to do so.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer for a moment to the amendments made by the official opposition and the C.C.F. party. I submit that the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of ways and means ought to be passed unanimously by this 83166-186J
house. Furthermore, I do not think that so much time should be spent on this budget debate. In the British house the debate on the budget was completed and the budget items put through all stages of committee in a period of three days. We could well emulate the example which the British house has set.
With reference to the budget amendments that have been made, what is the position should these amendments carry? It means that the government goes out of business and before a new government can come in or the same government comes back it will be impossible to implement the provisions of the budget which give reductions to hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country- reductions which come into effect on the first of July. I submit to you that the opposition and the C.C.F. party, in their amendment and in their subamendment, and in voting as they will, deny to the people of the country, the taxpayers, the right to these tax concessions which have been put into effect.
Now, Mr. Speaker, may I revert to the matter with which I said I would deal, the statements of the hon. member for Peterborough West. In his speech on May 6, in dealing with a great variety of subjects, he spoke of circuses and of his experience in carrying water for elephants. This may be the background for his statement. He likes dealing with big things. He compared the national film board to an elephant, and a white elephant at that. He evidently concedes some purity in the organization.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There is very little.


James Joseph McCann: He said this year the white elephant is asking for $819,409 more than last year. This statement is inaccurate and extravagant. Had the hon. gentleman examined the estimates he would have found that actually the estimates for the present fiscal year are $211,274 less than a year ago.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Not on ordinary expenses.


James Joseph McCann: The government policy in regard to the national film board is one of retrenchment, both as to expenditure and as to personnel. The hon. gentleman is more than $1,000,000 out. He must have known by now that his statements were wrong.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: He has been listening to the minister of reconstruction (Mr. Howe).


James Joseph McCann: He has had ample time during the last three days to make a correction, but he has not had the good grace to do so.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is not under ordinary expenditure.
The Budget-Mr. McCann


James Joseph McCann: On many occasions I have heard the hon. gentleman on a question of privilege correct slight inaccuracies when they concerned himself or his party, which he had a perfect right to do. But when it comes to a matter of wrongly accusing the government or an agency of the government of overexpenditure or extravagance, apparently he is content to have it broadcast from one end of the country to the other.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: As it should be.


James Joseph McCann: I am not averse to
criticism


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Because you are absolutely wrong.


James Joseph McCann: But I do suggest that the hon. gentleman should have some regard for accuracy and not make such extravagant and untrue statements as he did on May 6.
Now I come to the speech made by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simooe.
Mr. MACKENZIE That was not a speech.
Mr. MeCANiN: He too evidently thought he was at the circus, but not in the capacity of carrying water. In fact he appeared to be the main spieler in front of the big tent inside the main gate where they keep the elephants.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Maybe that is why
Hansard confused him with the minister of reconstruction.


James Joseph McCann: He spoke of reckless extravagance and inefficiency with no specific instances to back up his contention. He even went further, Mr. Speaker; he made a direct charge, and I quote from Hansard of May 7, 1947, page 2891. Talking of expenditures, he said:
Last year the taxation burden upon the people was very heavy. I realize, however, that you cannot decrease taxation so long as there is inefficiency and reckless extravagance in government; and, Mr. Speaker,-*
Here are his words.
-I charge this government with being reckless in their extravagance in maintaining a bureaucracy which was built up, evidently through necessity in time of war, and adding to a regiment of civil servants which should have been decreased instead of increased.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is true.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Listen to the facts.


Gordon Graydon: Whose speech is this?


James Joseph McCann: In refutation of that charge, and in view of the not infrequent recurrence during recent months of inquiries relating to the fluctuations of total personnel in the civil service since 1939, it was felt that a brief but comprehensive review of the situation might

contribute to a better understanding of this whole question by hon. members as well as by the general public. The reason I speak as I do, Mr. Speaker, and in this capacity, is that I was chairman of a committee of a cabinet which investigated the matter of civil service reduction.
During the war years the civil service grew from 52,000 in 1939 to a peak of 142,000 at May 1, 1945. This increase was largely due to the creation of purely wartime departments such as munitions and supply, wartime prices and trade board, national war services, and to the civilian complement of our greatly augmented armed forces. Part of this increase can alsc be attributed to the additional war duties that were undertaken by many of the old established departments. It must be further borne in mind that during this period the total strength of the so-called servicing departments such as finance,, comptroller of the treasury, public works, civil service commission and so on, was necessarily in direct proportion to the over-all strength of the service.
Following the cessation of hostilities in Europe in May, 1945, there was a steady decline in the number of civil servants to a total of 129,000 in January, 1946. This period of retrenchment was followed by one of expansion until, in October, 1946, the total strength of the civil service had all but reached the wartime peak of 1945. Anomalous as this may appear on the surface, there is a logical explanation in fact. As a result of new legislation and post-war reorganization, new departments such as national health and welfare and veterans affairs were being organized and staffed more quickly than certain war departments could be contracted. Further, a more rapid rate of demobilization than had been anticipated in the armed forces necessitated in many instances the taking on of civilians to fill posts normally held by military personnel.
It was at this time, in September of last year, that the civil service reduction programme which had been instituted in the early summer of 1945, was reorganized under the immediate direction of a special ministerial committee. Surveys, conducted by competent authorities, indicated that if vigorous and determined steps were taken by the various departments, reductions of from 15,000 to 20,000 might be effected by the end of the fiscal year without impairing efficiency or interfering unduly with the performance of necessary services.
The objective set for April 1, 1947, has in fact been exceeded since the total net reduction during this six-month period has been slightly more than 21,000 or, on a percentage basis, approximately fifteen per cent.

The Budget-Mr. McCann
Total staff fluctuations since 1939 have therefore been as follows:
1939	 52,000
War peak (May, 1945)	 142,000
January 1, 1946	 129,000
October 1, :1946	 142,000
April 1, 1947	 121,000


Mr. FLEMING:: Will the minister permit a question?


James Joseph McCann: It should be noted that the figures I have quoted represent, as accurately as possible and to the nearest thousand, the total number of civil servants on the government payrolls at a given moment, and that they do not include casual employees paid by the hour, revenue postmasters, and crown companies personnel.
With the consent of the house I propose to place on Hansard a detailed table showing, in parallel columns, the wartime employment peak in all government departments and the total staff in these same departments on April 1 of this year.
The table follows:
Total number of civil servants by departments I. Government departments in existence prior to the war
April 1, 1947
190 612 5,342 571 287 6,317 781
82
10
39
16.496
4,950
7,498
3,314
18
55
1,227
425
7,306
3,998
3,658
2,119
War peak
(a)	Servicing
Auditor General	 386
Finance	 758
Compt. of Treasury		9,352
Civil Service Commission.	733
Royal Canadian Mint....	296
Public Works	 6,058
Printing Bureau	 821
(b)	Administrative
House of Commons		301
Senate	 88
Library of Parliament....	27
Chief Electoral Officer....	23
Governor General's
Secretary	 14
Privy Council	 52
Int. Joint Commission...,	6
(c)	Revenue departments
Post Office	 14,495
Customs and Excise (NR)	4,473
Income Tax (NR)		6,599
(d)	Trade and diplomatic
Trade and Commerce (1)	1,775
External Affairs	 436
(e)	Others
Archives	 46
Farmers Creditors'
Arrangement Act (Fin.)	25
Tariff Board (Fin.)		20
Insurance	 61
Justice	 1,216
Secretary of State	 471
R.C.M.P	 508
Transport (2)	 8,030
Agriculture	 3,867
Fisheries	 979
Mines and Resources ....	3,591
National Research Council	1.486
Labour	 2.813
II. New departments established since 1939
(a)	Social services
Health and Welfare	
2,300	2,249Unemployment Insurance.	10,185	8,077National Film Board	787	662(b)	Veterans' servicesVeterans Affairs	
8,102	19,253Soldiers' Settlement and Veterans' Land Act....	641	1,716(c)	Air Transport Board..	54	41
III. War departments being consolidated or liquidated
(a)	Defence Depts. (3)....	68,376	15,762(b)	National War Services.	2,041	4
(e) Wartime Prices and
Trade Board	
5,726	3,920(d)	Reconstruction and Supply	
14,540	902Total	
(4)	120,946(1)	Includes Board of Grain Commissioners, Canadian Government Elevators.(2)	Includes Board of Transport Commissioners.(3)	Includes Army, Navy, Air Force Inspection Board.(4)	In view of the fact that various departments reached their respective employment peaks on different dates, the sum total of this column would be greater than the over-all civil service employment peak, which never exceeded 142,000.
Although the present total number of civil servants substantially exceeds the 1939 total, this is to a large extent an inevitable consequence of many factors, amongst the more important of which are the following:
1.	The implementation of new legislation since the beginning of the war. The unemployment insurance commission, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the national film board, the air transport board and the Department of Veterans Affairs are virtually new departments which have come into being as a direct consequence of new legislation. Indeed, the total personnel employed in those departments on April 1 this year numbered 31,998. This is an increase of 28,515 over the 3,483 persons employed in related services in 1939. The departments then were pensions, national health, and the national film board.
2.	In several instances new or amended legislation has also resulted in the creation of new branches or divisions in old established departments, such as the citizenship branch in the Department of the Secretary of State, certain branches of the Department of Agriculture, and so on.
3.	There have been considerable increases since 1939 in the staffs of the Department of National Revenue, the Post Office Department, the Department of National Defence, the Department of Trade and Commerce and in external affairs. These increases, however, are governed by uncontrollable factors of revenue, national security, foreign trade and
The Budget-Mr. McCann

international relations, the requirements for all of which have grown substantially since the beginning of the war.
4.	As I have pointed out, the size of the servicing departments such as public works, comptroller of the treasury and the civil service commission is mathematically related to the size of the civil service as a whole.
These are but a few of the reasons that illustrate the difficulty of estimating even approximately the normal peacetime strength of the public service. The civil service will continue to be reduced on a graduated scale, largely through diminishing veterans' requirements and the final liquidation of remaining wartime departments.
In the table which I have placed on the record, showing the total number of civil servants by departments, and giving the war peak and personnel as of April 1, 1947, it will be noted that the war departments which are being consolidated or liquidated include the defence departments, which had a civilian war peak of 68,376, and today have 15,762, including army, navy, air force and inspection boards. The further war departments being liquidated include national war services, which at the war peak had a personnel of 2,041 and now has four. During the war the Department of Munitions and Supply had a peak personnel of 14,540; today the Department of Reconstruction and Supply has a personnel of 902.
Therefore I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this statement is a complete refutation of the accusation made by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). I suggest that the charge he made had no basis in fact, and has been entirely answered by this statement.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the minister said my figures were wrong but if he will look at page 29 of the estimates for 1947-48 he will see that the 1947-48 estimate for the film board is given as $2,078,874, while the amount for 1946-47 is shown as $1,259,465. The increase, as shown in these estimates, is $819,409, which was the figure I gave. I want to say this is just a sample of what happens in connection with the film board.


James Horace King: I would like to remind the hon. member for Peterborough West that an hon. member has not the right to speak twice on the same matter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wonder if I might ask the minister a question before he takes his seat. Has he the figure of the number of

employees of boards outside the government departments, including those of crown companies?


James Joseph McCann: If I had them I would have given them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why were they not
included? The figures are incomplete without them.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take time this afternoon to reply to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). We all listened to the presentation of a budget which had been very carefully prepared by the young and popular minister, and which has been received with applause by some and disappointment by others. However, I congratulate also the minister's predecessor, Right Hon. J. L. Usley, who brought in a surplus from war assets of $372 million, and the two ministers a surplus of $352 million.
The other evening we had a splendid reply by the financial critic of the opposition, the member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Mac-donnell), who was ill. As you will understand, Mr. Speaker, I am acting this afternoon in a sort of utility role, to fill in on the budget. Yesterday afternoon very little interest was taken in the debate, so much so that I thought many of the members were attending the gymnasium proposed by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor). I thought perhaps the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) and the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) might be working out on the parallel bars. However, I want to say right here and now that the speech of the minister, giving all these surveys and reports, was the usual budget statement containing very little comfort for the country. We have squandered our resources at a great rate, and as a result we are now part and parcel of the United States economic system. If history repeats itself in connection with financial matters I am afraid that before long they may be in a very difficult position, and I believe that will have a very serious effect on Canada.
Certainly after the years of war the people were looking for some relief from the present intolerable taxes, but I suppose as long as we have over-government and over-taxation there is not much hope. Look at the provincial parliaments; in my opinion they simply duplicate the municipal system, and never should have been created. They were just an afterthought in the minds of the fathers of confederation. That is why we have such heavy

The Budget-Mr. Church
taxes. Let me remind hon. members that the last year Sir Charles Tupper was here, when Sir Wilfrid Laurier came in, they required only $36,000,000 to operate the whole country. Now we are spending about Sl,-700.000,000. Then look at the provinces. Ontario used to get along with $6,000,000 a year. Today Ontario expenditures total $127,000,000. Then you go on to the municipalities, and where it is all going to end I do not know.
As I have said before, the most important problem facing us at the present time, into which everything fits and on which every-* thing depends, can be expressed in this way: parliamentary reform, constitutional reform, cabinet reform and law reform. Would it not be in the public interest, Mr. Speaker, if we had the municipal system, under which in committee of supply a private member could rise and move to strike so much money out of the estimates? We cannot strike a dollar off this tax rate, so that all this debate does not mean anything. If a dollar is struck off the tax rate and the government is defeated, it must resign. I say that is a wrong principle. It is my belief that we should change our committee of ways and means so that it would be something like the system they have in Washington, under which congress has some say about the tax rate. If they see fit they can reduce the amount by hundreds of millions of dollars. I believe something similar would be in the public interest in Canada. Something should be done about it.
On February 17, 1937, as reported at page 973 of Hansard, I said:
A lot of provincial legislatures were created. These are all spending money and the result is over-taxation. These provinces are nothing but a lot of Balkan states fighting 'among themselves, and the taxpayer is made to pay. The shortsightedness of this act of 1867 should not be allowed to continue any longer because it has brought about in Canada the creation of a state equivalent to slavery among our men, women and children.
And at that time I referred to the overtaxation of the workers and the toilers who have to pay taxes. In my opinion something should be done about it. The provinces of Ontario and Quebec are paying over 75 per cent of the cash taxes of the dominion. Ontario is the forgotten province in confederation. It gets little or nothing, because the Ontario members do not stand together, as do the members from the Pacific coast and from the maritime provinces.
I believe the day is not far distant when something will have to be done about it. Certainly the dominion-provincial conference
should have been reconvened long ago, and something should be done to give Ontario some assistance in this way. As hon. members know, the island of Montreal is represented by five federal cabinet ministers. Since 1935 we in the city of Toronto have not had one minister of the crown to represent us in parliament. And this is the condition, despite the fact that our taxes are going up by leaps and bounds, including income tax and sales tax. Receipts from the post office department operations in Toronto were over $13 million in one year. Consider the tax rate, and remember that we have no direct representation in the cabinet. It was in respect of that principle, taxation without representation, that the American colonies rebelled at the time of the Boston tea party, away back in the days of the American revolutionary war.
In my opinion too much of this budget-at least 50 per cent of it-is made up of indirect taxation. This comes from sales tax, and other forms of petty nuisance taxes. The other 50 per cent is from direct taxation. I believe the time is not far distant when we should have some relief from the panic of reckless expenditure whjch has been going on-spending money like water. Because, do not forget this, that considerably more of our budget should be charged to capital account, and less of it charged to income. This generation has to suffer, in flesh and blood, as well as bear the brunt of pay-as-you-go taxation. We cannot have a pay-as-you-go principle, in view of the gigantic war payment expenditures we must make, amounting to four or five billion dollars in a year.
Something should have been done to eliminate these nuisance taxes which, so far as the working classes are concerned, yield very little profit or revenue to the government. We should have drop letters at one cent in the cities and three cents in the country. Then, in addition to that the nuisance taxes on soft drinks, chocolate bars, and nuisance taxes in other forms should be eliminated almost immediately. But nothing has been done about it. The removal of many of these controls which have hamstrung the public and private business, both wholesale and retail, should have been accomplished long ago.
The key to the solution for inflation is production. Then, we are met with increased prices for coal. milk. rent, food, and many other commodities. The price of butter has gone up ten cents. The time has come when we will have to have a system of checks and balances every year. When one examines the income tax he finds that it is not a reduction of 29} per cent on the tax levied against many
The Budget-Mr. Church

The Budget-Mr. Church

were established in Canada to take advantage of the British preference. I will oppose any change in that policy. It is in this respect that the budget mainly fails.
In 1945 when Germany was beaten-the mother country with the help of the dominions which went it alone for two years was mainly responsible for the victory-the mother country was at the height of its power. We were to see the dawn of a new day for the dominions and the mother country because she then stood at the top of the world. There were certain people who thought that the empire was gone, that it would be disrupted. But in 1945 Britain was at the height of her power and the same is true of the dominions. Our other allies who came in at the end did wonderful work, but if it had not been for the mother country and the dominions they would not have had a chance to win the war. The resources of the empire are vastly superior to those of Russia and the United States because Russia and the United States are land entity propositions while the British empire is spread over the seven seas. Why should we not band ourselves together in preferential trade within the empire? How has it come about that it seems to be almost dangerous for anybody in this house to mention the word empire which has done so much for our civilization?
Are we, the Conservative party, to stand still here?-because it is the Conservative party although it is called "Progressive Conservative." We who have been with the party have supported certain principles. I believe we are making a mistake. We would sweep the country if we stood up for the mother country and advocated those principles instead of standing by and seeing the empire scuttled the way it is. How does it come about that such a thing is so? I have been bewildered when I see what is going on in the press and in other agencies about these matters, about India, Palestine and Egypt and all that kind of thing. I have been surprised at the lack of planning, not only in the budget but with regard to trade, defence and migration within the empire. I have referred before to such things as defence, migration and trade within the empire. The lack of faith which is shown in the budget is illuminating; and faith without works is dead. It seems to me we have more faith in Washington. One of the big mistakes we made in this war was when we surrendered too much political, military, economic and financial initiative to Washington. That was one of the first fatal mistakes we made.
Coming to defence and migration, may I say that history always repeats itself. Yes-

terday Mr. Attlee said that we are as close to war now as we have ever been. He spoke words of wisdom when he said that. That is obvious when you look at the absolute failure of the united nations and the disappointments at its lack of action. They are holding a meeting in New York on matters which do not concern this country. These matters were settled at San Francisco when they passed the veto. We agreed to it. We had delegates down there who agreed to the veto. One of the big four can veto the other three. One of the players wants to rule the other three. Just imagine a hockey game in which the referee could not rule three players off because of a veto of the majority, 4 to 3. The referee would get the worst of it. That is what is happening in the security council.
I do not blame delegates for wanting to go to New York. We had a banquet the other night but we had only two or three courses; down there they have luxury banquets with fourteen courses and all the liquid refreshments one could desire, 50-cent and one-dollar cigars, and all that kind of thing. That is going on while people are starving. I have read about the banquets in Time magazine and The Patriot of London, England. It is no wonder that our delegates are anxious to go down there. No wonder all parties want to go down there. They can go to see a hockey game, a baseball game or to the theatres. They can go to the Knickerbocker and see oil paintings of Old King Cole while attending this Tower of Babel. All that kind of thing is going on down there while the poor people of Europe are starving. It is no wonder that so far UNO is a failure. All this is going on at a time when in Britain there is no light, no power, and a great scarcity of food.
I will admit that economics is partly the basis of w'ar. I should like to quote from the first epistle of St. James, chapter 4, verse 1:
From whence come wars and fightings among you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?
Only through psychology can we hope to solve all these things, these terrible problems of war which Mr. Attlee yesterday said was hanging most menacingly over us because we keep forgetting the very basis of Christianity, as I said a month ago. One thing has come out of the discovery of the atomic bomb; science and religion are coming closer together than they have ever been since the time of our Lord. The very same condition exists in the far east, in the same territory where St. James used these words, "Whence come wars and fightings among you?" All that kind of thing is going on and has been for the past two thousand years. As I said, there is one

The Budget-Mr. Church
thing about this atomic bomb; science and religion are marching more closely together, and if we are to have everlasting peace we shall have to carry out what the apostle said in the verse which I have quoted. We should send missionaries to the UNO to help change the hearts of men. The budget forgets all about these things; it says nothing at all about these things.
I hold in my hand a copy of an address given at Winnipeg by Mr. Edward Mallory, of the Department of Trade and Commerce, in which he points out the effects of preferential trade upon industry. Over 2,500 industries have come in the country because of it. As I said the other day in this house:
The Ottawa agreements increased the trade between Canada and Britain by forty-one per cent and between Britain and Canada by forty-three per cent, and we have had multilateral trade. Formerly it was known as most favoured nation treaties. We made these treaties with some thirty-two different countries between the two wars, but they brought us very little in the way of exports. What countries can afford 'an export market for Canadian goods? Upon exports we live. Markets are available w'ith respect to many things, but the only great agricultural market left in the world for Canada is Great Britain. We acquired a preference in that market for wheat at six cents a bushel, which Sir Wilfrid Laurier once said he would give almost anything to obtain. It is equally true that the preference on apples, pears and so on meant the sale of a million barrels of these fruits from Nova Scotia in one year. What we lack is markets for our exports; and if anyone thinks we are going to find in the United States a market for either our agricultural products on any substantial scale, or for manufactured goods, I am afraid he will be disappointed. The only things they will be willing to take from us are the raw materials from which to manufacture finished products, as they have done previously.
I am much disturbed at the present state of the world. I do not like the terms of the loans made by the United States. In my opinion they are much more like the ruthless and vindictive demands of a victor made upon a vanquished foe than arrangements between allies. It must be apparent by this time that, had it not been for Britain alone, and with her holding out as she did, all would have been ended, and there would have been a complete collapse of civilization.
Then again I said:
I refer to the subject of the bases. The principle of the joint Anglo-American use of bases is now in full operation. But the precedent of long-term leases of bases from Newfoundland to British Guiana, under the fifty-destroyers agreement of 1940 contains the seeds of future conflict. That agreement, which confers 99-year leases on the United States, does not provide for the British use of these bases and apparently contains no release clause in any form. If bases are to be held jointly such arrangements should be made on terms of strict reciprocity. In the present case, the use of land and the cost of bases in allied territory should be charged to 83166-187J
lend-lease account and an agreement should at the same time be made to terminate the 99-year lease and cancel it and to transfer the costs of the destroyers to lend-lease account.
That should have been done long ago. I hope it will be done later on. What Mr. Attlee said yesterday is true. Much talk has gone on about British imperialism. As Burke said, we should elevate our minds to the greatness of that trust to which the order of Providence has called us. That glorious empire has gone to the seven seas and has won the admiration of the world. In the places to which the empire has gone it has given freedom, liberty, good government and civilization. Britain went to war because of her pledge to Poland. The United States and Russia went to war because they were invaded, which is different.
The two bases of Russian expansion are political and economical. As I said last year, quoting the great National Review:
There have been no public claims like Hitler's demands that people of German origin everywhere should be brought within the German sphere. But at the Paris conference there have been statements from the Russian group raising the racial issue. In arguing for the acceptance of Bulgarian claims the Polish delegate, Mr. Rzymowski, declared:	"In our opinion Bulgars
should receive humane and indulgent treatment. It is the only Slav people among the ex-enemy states." While Molotov was greeted with enthusiastic applause from the Russian group when he said:	"The time is past when Slav lands
were material for partition among the European powers, when Slav peoples groaned under the yoke of western or eastern invaders. It is well known that the Slav nations have now found their place in the ranks of the allied states and that political life in all Slav countries is being built up along progressive democratic lines.
The prospect for the future looks dismal. There have even been threats from the Russian group of a third world war put in typical Soviet fashion, inversely. _ Opposition to the aims of the Rnssion group is said to be due or encouraged by reactionary cliques and fascist remnants who wish to see a third world war. Must, then, the Soviets be allowed a free hand to avoid such a catastrophe?
Recent history' surely proves that opposition in time to the nazis might have averted a war which President Roosevelt once declared should be named the war of survival. Opposition now to Russian pretensions is one way in which another world war, another war of survival for our western conception of life, can be avoided.
Here is what a. great British newspaper said the other day', quoting a recent speech delivered overseas by Lord Bennett, who used to be prime minister here, in which he made reference to "those powerful factors that are at work in a conspiracy to undermine the unity and destroy the life of the British com-
The Budget-Mr. Church

monwealth of nations. For some time there has not been an imperial conference at which the various members of the British commonwealth could state their views. We have had no imperial parliament to speak for us. We are developing separate policies in the various nations of the commonwealth, and you cannot have a commonwealth that will endure if the various nations comprising it pursue independent policies."
At no time in the history of the empire has it been more necessary for the dominion of Canada to give support, even if it is only moral support, to the motherland. Our foreign policy should be wrapped up with that of the mother country. Never has it been more necessary that this should be done than now. There is no use in saying that we can depend upon pan-Americanism and the Monroe doctrine. We depended on them in the past and they were found wanting. We are entirely dependent upon the mother country for our liberty and freedom. I am surprised that something has not been said along the line of what Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier stated, that when England is at war Canada also is at war. I believe that if the time comes again this country will do its duty towards the motherland as it has always done in the past.
The government would be well advised to send at once all the food we can- possibly spare for the people in the old land. Instead of that, they have been begging the question all along. The strength and unity of the British empire have been built up by centuries of statesmanship. The dominions, once colonies, have become independent nations under the crown. In Palestine the situation goes from bad to worse for lack of statesmanship; while the little kingdom of Sarawak has been bludgeoned into accepting the status of crown colony in place of its former independence.
Discard preference and let foreigners swamp empire markets and you create unemployment and sacrifice one of the main factors which have welded the British empire into the greatest influence for good since the coming of Christianity. But this is exactly what the government have threatened to do.
The British empire came into being by the colonization of overseas territories and the reservation of the trade of those territories to the mother country. A strong commercial position was built up but as times changed the system was modified. Trade was extended to foreign countries but advantages were given both to Britain and to the colonies by lower rates of duty than those imposed on foreigners.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):: Order. The hon. gentleman's time has expired.


Thomas Langton Church: Well, Mr. Speaker, there will be another opportunity.


Mrs. GLADYS STRUM (Qu'Appelle):: I cannot share the enthusiasm of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) or the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) for the budget. I do not know what handling money does to people, but it makes these two ministers genial, and I suggest that it might be a good idea to try it on all the Canadian people and see what it would do for their dispositions.
We were all pleased, however, to have this statement of the Minister of Finance:
Today we have just ended a year in which our accounts show a surplus-a surplus larger than the accumulated total of all the previous surpluses in our history.
With that for a financial background you would think that something worth while for the Canadian family would be done, and yet we find that very little is proposed for the relief of the Canadian family in spite of the fact that, according to the minister's own words, more than half of the families in Canada have incomes that fall below the income tax levels, or less than SI,500 for a married couple; and that kind of family income in Canada gives rise to Health magazine, which is the publication of the Health League of Canada, pointing out w'hat the Marsh report uncovered a few years ago. In its latest issue this magazine says:
One of the largest contributions of the Marsh report was to place in the bright spotlight the shameful income situation of Canadian families. Of every three of our families, two have incomes below a level sufficient to maintain decency and health, one in three falls below even an existence minimum-an income quite insufficient to cover even the bare necessities of life. Small wonder that the giants of hunger, misery and squalor have roamed the land.
The majority of Canadian families lack protection for life and health because of inadequate family income, and they are also victims of bad housing. They have no provision for illness and no provision for comfortable old age. In fact this budget makes the rich richer and the poor poorer because of the price increases through the removal of price ceilings and through the removal of subsidies. It fails in the redistribution of national income, which is part of the Liberal platform; and I say "platform" advisedly and not "policy", because the policy is the direct opposite.
In contrast to what we have done for the Canadian family I want to point out what

The Budget-Mrs. Strum
we have done for Canadian business. On page 2552 of Hansard we have an interesting table giving a forecast of the fiscal year 1947-48 as compared with the fiscal year 194647. We find there that the biggest reduction in taxation comes in the category "excess profits tax". We intend to reduce the excess profits tax to the extent of $279 million. That is the biggest drop in any of the items in the national income forecast for next year. The excess profits tax drops from S449 million to $170 million, or $279 million.
Not only do we reduce the excess profits tax, but we remove subsidies, thereby removing their responsibility to help protect the family incomes of those people who drop below $1,500 a year. In addition to that, we remove the price ceilings so that, through sales of manufactured products, excess profits can be maintained. Now what have we done for the family?


An hon. MEMBER:: Not we; the government.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: The government, pardon
me. I wish to dissociate myself from this action. Looking at page 2557 of Hansard, let us consider the family to whom the Minister of National Revenue referred-the $1,800 a year man with two children. True, he has a reduction in taxation. True, he is down to $16 a year and next year he will be down to $10 a year. The drop is $10. The 1947 tax rate forced him to pay $20. Next year he will pay $10, or he will save $10. But he has two children and they are supposed to drink milk; they are supposed to be drinking a quart of milk a day. That means that his children are supposed to drink 365 quarts of milk each per year, or 730 quarts for two. Through the removal of subsidies, milk has gone up from ten cents to fifteen cents a quart, so that for 730 quarts of milk he pays an extra five cents each, or $36.50. On the one hand, he saves $10, and on the other hand he pays out $36.50; or, in other words, he is $26.50 in the hole. Then, of course, he himself is supposed to drink a pint of milk, and his wife is supposed to drink a pint of milk, but this figure is just for their children. Actually, through the removal of subsidies, even though we have given him $10 off .his income tax, he is really $26.50 in the hole; or, if he pays sixteen cents a quart, as many people do, it will cost him $43.80 and he will be $33.80 in the hole, on this new budget.
The great majority of our families fall below $1,500 a year. Not only does this man lose out on his milk, but he loses out on his butter and shoes which are now out from under the ceiling, and on many other articles which go 'nto the cost of daily living. His rent has
increased. In many ways his real income does not go nearly as far as it did a year or two ago, so that he is really worse off than ever.
The people with under $1,500 a year are, of course, completely vulnerable. Lack of income puts them in a completely unsheltered position in regard to the paying of rent, the buying of things like milk, butter and shoes, and the many other things that go into the cost of living. As we stated earlier, and as the minister himself pointed out, the majority of the Canadian families are in that unenviable position. No wonder that our health records are bad. No wonder that our crime records are bad. No wonder that we are ashamed of many things in the field of national health and housing.
There are many social costs which do not appear in the budget and which are the result of the failure to provide for the protection of our Canadian families. I should have hoped that, with our surplus which the government is so proud of, we might have undertaken a large-scale public housing project. In any country where this has been undertaken the results have been surprising indeed. I want to quote now from the report of the lieutenant governor's committee on housing conditions in Toronto in 1934. This is what the report says:
Doctor Chalmers, medical officer of health, Glasgow, is overwhelming in his indictment of had housing. At a time when sixty per cent of the population lived in one or two-room apartments Doctor Chalmers wrote:
"In one-roomed houses the death rate was 29-9 per thousand.
In two-roomed houses the death rate was 16-5 per thousand.
In three-roomed houses the death rate was 11-5 per thousand.
In four-roomed houses the death rate was 10-8 per thousand."
Doctor Chalmers goes on to say that, "Bad housing increases the incidence of all infections, contagious and verminous conditions, of respiratory diseases, and of anaemia, debility and constitutional maladies. The worse the housing, the higher the death rate."
After the reconstruction of slum areas in Edinburgh, the death rate of these areas fell from 45-5 per thousand in 1892 to 15 per thousand in 1910, or reduced it by two-thirds.
This, to me, is significant, and it was significant enough to be included in the lieutenant governor's committee's report on housing conditions in Toronto; and the bad conditions which were found in Toronto are duplicated right across the country in all our Canadian cities. We find that the infant mortality rate is high. We find that all the things which go to break up families are prevalent in those areas. We find that people are paying out far too much of their income for rent. In the report of the advisory committee on recon-
The Budget-Mrs.. Strum

struction, housing and community planning, our own government has this to say about rents in relation to family income:
On the basis of $20 a month being a desirable rent, nearly 40 per cent of the tenant families in the low-wage group at present pay more than they can afford. Nearly one-third of them pay rents of between $20 and $35.
These figures are significant in showing the proportions of wage-earner tenants who would be satisfactorily accommodated if it were possible to provide new housing renting at $20 a month. Only in Toronto, London and Windsor would this provide for half of the population in this group . . .
Allowing not $20 but one-fifth of their normal budget the percentage of families paying disproportionate rent is not 40 per cent, but more than twice as much 88-7 per cent. The city percentages range from 06'5 per cent in Halifax to 92 per cent in Winnipeg.
In the absence of any changes in basic incomes throughout the country, this is tantamount to saying that three-quarters to four-fifths of this lower third of city families depend on a public low-rent housing programme if they are to be provided with proper housing accommodation.
This is from the report of our own department of reconstruction. There is one place where the government could put some of the surplus revenue, because their own reports indicate that these people will never have adequate housing unless we institute large-scale, low-cost housing projects, financed by this government. Up to this time we have had housing projects that benefit mainly the insurance companies. I was disappointed to see that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) in his latest statement points out that under the new plan which we intend to institute, or which the government intends to institute-again I wish to dissociate myself from this-we are going to double the depreciation; we are going to help them acquire land and then we are going to talk about four-roomed units which will rent for not more than $70. A four-roomed unit renting at $70 will not meet the needs of these people who must be assisted because their incomes will not allow them to pay economic rents.
What about the health facilities of our people? Well, there is not any Canadian standard at all for health. There is not any Canadian standard for pensions. There is not any Canadian standard to take care of widows. There is not even any Canadian standard to take care of the people who are on relief. Much to my surprise today I found that only three provinces have legislation under which the province is responsible for relief. The other six provinces leave it to the municipality, which means that these people who are out of work are completely without protection, except, of

course, the limited protection of unemployment insurance, which does not begin to cover all the people who are out of work. So I would urge the government that when we have these substantial surpluses we should not wait for all the provinces to come in before beginning to plan for the protection of the Canadian family.
In this house we are horrified at the divorce rate. We say, "We do not believe in divorce." None of us wants divorce. I do not believe we should ever permit conditions to exist that break up family life; yet here we have low incomes, bad housing, no provision for health, no provision for the widow other than what the provinces choose to give, and so on. We have inadequate provision for the arthritics, the cripples, the people who cannot look after themselves.


An hon. MEMBER:: Would divorce cure those?


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: All these conditions put a strain on family life, as I think the hon. member will admit. Anything that can take the strain off family life, anything that can house our people under conditions of health and decency and comfort will add to the permanency of family life and will help cut down our divorce rate.


Gordon Graydon: How do you explain Hollywood on that basis?


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Perhaps you know more about Hollywood than I do. I just happen to know about normal people, such as I think I represent.
In closing, I merely wish to urge the government to make use of the excellent material for which they themselves have paid. I am amazed at the wealth of material that comes from the bureau of statistics and government departments. If I want something my secretary comes up with armloads of stuff that the government themselves have prepared, as to which the government departments have already done the groundwork and made the surveys. We know what is the matter; we know how to cure it; we know what the government intends to do. Let us do it now.


Mr. L. D. TREMBLAY (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, often while listening to some speakers in this house I have felt that if an outsider were to attempt to assess the true economic, political and social situation in Canada with regard to the past, and more particularly with reference to the future, he would soon have the feeling that he might as well attempt to square the circle. Truly, is there any other place, with the possible exception of the law courts, where one may sit and listen to an

The Budget-Mrs. Strum
intelligent man assure you that such and such is white, and then hear another prove a moment later that the same thing is black? This is a daily feature of our proceedings, and I suppose it would be childish to attempt to do away with it in this honourable chamber. After all, is not freedom of expression, whether it be of sentiment or of principle, the very essence of a democratic system?
Having said this, without malice toward anyone, I shall proceed immediately with the remarks I wish to offer for the consideration of the house. Obviously I have no intention of touching on all aspects of the budget, but this heartening speech contained features I wish to underline. The first is that in accordance with Liberal tradition it brings substantial relief to the classes of our population most in need of it, the middle class and the small wage-earner. A mere glance at the tables to be found at pages 2556 and 2557 of Hansard shows how successful the minister was in giving concrete expression to his concern for the small wage-earners. It should be pointed out that the average reduction of twenty-nine per cent is spread in such a manner that small wage-earners will benefit by an income tax reduction of more than fifty per cent. Naturally it would have been more gratifying if all of us could have enjoyed such a substantial reduction, but the pressing consideration is to ensure more humane living conditions to those whose incomes are low. Let us remember, on the other hand, that the new budget grants an income tax reduction of from forty-seven per cent to thirty per cent to families with incomes ranging between $2,000 and $5,000, and that nine out of ten taxpayers will find that their income tax has been reduced by twenty-nine per cent or more as of July 1. This year, less than two years after the end of the war, the government is in a position to grant relief to Canadian taxpayers, in respect of personal income tax alone, to the extent of approximately $110,000,000, which will reach $175,000,000 for the full year. Would it not be fair to say, particularly in regard to the province of Quebec, that, while the King government is removing taxes, the Duplessis government is piling them on? But this is another matter altogether; figures speak louder than words, and in any case, "Verba volant, scripta manent."
We were told by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), with his characteristic virile optimism, that today Canada enjoys a degree of prosperity never exceeded in living memory, and he adds that he anticipates high production and high revenue for the coming year. If one stops to think that in many lines
demand is still ahead of production, that our exports are being maintained at a very high level, limited principally by production, and that imports from overseas flow into the country in impressive volume without impairing the demand for domestic products, it would seem that there is ample justification for the fine optimism displayed by the comptroller of the national exchequer. It is to be hoped that industrial, financial and trading companies which have not benefited by such substantial tax reductions as have individuals will be able to find the sources of supply they so sorely need.
As to the next fiscal year, assuming that the national income remains at its present high level-which the minister hopes will be the case-he anticipates that government revenues will fall from $2,984 million to $2,450 million, still leaving a surplus of $190 million if the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia do not sign agreements with the federal government, and $80 million if they do. I leave it to the experts in this house, or those who believe they are experts, to assess the economic merits of the budget I wish to discuss the serious question of dominion-provincial relations. In this respect I wish to deal particularly with the interests of my own good, dear old province of Quebec, and with the systematic, deliberate and calculated misunderstanding with the government of Canada nurtured by the camouflaged Tory who accidentally and temporarily happens to be at the head of the government of the province of Quebec.
(Translation):


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I shall now proceed in the tongue spoken by my paternal forbears. Indeed, I do not hesitate to proclaim in this house, when the occasion arises, the ocial bilingualism of Canada.
In referring to the statement of the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) on this subject, I find in Hansard the following words he uttered. They are those of a man of spirit, of a statesman who has the real interest of the whole of Canada at heart and who wishes to ensure understanding and peace between the various groups forming part of our country. On this subject, I shall quote from the budget speech of April 29 last, the words of the Minister of Finance:
The stability of revenues assured by the guaranteed minimum payments represents one of the chief advantages of the plan to the adhering provinces.
The Budget-Mr. Treviblay

Far from weakening their autonomy or sacrificing any of their constitutional rights, they have merely found a method of utilizing one of these rights . . .
And, farther on, he said:
With this assurance of stable and rising revenues, they are for the first time in a position to plan with courage and confidence and a sense of real independence, programmes for the efficient discharge of their constitutional responsibilities.
The government of Canada looks forward to the day when the agreement of all or substantially all the provinces will make possible the achievement of the great national purposes which impelled the dominion to make its comprehensive proposals of August, 1945.
And further:
Nevertheless, we do not ask any province to accept a tax agreement unless it believes such agreement to be in its own interest as well as that of the country as a whole. We did our best to shape the offer of last June in such a way as to make it possible and satisfactory for any province to remain out of the agreement if it wished to do so, and we would far prefer to have a province remain out indefinitely than to endeavour to persuade it to come in against its own judgment of where its true interests lie.
As I shall have to refer to this point later, I beg the house to notice particularly the date of the minister's statement, namely, April 29.
I now wish to quote the opinion of a newspaperman whose independence, good faith, talent or patriotism will not be questioned since I refer to Mr. Eugene ITIeureux, editor of I'Opinion Libre who, on February 7 last, expressed himself as follows with reference to the dominion proposals which were submitted to the provinces. I quote:
Each province has two alternatives: a grant of $12.75 per person based on the province's population in 1942, plus one half the provincial revenue derived from personal and corporation income taxes in 1940, plus also, the statutory grants; or, a $15 grant per capita based on the province's population in 1942, plus statutory grants. In either case, the amount thus calculated would represent the income guaranteed each province by the Dominion government.
The capitations in the amount of $12.50 and $15 would be multiplied each year by the total number of persons comprising the province's total population. Under the said proposals the amount of the capitations would increase in proportion to the national production. Therefore, the provinces are assured of an, annual guaranteed minimum subsidy which, in the case of the province of Quebec, would amount to $56,383,000 in 1947. According to statistical estimates, it may even reach $63,011,000.
The 1942 Dominion-Provincial agreement provided for a revenue of $22,000,000 to the province of Quebec.
The margin between $22,000,000 on the one hand, and $56,383,000 or $63,011,000, on the other hand, is in. round figures $34,000,000 or $41,000,000.

No such amounts have ever been placed at the disposal of the province. They would supplement most opportunely the aggregate income derived from various sources and could be used at the will of the legislature for improving education, public health and all the services required by modern standards.
Mr. L'Heureux concludes as follows:
Those who regard such proposals as encroaching upon provincial autonomy should ask themselves whether such a system would not, by coordinating tax collection methods and granting more funds to the province, provide it with the necessary incentive to modernize its whole organization.
Such is the opinion expressed by an absolutely independent writer, following the statement made by the Minister of Finance.
Now, what answer was made to those proposals not only by the premier of Quebec but by the leader of the neighbouring province^ Let me give you an idea. Here, on page 14 of the excellent newspaper put out by our French-speaking compatriots of Ontario, Le Droit of May 7th, are purple headlines which I now place before you. Allow me to read them: "The Dominion proposals are unacceptable." This is the hon. Maurice Duplessis speaking. In the next column:	"Drew charges the Dominion with
blackmail" and finally, to dress up the page, here is a picture bearing this caption: "John Bracken, leader of the opposition, supports Premier George Drew of Ontario at the Young Conservatives' banquet held in Ottawa. From left to right:	Mr. Drew, Mr. So-and-So and
the leader of the opposition," forming a happy group.


Mr. PINARD:: A real rhapsody in blue.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Both denounced in the strongest terms the offer made by the government to each of the provinces of Confederation. I shall quote a statement of one of the premiers and I wager that you will be unable to say whether it was made by Mr. Drew or by Mr. Duplessis. I quote without disclosing the name of the speaker; I ask you to guess:
Putting all his cards on the table, the premier denied that his province had ever thought of negotiating, as six other provinces did, a secret agreement with the central administration. No provincial official has approached, directly or indirectly, any "minor dominion government official" in order to conclude an agreement by underhand methods.
After stating that Canada has reached a turning point in her history, he reminded everyone of his duty to fight to the end in order to prevent the "possible" setting up of a dictatorship which would spell the doom not only of provincial rights but of individual freedom.

. The Budget-Mr. Tremblay
A permanent reform of our nation's financial system will never be achieved by the methods which Messrs. Abbott and Ilsley have suggested.
And further on-you may think that I am trying to solve for you the riddle as to whether it is Mr. Drew or Mr. Duplessis speaking; that we shall see-the same gentleman added:
Moreover, Quebec has vital reasons to consider the respect of our constitution as of basic importance.
Now, who's words, do you think, I have been quoting? They are Mr. George Drew's and not Mr. Duplessis's. Turning now to the statement of the Quebec premier, I read as follows:
It is absolutely contrary to facts to say that government officials of the province of Quebec have been authorized to enter into negotiations with the federal government. None but the duly elected representatives of the people have that authority and I am sure that no official has even sought to exercise it.
I shall gladly participate to a plenary conference but I shall never be a party to secret parleys or to the trading of the rights, freedoms and privileges of our Canadian provinces, let alone those of the province of Quebec.
The premier of Quebec and the premier of Ontario are both using the same language.


Roch Pinard: They are Siamese twins.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: My coevals will well remember that in 1911 the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said: "Scratch the skin of a nationalist, and you'll find a Tory." We have here the spectacle of a group leader loudly disclaiming connection with the Tory party, which he even goes so 'far as to rebuke within the province of Quebec. Yet . compare his statements with those of the Tory leader in the next province, and you'll find that they both talk the same language. I won't urge that you scratch the skin of the Union Nationale leader in order to find a Tory. You needn't even go to that trouble. Just listen to Mr. Duplessis, and then to Mr. Drew; they both talk the same language. They have the same epidermis, the same skin. They make the same sounds. They're twins, nay Siamese twins, as my hon. friend has just pointed out.
There was talk of autonomy back in 1911. It was then Monk and Hugh Graham who were plotting the destruction of our great fellow-countryman, Laurier. Now, in the year of grace 1947, it is the Drew-Duplessis combine, scheming the downfall of the best government this country has ever had.
Who are the ones, then that have already gone down in history as genuinely great autonomists? Let us look up the political annals of this country for the last half-century,
during which Canada has passed from the status of a mere colony to that of a truly autonomous nation and we shall discover the patriotic citizens whose passionate ardour and enlightened Canadianism secured for our country its status of free nation.
We have gone a long way since 1897 when Sir Wilfrid Laurier, French-Canadian prime minister of an English colony, had the pluck, or should we say the daring, to state, in Liverpool, before the Duke of Devonshire, during Queen Victoria's jubilee-and I quote:
In this united and confederated country which stretches from the Pacific to the Atlantic, the authority of the sovereign rests on the free and cordial allegiance of five million people who are still called colonials but who proclaim themselves a nation.
And the great Liberal leader borrowed the following quotation from Kipling:
Daughter am I in my mother's house, but mistress in my own.
Already Laurier proclaimed us a nation though in truth we were still a British colony. Constitutionally, we had and could have no accredited and official representatives in other countries; we could neither negotiate nor sign commercial agreements which, to be valid, required the seal of the official British representative; the inconveniences which this formality entailed for Canada can well be imagined; England's foreign . policy, drafted by London exclusively on behalf of the British empire bound not only England but all her colonies. In 1914, the Tories still claimed that "When England is at war, Canada is at war."
Even after we had secured Dominion status, in 1918, as eminent a personality as Premier Lloyd George stated, in a still celebrated declaration:
The instrument of the foreign policy of the empire is the British Foreign Office. The machinery must remain here. It is impossible that it could be otherwise.
Mr. Speaker, what was impossible has become a fact. Not only does Canada have its own Department of External Affairs, headed by our eminent fellow-countryman, of whom we are very proud, who lays down and directs Canada's external policy, but we also have our ambassadors, consuls, Canadian diplomatic corps, testifying abroad that we have reached the status of a free and autonomous nation.
Obviously, the country was not transformed from "a modest colony into a powerful nation" in the twinkling of an eye, without effort or clash. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
The Budget-Mr. Tremblay

If, after being a colony, our country is now master of its own destiny, and if, on December 11, 1931, the British parliament adopted the legislation officially known as the "Statute of Westminster", it is only fitting that I should recall certain phases of our constitutional evolution, of which the above statute is but the logical conclusion.
We are proud of our autonomy, but- we should not forget that the Liberal party gave us its most valiant champions. Laurier was one of the pioneers in that task of national liberation, but Mackenzie King, Lapointe, St. Laurent and the Liberal party pursued without truce, intermisison or respite the lofty ideal of our great fellow-countryman, Laurier. He foresaw its achievement, because he never ceased repeating in his speeches:
Canada is bound to become a nation just as a child is bound to become a man.
Our Tory friends sometimes contend that they brought about the enactment of the Statute of Westminster in 1931. I wonder if they are really unaware of the title of that legislation. What is it, exactly? I quote:
An Act to give effect to certain resolutions passed bv imperial conferences held in the years 1926 and' 1930.
The 1926 conference, in which our great Liberal leaders, Mackenzie King and Lapointe, played such a leading part, recognized the sovereignty of the dominions and adopted the formula sometimes referred to as the Balfour formula, although some contend that it was drafted by Mr. Lapointe.
I have here a speech delivered at Quebec in 1938 by the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe and I would like to quote a few excerpts which are of special interest at the present time. Here is what Mr. Lapointe said about the Liberal party's share in the achievement of Canada's autonomy.
The Statute of Westminster is our achievement. When, sometime after 1921, I joined the King government, with my friend, associate and leader, Mr. King, we began working for the recognition of Canada's rights.
In 1923, when I was called upon to sign a treaty with the United States regarding the Pacific fisheries, I refused to have the British ambassador to the United States sign it with us. I contended that Canada's signature was sufficient and I did not let anyone hold my hand.
During the same year, there was trouble in Europe and Mr. Churchill, who was then Colonial Secretary, asked Mr. King whether he would agree to send a contingent to Chanak. He replied:	No, parliament will have to decide.
About the same time, at Lausanne, Canada was invited to sign a treaty regarding the boundaries of certain European countries, but Mr. 
King refused to sign it on the grounds that Canada had taken no part in the drafting of that document.
In 1926, at the conference which has been mentioned yesterday, our charter was defined and Canada was recognized as England's equal, independent and self-governing.
In 1929, I had the honour of leading the delegation sent to discuss and to draft the Statute of Westminster. I worked during two months on the final draft.
At the following session, when I moved a resolution for the endorsement of our work, I was accused by Mr. Bennett of trying to cut the last bonds which united Canada to Great Britain. Mr. Cahan spoke of "stupid," "silly" and "childish" endeavours. But our plan was accepted by the House of Commons and placed on the British statute books in 1930. We were entitled to that right, but it was withheld and we had to fight for it. We were the ones who fought. There lies the difference.
Canadian autonomy was the work of the Liberal party and we owe it principally to the present Prime Minister, grandson of William Lyon Mackenzie, the rebel who, in 1838, was forced into exile with a price on his head because he had led the uprising in Upper Canada for the establishment of a government responsible to the people and not to the Governor General.
The leader of the Liberal party strove for this ideal which he had assigned to himself in his youth with consummate ability, tact and persistence.
Has anyone forgotten the Chanak incident? Mr. Mackenzie King had been leading the. Liberal party for only two years and had been Prime Minister for a year when this incident broke out in 1922. Had it not been for the Prime Minister's constitutional knowledge and strength of character, Canada might have been held up to ridicule and-an even more serious	consequence,-might	have been
plunged unwittingly into a new European war.
When the London government asked the dominions to send troops over-their appeal was published in Canadian newspapers before the telegram requesting expeditionary forces had even reached the dominion government-* the great Liberal leader answ-ered blandly that it behooved the Canadian parliament to pass judgment on such a grave question and not the Canadian government alone. He added that he would consider, in the light of all pertinent factors, whether the British government's request warranted the convening of a special session of parliament. Because of this firm, dignified stand of the Liberal Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Asquith was prompted to state in the British House of Commons that he was glad there were statesmen in the dominions who had the wisdom to ask why their country should go to war.

The Budget-Mr. Tremblay
With the leader of the Liberal party, this proud attitude is rooted in a deep feeling of Canadian patriotism; with the erstwhile Tory leader it was the inconsiderate cry of the arbh-imperialist for whom Canada is still merely "talliable and liable forced labour at pleasure." "Ready, aye, ready" he spontaneously exclaimed at the mere call of the British cabinet, not even knowing why he was prepared to launch Canada into another war.
Then when the British government asked the Canadian government to take part in the treaty of Lausanne, Mr. King's reply was that since Canada had not been consulted in the matter, had not taken part in the negotiations, it would not sign the treaty. He added that he would not even seek ratification from the Canadian parliament.
When in 1923, Canada and the United States signed the epoch-making halibut treaty the prime minister, seconded by Mr. Ernest Lapointe, emphatically proclaimed Canada's sovereignty and, for the first time in history of this country, a Canadian minister, our great patriot Mr. Lapointe, signed a treaty on behalf of Canada "without a British representative holding his hand" according to his own words I was just quoting. To be sure, it created quite a stir in London and there were representations not to say protests from the British minister in Washington; but thanks to his staunch Liberalism and enlightened patriotism, Mr. King managed matters so well that all obstacles were cleared-even Canadian Tory opposition-and Mr. Lapointe alone signed the treaty for Canada.
Meanwhile Canada, under Liberal guidance, has kept proudly proclaiming, on every occasion. its independence and diplomatic autonomy: in refusing to ratify the Locarno treaty, which it had not been invited to negotiate; in declining to sign the protocols of Geneva; in sending out i<ts own ministers and plenipotentiaries in the world's great capitals, and in exercising many another prerogative of an autonomous nation.
In 1926, during Mr. King's second term of office, a Canadian, for the first time, was appointed as representative of our country abroad. Since 1935, we have opened legations in almost every South American country and it may be pointed out that, under the present Liberal government, some ten of our representatives have seen their status raised to that of ambassadors.
During the whole of the last world conflict, Mr. King scrupulously and meticulously adhered to the proud Liberal tradition of ever asserting the sovereignty of the Canadian parliament; in 1914, the participation of
Canada in the war had been formally acknowledged by the reproduction in the Canada Gazette of the declaration of war, issued in London at the request of the British government. In 1939, His Majesty the King declared war on Germany for Canada, at the request of the Canadian cabinet, by a special proclamation issued and published seven days after the British declaration of war.
From 'this fact a well known Canadian newspaperman concluded:
This can mean -but one thing: by asserting its right to declare war in its own name, Canada has also asserted its right not to declare it whenever it may decide that its interests are not at stake.
Then he added this significant sentence:
It is a certainty that Mr. King is waging war at the side of Mr. Churchill, not behind him.
Writing of " Canada yesterday and today," here is what Mr. Andre Siegfried stated in Le Monde Frangais of last July:
French opinion is now very much interested in everything concerning Canada. The reasons for this are numerous: Canada is one of the victors of the last war, one of the countries who contributed most to victory; it is, on the other hand, and this is of interest _ to us, a British country with an important minority of French stock. Besides, the Dominion is remarkably placed, due both to its geographical location and its political relations, to serve as an efficient intermediary between the Anglo-Saxon powers. Last, it is a country with a future on this American continent which remains a continent with a future.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate, in view of the immense problems of the day which the provincial, and especially the federal, governments have to face, that, for paltry political reasons, not only the policies of the federal government are being opposed, but attacks are being launched even against the most distinguished members of the cabinet and discussion is barred of propositions that everyone, or at least the majority of citizens of the province of Quebec, acknowledge as being of immediate concern to that province. They are always the same ones as shown by history. Whether they be disguised tories, a nationalist or a national unionist, we cannot admit that they do not at least recognize the good faith of their opponents. Mr. Lapointe condemned those trouble-makers in his speech of December 12, 1938, when he said:
More than ever we must rally round our institutions and the authority which protects our rights and our liberty. The world situation is difficult, painful and dangerous. Everywhere distrust, hatred and brutality are rampant. Hatred, which divides people, nationalities and races, rears its ugly head.
Here also, he added, we have our troublemakers. Those who foster the spread of misunderstanding between provinces or between some provinces and the Dominion authorities,
The Budget-Mr. J. A. Ross

those who pit one race against another, are not worthy of our confidence. Democracy protects our most prized freedom. It even protects its detractors.
In concluding, I hope I have shown that the true autonomists are those who have worked sincerely, conscientiously, intelligently, tactfully and with common sense to attain the real autonomy of our country. Those who refuse to meet the Dominion will have to answer to the intelligent electors of the province of Quebec for their insincerity and for the harm which they are causing daily to our good old province of Quebec.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the hon. member
know that under the regime of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, conservative prime minister of Canada, this country, for the first time as an independent and sovereign nation, signed the treaty of Versailles? On that occasion, the prime minister of the day fought resolutely, even against the British, in order that Canada might take part in that conference.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: I did not quite understand the remarks of the hon. member. However I know that Sir Robert Borden was not at the Versailles conference in 1919 for I happened to be on leave in Paris at that time and I am positive that Mr. Borden was not there.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall repeat my question in English.
(Text):
My question was this: Does he not know that it was the Prime Minister of that day, Sir Robert Borden, who fought even against the English and obtained for Canada a place as an independent nation at the peace conference and in connection with the peace treaty signed at Versailles?


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: I do know that.


James Arthur Ross: May I. first of all, offer my congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). I well remember when he was a new member in this house in 1940, as I was. He has come a long way since that day. In presenting the 1947 budget to parliament on April 29, he certainly made much of a rather disappointing budget, which he said would give an average reduction of twenty-nine per cent in personal income tax, or fifty-four per cent reduction for the single taxpayer in the lowest income tax bracket. He did not go farther and tell us that in that bracket it would mean a saving of $6 for the taxpayer, and that in the case of the seven per cent reduction which is for the much higher bracket, on $200,000 it would mean a saving of $10,385. 
Lest I be misunderstood, I want to say right here that we do appreciate the reductions-which have been offered; but, coupled with that statement, I must say that the people of Canada were expecting much more along other lines. No increase is allowed in the exemptions, which are now $750 for single people, $1,500 for those who are married and 81,700 for a married couple with two children. We maintain that these exemptions should be at least $1,000 for single persons, and $2,000 for married people.
This budget distinctly discriminates against parents of families. It in no way encourages family life in Canada. That has been the condition in this country for some time, and I wish to give a short example. Let us take three persons, each- earning $3,000. Of course that is above the average because, as has been pointed out, the great mass of our people are not able to pay any tax. I am sorry that they are not. At any rate, in the case of the single person receiving $3,000 the gain in the tax reduction is $172.50; the childless married man gains $112.50; and the parent of six gains only $67.50. Yet the percentage tax reductions were 29, 29, and 31 per cent respectively in these cases I have cited.
At the $3,000 level the family allowance for children is almost entirely repayable as income tax, while in -the higher brackets it disappears altogether, so that it does not help in any way whatever.
Surely now, two years after the war, something should have been done for family people throughout the country. Up until 1946 a married woman was allowed to earn as high as $660 without taxation. This figure was reduced to $250 in the 1946 budget apd now remains at that figure. A levelling-up process should have taken place. Many married nurses and other skilled women are indifferent about working these days, though there is great need for people of this type. This tax affects the production of much required foodstuffs. The farmers' wife should be allowed a greater exemption in respect of dairy produce raised on the farm such as poultry, eggs, garden produce and so on. I wish to endorse the request made by my colleague the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Miller) when he suggested some time ago and again yesterday that there should be an exemption for the married couple on -the farm of at least $500 for the production of dairy products or of pork products on the farm. If that were done it would have a most desirable effect and, spread over the whole country, it is surprising what added production it would bring about in hogs and dairy products at this time.

The Budget-Mr. J. A. Ross
Thea there are what have been termed the nuisance taxes on soft drinks and chocolate bars for the children. Certainly these should be repealed, and the five-eent rate on soft drinks and chocolate bars should be provided for the children of this country at this time.
Then there is the twenty-five per cent luxury tax on jewellery, and I have always approved a luxury tax. The Minister of Finance was reported in the daily press quite a few months ago as having said that the budget would provide for an adjustment in this tax. That statement at that time was, I think, improper, because it distinctly slowed up business for that type of merchant throughout Canada. These people would certainly approve fewer words and more action from the minister in that respect. I am one of those who think that clocks, flatware, watches and such articles are essential to young people setting up housekeeping and certainly should not be termed luxuries, as they are for the purpose of taxation at this time. I endorse fully the request made by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) that the tax on wedding rings should be repealed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hear, hear.


James Arthur Ross: I think that is most essential; and I am especially pleased to have the endorsation of my very good friend, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie). I hope it will have a beneficial effect, because I have certainly noticed many of the fair sex' with their eyes on him in the past.


Mr. GREEN:: Is that why he has been waiting so long?


Mr. MAYHEW:: He will not care if you take up a collection and buy one for him.


James Arthur Ross: The government should be practising greater economy at this time. I know that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) replied along those lines today. He gave a set of figures of government employees. I remember speaking on the budget a year ago; in fact, on July 10, 1946, and I used these figures which will be found at page 3314 of Hansard:
... in pre-war days there were about 70,000, and during the war the number has increased to approximately 150,000. One year after the termination of the war there has been a decrease of approximately one-half per cent-less than one per cent. Sometimes it is difficult to decide just who are within the civil service and who are in other branches of work under the government today.
The Minister of National Revenue today set forth a number of figures. He stated that in
1939 there were some 52,000; at the end of the war, 142,000; and practically that same figure as of October, 1946. I realize that figures, especially when they are obtained from different government departments, are confusing.
I want to refer to a return, sessional paper No. 106F, dated March 27, 1947. The mover was the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross), and his questions were as follows:
1.	What is the total number of employees of the government of Canada, including employees of boards, commissions and corporations appointed by the federal authority as of the thirty-first of December, 1946?
2.	What is the total amount of salaries, wages and allowances paid to such employees in the month of December, 1946?
Then it says:
The attached information has been received by the Secretary of State of Canada from several departments of the government.
I am not going to burden the house with all these details; they are lengthy. But, Mr. Speaker, these add up to a total of 173,961 employees of the government of Canada as of December 31, 1946.


James Joseph McCann: All the fellows who were shovelling snow for a day or two.


James Arthur Ross: No; they are not included in this sheet. It is lengthy, and if I had the time I should like to put it on Hansard.


James Joseph McCann: All the casual employees.


James Arthur Ross: The total amount of salaries, wages and allowances paid these employees of the Canadian government for the month of December, 1946, amounted to $26,462,000; that is for one month. At this rate, for twelve months of the year, it would mean 8317,544,000 annually. I think the people of this country expect some decrease in the number of these employees at this particular time.
It has been set forth that the cost of the Canadian information service under the Department of External Affairs, will, according to the government's own estimate, be $241,200, for this year. Added to that, each department of the government has its own publicity service at great cost over and above this to the taxpayers. According to another return, dated March 15 last, War Assets Corporation spent some $210,000 last year just to remodel and alter their office building in Montreal to take care of some of their 7,000 employees.
I am sure that everyone in Canada realizes the deplorable situation with regard to veterans housing from coast to coast in Canada, and the great amount of money
The Budget-Mr. J. A. Ross


Mr. GARDINER:: If I might ask a question, will the hon. member not agree that the same condition does not apply to wheat that applies to cattle? The Canadian government is responsible for the fact that cattle cannot be exported to the United States, but the United States government is responsible for the fact that, regardless of price, Canadian wheat cannot be exported to that country.


James Arthur Ross: a majority of the electors who cast ballots in the various constituencies. I would sincerely appeal to the government to make provision for the transferable vote before another general election is held in Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand that some announcements are to be made before six o'clock, so I should like to conclude by saying that I support the amendment moved by my colleague the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell), which reads:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This house regrets that the proposals of the Minister of Finance (a) offer no relief from the oppressive burden of indirect and hidden taxes on staple necessities that compose the family budget, all of which taxes directly increase the cost of living; (b) offer no encouragement to those engaged in the development of our natural resources, especially mining and agriculture; (c) fail to provide for reconvening the dominion-provincial conference in order to complete satisfactory agreements with the provinces and a dominion-provincial programme of social security, health and public investment."
On motion of Mr. Gardiner the debate was adjourned.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 25, to provide for the sale and export of agricultural products.
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 6, consideration in committee of Bill No. 106, to incorporate Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company-Mr. Rinfret-Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 11-Electric and other power.
Mr. DORION:: Mr. Chairman, before the adjournment of the debate on Tuesday last I had moved an amendment to section 11,

but after further consideration I have come to the conclusion that if I withdrew my amendment I could submit one which would be acceptable to the sponsor of the bill. I ask leave therefore to withdraw my amendment?


William Henry Golding: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the hon. member shall have leave to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


Frédéric Dorion: The section as it stands has, I believe, the effect of granting to the company more powers than are provided for in the general law, section 368 of the Railway Act. The hon. member for Outremont on Tuesday last said at page 2828 of Hansard:
... I wish to assure him that if at any time the company have a surplus of power over what they need for their own purposes they will certainly form a new company which will have a provincial charter and which will come under the jurisdiction of the provincial board.
In view of that statement I would be satisfied if the section were amended in accordance with the amendment which I now move, seconded by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix):
That all the words in section 11 after the words "and other power or energy" in line 4, be struck out.


Thomas Reid: That does not leave the wording correct.


Frédéric Dorion: The effect of the amendment would be that the company would be dealt with according to section 368 of the Railway Act and have no more powers than those given by section 368.


Thomas Reid: This is how it would read if the amendment were carried, "transmit and distribute electric and for the purposes," and so on. There is a word needed to complete the sentence. It is left vague if you do not add another word somewhere.


Frédéric Dorion: Section 368 of the Railway Act would apply. Section 368 reads:
Whenever in any special act passed after the seventh day of July, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen, it is stated or provided that a railway company shall have power to acquire, transmit and distribute electric and other power or energy, such company, subject to the provisions of this act, may for the purposes of its undertaking acquire, but not by expropriation, electric and other power or energy, and transmit and deliver the same to any place in the municipalities through which the railway is built,
And so on. Section 11 as now proposed to be amended would be in accordance with section 368 of the Railway Act.

Private Bills


Thomas Reid: I still think there is a word missing.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
On section 13-Vessels.
Mr. HERRIDGE:: What is intended here
by the construction of wharves and docks?


Mr. RINFRET:: The railway running from Seven Islands to the prospective mine will, of course, have to be provided with wharves, docks, elevators, warehouses, et cetera, so that when the ore comes from the mine there will be facilities to accommodate it before being transshipped to the ship taking it at Seven Islands.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Is the sponsor of the
bill able to explain whether the company itself will have all the powers as wharfingers at the docks, or will it not come under the transport act?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It comes under the Railway Act and therefore under the board of railway commissioners.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Montreal has a harbour
board and Quebec has one. Will there not have to be some harbour board to operate these wharves?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I think it comes under
the general powers of the board of railway commissioners under the Railway Act.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I understand that the
wharves and docks mentioned in this section will be constructed by the company. Will the granting of the provisions of this charter impose any obligations on the government of Canada to construct wharves and docks in the area mentioned in the bill?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The Minister of Transport said the other day that he did not know of any such provision in the present law.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They would be entitled
to have the government build a dock for them. Why should we not build docks there as well as anywhere else?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14-Hotels.
Frédéric Dorion: Under section 14 the company is asking for the right to construct hotels and restaurants with the approval of the municipality. The fact of the matter is that there is no municipality in that area and I do
not think there will be one there for a long time. Therefore the only body that would have jurisdiction over that area at the present time is the government of Quebec. That is why I have an amendment to move, seconded by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmor-ency (Mr. LaCroix). I move:
That at the end of the section the period be replaced by a comma, and that the words: "and/or the Department of Municipal Affairs of the province of Quebec." be added thereto.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to ask a question on this section. Reference is made to authority being given to lay out., manage and lease parks and summer pleasure resorts with the approval, expressed by by-law, of the municipality. I should like the hon. member to explain what is intended in regard to parks and pleasure resorts. I presume there will be a municipality established. If so, will it be a company town?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: As the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay has just said, there are no municipalities in that vicinity. As a matter of fact there is not a single inhabitant in that area. The three thousand people who are living in new Quebec at present are all around the district near the sea or the water circling new Quebec. There is absolutely nobody in the area referred to. In order that the company may at some time or another attract some workmen to the area they will have to build houses and hotels, and if they want to attract men there with their wives and children they will have to provide churches and schools. At the beginning there is no question that- the municipalities will be company municipalities. But it is not the intention of the incorporators to keep the municipalities as such. As soon as a municipality is sufficiently developed to take care of itself, it is the intention of the company to continue the practice which has been followed in Quebec and to let the municipality conduct its own affairs. So far as the question of parks, which the hon. member for Kootenay West has mentioned, is concerned, these people will, of course, be entitled to have some amusement in the area. It is the intention of the company to ask for powers to build parks for the recreation of the workmen who will go there.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 15-Motor cars.
Frédéric Dorion: If we were to accept this section as it stands it would mean that all the transportation services, auto buses and motor cars, would come under the jurisdiction of the
Private Bills.

federal board of transport commissioners. My contention is that this would be contrary to the constitution. That is why I have an amendment to move, seconded by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix). I move:
That all the words after "collect rates and charges therefor" in line 36, be struck out and that the words:
"Provided however that the exercise of the powers conferred on the company by this section shall be subject to all provincial and municipal enactments and the provincial regulations of general application to highways, the regulation of highway traffic, rates and charges, and the operation of motor vehicles thereon." be substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Ritchie MacNicol: This section refers only to Canadian territory? It would not refer to Labrador at all.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I would remind the hon. member that we are asking only for the power to do it. Before we can come to any arrangement with either the provincial authorities or the authorities of Labrador we must have the power.


Angus MacInnis: I have not the legal training which would enable me to answer this question for myself. Has this parliament the jurisdiction to pass a law that no rate or charge shall be demanded or taken until it has been approved by the provincial board? I believe our powers are confined to rates charged under the jurisdiction of this parliament.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The amendment does not say that. The amendment says that it shall be subject to all provincial and municipal enactments. The board of transport commissioners remains the deciding board.


Angus MacInnis: Did not the hon. member say that his amendment was striking out all the words after "therefor"?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Then we come clearly under the Railway Act, under section 368 and various other sections of that act. The board of transport commissioners is the appropriate authority in the matter.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 16 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
On section 19-Commencement date.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This section says:
Tile company may, wdthin five years after the passing of this act, commence to construct the line of railway, and may within ten years after the passing of this act complete the said line of railway.
Should not the word "may" be "shall"?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I think it comes to exactly the same thing because, if the hon. member continues to read the section, he will see that it says that, unless it is started within the five years, the power becomes null and void. It means the same thing.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Before the bill passes, I have one question to ask of the hon. member who is piloting the bill. If he cannot answer it now it will be quite all right. Anybodjr who knows anything about the area knows that Grand falls are not far east of this area, perhaps 150 to 200 miles down the river. Is the hon. member in a position to tell the committee whether the company has been visualizing the acquiring or endeavouring to acquire the power rights on Grand falls and, if so, will there be development of power' there?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: As I understand it, Grand falls is not in Canadian territory but in Labrador. Some research has been made but there is no definite information on it. Various power sites have been surveyed but no decision has been arrived at. I think the hon. member for Davenport has in mind that at some time it might be possible to develop Grand falls with a view to smelting ore on the spot. The company has examined that feature of the matter but no decision has been arrived at. At the moment the idea is to move the ore to the furnace rather than coal to the mine, because there is no coal in the vicinity and it *would be less expensive to move the ore to the furnace than to move the coal to the ore.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What I bad in mind is that Grand falls are very high and have a great volume of water. These are the two principal facts in the development of power. If the company ever did acquire Grand falls I imagine it would, be possible to smelt the, ore there. It is being done in Sweden, but we have not done it anywhere in Canada. I hope that in the not too distant future we shall do it.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I shall pass the information on, to the. company.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 20-General advantage of Canada.
Angus MacInnis: Would somebody enlighten me as to the reason for this section? What is the meaning of it? Is it a standard section which is found in such bills? How much of the company's property is included in the words: "The works and undertakings of the company. ..." I understand that a large share of the undertakings of the company had to do with provincial resources and was there-

Supreme Court Act
fore beyond the jurisdiction of this parliament.
I	should like to know now what the implications of the section are and why it is here.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The hon. member for Vancouver East has mentioned that certain resources are included in the undertakings referred to in this section, and he has gone on to talk about concessions or leases which are not provided for by this bill. As I said before, all these concessions and leases have been granted by another government under legislation quite different from this. The undertaking under this bill is simply the railroad and the various other powers that have been granted to this railway company by sections
II	to 16. That is the undertaking of the company.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
James Horace King: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With the consent of the house, now.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I move that the bill be now read the third time.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Before you put the motion, Mr. Speaker, there are a few words I should like to say. Personally, and speaking for the members of this group on this matter, I do not think the bill should be read the third time. This bill confers wide and sweeping powers.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order. If anyone objects to third reading after amendments, the bill cannot be read the third time now and stands for third reading at the next sitting of the house.


James Horace King: Does the house consent to the third reading?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Horace King: Next sitting.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. LaCroix for the second reading of Bill No. 133, to amend the criminal code (illegal organizations).
Mr. ILSLEY:: Mr. Speaker, I moved the adjournment of this debate and I should like to move the adjournment again.
Mr. LaCROIX: Do I understand that the debate had been adjourned by the minister?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right. I am not ready to proceed and I want to move the adjournment again.
Mr. LaCROIX: It stands, then?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.
Mr. LaCROIX: Stands.



SUPREME COURT ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. E. JAENICKE (Ivindersley) moved the second reading of Bill No. 154, to amend the Supreme Court Act.
He said: This bill is practically identical with Bill No. 9 which was introduced into this parliament by the Hon. C. H. Cahan in 1939. That bill came up for second reading in this house on April 14, 1939, and on motion of the Right Hon. Mr. Lapointe, then Minister of Justice, the debate was adjourned with the object that, before the house was called upon to vote on the principle of the bill, it should be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not this parliament had the power to enact the proposed legislation. This was done and the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutional powers of parliament to enact this legislation, as reported in 1940 Supreme Court Reports, page 49, though one of the learned judges dissented in whole and another dissented in part. From this decision of our supreme court an appeal was taken to the privy council. The hearing of this appeal was postponed until after the conclusion of the war. The appeal has now been disposed of, and the privy council upheld the validity of the legislation. The case is reported in 1947 (1 D.L.R. page 801). The concluding sentence of the judgment as reported on page 816 reads as follows:
Their lordships are of the opinion that . . . Bill 9 of the fourth session of the eighteenth parliament of Canada entitled "An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act" is wholly intra vires of the parliament of Canada, and they will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly.
It therefore becomes unnecessary for me to discuss in any way the constitutional aspect of this new bill before us. In reading the debates in this house on previous occasions, when this matter was before parliament, one finds that the constitutional aspect of the situation was always the most prominent feature of the debate, but in view of the binding judicial decision which we have now received, I say that it is no longer necessary to discuss the constitutional aspect.
Supreme Court Act
[Stage Direction]
I have, however, reason to believe that, although we now have the undoubted constitutional power to enact this legislation, there are still some people among us who would hesitate to support this bill for various reasons, but I presume I can honestly maintain that such people are in the minority. I believe, on the other hand, that the vast majority of the Canadian people endorse the principle of this bill, mainly because of a present awareness of Canadian sovereignty, and because of a pride in this sovereignty, a pride that is justified by the achievements of Canada during the war, achievements especially in the production field, which equal or at least approach the achievements of some of the great powers.
This state of Canadian sovereignty is especially emphasized by Lord Jowitt, who delivered the judgment of the privy council. When discussing the argument of counsel opposing the validity of the legislation with respect to appeals from provincial courts, the learned lord said this at page 815:
It is in fact a prime element in the self-government of the dominion, that it should he able to secure through its own courts of justice that the law should be one and the same for all its citizens. This result is attainable only if section 101 now authorizes the establishment of a court with final and exclusive appellate jurisdiction. The words used by Lord Macmillan in delivering the opinion of the board in Croft v. Dunphy (1933), 1 D.L.R. 225 at page 228, upon a question that arose in regard to one of the specific subjects enumerated in section 91 are equally applicable in the consideration of section 101: "Their Lordships," he said, "see no reason to restrict the permitted scope of such legislation by any other consideration than is applicable to the legislation of a fully sovereign state.
Yet even in spite of this strong prevailing sentiment of sovereignty, as I mentioned before, there are undoubtedly objections here and there, and perhaps even some hon. members might entertain thoughts of doubt and might hesitate to go along with us who advocate that this spirit of sovereignty be given full scope and application; and anticipating their arguments, I might be permitted to mention some of those which might be advanced, all of which are, I claim, untenable and inconsistent with this main argument of mine based upon this idea of sovereignty.
Perhaps the passing of this bill, which I hope we may be able to accomplish, will be another great step in our development through the decades toward Canadian sovereignty. It is but a fulfilment of the growth and development of our constitution, as it has so often been expressed in statements by great Canadians who have gone before; and it has even been expressed in judgments of the privy council itself on numerous occasions.

When the Hon. C. H. Cahan spoke to the second reading of this bill in 1939, he said this, as reported at page 2814 of Hansard of that year:
After all, to my mind the constitution is not a dead organ; it is a living organism, which grows with the body which it animates, and the only way in which we shall ever grow to be a country is by looking at it in that way.
The sentiments expressed by the hon. gentleman in the foregoing quotation are but an echo of the thoughts of the fathers of confederation when they formulated the proposals which led up to the British North America Act, and although we may have been criticizing some of the decisions of the privy council, yet on occasion some of the same sentiments were expressed by the learned law lords themselves. In the reference pertaining to section 24 of the British North America Act-reported in 1930, 1 D.L.R., page 98- Lord Sankey had this to say:
The British North America Act planted in Canada a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits.
To oppose the passage of this bill would, in my humble opinion, only be an effort to hinder the growth of this living tree or of this living organism as described so vividly and adequately by the Hon. C. H. Cahan.
However, as I said, I must anticipate some objections, and in the preparation of my arguments in that behalf I have been greatly assisted by a perusal of the admirable work of Doctor Maurice Ollivier, legal adviser of this house, in his book, "Problems of Canadian Sovereignty". I am also indebted greatly to the speeches made in this house upon the subject by the Hon. C. H. Cahan; by the Right Hon. Mr. Lapointe, a former minister of justice; by Mr. Thorson, the former member for Selkirk who is now, I believe, a judge of our exchequer court; and by other eminent and noted Canadians. It is really their work, their pioneering in this field which I wish to place for a few moments before this house.
One of the arguments against the measure would no doubt be that abolishing appeals to the privy council would take away the prerogative of the king of hearing appeals of his subjects. I wish to differ from this contention, because in the long run His Majesty does not hear these appeals personally, but depends upon his judges; and in making the Supreme Court of Canada the final court of appeal we simply substitute His Majesty's Canadian judges as the final arbiters upon any grievances brought before him by his subjects in Canada.
On page 232 of his book, "Problems of Canadian Sovereignty", Doctor Ollivier quotes Lord Haldane as follows:

Supreme Court Act
The prerogative of the crown is a vague expression . . . since Lord Coke vindicated the powers of parliament in the days of James I, it has been clear that the sovereign can only administer justice in courts recognized by parliament, and that he cannot interfere with the judges who preside in these courts.
Further, on page 235 of the same book, the learned author, before quoting from the summary of the proceedings of the imperial conference of 1926, makes this valid argument:
. . . if the judgment of the privy council is merely an order in council passed on the advice of a group of imperial advisers to give effect to the report of the committee it is high time that the right of appeal should be abolished and that the King, as King of Canada, should act on the advice of his Canadian ministers, for, as stated in the report of the imperial conference, 1926, "it is the right of the government of each dominion to advise the crown in all matters relating to its own affairs."
Another argument which could be put forward against the measure before the house, might be that the abolishing of appeals to the privy council would mean the severing of another link with the British commonwealth of nations. I do not for one minute agree with any such contention. The Hon. C. H. Cahan, in his admirable address before this this house in April, 1939, dealt with this objection in the following words, as reported on page 2812 of Hansard of that year:
For my own part, I fervently favour that imperial connection which is established by our allegiance to the crown and by Canada's membership, as an autonomous dominion, in the British commonwealth of nations, but nevertheless, I am fully persuaded that the continuance of Canada's amicable relations and good understanding with the government of the United Kingdom w'ill best ibe promoted by the repeal, so far as applicable to this dominion, of such imperial statutes as, the Judicial Committee Acts, which now confer upon the government of the United Kingdom the political authority and the legal right to intervene, at its discretion, in the administration and enforcement of the laws of Canada. Such intervention the people of an autonomous dominion, in my opinion, should not continue to tolerate.
The more free the people of Canada are from the officious intervention in our domestic affairs by the government of the United Kingdom, the more readily will our people assume and fulfil the duties and responsibilities which are implied in our continued membership in the British commonwealth.
I wish to assure the house that I most sint-cerely and heartily support the sentiments of the hon. gentleman, who was, I believe, a great Canadian. Furthermore, on page 235 of his book formerly mentioned, Doctor Ollivier quotes a memorandum of Australian delegates regarding the provisions of the draft commonwealth bill, and this is what they had to say:
The consciousness of kinship, the consciousness of a common blood, and a common sense of
duty, the pride of their race and history, these are the links of empire, bonds which attach, not bonds which chafe. When the Australian fights for the empire, he is inspired by these sentiments, but no patriotism was ever inspired or sustained by any thought of the privy council.
Another argument that might be advanced is that because the privy council has no connection with our politics and with local conditions it would be a more impartial and therefore a more capable body to adjudicate upon Canadian disputes, especially constitutional matters. I may say that this argument is most vigorously attacked and refuted in the debates which occurred in this house some years ago. As a matter of fact, in their criticisms of the decisions of the privy council, some of the arguments advanced were strong, and their condemnations of the privy council were such that I hesitate to go along with them. The criticism advanced, and I say rightly, goes as far as to say that the decisions of the privy council upon constitutional questions have changed and distorted the intention and spirit of the pact of our fathers of confederation. If hon. gentlemen will read the debate in this house in 1937 when the estimates of the Department of Justice were before the committee of the whole, some very strong statements were made as to the failure of the privy council to live up to what was expected of them in the interpretation of our constitution and to interpret the law in the light of Canadian conditions. I should like to quote one portion of Doctor Ollivier's book in that respect, contained on pages 240 and 241, which is simply an editorial of the Ottawa Journal written many years ago, but which is still applicable, and which, I believe, still epitomizes the opinions of some of those who have made a great study of this matter and of the argument as to whether or not a foreign court is a better judge of Canadian affairs than our own Supreme Court of Canada:
Speaking of the following cases: Toronto v. Toronto Street Railway, Winnipeg v. Winnipeg Street Railway and Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company v. The King, the editor of the Ottawa Journal wrote many years ago:	"A
number of decisions of great importance made recently by the law lords of the privy council have been such as to raise doubt of the equity of that tribunal. Ground is given for the suspicion that, however dissociated the law lords of the privy council may be from our local prejudices or predilections, they may not be without unconscious bias due to their own surrounding and atmosphere . . . several judgments recently given suggest an undue tenderness to vested interests, seeing that in all cases referred to the Canadian courts had previously decided the other way . . . we take the liberty of thinking that the law lords of the privy council are
Supreme Court Act
[Stage Direction]
quite likely to be the mistaken ones. And in all these cases it was a question of vested right against the public weal.
"We confess that these eases, coming within a couple of years, shake your idea of the desirability of the opinion of going to the privy council. We believe Canadian judges to be of as high a standard of honour as English judges and to be as judicial in their frame of mind . . .
"At all events, the fact is decidedly discomforting that in law suits affecting three great public contracts in Canada, all of which are governed by Canadian law, all the judicial decisions in Canada should have been in favour of the public and all the decisions of the imperial privy council in favour of the private corporations."
In closing, I should like to emphasize what I said before, namely that, to my mind, the argument which I make, and which is based upon the spirit of sovereignty of the Canadian people, is irrefutable, and that the bill should receive the favourable consideration and approval of this house. I think it will play its part in unifying the Canadian people, and if so it will make a stronger Canada. There is no question about the bonds which connect us with the empire and commonwealth, and a stronger Canada will ultimately be reflected in a stronger British commonwealth of nations.
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the proposal set out in Bill No. 154, to amend the Supreme Court Act. There is considerable opposition to this measure, which is based upon, a policy contrary to the views held by several of the provinces, which believe that we should have a judicial body such as the privy council to decide questions of jurisdiction as between the provinces and the dominion. These matters have come up in the courts for many years, and in my opinion the privy council seems to be one court where litigants can get justice.
The proposal is founded on a statute which is called the Statute of Westminster. That was one of the most unfortunate statutes ever passed; it was nothing but an empire-wrecking affair. The Statute of Westminster has been construed by the privy council, and were it not for that statute we would not have the right to bring in legislation to abolish appeals to that body. This bill consists of two clauses. The Supreme Court of Canada was constituted by this parliament with certain judicial powers. Under the Supreme Court Act the Minister of Justice has certain powers. That court was found necessary, and it is still necessary to have such a court in a country like Canada with divergent views on many matters coming under sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act. On the whole, that court has given very good satisfaction.

The province of Ontario is opposed to this proposal, because it believes that the privy council should remain as the great guardian of the rights of both the provinces and the dominion. Under the British North America Act the rights of minorities are guaranteed, and the right to use the French language is also guaranteed. That guarantee would be removed if this legislation were passed. They had an experience like this in the United States at the time Louisiana was purchased; there was a treaty with France. What happened? One of the new governors, Huey Long, came along and took it away from them.
From the time of its inception, the privy council has been the great defender of the rights of minorities in this country; because minorities have rights, the same as majorities. It has been a blessing that we have had this provision. Decisions of the privy council have been most valuable to the unity of this country. One should first look at the Supreme Court Act, and then at the Statute of Westminster; he should read the two together in order to have a clear understanding of this judgment of the privy council.
In 1935, Mr. Cahan, who was then the member for St. Lawrence-St. George, introduced a resolution, because he was not satisfied with some decision the court had given in a case with which he -had been connected, although that may not have been the main reason. He was not satisfied with a judicial decision which had been given, and wanted to have the court abolished. That might be an unpopular thing to do, because some people in this country would like also to abolish the high court of parliament, the highest court in our land. In fact they would like to see us abolished, too.
It will be noted that on January 13, 1947, the judicial committee of the privy council decided that the dominion parliament may, in the exercise of the wide amplitude of power conferred by section 101 of the British North America Act, vest the Supreme Court of Canada with final and exclusive civil and appellate jurisdiction within and for Canada. This is found in the explanatory note. It states:
. . . and may accordingly deny any appeal to His Majesty in council either from the supreme court or from any provincial court and regardless of whether the matter in question is within the exclusive legislative authority of the dominion or of the provincial legislatures.
The purpose of the present bill is to give effect to the decision of the privy council mentioned above-
That is the decision of December 13, 1947.
-and also to a previous decision respecting appeals in criminal matters viz: British Coal Corporation v. The King in 1935.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
What is section 54 of the Supreme Court Act, which they seek to strike out? It says:
54. The judgment of the court shall, in all cases, be final and conclusive, and no appeal shall be brought from any judgment or order of the court to any court of appeal established iby the parliament of Great Britain and Ireland, by which appeals or petitions to His Majesty in council may be ordered to be heard, saving any right which His Majesty may be graciously pleased to exercise by virtue of his royal prerogative.
Ireland did not wait for that. She abolished the court and abolished the office of Lord Lieutenant, the office of the king and the supremacy of the parliament of Great Britain, and also abolished appeals to the privy council; all of her own volition, despite the fact that at the time Mr. Lloyd George was Prime Minister there had been a treaty setting out that appeals to the privy council and the office of Lord Lieutenant must remain forever. Notwithstanding that, they automatically abolished these things, in their own legislature. Then the explanatory note to this bill goes on to say:
The right of appeal to His Majesty in council has been regulated in certain statutes of the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, of which two are important:	The Judicial Committee Act, 1833
(3 and 4, W. 4, c. 41) and the Judicial Committee Act, 1844 (7 and 8 Viet., c. 69).
The Act of 1833 recites that "from the decisions of various courts of judicature in the East Indies and in the plantations, colonies and other dominions of His Majesty abroad, an appeal lies to His Majesty in council," and proceeds to regulate the manner of such appeal. The Act of 1844 recites that "the judicial committee, acting under the authority of the said acts (the act of 1833 and an amending act) hath been found to answer well the purposes for which it was so established by parliament, but it is found necessary to improve its proceedings in some respects for the better dispatch of business and expedient also to extend its jurisdiction and powers."
Then it goes on to say:
*The first section of the Act of 1844 enacts that it shall be competent to Her Majesty by general or special order in council to "provide for the admission of any appeal or appeals to Her Majesty in council from any judgments, sentences, decrees or orders of any court of justice within any British colony or possession abroad."
This bill is in accordance with only one decision. I venture to say the judicial committee 'would not have given the decision they did, had it not been based on the Statute of Westminster; because, after all is said and done, that is about the only principle involved in the decision of the judicial committee of the privy council. Then the explanatory note goes on to say:
This bill is in accordance with the decisions of the privy council above referred to, which themselves were based on the provisions of the Statute of Westminster, 1931 (22 Geo. V, c. 4), sections two and three, which read as follows: -
"2. (:l) The Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, shall not apply to any law made after the commencement of this act by the parliament of a dominion."
That was another statute, the Colonial Laws Validity Act. the then member for St. Lawrence-St. George, Mr. Cahan, who was an able man and well liked by me' and many in the house, did not like. Neither did he like appeals to the privy council. This explanatory note states that the Colonial Law's Validity Act-
. . . shall not apply to any law made after the commencement of this act by the parliament of a dominion.


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the hour reserved for private and public bills having expired, the house will revert to the business before six o'clock.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 23, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain the amendments?


Mr. MacKINNON:: The effect of the first amendment, the principal one, is to provide that part II as well as part IV of Bill No. 23 will expire on August 1, 1950. Part II as well as part IV are new legislation. Part II of Bill No. 23 deals with the apportioning of the use of elevator and transportation facilities equitably among producers. This amendment, if accepted by the house, means that the power of the board to establish delivery quotas and to move grain in commercial channels expires on August 1, 1950.
Having regard to the fact that parliament will have to consider wheat legislation well in advance of August 1, 1950, the government is prepared to accept this amendment. As a matter of fact, while this bill was before the committee in the other place, on behalf of the government I told the committee we were quite ready to accept the amendment, inasmuch as the whole legislation had to come before parliament before August 1, 1950, and that, in my opinion, the wheat board were not being given any power that they would need
Canadian Wheat Board Act

in any way to carry out the government's wheat programme, which it is seeking to implement by this bill.


Howard Charles Green: What about the other
amendments?


James Angus MacKinnon: The other amendments are minor in character, largely verbal changes. "His bank" is changed to "any bank". The word "the" is dropped and "to that extent" is added after "shall".


Howard Charles Green: What about the one in lines 39 and 40?


James Angus MacKinnon: The amendment is to delete the words "and allowances authorized by the board" and substitute "allowances and costs provided for in such agreement". The chairman and the solicitor of the Canadian wheat board advised that this was not giving any additional security beyond what the act provided, but it was the wish of the people concerned to put in these additional words and the solicitor for the board saw no reason why that should not be done.


James Arthur Ross: I had not seen or heard of these amendments until the dinner . hour but, looking over them, I am inclined to agree with them for this reason. I did not favour the compulsory features from 1950 on.
I can see that if conditions were bad the government might have to set a price for wheat only half of what it is now and they would have power to do that but for this amendment. The solicitor for the wheat board is reported in the press as having said that the real concern of the wheat board is the maintenance of the five-year pool rather than filling export quotas to Britain. I understood that the whole reason for this amendment to the wheat board act was to fill the quotas to Britain; that that was the principal reason for this legislation. I have read at length the report of the solicitor to the wheat board, and he has given his opinion that the Canada-United Kingdom wheat agreement should be considered in the form of a general treaty rather than an agreement; that there is no harm if they fall down on fulfilling an agreement. He says that the whole object is the maintenance of the five-year pool rather than the filling of the quotas to Britain. Does the minister confirm that statement?


James Angus MacKinnon: No, that is not my understanding at all. The object of the legislation is twofold. It is to enable the wheat board to carry out the agreement that has been made for the sale to the United Kingdom, and, on the other hand, to provide for
	.
the payment to the producer of wheat of a guaranteed price, plus participation certificates, for a period of five years.


Mr. WRIGHT:: What is the import of the amendment on page 15, lines 15 and 16, which deletes the words "directed by the board". Does that take away from the board the power to direct delivery of the wheat to a particular terminal?


James Angus MacKinnon: The solicitor and the chairman of the board agree that this will in no way interfere with the powers they have now.


Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to say a few words with regard to the first amendment. I think the argument advanced by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) is fairly sound; but I would point out that there are some objections to this amendment. We are trying today to get an international multilateral agreement on wheat. The efforts have not been too successful so far, but we still have hopes that such an agreement can be negotiated. If it is negotiated it will probably extend for a five-year period from the time the agreement is reached, and in all probability the international agreement would extend until 1952 or 1953. So if we accept this amendment and it stays in the act until 1950 it would mean that we would be curtailing the powers of the board to fulfil any multilateral agreement to assemble and deliver grain under that agreement. In 1950 it takes from the board the powers which we in western Canada have for a number of years been trying to give to the board, that is the power to maintain orderly marketing in western Canada. It also takes from the board the power to maintain orderly marketing in the fall of the year so that our growers may have a quota. In that respect the amendment is a serious matter. This is something which we have fought for in western Canada, but now in 1950 we are putting the onus on the growers of western Canada to come back again and fight to have this power put back in the act at that time. We should realize just what we are doing by this amendment which is a serious one.


Mr. QUELCH:: My first reaction to the amendment when I read it was one of opposition, but, on the other hand, I realize that part IV and part III expire because the government guarantees the price only to July, 1950, and the price will have to be reset at that time. While I still stand solidly behind the idea of the wheat board being a marketing agency, nevertheless I would be bitterly opposed to compelling the farmer to sell to an

Trading with the Enemy
agency if the price set was an unfair one. Before we go farther with this measure I should like the government to tell us what the new price will be, or I should like to wait until 1950 and see what the new price will be. Then we would be in a better position to go along the lines contained in this measure.


Mr. BURTON:: I regret to take up the time of the house, but I feel I would not be doing my duty to a large number of producers I represent were I not to voice a word of protest at this time. While I can hardly agree that the other amendments have little significance, the new clause 19A should not be passed too lightly. As has been mentioned, the wheat board act will have to be considered before the end of the crop year 1950 and I contend, Mr. Speaker, that the insertion of this amendment in the bill now is anticipating conditions as they may be at that time. I suggest that it would be much better to allow the bill to stand as it originally passed through the house and to permit parliament at that time to deal with the matter in accordance with conditions as they will be at that time. While I do not want unduly to oppose the bill, I do wish to protest against anticipating what conditions will be in 1950.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 22, respecting trading with the enemy (1943). as amended.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Revised regulations respecting trading with the enemy continued.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to say a brief word concerning what I consider to be the commendable face-lifting job done on this bill by the public accounts committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Section 2 of the original bill was linked with the original section 3. They would have permitted the governor in council to amend the regulations which become part and parcel of the act by reason of being in the schedule. That feature of the 8316S-188
bill was struck out in its entirety in the committee. I think the committee is to be commended in that respect, in that they have preserved to parliament the exclusive right to legislate, instead of handing over to the governor in council what is, in essence and in fact, a power to legislate.
A number of amendments have been made to the regulations themselves and they are now incorporated in section 2 of the bill.
One other matter is deserving of mention. The original bill did1 not contain any provision for the submission of an annual report to parliament. I do not need to reopen the discussion of a few weeks ago concerning the failure of the governor in council to render to parliament any report on the administration of the custodian of enemy property, whether it was the administration of property of enemy nationals or nationals of countries overrun by the enemy; whether it was administration of property of persons of the Japanese race in Canada or administration of property of organizations that were declared to be illegal during the war. Under amendments made by the public accounts committee, the custodian of enemy property must now submit to parliament annually a report of his administration, within three months after the close of the calendar year, and the report must be laid on the table of parliament within fifteen days of the commencement of parliament, or if parliament is in session it must be laid on the table of parliament forthwith. It is fair to say that the public accounts committee has done a commendable piece of face-lifting on this bill.


William Henry Golding: Before the section passes, may I say that the hon. member for Eglinton has given a good deal of credit to the public accounts committee for the work it did on this bill, but I should like to congratulate the hon. member on the splendid service he rendered to the committee because he gave this bill a great deal of consideration and was very helpful in that regard.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is the last measure under the emergency legislation with which the house has to deal. I should like to take this opportunity to thank hon. members of all parties for their fine spirit of cooperation in getting through the house a difficult series

Privilege

of measures dealing with this transitional legislation. If I might also be permitted to do what is not generally done, I should like to pay tribute to my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) for the great work that he did in piloting the measures through the house. I think the house will support me in that.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 9.17 p.m.
Monday, May 12, 1947