1949-04-25

ORDERS IN COUNCIL


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Hon. members will recall that on March 9 I tabled a summary of the first one hundred orders in council passed after July 1, 1948, and the first one hundred passed after January 1, 1949, and said that other summaries would be provided if members of the house wished to have them.
I now wish to table summaries of all the orders in council from July 1, 1948, to September 30, 1948. The work of summarizing these is of some magnitude, and it is being proceeded with as expeditiously as possible. As soon as the summaries can be prepared, they will be tabled.

On the orders of the day:
Mr. J H. Harris (Danforlh): Will the Prime Minister supplement his statement with regard to the orders in council that are being reviewed and of which a summary is being made? Can he assure the house that the summary up to the moment of dissolution will be tabled before parliament is dissolved? Can he say whether they can all be tabled before dissolution?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No one can give that assurance. I can assure the hon. member that they will be tabled as quickly as they can be prepared.


Mr. Harris (Danforth):: Will the Prime Minister table them as fast as they are prepared, perhaps every second or third day? These are very important orders in council.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No; I cannot undertake to do that, because I imagine it would mean tabling one at a time several times a day. If the hon. member wishes me to say it, I will say that as soon as those for one month have been prepared, I will table them. I will give him that assurance.



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: that the fourth report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, presented to the house on Friday, April 8, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I should like to move, as provided by the notice which appears on today's order paper under government notices of motions:
That on Monday, the 25th April instant, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except questions and notices of motions for the production of papers.
The purpose of this motion is to proceed as rapidly as possible with the debate on the budget. In view of the long list of interesting speeches which have been made on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, it is hoped that the debate on the budget may be brief. I trust that we may now have the co-operation of the house in bringing the debate to a close today, or at the latest tomorrow, so that we may get into committee on the resolutions.
Judging from the tone of the debate thus far, I have been under the impression that everything in these resolutions was looked upon as good, and that if there was any criticism of them it was that there were not more of them, or that they did not go far enough. It would seem that the general feeling was that what is there is quite properly there, although some hon. members felt that there might have been more. If it suits the convenience of the house, we should like to get on with the debate as soon as possible.
When we adjourned for the Easter recess, the Minister of Public Works announced that the house would be asked to consider the resolution of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) having to do with an amendment to

Business of the House
the Judges Act to provide for a possible increase in the number of judges in the province of Quebec. Legislation to this end has been passed by the Quebec legislature, but has not yet been proclaimed. It is felt by many that serious delays are occasioned by the fact that there is more work to do than the present number of judges can take care of, and that it might be desirable to have the Judges Act in such shape that an early appointment of additional judges can be made if and when the government of Quebec proclaims the provincial legislation to which I have referred. To proceed with this resolution would require the unanimous consent of the house, because it is only at the stage where His Excellency's acquiescence would be declared; normally it could not come up for consideration until the next sitting. If there were objection to its being considered today, of course the objection would have to prevail.
There is also on the order paper a resolution dealing with family allowances; it proposes that the period of waiting required of children coming into the country be reduced from three years to one year, and provides for the elimination of the decrease in scale in family allowances resulting from the number of children in the family. This seems to be something which most parties in this house advocate; therefore it may be that the resolution can be expeditiously disposed of so that the bill founded on it could be brought down, and any debate that might arise on the principle of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the measure proposed by the government could take place on the bill. However, the government would not care to insist upon this, because it was not announced before the house rose for the Easter recess. The purpose of this motion is to make way for the budget debate. If these two measures which I have mentioned can be expeditiously disposed of, it will further the progress of their consideration at later stages.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: While I think the house will agree with the motion, I want to say again it is regrettable that in recent sessions of parliament private members' resolutions have not been reached. There are on the order paper a number of private members' resolutions which are of importance to their constituencies and to the country generally. It is true that in the debate on the address and on the budget we have an opportunity to debate some of these matters. But many hon. members have exhausted their right to speak in these two debates, and they would like the opportunity to deal with such matters, for example, as irrigation, or the coal mining industry and a national fuel policy, which are the subject matter of a IMr. St. Laurent.]
motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr Gillis).
Before the war we used to have debates on private members' resolutions which I think were very useful. Over the past few years we have been deprived of that opportunity-with our own consent, incidentally, always; but it is regrettable that this has been done again at this session. The Prime Minister said earlier in the session that opportunities would be given later for hon. members to discuss their resolutions, but on the first day of our meeting after the Easter recess we have this motion of the Prime Minister which again prevents the consideration of private members' resolutions. It is wise that we should go on with the business of the house. Apparently there is a good deal of uncertainty in the house and throughout the country as to how long this session will continue. In spite of that uncertainty, we should endeavour to deal with some of these matters which are of importance to private members, who have few opportunities of discussing them.
While I am not opposing the motion now before the house, I offer this protest and ask that private members' days be not interfered with again during this session.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: There are two things I should like to say. First of all I want to support the request made by my leader that, if the session goes on, further private members' days be not again taken away. I remind the Prime Minister that on March 25 the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) asked if we would be having private members' days, and the Prime Minister replied that after Monday-the Monday then following-there would be nothing to interfere with the application of the standing orders. Since that statement was made, there have been three occasions on which the application of the standing orders would have provided a private members' day; we had only one of them, and now the opportunity is again taken away by this motion. The Prime Minister should indicate today what the intention of the government is with respect to Wednesday of this week, Monday of next week and Wednesday of next week, and so on-if we are still here. Perhaps the Prime Minister would take advantage of this opportunity to tell us whether or not we shall still be here.
The other matter which I should like to draw to the Prime Minister's attention is this. Each time a motion of this kind has been passed by the house we seem to have omitted the calling of the orders of the day. That is perfectly understandable; today, for instance, we pass a motion calling for questions, and then for government orders which appear at the back of the order paper; and perhaps

inadvertently-or it may be because Mr. Speaker feels it should be done that way-the orders of the day have not been called. I submit that the phrase "orders of the day" applies not only to the page on which that heading appears, but also to all subsequent pages.
If this motion passes, in view of the fact that many of us have questions to ask today, will it be understood that at some stage of this afternoon's proceedings "orders of the day" will be called?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: I think it would be the desire of hon. members to have the orders of the day called before proceeding with the matters which would come under the standing orders.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 233, to declare the meat packing industry works for the general advantage of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to make that part of the meat packing industry which carries on operations in two or more provinces subject to section 53(g) of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. In matters of collective bargaining the industry will then be able to negotiate on a national basis, and the government of Canada will have the authority to deal with disputes in an industry whose smooth functioning is essential to the national economy.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



COARSE GRAINS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the legislature of Manitoba has joined the legislatures of Alberta and Saskatchewan in enacting complementary legislation in reference to the marketing of coarse grains, will the compulsory marketing of coarse grains now become automatic, or does the government intend to give further consideration to the question whether the course recommended by these legislatures will be carried into effect?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I heard about the Manitoba act for the first time this morning. I may say I have been traveling for the last few days.
Inquiries of the Ministry The government set the prerequisite to the act being brought into force on two or three occasions. Apparently that prerequisite has been complied with. The government will study the situation in the light of what has been said in the past.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. The farmers of western Canada are now seeding. The amount of land sown to coarse grains will depend to a considerable extent, I believe, upon whether this act is implemented or not, and whether the price established under it is satisfactory. I suggest that as soon as possible the minister should make a statement with respect to price.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Speaking as Minister of Trade and Commerce, I hope there will be a great deal of coarse grain sown this year. I can say again that the government will give consideration to the matter in the hope of making an early announcement.



COMBINES ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the difficulties which have arisen in the enforcement of our anticombines legislation, will the Prime Minister tell the house whether it is the intention of the government to introduce a bill at this session designed to make our anti-combines legislation more effective?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I understand the Minister of Justice and his department have prepared a bill for the consideration of the government, but as yet there has not been an opportunity for the government to give it consideration. It is intended to give it consideration as soon as possible, and when a decision has been made it will be announced in the house. The Minister of Justice feels that there should be legislation.


Major James William Coldwell: This session?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes, if there is an opportunity to have it enacted. So far we have been disappointed in many of the things we hoped to do this session.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare? I take it that he knows what is coming. In view of

Inquiries of the Ministry the many reports during the Easter recess- reports so definite that many people thought that action had been taken-can the minister say whether at this session the old age pension is to be increased and the eligible age lowered?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) had given me notice of his intention to ask a similar question. Apparently, however, he was not as quick getting on his feet as the hon. member who has just spoken. I may say that I am placing today in Votes and Proceedings a resolution which will outline the government's intention.



TRADE WITH BRITAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkion):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Before he visits Great Britain will he make a statement to the house on the present situation of our British markets?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The present state of our markets in the United Kingdom is quite normal. My purpose in going there is to take part in the opening of the British industries fair, and not for any reason having to do with changing the situation in respect of British trade.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Stephenson (Durham):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that auditors and others engaged in making out income tax returns cannot cope with the large numbers of returns to be made, will the minister reconsider the question of granting an extension of time for the filing of returns?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Representations similar to those now made by the hon. member have been made on a number of previous occasions. The final date for the filing of returns is April 30, and it is not the intention of the government to extend it.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Gladys Strum (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of


the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that the federal government has taken over the ownership of post office boxes, and postmasters throughout the country are now deprived of revenues from those boxes, will the federal government before this session breaks up see that payment is made to postmasters for the boxes?


Hon. Ernest Bertrand (Postmaster General):: Orders have been given in the department to pay postmasters immediately for the boxes. I think quite a number have already received cheques. However, I shall take the matter up with the officers in my department and see that it is looked into at once.


Mr. Graydon:: When the minister is looking into that matter may I ask him to include in his memorandum the postmaster at Lakeview, Ontario?


Major James William Coldwell: I think most of us have received requests from local postmasters which we hope will be dealt with.



CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF DOMINION CO-OPERATIVE BILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. Bentley (Swift Current):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, arising out of a request by the Co-operative Union of Canada. Will the Prime Minister indicate to the house whether the government proposes to introduce a dominion co-operative bill at this session of parliament?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government does not propose to introduce a dominion co-operative bill at this session of parliament.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Burton (Humboldt):: Can the
Minister of Transport inform the house by what authority the railroads are adding a twenty per cent emergency charge to their freight rates before any increase has been granted?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: 
Joseph William Burton: I can assure the minister that there have been cases in which a twenty per cent emergency charge has been made.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Is
the Minister of Justice in a position to report to the house on the disturbances which took place on Easter Monday in the Collin's Bay penitentiary? Has any investigation been made, and if so, what is the result of that investigation?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: As my hon. friend has not given me notice of his question, I shall be glad to give him a report tomorrow.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: It has been the practice in previous sessions for the government to indicate, as the session progresses, what legislation it intends to bring down in addition to that already appearing on the order paper. Can the Prime Minister give the house some indication as to what further measures we may expect to have to deal with before the session comes to a close?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will take the hon. member's request into consideration and try to have a memorandum prepared by tomorrow or the next day.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Harkness:: What is the total number of personnel employed at national defence headquarters, broken down to show the number for navy, army and air force in the following categories (a) officers; (b) other ranks; (c) civilian employees?


Mr. Blanchette:: Officers	Other ranks	Civili- ans	TotalNavy ....	. . . 201	35	622	858Army ... .	. . 478	780	506	1764Air force .	... 370	295	326	991General Administration applicable to all services	
-	-	624	6241049	3110	2078	4237
Questions



CUSTOMS TARIFF


Mr. Green:: 1.	Have any preferences been reduced or eliminated by the government pursuant to the exchange of notes with the government of the United Kingdom dated the 30th day of October, 1947?
2.	If so, what are the details of such changes?


Mr. Reid:: 1.	No preferences have been reduced or eliminated by the government pursuant to this exchange of notes in so far as substantive tariff items are concerned. Since October 30, 1947, a number of tariff items which provide for free entry under both the British preferential tariff and the most-favoured-nation tariff have been established or broadened to include certain materials and equipment previously classified under dutiable items on which the British preferential rate was free or was lower than the most-favoured-nation rate. The materials and equipment in question are required for the production of new products in Canada, and the adjustments were made to bring the tariff items in line with the industrial changes that have taken place.
2.	The following free items now include some goods which on October 30, 1947, were classified under dutiable items on which the most-favoured-nation rate was higher than the British preferential rate: 216e, 216f, 263c, 410 a(i), 410a (ii), 431h, 476.



H.M.C. DOCKYARD, HALIFAX  STAFF

Mr. Isnor:: 1.	Is there to be a reduction in the near future at the H.M.C. dockyard, Halifax?
2.	If so, will the minister state what types of tradesmen or employees will be included?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	None contemplated at the present time.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Gagnon:: 1.	Has the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada issued an order requiring the Canadian National Railways to build a station at Chambord, province of Quebec?
2.	If so, on what date?
3.	What are the terms of the order?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Yes.
2.	April 26, 1948.
3.	The terms of the order of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, No. 70571, are:
"1. That the Canadian National Railways construct a new station at Chambord, in the province of Quebec, as shown on plan No. C-13153, dated April 6,	1948 and plan
Total

Questions
No. A.B. 701-64.2.1.1, dated December, 1947, *on file with the board under the file No. 35537.8.
2. That the construction hereby directed be completed not later than October 1, 1948."



BOEING PLANT NO. 2, VANCOUVER, B.C.

Mr. Green:: 1.	Has the Boeing No. 2 plant at Victoria been sold?
2.	If so. to whom was it sold and at what price?
3.	Has any commission been paid on such sale or is any commission to be paid in respect thereof?
4.	If so, to whom, and in what amount?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	There was no Boeing No. 2 plant at Victoria. However, the Boeing plant No. 2, which is located on Terminal avenue, Vancouver, B.C., was sold.
2.	Canada Packers Limited, at $72,000, for the buildings only.
3.	No.
4.	See answer to No. 3.



HOUSING-COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION

Mr. McGregor:: What has been the total cost of administration for each year of operation of (a) Wartime Housing Limited; (b) Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Mr. Winters:: 1. (a) The total cost of administration for each year of operation of Wartime Housing Limited as published in Public Accounts is as follows:-
Public
Accounts
Period	Reference Amount
February 28, 1941 to
March 31, 1942 ___ 633
Fiscal year 1943 ..	K128
"	"	1944	..	K134"	"	1945	..	7A156"	"	1946	..	V.A. 128
& 129
April 1, 1946 to December 31; 1946 V.A. 89 &	90
394,468.99
2,429,538.34
5,098,232.14
5,558,538.23
4,698,970.27
3,697,580.43
Total	$21,877,328.40
Less: Provisions for renewals, replacements and fire loss not required and charges for office furniture and equipment, subsequently capitalized		1,236,759.25

The administration of Wartime Housing Limited ceased as at 31st December, 1946, and management passed to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
(b) The total cost of administration for each year of operation of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, including administrative and maintenance expenditures on properties acquired from Wartime Housing Limited, is as follows: -
Property Maintenance
Year	Administrative	Expenses	Total
Expenses (excluding depreciation)
1946	
716,479 74	716,479 741947	
2,516,245 65	2,736,623! 15	5,252,868 801948	
3,795,357 73	3,688,821 99	7,484,179 72$ 7,028,083 12	$ 6,425,445 14	$13,453,528 26



WHEAT EXPORTS

Mr. Black (Yukon):: 1.	To what countries is Canada to export 205 million bushels of wheat annually for the next four years as provided by agreement reached recently by forty-six countries?
2.	Upon what terms and when will Canada be paid for those exports?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1. To any or all of the following importing countries to the extent of Canada's guaranteed sales of 203,069,635 bushels and to the extent of the guaranteed purchases of each importing country as set out in the agreement: Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Ceylon, China, Colombia, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Repub-

lie, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Liberia, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Pprtugal, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Switzerland, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, Venezuela.
2. Under the agreement Canada has the right, which it may exercise, to sell the above-mentioned quantity at the minimum prices provided in the agreement; similarly the importing countries together have the right, which they may exercise, to purchase that quantity at the maximum prices provided in the agreement. Both Canada and the importing countries may discharge their obligations

to sell and purchase wheat, by sales and purchases of the specified quantities at prices between the minimum and maximum limits of prices provided in the agreement.
The above-mentioned quantity will be made up of a large number of individual transactions in both wheat and wheat flour, including private trade and government transactions, and the specific terms and dates of payment will be in accordance with the terms of the contracts covering each individual transaction, as is now the case with our trade in wheat and wheat flour.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: 1. How many delinquent taxpayers were there in Canada, by districts, as of the 31st day of March, 1949?
2. In what amounts	are the said	taxpayers inarrears, by districts? Mr. McCann:	No. of delinquent taxpayers	AmountIncome tax	as of	ofdistrict	March 31,	arrearsCharlottetown	1949 . . 656	$ 377,798Sydney 	. . 3,781	354,707Halifax 	. . 8,927	1,869,604Saint John	.. 11.524	1,794,601Quebec 	. . 13,244	3,094,080Sherbrooke 	. . 488	63,643Montreal 	. . 70,332	11,524,079Ottawa 	. . 13,738	4,008,761Kingston 	.. 1,071	238,683Belleville 	. . 1,922	429,732Toronto 	. . 46,694	12,447,750Hamilton 	. . 9,873	2,433,453London 	.. 11,504	2,195,450Fort William	. . 5,590	975,692Winnipeg 	. . 8,260	2,103,143Regina 	. . 4,307	1,410,200Saskatoon 	. . 2,462	769,934Calgary 	. . 2,637	1,662,968Edmonton 	. . 7,833	2,030,247Vancouver 	.. 27,859	5,234,485Dawson 	. . 442	96,424253,144	$55,115,434



NAVAL SERVICE


Mr. Merritt:: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence purchased a vessel known as the Snowbird II, and if so, from whom, at what price, and to what vote was the purchase price charged?
2.	To what use will the vessel be put?
3.	Who is, or will be, the operator of the vessel during the 1949 season of arctic navigation?
4.	What are the terms of the contract of operation, and to what vote will the operating costs be charged?
Questions
5.	Was Snowbird II used in government service during the 1948 season of navigation?
6.	If so, who was the owner at that time, and what were the terms of any contract between the then owner and the government, with respect to the use of said vessel?
7.	What was the total cost to the government of the operation of the Snowbird II in the 1948 season, and to what vote were such costs charged?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Yes, The Arctic Shipping Company Limited, Edmonton, Alberta, for $365,200, paid from parliamentary vote 243, Department of National Defence.
2.	Transportation of supplies and equipment to Royal Canadian Air Force and other government arctic stations.
3 and 4. Arrangements for the operation of the vessel for the 1949 season are now under consideration, but no decision has been made.
5 and 6. Yes. The Arctic Shipping Company used this ship, under a general contract, for the movement of Royal Canadian Air Force supplies and equipment, at specified rates per ton, according to the classification of the cargo and the voyage involved.
7. $161,062, paid from parliamentary vote 243, Department of National Defence.



CITRUS FRUIT JUICES AND APPLE PRODUCTS IMPORTS

Mr. Nowlan:: 1.	What were the quantities and values of all citrus fruit juices imported into Canada from the United States during the calendar year 1948?
2.	What were the quantities, kinds and values of all apple products or by-products imported into Canada from the United States during the calendar year 1948?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1. Imports from	United States,	calendaryear 1948:	Gal.	ValueLemon juice 	. . 124,539 $	127,891Orange juice	. . 1,913,947	1,044,075Grapefruit juice ..	.. 2,281,330	947,205Pineapple juice ...	. . 16,426	16,8232.	Lb.	ValueApples, fresh 	. . 2,860,743 $	76,623Apples, dried 	. . 2,102,272	59,575
ROAD CONSTRUCTION, YUKON TERRITORY Mr. Black (Yukon):
Is labour on Mayo-Minto road project in Yukon being paid for from public funds or by the contractor building the road?


Mr. Maybank:: (a) Labour on road construction work paid by contractor; (b) labour on survey party paid from public funds.

Judges Act



DUNDURN, SASK., MILITARY CAMP

Mr. Knight:: 1.	What use is being made of the military camp at Dundurn, Saskatchewan?
2.	Has the Department of National Defence any plans for the training of personnel there in the summer of 1949?
3.	Will cadet camps be established there?
4.	If so, what will be the approximate date of (a) commencement: (b) termination of such operations?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Army summer training.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes, for cadet trades training.
4.	(a) 17th July, 1949; (b) 29th August, 1949.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Slcey:: 1.	What subcontracts have been issued on the Ford hotel project in Montreal?
2.	To whom have they been issued?
3.	For what work?
4.	At what prices?


James Joseph McCann: Return tabled.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Does the federal government own any building at Williams lake? If so, what are the particulars and value?
2.	Does the federal government rent any building or buildings at Williams lake? If so, what are the
particulars?
3.	What departments, branches, or agencies of the federal government have permanent office space at Williams lake, or require intermittent accommodation there in connection with the public service?
4.	What is the total annual building rental paid at Williams lake by the federal government?



DIRECT TAXES

Mr. Green:: What amounts by way of direct taxes have been collected annually during the last fifteen years on (a) tobacco; (b) cigarette papers; (c) jewelry; (d) cosmetics; (e) railway tickets; (f) steamship tickets; (g) railway berths; (h) steamship berths?


James Joseph McCann: Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Nicholson:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents in connection with negotiations between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the city of Toronto and the province of Ontario, in 1946-47-48, in connection with the grant for $1,150,000 to assist in slum clearance in the city of Toronto.
[Mr. Maybank.j



HOUSING


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: For a copy of all letters and telegrams exchanged between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the city of Windsor during 1948-49 in connection with the construction of an additional five hundred houses in Windsor.



JUDGES ACT, 1945 PROVISION FOR ADDITIONAL JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT IN THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

Stuart Sinclair Garson: that the house go into committee this day to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Judges Act, 1946, to authorize the governor in council to increase the number of judges of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec by not more than six judges.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: This is the resolution 1 mentioned when I moved that government orders be taken into consideration today. If I have the unanimous consent I would ask that instead of going into committee at the next sitting, the house go into committee on the resolution today.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think there is very little that can be added to the remarks which were made by the Prime Minister when the house was discussing the advisability of proceeding with this item at today's sitting. There is a serious shortage of judges in Quebec, particularly in Montreal-so much so that a large number of cases have been piled up awaiting consideration by the courts. As the Prime Minister said, the Quebec legislature, in pursuance of their authority to create the position of judge, have passed a law providing for additional judges of the superior court of that province. That law is subject to proclamation, and the proclamation has not yet been made. The purpose of the bill, to which the resolution leads, is to enable us, in the event of the provincial law being proclaimed, to appoint these judges in order that there will be a sufficient staff in the province of Quebec to reduce the arrears, and to carry on the administration of justice and the hearing of cases in the way in which it should be done.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the fact that a recommendation for an increase in the number of the judiciary has

been made, and in view of the accumulation of work to which my hon. friend, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), has referred, there can be no objection to this resolution. There are a few words, however, that I should like to say as to the judiciary, and as to what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said this afternoon when asked by my friend, the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris), whether or not orders in council passed since the first of July last would be tabled before dissolution. I was surprised at the answer given by the Prime Minister. I wish to deal with the question of administrative law and also with the matter of judicial appointments, because we have arrived at a point where the work of the judiciary of the country has been encroached upon in large measure by the semi-judicial decisions of bureaucrats in their various offices. The Prime Minister indicated that the house could not expect to have his assurance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows perfectly well that his remarks are not relevant to the motion that is before the house. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


John George Diefenbaker: I have not finished.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I ask the hon. member to see that his remarks are relevant to the motion before the house, which is to present a bill to amend the Judges Act so as to authorize the governor in council to increase the number of judges of the superior court of the province of Quebec by not more than six. I do not think such a motion has anything to do with orders in council.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with all the respect that I can command I want to tell you that I think, with deference, that the question as to whether or not extra judges should be appointed brings up for consideration the fact that most of their functions today are exercised and executed by administrative bodies. I intended to point out that this is a good move. The government apparently has decided that it is going to come to the end of administrative law with judicial decisions rendered by administrative bodies from which citizens are denied the right of appeal, and intends to restore the judiciary of the country as far as possible so that it will discharge its judicial function.
I find that there has been a substantial increase in the number of judges during the years. I had a return made last year for the purpose of ascertaining the situation. I found that since 1921 there had been appointed seventy-five court of appeal judges, of whom all but eight were appointed by a Liberal gov-
Judges Act
ernment. In supreme and superior courts there had been 166 appointments, of which all but thirty had been made by Liberal governments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot quite understand the applause from the other side of the house.
I never knew before that political fitness was a qualification for judicial appointment. Of the 211 county or district court judges appointed, all but twenty-three were appointed by a Liberal government. I am glad to see the increase in the number of judges for the purpose of taking up the slack, because a strong judiciary is needed in Canada to maintain the rights of individuals against the invasions of bureaucracy so characteristic of this government.
As a matter of fact, to a very large extent today-and I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree with this-bureaucracy exercises judicial functions without the right of appeal to the courts. Too often appeals are decided on administrative matters not by the courts but by ministers whose decisions are governed by departmental officials and departmental files. The result is that, unless there is an appeal to the courts, the individual feels that he has not secured justice when and if orders are made against him. I should like to have an assurance from the minister that courts of bureaucracy will be reduced, if not entirely eliminated, because in those courts decisions are made in which prejudice too often takes the place of judicial wisdom, and suspicion and hearsay are accepted as evidence.
With the increase of six judges in the judiciary of the province of Quebec, with the ample increases that have taken place in recent years, and with the higher salaries that are now being paid to judges as a result of which the very best men can be mobilized, I should like to see the Minister of Justice give the lead in putting an end to bureaucratic decisions, an end to control by Ottawa rather than by law.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows perfectly well that the question before the house is a motion to present a bill to amend the Judges Act to authorize the governor in council to increase the number of judges of the superior court of the province of Quebec by not more than six. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: If the hon. member has finished I should like to say that I do not intend to allow these broad allegations to go unchallenged. The hon. member knows that he has been setting up men of straw for the purpose of knocking them down.


Gordon Graydon: Let him finish his speech.

Judges Act


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I beg your pardon; I thought the hon. member had finished.


John George Diefenbaker: I was trying to show how necessary it was to have an increase.


An hon. Member:: Support the measure.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, support the measure, absolutely. I want to point out why it should be supported, why it is necessary to restore to the judiciary many of the powers that have been filched from it by this administration. That is the point I am making. The Prime Minister has become suddenly aroused. I can understand that.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: You are a good enough lawyer to understand that anyone listening to you would become aroused.


John George Diefenbaker: This is a very touchy point. The Prime Minister becomes aroused, a former president of the Canadian Bar Association, who often, in that capacity, averred the very things I am stating today, and said that it was necessary to restore to the courts their customary responsibility under our constitution. Surely there is no reason for the Prime Minister to become so aroused, so nettled, so disturbed. All I have asked is that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson)-who is not responsible for these things, because he has been minister only a short while-see that the courts have restored to them the protection of the rights of the individual in this country as against administrative orders, often unjust and discriminatory, which deny to the individual that justice which should be assured to him.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member has suggested that I became aroused. I did become aroused on hearing a lawyer make these general statements, so utterly strange and so utterly removed from the facts, and without trying to bring forward any facts to support his general statement. Over the years there has been an administrative tribunal which was set up by the government in power in 1917 and which made final decisions as to the assessment of income tax against Canadian taxpayers.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, you have heard about income tax? I have not spoken about it.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That has been removed, and a judicial board has been set up to which an appeal may be taken by anyone who feels himself aggrieved in the fixing of his taxes. When the hon. member talks about other bureaucratic courts I do not know what he is referring to. He may have in mind the fact that in the administration of rental controls, which the provincial jurisdictions have refused to take on, there are special courts to decide whether exceptions can be made to
fMr. Graydon.]
the general application of those rules. But to try to create the impression that this country is not governed by the rule of law applied by courts of justice is to make an imputation which our brand of democracy does not warrant.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.


Mr. Hackett:: Is the minister in a position to say what allocation will be made of the judges as between districts?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, not altogether, because in the main that will depend upon the terms of the provincial enactment creating the vacancies. As my hon. friend is well aware, it is within the provincial authority to set up the courts and create the judicial vacancies, and within our authority to fill them; and we will fill those vacancies created by the provincial act in the form in which it is finally proclaimed.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Garson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 234, to amend the Judges Act, 1946.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Additional judges of superior court.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I have just one question to ask the Minister of Justice; perchance he has answered it already, but there has been a bit of confusion here this afternoon. If this bill passes are any further steps necessary before the appointment of the additional judges?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, indeed. As I indicated in my previous remarks, under the British North America Act authority to create the courts and to create these judicial vacancies rests with the provincial government. The legislature of Quebec has passed a law creating these vacancies, but that law does not come into force until it is proclaimed. Before these vacancies can be filled the provincial law has to be proclaimed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then what we are doing to the government of Quebec is somewhat similar to what the legislature of Manitoba has done to this government in the matter of coarse grains; that is, we are forcing their hands?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Not at all. We are placing ourselves in the position that we will be able to fill the vacancies created in Quebec when the proclamation is issued. If we did not pass this legislation now and the provincial law should be proclaimed in August, let us

say, we would have to wait until this house met again before we could fill the vacancies.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If I may add just a word here, the Quebec law authorizes the lieutenant governor in council to increase the number of judges by not more than six. That is why there is provision here that the additional number for whom salaries will be provided will be fixed by the governor in council here in Ottawa, because until that law is proclaimed we do not know whether it will be for three, four, five or six. We will have to make our order in council comply with the terms of the proclamation issued by the government of Quebec.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words when this legislation has been passed the necessary provincial and federal legislation will have been completed. After that there will have to be the proclamation by the provincial government and action taken by the federal governor in council?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Right.


John George Diefenbaker: Has there been any indication from the attorney general of Quebec as to whether or not there is going to be immediate proclamation? Has any representation been made along that line, or any indication given?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have discussed this matter in a general way with the attorney general of Quebec and he agrees that there is necessity for these appointments, but I do not think it would be correct to say that he has given any explicit undertaking about the immediate proclamation of the provincial act.


John George Diefenbaker: Aside from any explicit undertaking, has there been any indication as to when the proclamation will be issued?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No.


Mr. Ferguson:: Are we here asking for the appointment of judges, when the final disposition of the matter is left with the province; and would that be so if they signified to this government that they actually needed twelve judges to carry out the judicial work in that province?


An hon. Member:: Read the bill.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am not a Rhodes scholar, but in a brief question I can put a great deal more common sense than you can. We have heard from you so many times that we are sick of you. You are not the Minister of Justice, and never will be.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: To reply to my hon. friend's question, the fact is that at the present time there are between 4,500 and 5,000 cases of arrears waiting to be heard in the superior
Judges Act
court of Quebec. There is no question at all about the necessity for additional judges. The only way in which they can be appointed by this government is by the prior creation of the vacancies by the provincial legislatures in accordance with their constitutional powers under the British North America Act. The passage by the Quebec legislature of the act which is now on their statute books, unproclaimed, is an indication or an admission that there is a need for more judges. The purpose of the present bill is an exceedingly simple one. We want to put this government in the position that, as soon as that provincial law has been proclaimed, we shall be able, without delay, to fill these vacancies which need so badly to be filled.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The reply given by the minister is, I must say, enlightening to many laymen in this house. There are few who know everything about the law: those who interfere and interrupt unnecessarily in this house never go far in the profession.


George Hugh Castleden: The minister has just told us that there are some 5,000 cases waiting to be heard. If that is the case, it would certainly appear that the necessity for these additional judges is urgent. Can the minister tell the committee how long these cases have been awaiting hearing and why these people who are going to law in order to get justice have been compelled to wait over the past year? Surely this situation did not arise overnight. It seems odd that this power had not been asked for at least a year or two ago.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In reply to my hon. friend's interjection, I might point out that the present situation speaks eloquently for itself. We are asking for this authority from the House of Commons in advance of the time at which it is necessary for us to exercise it. I do not want to repeat myself too often but, as I pointed out before, the authority for the creation of the courts and of judicial vacancies rests with the provincial legislature. In reply to the other part of my hon. friend's question, I would hazard the guess that a large number of these cases may have been awaiting trial for perhaps somewhere between one and a half and two years. I think that is a fairly conservative statement. We have had cognizance of the situation, but may I point out that it is impossible for us to fill a vacancy which does not exist; the only authority to create a vacancy rests with the provincial legislature.


Major James William Coldwell: When was this legislation passed by the province of Quebec?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I speak subject to correction, but I believe it was at the last session of the legislature.

Family Allowances Act


George Hugh Castleden: Is this rate of pay of $12,000 a year the same as for similar courts throughout Canada?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is the customary rate.


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


Paul Joseph James Martin: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1944, to shorten from three to one year the residence period required as one of the conditions of eligibility of a child, and also to remove the decreasing scale provided in the amount of allowance payable when more than four children are maintained.


Gordon Graydon: I do not know, Mr Speaker, whether it is the minister's intention to make a statement at this stage, but before the resolution carries I must say that I was somewhat impressed by the observations made in the house a short time ago by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) with respect to the passing of this measure through perhaps this stage today, although there was nothing on the order paper to indicate that it was to be brought in.
Mr St. Laurent: Nothing in the advance notices.


Gordon Graydon: There was nothing in Hansard of Friday two weeks ago which would indicate that this order was to be brought in. I am in agreement with what the Prime Minister says. Even though no notice had been given, I think this house would want to see this legislation advanced as rapidly as may be proper in the course of our parliamentary procedure. Most of us have felt for some considerable time that the provision with regard to residence period was working an injustice upon certain people who had children and who were normally entitled to family allowance payments. For our part we welcome that change which the government has now brought in. In addition to that change, there is also the matter of the removal of the decreasing scale provided in the amount of allowance payable when more than four children are maintained. I congratulate the minister upon having read with such care and diligence, and with such conviction, the program of the Progressive Conservative party which was adopted last fall.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Graydon: He is not always as amenable to good suggestions as he has been on this occasion. If this is an indication of his recent conversion to programs which we felt were for the benefit of the citizens as a whole, I want to say to him that even though it has come somewhat late, and although we have waited from'October until April before this has been done, nevertheless we have felt that the program adopted by that convention has had singular and important results, having regard to the change of government policy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Graydon: I have no doubt that most of the hon. members opposite who are laughing have been urging the minister to do this along our line, but up to now he had not done it. I understand their position. I do not blame them for being in that mood, but I do want to say to all hon. members over there that they have come with too little legislation and too late. They will have to take it as they get it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Graydon: I want to point out some of the facts of life to hon. members across the way. They will find it all in the declaration of the Progressive Conservative party.
No doubt the minister had it on his desk when he was drafting this legislation. On page 14 of the declaration of the Progressive Conservative party will be found a reference to family allowances.


Mr. Sinclair:: What year?


An hon. Member:: Not 1919.


Gordon Graydon: The reference reads as follows:
Family allowances will be placed on a uniform basis per child regardless of the number of children in the family.
Of course that is a part of a social security program which most of us who are interested in social security have urged. I suggest to the minister that, while he has chosen this one part of the social security program, before the session ends he would be well advised to read the rest of the program. If he did that and brought in the proper measures with respect to it the government would not find the sledding quite so hard in Canada as they are apparently finding it at the present time.
It is the desire of this party to adopt this resolution, upon which a bill will be founded, and there is not any need for a lengthy discussion on it, because when the government adopts proposals put forward by the Progressive Conservative party we feel that we ought, to put them through as quickly as possible.


Major James William Coldwell: On
behalf of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation I want to welcome this legislation. We are not recent converts to social security measures. We welcomed the legislation when it was brought down in 1944. Neither inside nor outside of this house did we describe it as iniquitous legislation.


An hon. Member:: Who did?


Major James William Coldwell: The present leader of the opposition did. A political party is very unwise indeed to underestimate the intelligence and the memories of the Canadian people. Indeed, in my opinion, it is an insult to the people of Canada-


Robert Henry McGregor: You found that out.


Major James William Coldwell: -for a political party which has opposed legislation almost throughout its existence to come just before an election and pretend that it is pleased to see legislation which it has opposed being brought into the house.


Gordon Graydon: We did not oppose it.


Major James William Coldwell: I want to say that-


Gordon Graydon: Put the record straight with regard to the first remark. We did not oppose it; we voted for it.


Major James William Coldwell: Very well. In the house the hon. gentlemen did not have the courage to vote against the legislation which in other parts of Canada their leader was describing as iniquitous. Let us get the record straight.


Mr. Lennard:: And on a little higher plane.


Major James William Coldwell: This is the record; it is the same record with the old age pensions which my hon. friends in 1926 denounced across the country, and their friends in the other place opposed strenuously. It is the same record in almost every step in connection with this type of legislation.


Gordon Graydon: There is your Liberal in a hurry, boys.


Major James William Coldwell: Let me tell my hon. friend this. As far as a Liberal in a hurry is concerned, I do not care what they call me so long as we get legislation in the interests of the people of Canada. My hon. friends frequently say that we are getting into bed with the Liberal party. Let me point out that if they will examine the membership of all the legislatures in Canada, from Quebec right to the Pacific coast, they will find that there are 394 members in those legislatures. Of that number we hold 75 seats on our own strength. Of that number the Liberals hold 25 seats of their own strength and volition. They hold another 64 seats because my friends of the Conservative party got into
Family Allowances Act bed with them in the constituencies by coalition or support. Therefore, if parties are to be put in bed together let us see what the record of that association is from the point of view of the election results.


Mr. Winters:: There are 28 seats in Nova Scotia alone.


Major James William Coldwell: What I was going to say was this. I think that this resolution-


Robert Henry Winters: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


Robert Henry Winters: For the sake of clarification let me say this. The hon. member spoke about the number of seats held by the Liberals in the legislatures and he said that there were only 25 all across the country.


Major James William Coldwell: No. I said there were 25 seats in the legislatures held by Liberals without the support of the Progressive Conservative party-


Robert Henry Winters: There are more than that in Nova Scotia.


Major James William Coldwell: Wait a minute. I was speaking of Quebec, Ontario-


An hon. Member:: Try Nova Scotia.


James Sinclair: Try New Brunswick.


Major James William Coldwell: -and Manitoba west. Eighty-seven per cent of the members who will be elected to the new House of Commons, when this house is dissolved, will come from the provinces I have mentioned, namely, from Quebec to the Pacific. I think hon. members will find that my figures are correct. However, what I was going to say to the minister is this. I should like to see the period shortened still further for children who come into this country and receive the family allowance. Often children coming into this country from overseas need the family allowance more than children of families which have already been established in Canada for a year or three years. I suggest that the time has come when Canada, and at least other members of the commonwealth of nations, should endeavour to reach a common policy regarding these social security measures so that a family moving from Britain with an aged parent and a child would receive the old age pension and the family allowances as a right after they came to Canada; and that Canadians moving to Britain from this country should receive similar consideration. As a matter of fact, an old age pensioner coming from the United Kingdom to Canada today does receive the old age pension in Canada as a right from the United Kingdom, but an old age pensioner moving from Canada to the United Kingdom loses his right to an old

Family Allowances Act age pension after, I believe, having left this country for three months. Old age pensions, family allowances and other social security legislation which may come into effect within the various countries should be treated in this way. An attempt should be made by the government to see to it that at least those who are common citizens of the British commonwealth should have reciprocity in this regard, and that a residential qualification even of one year should not be required either of a Canadian family moving to the United Kingdom or of a United Kingdom family moving to Canada.
I rose to say that we welcome this legislation. It is a step in the right direction. It is a further step to building up a real social security measure in this country. I should like to see a national social security plan in effect which would give the kind of security which our people need from the cradle to the grave.
Mr. Clarence Gillis {Cape Breton South):
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has covered the resolution as it stands, and I am in agreement with everything that he said. But I do not think the resolution goes far enough. There are other sore spots in the family allowances set-up. If by this legislation the minister intends to bring in a measure curing two of the disabilities in the act he should complete the job while he is at it.
There are two other sore points, one of which concerns the child whose education is continued beyond the age at which he or she is eligible for family allowance. I have written to the minister's department on many occasions on behalf of families who were endeavouring to complete the education of children of sixteen years or more. That is the age at which the allowance becomes most useful. To date nothing has been done to straighten out that grievance-and it is a real one. If the minister is now about to bring in a bill to correct matters which need correction, then I suggest that this also be included.
The second point is one which I have discussed in the house and which was the subject of correspondence with the department before the minister took over his present portfolio. While I am in agreement with reciprocal arrangements between Great Britain and other parts of the commonwealth and Canada in the matter of social legislation, I believe we now have a group of children born in Canada who are not now within the scope of the act, and I suggest a correction in this respect.
Hundreds of children in institutions in Canada are being maintained at a charity

level. These children are not eligible for family allowances, despite the fact that they were bom in this country, although under unfortunate circumstances. These circumstances are neither the fault of the children nor the fault of the institutions.
The answer I received by correspondence in the house and from the minister who first presided over the department was that this is a municipal responsibility, and that as such it is one for which the federal government has no responsibility. Unless those two points are corrected-and I suggest they are even more serious than the matters with which the minister proposes to deal in the measure- I feel I shall have to declare myself as not being in favour of any bill which would not wipe out these grievances to which I have just referred.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Gillis:: I should like to have an answer from the minister as to whether there is any intention of meeting these difficulties.


Mr. Marlin:: I thought it would be more desirable if I were to make my statement in the committee stage of the resolution.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a few moments to discuss the resolution only to remind the minister that in his present proposal to widen the act for the benefit of the Canadian people he is adopting a tiny speck of the very thing we Social Crediters proposed when we first came to the House of Commons fifteen years ago.
It is gratifying to note how, over the years, the government is beginning to learn a few things. When in times past-and indeed in recent times-we have analysed the economic system, we have pointed out over and over again the shortage of purchasing power. In the early days of our movement the late premier of Alberta was ridiculed when he used to mention a dividend of $25 a month by way of illustrating the necessity for additional purchasing power. The figure he mentioned was of no particular consequence; but public opinion snatched at it and began to ridicule it. People said such a thing was unthinkable, ridiculous!
It was not long, however, until the present government must have seen some merit in our proposals because it eventually found it necessary to offer a small measure of dividend in the form of family allowances. May I make it clear that the only objection we might have to the present legislation or to the policy of the present administration is that in order to pay these family allowances which, for the sake of argument, I shall describe as part of a national dividend, it involves the bleeding of the taxpayers. It

means a reshuffling of income in order to pay these family allowances.
We are all for family allowances; we could not be otherwise. But our suggestion is that a great deal of the money being used for social services can come from its original source rather than from the taxpayers. I recognize the fact that an election is to be held soon, and I am beginning to think that we should have them more often. Perhaps if we did the people of Canada would receive these benefits more frequently than they do. It seems to me that about the only time they can expect promise of benefits is when an election is on the horizon.
Once again in respect of these measures connected with social services, may I offer the warning that if we continue to finance them at the expense of the taxpayers we will eventually come under the tyranny of the supreme state. Carrying this to its extreme, incomes will be filched through taxation, and in order to receive state benefits the citizenry of the country will be compelled to bow down to the bureaucrats of the supreme state. That is one thing we oppose.
We are not opposing the measure; rather we are opposing the government's financial policy in respect of these many social services. If the minister can see anything wrong with our argument, then I hope he will point it out when he speaks.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.


Clarence Gillis: I understood that the minister was going to make a statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the government and those who supported this measure when it was first introduced in 1944 have every reason to feel particularly gratified today, not only at the unanimity that is being expressed with regard to the proposed amendments but also at the unanimity that is manifest with regard to the principle of the family allowances bill itself.
No one could be happier than I as the minister in charge of this measure at the words expressed by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Gray don). I take it that his words represent the conviction and faith of the party of which he is so distinguished a member. But I need only point out at the outset that if that is the case, and I would suspect from what he says that it is, it represents in spite of what may be said to the contrary a change of heart on the part of a goodly number of hon. gentlemen in this house.
The bill which will be introduced proposes to do two things: first, to eliminate that provision in the act which calls for reduc-
Family Allowances Act tions to be made from the total family allowance cheque to any family which has five or more children and, second, to reduce, from three years to one year, the waiting period in respect of families recently arrived in Canada and lacking residence or domicile in this country.
The act as it presently stands requires certain deductions to be made from family allowances paid to families of five or more children in the following amounts:
$1 deduction for the fifth child:
$2 deduction for the sixth child:
$2 deduction for the seventh child;
$3 deduction for the eighth and each subsequent child.
Those deductions will be done away with under the amending bill which we seek to have made part of the law of our country. When the bill becomes law the scale of payments will be as follows:
$5 for each child under 6 years of age;
$6 for each child over 6 and under 10 years of age;
$7 for each child over 10 and under 13 years of age;
$8 for each child over 13 and under 16 years of age.
There will be no deduction on account of the size of the family. The measure of which these particular amendments will form an integral part represents, I think, the greatest single act of social reform introduced by any country in the last quarter century. If anyone wants to question that statement all he need do is to read the observations made by the present prime minister of the United Kingdom when he was speaking in Liverpool on May 14, 1946.
This act will have resulted in the distribution by the end of May of $1,000 million to almost 1,800,000 families representing some four million children. Since 1945, as a result of this measure, there has come to these children an added incentive, an opportunity for improved education through being able to stay at school longer. This measure has meant for them improved medical attention, improvement in clothing, improvement in nutrition, to such an extent that throughout this country recent Gallup polls have shown that in the judgment of the Canadian people this measure is one of the great acts of social reform of our time.
Why do I say that? I say that because we want to make sure that this present Family Allowances Act of ours shall remain as part of the statute law of this country. As I hope to show before I shall have taken my seat, there is considerable reason for feeling that if certain people get into power in this country that might not be the case. Of course, there is no immediate danger of these people coming into power, but these eventualities have to
2532

Family Allowances Act be studied and assurances have to be given with regard to the continuance of this act as part of our statute law.


Mr. McLure:: What group does the minister mean?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am coming to that in a few moments. I think the committee will be interested in learning that as of March, 1949, the total family allowance payments amounted to $22,933,828 per month to 1,729,150 families on behalf of 3,888,653 children. The average payment per child amounted to $5.89. This will now increase to $6.05 or $6.10 per child with the abolition of the decreasing scale. The average payment per family was $13.25 per month.
The introduction of family allowances to Newfoundland in the course of this present month has brought an additional 45,000 families into pay for the first time. First family allowance payments went out to the families of Newfoundland last week. No less than 110,000 children will be benefited in this way and our monthly payments in consequence will increase by some $700,000. This means that in the present month and in the month of May our monthly payments will jump to almost $23,700,000, so that by the end of May our total payments since July 1, 1945, will reach the impressive figure of $1,001,508,326.
That is a tremendous figure which represents a substantial redistribution of the nation's wealth. It represents a transfer of purchasing power from those who are able to share their good fortune with the future citizens of our country who, because of the financial situation of their parents, are unable to enjoy the same measure of advantage.
I do not think anyone will deny the value of this achievement to date when he realizes that under the Family Allowances Act some $200 million is distributed every year at a cost of less than $4 million. I think it will be generally recognized that that is no mean achievement from the administrative point of view, apart altogether from the very substantial benefits that it brings to so many of our people. Surely those vast sums of the national wealth could not be invested in a worthier cause than the welfare of the nation's children. One can think of the benefits that flow from this expenditure on our children in the way of better health, better medical attention, better school attendance and better food and clothing, especially for our less prosperous families.
I am sure that if the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) were in his seat today he would say as a former minister of education in the province of Ontario, as indeed all ministers of education in all of our provinces can attest, that since the introduction of family allowances school attendance figures in our country are, and have been since 1945, at

record heights. That is what family allowances mean to this country in social terms apart altogether from the economic benefits involved.
I think it is only fair that since this parliament has taken the responsibility of introducing this measure it should be clearly stated here that every cent of the family allowance money comes from the federal government in Ottawa. I say that because certain provincial premiers have sought during elections and in between elections, to give the impression to their people that if they were receiving the advantages of family allowances it was due in large measure-and entirely in one case-to the policies of the particular provincial governments.


John George Diefenbaker: Which governments were those?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am asked which governments those were. There were a number, but notable among them was that headed by the present premier of the province of Quebec, who has repeatedly stated that if we have family allowances in Canada it is due in large measure to the initiative which he himself has taken, forgetting that when family allowances were introduced in 1945 he expressed grave doubt about their constitutionality and grave doubt about this particular measure.
We forget what happened in this house. As the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) has said, it is all very well for certain hon. members to get on the bandwagon now and give lip service and approval to this measure, but let us not forget what happened in this house. 1 remember the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), who then sat with the Progressive Conservative opposition, were the only two gentlemen who, when the resolution on family allowances was being discussed, affirmed their support of the measure. I remember too that, while there was no recorded vote, the vast majority of those who sit immediately opposite me indicated by their observations and by their attitudes very great doubt, to put it mildly, as to the validity and desirability of the measure. It is not without significance perhaps that the hon. member for Lake Centre, who made a speech in support of the measure but who, as I say, spoke almost alone, was criticized for it by certain newspapers in this country that support the Progressive Conservative party for having expressed a policy that was not in harmony at that time with the policy of the then leader of the party.
The then leader of the party, who is now a distinguished private member of the house, expressed outside of the house his opposi-

tion to the family allowances measure. I think I am correct in saying that he referred to it as a very doubtful measure. In fact I have his exact words, and it may be of some advantage if those words are repeated today to remind not only the hon. gentleman but also the rest of us exactly what he did say with regard to that matter. Mr. Bracken is reported in the Montreal Star of June 26, 1944, as having said that:
The family allowance scheme has all the earmarks of a political bribe.
The article goes on:
He said the plan costing $200 million would increase peacetime taxes by 50 per cent. As an alternative he proposed the removal of the ceiling on low wages and easing of income tax levies on low wage groups.
He went on to say:
I think the Canadian people ought to examine the government's proposal very carefully.
I might interject here that that is exactly what the people did, and they returned this government to office as they will do again. Mr. Bracken went on to say:
Two hundred million dollars is a lot of money to put on the people in additional taxes. At the eleventh hour of existence the government brings forward a proposal to give away $200 million a year -a gift which will increase the peacetime taxes of everybody by 50 per cent; and then it says it will not bring the plan into effect until after the next election. It is time we asked ourselves when this legal bribery of electorate is going to be stopped. The government's plans for this measure . . . have not been well thought out. If they have been . . . it should be brought into effect at once instead of a year from now.
I want to be fair to the hon. gentleman and quote the full text of what he said:
We are in favour, and the Canadian people are in favour of generous provision for all children in need, whether in large families or in small . . . but frankly we look with suspicion on a half-baked plan brought in at the eleventh hour by a government which has lost the confidence of the people... this much-vaunted scheme may mean 20 to 22 cents per day for certain children. The government's plans smell too much of the dole of the 1930's when that was the value set on maintaining a man's life in the relief camps ... If we add together the total of the proposed grants and the heavy cost of administration, and wipe out the widespread extravagance of the government, we would be able to get wages to a decent level in this country, where there would be less need for these wage tax imposts for social services.
That was the view of the then leader of the Progressive Conservative party. It was the view that was shared on the resolution stage by most members of that party with the exception of the two I have named who spoke strongly in its favour. It is true that when the bill was introduced later the measure received a support which was not attendant on the attitude of the opposition when the resolution was introduced, but that
Family Allowances Act was only after the passage of time when public opinion had been allowed to express itself, clearly indicating the overwhelming support of the people of Canada for the measure. I might add that the attitude of the opposition leader in the other place, expressions made by two senators in that body recently, observations that have been made by Mr. Meighen, a former leader of the Progressive Conservative party, and by the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), clearly indicate that there is still some doubt as to whether or not the acknowledgment of faith made by the member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) today is widely shared by all of his colleagues opposite me.
Let me come to the attitude of the present leader of the Progressive Conservative party (Mr. Drew). Speaking in the maritime provinces the other day he said that he never opposed family allowances. I want to be fair to the hon. gentleman, and I have brought all of his statements here. I do not propose to read them all, but I do propose to deal with one in particular. I think the people of Canada, and particularly those who require family allowances-and there are many people who do-will want to know unequivocally, in the light of declared intention as well as in the light of past statements, what the real attitude of the Progressive Conservative party is with regard to this measure. Earlier in the session I asked the leader of the opposition a specific question. I asked him if he would repeal the present Family Allowances Act. He made no reply to my question. In the light of that I want to read a statement he made in a broadcast on August 9, 1944. Here are the words of the present leader of the opposition:
The Family Allowances Act or baby bonus bill-
' A real friend of the measure would not call it that.

as it Is better known, was passed by the House of Commons without consulting us at any time, although it deals with something always recognized as being under provincial authority . . .
When the Ontario government handed over its tax powers to the government of Canada ... it was done so that the government and parliament of Canada could wage total war against the axis powers . . . neither the baby bonus bill nor other acts which infringe upon provincial rights can possibly be regarded as being for the purpose of waging total war. I have the advice of the very able attorney general of this province that family allowances are entirely within provincial jurisdiction. But quite apart from any argument as to the legal authority for this and other similar measures is the fact that it would not be possible for the dominion government to pay the baby bonus and other obligations they have assumed without continuing to occupy the fields of taxation vacated by the provinces only for the purpose of permitting the dominion government to wage total war . . .
2534

Family Allowances Act
Then he goes on:
But I assure you that the government of Ontario intends to do everything within its power to make sure that this iniquitous bill does not go into effect. It is not this bill alone but the whole principle involved which we intend to resist.
I may ask, by way of digression: is that the present intention? Is it now intended that the whole principle involved is the one they intend to resist? The then premier of Ontario went on:
If our money is to be used under the agreement then it is to be used for total war . . . when we can handle social services of this kind so much better and at a fraction of the cost it is our duty to insist that we be permitted to do so and we will fulfil that duty.
Then on August 3 the present leader of the opposition said:
I am the premier of a province with a much larger population than Quebec, whose people pay fifty cents of every Canadian tax dollar and contribute just about twice as much in taxes for the fulfilment of any dominion government undertaking as do the people of Quebec.
Then on August 11 the premier of Ontario, the present leader of the opposition, said- well, I think perhaps I have given enough, and anything more would be only a repetition.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend laughs. Does he want them? If so I can give them to him. This clearly indicates the view of the leader of the opposition at that time; and if he is now of the view that family allowances are a good measure and are within the competence of this parliament, he should unhesitatingly say that if perchance the impossible should happen and he should become Prime Minister of this country, he would not repeal the Family Allowances Act. I believe that is a request every hon. member has the right to make of the leader of the opposition.
As I said at the outset, Mr. Chairman, this measure apparently has finally won the approval of all political parties in this house. It is something that will commend itself to the good judgment of the people of Canada because of the great social effect it has had on so many of our children every month for the period since 1945, giving them the advantages I have recited. The amendments now under consideration seek to overcome certain weaknesses in the bill as originally proposed, by eliminating the decreasing scale provision and reducing the waiting period for qualification. This measure is but another step in a responsible, carefully developed attitude of the government towards a social security program covering old age pensions, family allowances, unemployment insurance and the national health program. This is a program which would justify this government in fearlessly saying to the people of Canada that

no other political party having the opportunity of government has done as much to promote social welfare and social security as have governments under various Liberal administrations.


Mr. Zaplitny:: I rise with pleasure to support this legislation, Mr. Chairman. About a year ago, as the minister will recall, I had occasion to speak on this question in the house, and at that time I suggested two particular changes in the Family Allowances Act, one of which I see is to be embodied in this legislation. I refer to the waiting period for newcomers to this country, which is to be reduced from three years to one year. I believe that is an admirable step, for I am sure everyone will agree that for those coming to this country to make a living the first few years are bound to be the very hardest, and the assistance given by this measure will be deeply appreciated. My other request was that the age limit be extended upward in the case of children continuing to go to school, in order that the children of parents in moderate circumstances might be able to get a better education in the higher schools.
I might add that in the view of those who belong to this group this is a form of social security, and I am happy to say that we are beginning to see the fruits of the labour of many of those who formed this party in the first instance. I believe it is a matter of history that the late J. S. Woodsworth was recognized in Canada as a crusader for social security, while I believe Miss Macphail, who formerly sat in this house and who now sits in another place, was one of the first to mention family allowances here. So we look at this matter from that point of view, because we believe there is a difference in the philosophy of various parties on the question of social security. We believe social security, is a collective way of assisting each other to live, but we know there are different points of view. There are those who are not sold on the philosophy of social security because their experience, or perhaps their environment, has led them to believe that they have individual security and therefore do not need to look after each other collectively. I am happy to say that in this country the C.C.F. movement has pioneered the philosophy of social security; and even if we had done nothing else at least we have awakened a social consciousness in the minds of people in public life right across this country. So it is a matter of pride and satisfaction to this party 1o see that steps are being taken in this direction. The minister said this was one of the forward steos in the government's plan for social security. I regret that it requires four years for them to take one step forward, but of course even that is appreciated.

Now I want to refer to something else, which I think comes in very appropriately, because there is an old saying that justice is done when the punishment fits the crime. In this instance I think it was appropriate that the hon. member for Peel should be the one to rise and speak on behalf of his party in support of this proposed legislation. When we look back at the debate which took place in 1944 we see that it was the same hon. gentleman who, as acting or house leader of that party, made a statement in which he set out the views of the Conservative party on this question. In order that I may not be accused of any misrepresentation as the hon. member has accused me in the past-quite unjustifiably, of course-I have the record before me, and I find that the position of his party is very conveniently set out under nine points. I shall proceed to quote those points right from the record, as it appears at page 5343 of Hansard for July 25, 1944.
First, speaking on behalf of his party, the hon. member opposed the measure on the ground that it was unconstitutional, using these words:
It is unconstitutional and invades the jurisdiction of the provinces.
If I may just comment on those words, I should like to say this. If this legislation invaded the jurisdiction of the provinces in 1944, does it not also invade the jurisdiction of the provinces today? If it does, and if the hon. member objects to that fact, how is it that he finds it possible today to say with such grace that he is so happy to support this legislation? The second point is this:
It seriously endangers the setting up of minimum wage standards in Canada, and may be accepted in many instances as a substitute for better wage levels.
We in this group have, on occasion, criticized some of those who employ labour and who are in the habit of depressing wages; and when we do that, we find our friends to the right immediately rise up to the defence of such employers and say that is not the case. But in this instance the hon. member felt that this would be an appropriate or convenient way in which employers might depress the wages of their employees.


Joseph Henry Harris: I just want to ask a question if the hon. member will permit me to do so.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Yes.


Joseph Henry Harris: Does my hon. friend really and truly think that is a fair statement to make-that we want to depress wages?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am quoting the objections raised by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) who himself pointed out that this
Family Allowances Act measure would provide the opportunity for employers to take advantage of recipients of family allowances by reducing their wages. That is not my statement. That is the statement of the acting leader of the opposition.


Joseph Henry Harris: The hon. member
made a statement.


Major James William Coldwell: No one from the Conservative party joined in the protest the other day over the treatment of the asbestos workers, for example.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The third point was this:
It adds a further strain on our national unity.
I can think of nothing that could add more strain on national unity than some of the speeches we have heard this session from the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew).
The fourth and fifth points were as follows:
It disregards the whole question of need in family life and child welfare.
It foreshadows the building of a giant, peacetime bureaucracy with its inevitable controls, offices, inspectors and machinery.
If the original bill created a giant bureaucracy, then this proposed amendment, I should imagine, would create a greater giant bureaucracy. Yet the hon. member for Peel has given it his official blessing on behalf of his party. The sixth point was:
It is blank cheque legislation without the emergency of wartime to justify it.
That statement, Mr. Speaker, most eloquently points out the underlying philosophy of our hon. friends-the need of a wartime emergency to justify social security. We in this party have always said that it is possible to do in peacetime, for the benefit of the people, with the same resources, what we can do in wartime, under an emergency, for destruction. Yet in the view of some hon. members, unless you have a wartime emergency, you can do nothing to help the people of this country. The seventh point was:
It attacks the very basis of our system of justice...
I will not comment on that statement because I can see no way in which it can be justified. The eighth point was:
It is a costly duplication of existing services.
If the hon. member can point out what existing services we have that can replace family allowances, he may have an argument there. The ninth point was:
It denies the basic principles of social justice.
Then to top that off, to the motion for second reading of the bill, he moved an amendment the effect of which, if carried, would have killed the bill.
That being so, I want to emphasize the point that ths brief debate that has taken

Family Allowances Act place this afternoon is of immense value in clearing some of the cobwebs and some of the fog that is being distributed across this country today. The other day I had occasion to pick up the official platform of the Progressive Conservative party at one of their nominating conventions.


James Sinclair: Were you nominated?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: No, I was not one of the
participants.


Major James William Coldwell: Nor a coalitionist.


James Sinclair: They are looking for
candidates.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: It is only the Liberals that go together with the Conservatives in nominating conventions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member was once at a convention at which I spoke.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: In reading that document, I found much in the platform with which I can agree. But it is the same story over again. When an election approaches we And our friends quite willing to put on paper desirable programs or proposals. But here in the House of Commons their words and their votes deny the very proposals which they today are making to the Canadian people. Since comment has been made on my right to the effect that we in this party are in some way trying to assist the government in this matter, may I say that is certainly not the case. Our views on this subject were known long before the Liberal government in this country took any action whatsoever. The minister may shake his head until it comes off, but that is still the fact. As a matter of fact, it was part of our national platform in 1942, and this legislation was not introduced until 1944.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. member permit me to observe that the first man in this house to propose family allowances was the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Michaud).


Major James William Coldwell: Woodsworth proposed it years ago, almost before the minister was born.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The minister cannot deny that as far back as 1919, in the Liberal platform, many fine proposals were made that are still not implemented.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right. Great objectives!


Major James William Coldwell: After thirty years.


James Sinclair: Most of them were.


Major James William Coldwell: No wonder we are in a hurry.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: This party has taken its own stand on the question of social security and has, I think it is admitted across Canada, become a crusader for that philosophy of our social life. For any member in this house to say that we are in any way attached to the government because we support a similar measure which we have popularized across the country is only to beg the question. We have only to go to Manitoba to see what has happened-if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) were here, he would realize the situation-where on issue after issue the C.C.F. in the opposition has put up proposals for social security and for other measures beneficial to farmers, labourers and so on, and has had to fight the combined opposition of the Liberal and the Conservative parties-and incidentally the Social Credit party-in that provincial legislature. The opposition is not quite so combined today as it was some time ago; we find that the ranks are being reduced little by little; and the time may come when they will again stand on their own feet. But the historical fact is that right across this country there is a division in the opinion of the various political groups. On the one side you find the C.C.F. which has consistently-and at times with little thanks- popularized social measures for the benefit of the people, and on the other side you find reactionaries who, because they represent people who have individual security, do not believe in social security.


Ernest George Hansell: I did not really expect the minister to refer to any remarks that I made prior to the resolution going into committee. I did not expect him to do so, although I asked him to, so I suppose I am only getting what I asked for anyway. But I am wondering whether he avoided answering me on purpose. I am wondering whether he would care to do so now. In order to refresh his memory I should like to ask him just one or two questions. In his speech he mentioned the amount of money which is being expended on family allowances, and that this could be increased manyfold. There he was referring to the amount of money that is being spent on all forms of social services in this country.
This measure was first introduced and put into effect in 1945. That was a time when the financial prosperity of this country was perhaps at an all-time high. In those days a tremendous expansion of credit was taking place. The pockets of the people literally jingled. It was not thought an astounding thing that the taxpayers could afford to pay for these social services.
When the minister was speaking he used what I would term astronomical figures in

the matter of expenditures. I should like to ask him how far he thinks he can go in financing such measures as this, including other forms of social security. Would his answer be that he can go as far as the taxpayers' pockets permit? If that is his answer, then I would pose another question. It is generally felt in this country that we may be headed for another depression. We hope that it does not come, but if history repeats itself and the cycle of prosperity goes down, then we shall find ourselves in a depression. We hate the word so we use another one. We say that it is a recession. Well, such a period would involve less national income. It is apt to involve once again vast unemployment which of course will reduce income. I should like to ask the minister how this legislation will fare should this country be plunged into another depression.
I suppose he is financing these things through taxation. What is he going to do when the people's pockets are empty and he cannot tax them in the way the government is doing today? I should like him to answer that question. It is an important one, not only from the standpoint of business, but from the standpoint of the principle that is involved, namely, taxing the people for social security purposes.
Would the minister care to answer this question? Where is he going to get this money when there is no money that he can get from the taxpayers?


Peter Francis Martin: I do not propose to deal with that question.


Ernest George Hansell: I knew that.


Peter Francis Martin: Let me finish. My hon. friend is such an amiable fellow that he is deserving of an answer, and I am going to give him what I think is the appropriate answer in the circumstances. I am not going to enter into a discussion which deals with something which is highly hypothetical. This particular question was put to the former Prime Minister of Canada when the Old Age Pensions Act was introduced in 1926. It was asked, where are you going to get the money? How are you going to be able to maintain it? We introduced old age pensions in 1926 in the face of strong opposition from the then Conservative party, and in the face of strong opposition from the upper house. They vetoed the measure before an election took place. It was said to us that to provide assistance for the senior aged citizens of our country was going to put Canada into bankruptcy. What happened? In 1947 we amended the Old Age Pensions Act, with the result that we are now paying by way of old
Family Allowances Act age pensions almost $100 million a year in Canada on federal and provincial account, seventy-five per cent of the basic portion of which is borne by the federal government. We certainly have increased the expenditure since 1926, and instead of this country being bankrupt, because of the energy, initiative and imagination of its people we have seen our country increase its standard of living and its conditions of prosperity.
I suggest to the hon. gentleman that that is the point of view to have. One ought not to be thinking in terms of depressions and all that sort of thing. I suggest to him that he also have a positive optimistic approach, and as long as this government is in power that is likely to reflect the condition of the country.


Ernest George Hansell: I am glad that my Liberal friends applauded the minister as he attempted to answer my question. The fact of the matter is that he has not answered the question at all.


An hon. Member:: He does not know the answer.


Mr. Lalonde:: You do not understand the answer.


Ernest George Hansell: He commenced by assuming that the whole argument on financing these social security programs is hypothetical. How he makes a hypothetical case out of a hard and fast application of business principle, namely, that money has to be spent and money has to be obtained from somewhere, is something that I cannot understand. I do not see how he can say that that is hypothetical. When people are living in fear of a depression that may be around the corner I do not see how the minister can make that hypothetical. Perhaps at the moment it may appear to him to be hypothetical, but when it sticks its head around the corner people will not be thinking in terms of its being hypothetical.
The minister did not answer the question. The minister was just like a small boy going out for his early morning dip. He stands on the springboard and shivers. He says, I have to close my eyes and take the plunge and trust to luck that the water will not be too cold. His whole argument is that years ago they ventured on an old age pension scheme, and while people scrutinized the legislation, it was introduced and worked anyway. He then referred to some years which were years of fairly high prosperity during which they expanded some social security measures, and because it worked by reason of high prosperity, high income and high taxation, therefore, he says, we shall close our eyes and
2538	HOUSE OF
Family Allowances Act trust to luck. If that is the way this Liberal administration is going to administer the affairs of this country, then I say it is not quite good enough. We have to know where we are going. We cannot trust to luck.
The minister is like a chiropractor that I once heard about. It appears that a certain patient had lost his memory, and it was suggested that if he went to a chiropractor and had some adjustments it would be restored. He paid a visit to the chiropractor who yanked him here and there, with the result that suddenly the chap remembered everything. But the moment he remembered everything he found he had lost his eyesight. The man said to the chiropractor, "I can recall everything, but I cannot see." The chiropractor said, "Get on the table again." The man did as he was directed; the chiropractor yanked a few more times, with the result that suddenly the man's eyes opened and he could see everything-only to find that he had lost his memory again.
The chiropractor yanked him several more times, but it was found that every time his memory came back he lost his eyesight, and every time his eyesight was restored he lost his memory. The chiropractor said to him, "You will have to choose which you want." The patient paced around the room, and eventually said, "Well, doc, you had better give me my eyesight, because I would rather see where I am going than remember where I have been."
The minister seems to remember where he has been; he has quoted a good deal concerning the past. But certainly he has indicated he does not know where he is going. I asked a few simple questions which I suggest an administration with such vast financial responsibilities should be able to answer. However the minister has not answered my questions. I suppose however that the house will have to be satisfied, and I shall be able to go to my constituency and show my people just how much the minister really does not know about the matter he is trying to administer.


Mr. Hatfield:: Why are people in high income brackets forced to accept family allowances, thus adding to the administration cost?


Peter Francis Martin: As I said in my earlier statement, the cost of administration of family allowances is something under $4 million, and that sum represents a pretty low cost. Then, with regard to the question of alleged compulsion, family allowances are of course payable to those who require them, and they are given to those who, in terms of income, possibly do not require them. But the only proper and effective way of dealing with the


matter is the way in which it was dealt with as a result of the amendment made some time ago.


Heber Harold Hatfield: How much of what is paid out is returned by way of income tax?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps that information could be given when we deal with other matters, but I do not think I should be expected to deal with that question at this time.


Heber Harold Hatfield: In 1943 and 1944 a committee on social security sat and drew up several drafts of an act to be presented to the house. What became of the drafts of those bills? What did the government do with them?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think some of them have since been embodied in a platform of the party to which my hon. friend belongs-as a sort of deathbed repentance. The other matters to which he has referred are of course always open to inspection by those who wish to see them; they are matters continuously under consideration. When the government reaches the point where this is felt desirable, after due consideration, it will bring forward fully developed policies, as it is doing today, and as it will do in years to come.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Did not the government consider the draft of the act? It did not do anything with it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I point out that this has nothing to do with the measure under discussion. I wished to be courteous to the hon. member when I answered him as I did. However, I would not be in order if I were to discuss the matter further.


Mr. Mclvor:: Is it not a fact that the more money kept in circulation the more employment and the more taxes we have? I say it is the bounden duty of the government to look after our children. We could raise money for war, and it is our duty to raise it for a purpose of this kind. The hon. member for Peel showed his Christian common sense when he commended the minister upon his action, and I say it is our duty to see that the children get enough food to eat, clothes to wear and sufficient education.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that what I said before has formed part of the discussion this afternoon, I should like to make one or two further comments. First of all I should like to make a statement respecting my position in connection with family allowances, a statement which I did not make in my original observations. I thought perhaps it was not necessary for me to go further than I had gone on that occasion, and that was to give the resolution my wholehearted support.


James Sinclair: Is that your old nine points which you used in 1944?


Gordon Graydon: I wonder if we could discuss this resolution without an attempt to introduce into the discussion anything in the nature of party politics?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Graydon: I am serious in this, because a matter of this kind is, I believe, so serious that its consideration should be free from party politics, and I know my hon. friend-


James Sinclair: On a point of privilege-


Gordon Graydon: I would like the committee to consider this matter seriously because it is most serious both from the standpoint of the country and-


James Sinclair: The hon. member has insinuated that I have introduced party politics. All I asked the hon. member was whether what he is now saying is the same nine points he used in 1944. That is all I am asking. There can be no partisan politics in my asking if he still takes the position he did at that time.


Gordon Graydon: People who read Hansard, and my words of this afternoon, may not gain the impression the hon. member is attempting to leave; but the atmosphere in which it was said leaves no doubt as to what was meant. And it was because of that atmosphere, and the situation in which this observation was made, that I was pressed to make my observation.
The question of allowances to those who have children to support is one which has engaged the careful thought, both publicly and privately, of people everywhere in Canada. I have discussed this matter with many members of the House of Commons and others throughout the years and, rightly or wrongly, I have always been of the opinion that we should not penalize people with large families who may not enjoy a level of income which might be available and sufficient for people without families. Without some sort of assistance one could not expect those with large families to maintain the same standard of living as would be enjoyed by others without families. I have never felt that penalizing those with families was a proper procedure. I always felt that the state had some responsibility toward them. I have always said that both in public and in private, and I think any hon. member who has heard me make a speech in either of those categories will bear out my statement.
I am thoroughly convinced that in so far as the giving of money from the state treasury to people who have large families to support is concerned, it is a good and proper proce-
Family Allowances Act dure and I have never at any time consciously opposed such a procedure.
I realize that in our constitution there are many things about which people may perhaps differ with respect to how a thing may be done, but I think that the broad principle that I have just outlined, that is, state aid for people with large families, is good. I have always supported it, both in public and in private. 1 am still convinced that the principle is proper and useful and much to be desired in a country such as this. I hope that it will always be continued and I am sure that with the mood and spirit of our people generally it will be continued.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not quite understand what my hon. friend said and I think it is important. Do I understand the effect of what he has just said to be that there will be no repeal of the act as far as he is concerned?


Gordon Graydon: Of this act here?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: As far as I am concerned I have heard nothing about repeal, nor have I heard any such suggestion except from my hon. friend. He is the only person I have heard suggest it.


Peter Francis Martin: I quoted the statement of your leader and I asked whether or not you were taking the position that there would be no question as far as you are concerned that the act would not be repealed.


Gordon Graydon: As far as I am concerned the act will not be repealed. Is my hon. friend satisfied with that? I know that he seems to be anxious to have the act repealed somehow. I do not know why that is. I have never been able to understand why the party over there or the party to my left have been trying to encourage everybody to oppose family allowances. They have been trying to interpret everything as being opposed to family allowances. Of course we all know why. After all, it seems to me that perhaps it would be in the government's interest from a political point of view to have us oppose family allowances, but because this party refuses to oppose family allowances, after all the talk we have heard, it is a matter of some pride to me to be able to stand up here and refute what the minister and others have said.
The minister said that there was no recorded vote. There was a recorded vote in 1944.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On the bill.


Gordon Graydon: On the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not on the resolution.
2540	HOUSE OF
Family Allowances Act


Gordon Graydon: The resolution was passed after only two speeches had been made, one by the Prime Minister and one by myself. We agreed to that resolution and allowed it to go through without any opposition of any description. When the bill came before the house on second reading, when the bill was in committee and when the bill came before the house for third reading we supported the family allowances measures.


Major James William Coldwell: What about the amendment?


Gordon Graydon: I am going to deal with that in a moment. You Liberals are still in a hurry over here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have you slowed down.


Gordon Graydon: With regard to the statement about the amendment made by my hon. friend, that amendment can be found on page 5343 of Hansard of 1944. In that amendment only the method was involved; there was nothing with respect to the principle of the measure. Can anyone stand up in this house and say that this party ever at any time opposed the principle of family allowances? We only opposed the method from time to time in an attempt to try to make a better piece of legislation for the government, for this parliament and for the people. May I say that there was no suggestion-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could have the same opportunity that has been accorded to other hon. members in this debate and be permitted to be heard without interruption? I know it is not easy for some hon. members over there to hear the truth, but I am going to tell it to them anyway. The statement was made that the amendment had the effect of killing the bill, but may I say to my hon. friend that that was not so. There was nothing in the amendment which would indicate that the bill was to be killed.
The amendment was made in good faith. More than that may 1 say that our support of family allowances in this country, despite what people say for political purposes, is in good faith. We believe it to be a measure of reform for people who ought to have the benefits of that reform. The hon. member for Dauphin always interests me a great deal.
I assume that perhaps there is a difference between speaking here and speaking there.
I would like to have a bit of attention from my hon. friends over there. They have said a lot about this and now when I attempt to speak on the matter surely I should be heard.
If after hearing me they decide that they still want to go on with what I think is gross misrepresentation, then it is quite within their power to do so. But at least I should like to be heard.


The speech from the throne in 1944 mentioned a family allowances measure in general terms. My memory has been refreshed by Hansard of that year and I can remember quite distinctly what happened in connection with the address. I doubt if a more important piece of legislation was envisaged for the session of 1944 in the speech from the throne than that particular bit of legislation. I was leader for the time being of the members of our party in this house and I can remember taking a strong position with respect to it. It is not very often that an opposition votes in favour of the main motion in connection with the address in reply to the speech from the throne, but may I say that the reason why I and other members of this group voted with the government on the main motion in 1944 was that we wanted to endorse the principle of family allowances.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Graydon: I am not going to allow anyone to treat that matter in any way but seriously. If my word is worth anything after being in this house for fourteen years I give it to every one in this house that that was the basis for the vote that was finally cast by members of our party in favour of the government measure.


James Sinclair: Why did you keep it so secret?


Gordon Graydon: The vote was finally taken and it is interesting to note what was done by our friends to the left who have talked so much about social security, who have talked so much about what they were going to do, who have chided us from time to time about our stand on family allowances and so on. It is very interesting to note what appears on page 364 of Hansard for 1944, and to observe that, at the time when we supported this social security measure in principle in the vote on the address in reply to the speech from the throne on February 10, 1944, we were there opposed by those who sit to my left, the C.C.F.


Major James William Coldwell: Not on a social security measure; you know that-nor did you vote for it on that basis.


Gordon Graydon: It is all very well for my hon. friends to come along now and say that they voted that way for some other reason, but there never was any doubt in the minds of most people in this parliament that the most important measure brought down by the government in that year was that dealing with family allowances. I cannot understand how the C.C.F. group can now say what they do, and accuse the Progressive Conservative party of many things of which we should not

be accused, when they voted against the principle of family allowances, as they did in 1944-


Major James William Coldwell: What hooey.


Gordon Graydon: -in the vote on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Their names are all there in black and white, and 1 want to say to every one of them-


The Deputy Chairman:: I ask hon. members to refrain from interrupting the speaker. It is not in order to do so. Having regard to the dignity and decorum of the house, I ask hon. members to refrain from interrupting.


Gordon Graydon: For various reasons my voice is not too good today. I had hoped that perhaps I might have a little more attention than I am getting.


Mr.   Coie@Maiapedia-Malane: We understand the situation.


Gordon Graydon: May I say that when we talk about how holier than thou certain parties are, and particularly the one to my left, the C.C.F., then I think we should, as they have done from time to time, dig up old Hansards showing the various positions which they have taken. They have forgotten about this particular Hansard; they have forgotten about this vote. More than that, may I say that as long as they are in Canadian public life and affairs-and I am not so sure that it will be very long-they will never be able to get up on a platform again and say with a holier-than-thou attitude that the C.C.F. party has always supported family allowances.


Major James William Coldwell: So we have.
' Mr. Graydon: There in Hansard of February 10, 1944, is the answer to all those things that have been said. I may say to them now that I do not wonder that they are heckling me; I do not wonder that they are trying to raise a fuss; I do not wonder that they are trying to drown me out. But you cannot drown out the nays that are recorded on page 364 of Hansard of February 10, 1944. There are the names of those who voted against the speech from the throne which contained the family allowances measure.


Mr. Lesage:: What about this year? How did you vote this year?


Gordon Graydon: Blackmore, Bryce, Burton, Castleden, Coldwell-it almost stands out in emblazoned letters-Borion, Douglas, Fair, Gillis, Hansell, Hlynka, Johnston, Knowles- Knowles, I repeat that-Kuhl, Maclnnis, Marshall, Nicholson. What, what, what? Nicholson? Noseworthy; he is not here now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He will be back.
29087-161J
Family Allowances Act


Gordon Graydon: Quelch, Shaw, Wright. I want to say this to the members of the C.C.F. party. When we talk about our positions with respect to these great social security measures, let us not try to take everything out of its context, as the hon. member for Dauphin did by mentioning certain numbers, and so on. If the hon. member for Dauphin had read further with respect to those numbers I think he would have found answers he did not want to find. I want to say that I have never waited with more eagerness for an opportunity to tell the house, to tell the people, and to tell the government, and particularly to tell my friends to the left, that after all people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. More than that, I waited eagerly for an opportunity-Mr. Chairman, it is impossible to continue unless you will keep order here. It is tough for them to take, but I think they have to take it.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Gordon Graydon: I do not think it is on that side of the house as much as it is here.


William Henry Golding: Order. I am not concerned where it is. We ought to keep order in the house, and if I have to do so I will.


Gordon Graydon: I shall only be a moment more. Surely we as members of parliament need not indulge in all this recrimination over the years and attempt to misplace people and displace people with respect to the question of social security. We know that all through the various parties and all through the country people are not divided on the question of social security. People endorse the principle of social security. Sometimes their methods may differ as methods differ in the family allowances program. Nevertheless I do not think you can separate the sheep from the goats on the matter of social security with the lighthearted ease with which the hon. member for Dauphin and other members of the C.C.F. try to do it.
I have had a good deal of experience with people of all political parties, and I want to say that after all we are all Canadians and we all want to do the right thing by people who need to be helped. I do not think anybody can stand up in this house, no matter to what party they belong, and say that they have a monopoly on the desire to do the right thing for those people who have been unfortunate enough not to be able to have all the good things in the abundance that other people have them.


James Sinclair: I should like to make one or two comments. Perhaps I was very rude when I interrupted the member to ask him whether he would review the nine points
2542	HOUSE OF
Family Allowances Act which have been mentioned in his speech, and which were made a part of his speech in 1944. I was in the house in 1944, and I remember the debate very well. As a matter of fact, in those days I sat in what was called the rump on the far side of the house. As a result I was able to hear very clearly the attitude of the Progressive Conservative party. We all remember the speech made by the then premier of Ontario. He was then called the Hon. George Drew. That speech was read here by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and was not referred to at all by the member for Peel.


Gordon Graydon: I did not hear your last words.


James Sinclair: The member for Peel made no reference at all to the actual radio speech delivered by his present leader in connection with the family allowances bill, which the minister quoted exactly at great length. However, as a member of parliament who likes to take a pretty keen interest in the debates of the house, I am amazed to learn that five years later, five years after the 1944 debate, the reason the Tories voted for the speech from the throne of that year was that it contained the family allowances measure. I am also quite surprised to learn that the reason the C.C.F. voted against it was that it contained that measure. I am even more concerned about the secrecy today because in the speech from the throne this year there is a reference to the family allowance measure, and yet I find that the member for Peel and the rest of his party voted against the speech from the throne in this present session of parliament. Perhaps in fairness to us he should not wait till five years from now to tell us what is the secret behind that vote. Let him tell us today why they voted against the speech from the throne this year with its reference to family allowances.


Gordon Graydon: I know that my hon. friend does not want to be unfair in any way. My reference to the address in reply to the speech from the throne in 1944 was very clear. In that speech there was embodied a measure of legislation which we regarded as the most important of any that were presented that year. It seemed to stand out. For that reason it was the beginning of a measure of social security which we were prepared to support in principle, and which we did support as the measure was proceeded with. The reference in the speech from the throne this year is to an amendment to an act, and I think my hon. friend will see the difference at once between the introduction of a main measure of social security and an amendment to the act.


James Sinclair: I am very glad to know that there is no secrecy about their vote against the speech from the throne this year. However, since the leaders of the Progressive Conservative party-not just the rank and file but the leaders and former leaders-[DOT] have been quoted, perhaps I should put on record what was said by another former leader, who was here in the house then and who is in the house today when he thinks of it. I am referring to the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, who was reported in the Globe and Mail of June 30, 1944, in this way, and this is the Progressive Conservative newspaper's report of the Hansard debate:
He looked on the proposed payment of children's allowances with doubt. They appeared to be a "reckless political bid for power" made by a political party as a "piece of callous cynicism."
It is pretty hard to reconcile that with his vote on the speech from the throne because he believed in family allowances.


Gordon Graydon: He did not vote; that is where you fall down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a matter of fact quite a few of the Progressive Conservative members did not vote in 1944, if you check up on it.


John George Diefenbaker: There is a recent
example of not voting, on the North Atlantic pact.


Major James William Coldwell: A larger percentage of our party voted than of yours. Don't forget that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to add a word or two along the line of what was said just now by the hon. member for Vancouver North, with respect to the strange analysis of voting in this house enunciated a few moments ago by the hon. member for Peel. The hon. gentleman now tries to suggest that our vote of non-confidence in the government in 1944 was a vote against any particular item that happened to be mentioned in the speech from the throne. As the hon. member for Vancouver North has pointed out, the Progressive Conservative opposition in this house voted against the main motion on the speech from the throne this year despite the reference to changes in family allowances which they now support. Further, I would draw attention to the situation in 1947. At that time perhaps the most important item in the speech from the throne was an amendment to the Old Age Pensions Act. It was not just a minor amendment; it proposed to change the amount, and we hoped it would be something really worth while. But my friends of the Progressive Conservative party immediately moved a motion of non-confidence in the gov-

emment. Did that mean they were opposed to the increase proposed that year in the old age pension?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend from High Park is absolutely right in objecting to that kind of reasoning; therefore he is joining with me in denouncing the illogical sort of nonsense handed out by the hon. member for Peel. The hon. gentleman objected to an interjection by the hon. member for Vancouver North on the ground that it was political, and said this matter was very serious and we should not drag partisan politics into it. Surely the hon. member for Peel has a very short memory. It was his opening speech today, the first one made in this debate, that put this debate on a political level. The rest of us remember that speech, and the nice smile on the hon. member's face while he was making it. We were all smiling, too; we could not help it. In the course of that speech he said the government was now making these changes because it had read the most recent issue of the Progressive Conservative platform. I remind the hon. member for Peel that since publication of the issue he read, a famous speech was made by Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. I realize that he is only an ex-leader of the party, but he is their only living ex-Prime Minister and probably will be for a long time. Arthur Meighen declared that he was opposed to this awful, iniquitous social security idea that is getting into all parties. He made the statement that people who needed help should get it from private charity, but they should not get it as a matter of right. That is Progressive Conservative policy pure and unadulterated.
Now, Mr. Chairman, as is said so often, I did not intend to make a speech on this matter, which has been pretty well covered; but the hon. member for Peel gave such strong emphasis to my name when he referred to it a little while ago that naturally I had to rise to my feet. The thing that interests me today is the recollection of the hon. member for Peel of the situation in this house in 1944. He tells us we should have looked more closely at the amendment he moved on second reading before attacking it. He tells us that the amendment clearly stated the support of the Progressive Conservative opposition for the principle of family allowances; but as a matter of fact when you read it closely it becomes quite clear that had the amendment been in order, which it was not, and had the amendment carried, that would have been the end of family allowances for that session.


Gordon Graydon: No, it would not.
Family Allowances Act Mr. Knowles: My hon. friend is arguing by assertion. Let me read the amendment. Perhaps you had better call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman; the amendment takes up three or four inches in Hansard, and I shall read it when we come back at seven-thirty.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at seven-thirty o'clock.
Stanley Howard Knowles: When the committee rose at six o'clock we were in the midst of an interesting discussion as to what would have been the effect of the amendment to the second reading of the family allowances bill moved by the hon. member for Peel on July 25, 1944. Some of us had already contended that the effect of that amendment would have been to kill the bill. The hon. member for Peel protested, hence it became necessary to put the amendment itself on the record; and at six o'clock I suggested that it be left until seven-thirty. To be completely fair, and so that there cannot be any argument about it, I wish now to read the entire amendment that was moved on that occasion. This was moved by the hon. member for Peel, seconded by the then member for York-Sunbury, the late Mr. Hanson, and reads as follows:
That all the words after the word "that" in the said motion-
That would be the motion for second reading of the bill.
-be struck out and the following substituted therefor: "in the opinion of this house it is desirable that the standard of family life among the masses of the people in Canada be raised, but in view of the fact that bill 161 is not within the constitutional competence of the dominion parliament, that it be not now read a second time, but that it be referred to the special committee on social security with instructions that the bill be studied and redrafted after-
Listen to this.
-consultation, collaboration and in co-operation with the provinces-


James Sinclair: Is there anything about consent there?


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are still trying to figure that out. The amendment continues:
-as a joint undertaking and introduced before this house prorogues. Such redrafted bill shall contain specific details as to the administrative machinery, forms and procedure under which the bill will be administered and shall provide that any contributions to be made under the terms of the said bill by the dominion to a province shall be conditional on the federal Minister of Labour certifying that the standard of wages in that province is not lower than the average standards of wages for similar work in the other provinces."

Family Allowances Act
I suggest that on two counts that amendment would have killed the family allowances bill. In the first place any attempt to get consultation, collaboration and co-operation with the provinces in working out all the details suggested in that amendment before prorogation-and this was on July 25, 1944- would still have been going on. That is pretty obvious from the difficulties that have beset dominion-provincial negotiations of one kind and another. In other words, with the attitude that was then being expressed by the premier of one province in particular, as quoted this afternoon, and by the premier of another province as well, the chances of what was suggested in that amendment being carried out were absolutely nil.


James Sinclair: And they knew it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Of course they knew it. In addition to that basis, which would have meant the killing of the bill by this amendment, I point to the procedural fact that any attempt to refer a bill to a committee before second reading is an attempt to kill it. We all know that. We try that many a time when we want to kill a bill. I have done it a good many times myself.


Gordon Graydon: That was not the objective in this case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute. When I move that a bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to a committee, I admit that what I am trying to do is to kill whatever bill is then before us. I do not stand up five years later and say that the purpose of that amendment was to indicate my support.


Gordon Graydon: But that was the purpose and one cannot say anything else.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute. Some of us were here in 1944 and remember what went on during that most interesting week. But just to complete the procedural point I am making, may I remind hon. members of standing order 75 which reads as follows:
Every public bill shall be read twice in the house before committal or amendment.
If hon. members would like to refer to citation 666, in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, they will find the distinction that is drawn between a bill and the subject matter thereof. You can refer the subject matter to a committee, but in doing so you have done away with the bill completely. Any attempt to refer a bill or its subject matter to a committee before second reading is an attempt to get rid of the bill itself, and we all know it.
This afternoon something was said about refreshing one's memory by going back into

Hansard. I have done so. Although my memory of this incident was pretty good anyway, Hansard has refreshed it fully. That last week in July, 1944, was a most interesting one. The second reading of the bill was moved on Tuesday, July 25. We were getting on toward the end of the session and we were sitting morning, afternoon and evening. However, this motion was moved at three o'clock by the then Prime Minister. The hon. member for Peel followed with the nine-point speech against the bill which was referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Dauphin, which he concluded with his amendment which would have had the effect of killing the bill.


Gordon Graydon: No, it would not; and no amount of talk from you would kill it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You do not need talk from me to establish that fact. You cannot find any member in this house who knows anything about procedure who would not admit that it would kill the bill; and you cannot find anybody in Canada who knows anything about dominion-provincial negotiations who would not admit that the proposal set out in the amendment would have killed the bill.


James Sinclair: He had a secret citation.


Gordon Graydon: You two allies are getting along well together.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The debate went on for the rest of that day, Tuesday, July 25, and only one other Progressive Conservative took part. That was the then member for Parkdale, Dr. Bruce, and nobody will deny the stand he took.


James Sinclair: A real Tory.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A real Tory-he was against it-like Arthur Meighen. They are the kind of Tories we can understand because we know where they stand. As a matter of fact, Dr. Bruce made his position so clear that when some days later a vote was called and Dr. Bruce was absent, you, Mr. Chairman, happened to be paired with him; and you stood up in the house and indicated that you were paired with the then member for Park-dale but that had you voted you would have voted for the measure-which of course left Dr. Bruce in effect voting against the measure, and he later confirmed that position.


James Sinclair: And then he resigned.


Gordon Graydon: He was not defeated, as you will be.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I get back to Tuesday of that week, July 25, and refresh the memory of hon. members on this point. After the hon.

member for Peel had spoken, and later the then member for Parkdale, there were no other Tory speakers during the rest of that day. There were Liberals and C.C.F.'ers and others who took part. The debate was called again the next day, Wednesday, July 26, at three o'clock and went on all afternoon and all evening; and not one Tory member took part in it all that day.


Gordon Graydon: Just like you and the Atlantic pact.


Major James William Coldwell: There were more of us present than you.


Gordon Graydon: No. We found out after the B.C. party took their stand.


Major James William Coldwell: Never mind. What about Ivan Sabourin?


Gordon Graydon: You got your answer in B.C.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is this not a typical Tory answer. When they are on the spot they try to change the subject.


Gordon Graydon: You are trying to change the subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am trying to discuss the matter that is before us.


James Sinclair: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, do you recall the name of the member who was objecting to interruptions this afternoon?


Gordon Graydon: I think I ought to be allowed to do it just as much as you. You started it.


James Sinclair: I do not protest against people interrupting me.


Gordon Graydon: You ought to if you do not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The only trouble with these interruptions is that they are spoiling the continuity of my story. I am trying to talk about Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, July 25, 26, 27 and 28, 1944.


Gordon Graydon: You cannot spoil that kind of continuity.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What I am reminding members of the last parliament of is this. On Tuesday, July 25, only two Tories took part in the debate. All day Wednesday not a single Tory got to his feet. Those of us who were here-the Liberals down in the rump and we who were here-know of the air of mystery as to what was happening amongst the Tories. And as things do leak out around these halls, we learned that they were not so sure that the stand they had taken the day before was the proper one, and that they were holding caucuses to decide what to do.


James Sinclair: Quite right.
Family Allowances Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: After remaining silent all day Wednesday, July 26, they came back into the house on Thursday, July 27, and the hon. member for Lake Centre took the floor. Gone was the proposal to move any amendment to second reading. Overnight they had changed to stating their support in principle of the measure, qualified by a repetition of their objections to this way of doing it. Thus they continued to call upon the government to look into the constitutionality of it before going ahead witih the measure at that session. Consult the provinces was the cry. Thus we had a two-sided approach to the bill, the attempt by the hon. member for Lake Centre, the hon. member for Vancouver South and the then hon. member for Saskatoon City, Mr. Bence, who did the same thing, all of whom tried to say, we are for the principle but we do not like the way it is being brought in. We challenge the constitutionality of it. Well, if they had carried that to its logical conclusion they would have voted against it, because it was being brought in in a way that they regarded as unconstitutional.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member will recall that a few days before that the present premier of Quebec said exactly the same thing. He said the measure was unconstitutional.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the then premier of Ontario said it was iniquitous.


Gordon Graydon: You are both in the same bed again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We all know what the
premiers of Quebec and Ontario said. What I am getting around to is this-


Gordon Graydon: Slow motion Liberals, and Liberals in a hurry.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Get back to the resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think we should get back to the resolution, but these references to hurry coming from the Tories are most interesting.


Gordon Graydon: It was the Prime Minister who said that, not I.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Tories do not know what speed is.


James Sinclair: The great interrupter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The only kind of speed they know is the kind of speed the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen has given them, full speed in reverse.
The only reason I got into this debate is that my hon. friend the member for Peel provoked me to do so. I call him my hon. friend not only because the rules of this house require that I do so, but because I do find him a most genial acquaintance. We all

Family Allowances Act like him. I remember with the greatest of pleasure the enjoyable time that he and I had traveling around Europe together a few years ago. I will even go so far as to admit- although perhaps one should not admit this in public-that one night in Scotland he and I slept in the same bed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Graydon: That cured me.


James Sinclair: Was that the night the Progressive Conservative party was born?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, the Progressive Conservative party was not born. The Progressive Conservative party was an abortion that took place back in December, 1942.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, I think that remark should be expunged from the record.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To get away from the humour and to get-


Gordon Graydon: That is not even humour.


James Sinclair: That was a tough night.


Gordon Graydon: You ought to know; he has been in your bed ever since.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some of my friends to the right are objecting to one word into which I have been led in this humorous exchange, and at their request I have no hesitancy in withdrawing that particular reference. But, Mr. Chairman, what I started to say before the hon. member for Vancouver North got me off the track was this. All of us in this house like and respect the hon. member for Peel.


James Sinclair: Especially those who slept with him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But we would have respected him a lot more if he had said in this house today that back in 1944 he was opposed to this measure and that his party tried to defeat it.


Gordon Graydon: I was not opposed to the measure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We would respect him more if he had said today:	We have changed our
position; we now recognize this is good legislation; we are for it, and we want it improved in the manner being proposed in the resolution before us. If the hon. member for Peel had taken that kind of a stand he would have gained the respect of this house instead of the laughter and the discussion which have ensued since, and we could have got on with the business of the house a lot faster if that had been the case.
I have no objection to the Progressive Conservatives changing their views and catching up with the rest of us in matters of social

security. They would get along far better if they would admit it instead of trying to claim that the position they took in 1944 was one which they certainly did not take. I remind them again of that eventful week in July of that year. Two speeches by Tories on Tuesday opposed to the bill; no Tory speeches at all on Wednesday, although the debate went on for six hours. Then on Thursday they came back into the debate and the hon. member for Lake Centre, the hon. member for Vancouver South and the then hon. member for Saskatoon City spoke. Then by Friday, when a vote on this measure was forced, the only Progressive Conservatives then in the house-about twenty-five of them, as a matter of fact, were all that were present -stood up and voted for the measure so that the actually recorded vote was unanimous. The only dissenting vote was the absent vote, attention to which was drawn by you, sir, rising in your place and declaring that you were paired with the hon. member for Park-dale. That is the record; it cannot be blotted out by trying to deny it.


Mr. Blackmore:: Before the measure passes I should like to say a word or two. Family allowances are sound in that they aim to increase the purchasing power in the hands of the public. It is high time that all people concerned with public life in Canada and elsewhere came to realize that there is a progressive shortage of purchasing power in the hands of the people because of the development of machines. Means must be adopted to increase that purchasing power which has been lost by reason of machines. Family allowances are one of the means which must be adopted at least while we pursue the present financial system.
Family allowances aim to help our children to enjoy a higher standard of food, clothing, shelter, health and education, and in that respect they are sound. Family allowances are becoming more and more absolutely necessary as people are more and more impoverished by taxation, by unemployment and by decreasing purchasing power in their hands.
I find many people today whom I meet on the streets, in the trains and elsewhere wondering why it is that since our dear old dads and our dear old granddads did not have these "highfalutin" social services we must have them. The great trouble with all such people who ask such questions is this, they just do not know what is happening to the economy of these times as a result of machines, increased production and displacement of men. We must view all matters such as these family allowances in the light of what is hap-

pening in that regard. For the same reasons we must have more and more of other kinds of social services, larger old age pensions, larger health assistance measures, and the like. I think it would be neglectful on our parts if we failed once more this year to bring these matters forcibly to the attention of the house and of the country, and that there is going on in the body economic of every nation in the world a change as a result of the use of machines and power. You cannot use vast amounts of electricity, tremendous quantities of gasoline, generate power and use that power in the conduct of the nation's affairs without displacing human energy and reducing the need for men. Such measures as we now have before us are the result of a disequilibrium established by the development of machines and power.
May I point out though that when we begin to collect entirely from taxation the moneys we use to pay for measures such as family allowances we are beginning to do something which is not sound. I hope I can warn the Liberal party, or whatever party sits on the government benches after the election-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John Horne Blackmore: All right, then-let the Liberal party be warned. It is not a laughing matter. They can court disaster without being aware of it. If they proceed to tax people more and more in order to get money to give more and more social services, plenty of ills can result. I urge considered discretion and caution-not with the suggestion that money should not be raised, but that taxation should not be the only means used.
All taxation does is to redistribute purchasing power in the hands of the people. It does not increase the total amount of purchasing power. What we need is some measure which will increase the total amount of purchasing power in the hands of the people. Taxation tends to centralize power; everyone knows that. Taxation tends to discourage production; everyone knows that-that is, everyone who will be realistic knows it.
Taxation is one of the measures which lead to socialism. I can understand why social-istically-minded people would favour taxation, but I find it much more difficult to understand why those who have joined the Liberal and Progressive Conservative ranks can look with equanimity upon developing taxation.
For a moment or two I should like to refer to the minister's remarks about optimism, when he urged us to be optimistic. I should like to ask the minister two or three questions just to see how optimistic he is. In his optimism would he go so far as to favour reducing retail prices all across the board throughout
Family Allowances Act Canada by a compensated discount? I hope he would. The very first thing we need, as a people, is to bring down the cost of living.
I find many people in the House of Commons urging that we bring down the cost of living, but I think I have not heard any one of them offer a sound and feasible means whereby the cost of living can be brought down.


An hon. Member:: What about margarine?


John Horne Blackmore: All I needed to emphasize the statement I was making was just that interruption. I wonder if in his optimism the minister would go so far as to advocate dividends for all. The day will come when members who sit in those benches will advocate dividends; and there will be just as reckless urgency among members trying to claim the honour for first having suggested dividends as there is today in their efforts to claim the honour of being the first to advocate family allowances. The day is going to come when people will realize that to apply a means test to any individual in a nation like Canada is manifestly unfair, and is destructive of the finer qualities in man.
If a person through being thrifty, overindustrious or unusually capable in any way gets ahead and, because of that, is discriminated against when any favours are to be handed around, all I can say is that we will progressively discourage in man the very qualities we desire to be there. That must be faced, and it is time we did the facing. Therefore I ask the minister if he is sufficiently optimistic to favour dividends for all.
I wonder if he would go still further in his optimism and advise those who are managing Canada's affairs that what is physically possible should be made financially possible.


Mr. Low:: That is a good one, Paul.


John Horne Blackmore: When the Indians roamed these plains they realized that if there were plenty of buffalo, plenty of fish and plenty of firewood every Indian could have access to buffalo meat, buffalo hides, fish and firewood. What was physically possible was financially possible.


Mr. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: A pretty low standard of living, though.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, that is right; but there was a far better standard of living than we can find in some parts of this nation tonight.


John Lambert Gibson: Oh no.


John Horne Blackmore: And, as a colleague points out to me, far better than the Indians have now.


Mr. Brown:: I question that.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not question it,
because I have seen some of those things.

Family Allowances Act What is physically possible in Canada today ought to be financially possible, as it was among the Indians. If it is not, then something is wrong. I wonder if the minister would be courageous enough and optimistic enough to try to find out what is wrong. And, having done so, would he do something about it?
While we are on the subject of optimism, in general, I would ask another question. Why did the Liberals who now express such enthusiasm for family allowances oppose so violently social credit in Alberta? Why have they opposed it ever since?


Solon Earl Low: So they could give family allowances, and take the credit for it.


John Horne Blackmore: And why are they opposing it today in Alberta? The Social Credit party talks more social security in one month than the Liberal party has talked throughout its existence. The late William Aberhart talked more social security in Alberta in 1934 and 1935 than has ever been talked by any fifteen men in Canada since.


Donald Ferguson Brown: You talk and we do.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, but we had the idea how to do it, and you do not know how to do it. All you are doing is to just bungle along with the old system, and in time you are going to court disaster.


Solon Earl Low: Why be in a hurry when you are on the wrong road?


John Horne Blackmore: I submit that the amount of family allowances and social security ought to depend upon Canada's productive capacity.


John Lambert Gibson: It does, too.


John Horne Blackmore: I am glad to hear that; I hope the hon. member will follow straight through. Canadian resources are rich and varied. In 1948 we produced goods valued at more than $15,500 million-fifteen and a half billion. Allowing even for unusually high prices, that is a substantial production; but it is far below the productive capacity of Canada. All one needs to do is compare the production of hogs in 1948 with that of 1944.


William Henry Golding: Order. I would ask the hon. member to discuss the resolution, which is in these words:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1944, to shorten from three to one year the residence period required as one of the conditions of eligibility of a child, and also to remove the decreasing scale provided in the amount of allowance payable when more than four children are maintained.


Solon Earl Low: It takes pork to feed youngsters.


John Horne Blackmore: I accept your admonition, Mr. Chairman; but may I point out that

the only way in which we can increase the amount of family allowances is to get more production in the country, and to turn that production into money, somehow or another; and if you had big enough family allowances and too little production of milk and other essentials, matters would not go very well. Therefore I submit I am in order-you did not tell me I was not, Mr. Chairman, and I shall endeavour to follow your advice.
As I was pointing out, in 1948 we were not producing nearly as much pork as we did in 1944, which ought to show quite clearly that our production is far below what it ought to be and what it could be. Similarly, we are down in the production of other meats as compared with what we could produce. We are also down in the production of dairy products, vegetables, fruits, sugar and many other commodities.
If we really want to have continuing social security in Canada we must increase our production, not only in respect of the items I have mentioned but in respect of many other items which could be readily produced in Canada in greater and greater abundance.
May I make one final suggestion before resuming my seat. May I suggest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) that the only way in which he can make what is physically possible financially possible is through the issuance by the government of debt-free money and the use of that debt-free money. Will the minister be optimistic enough to favour state created debt-free money or state created and issued interest-free money, each of which is possible in this country? But I do not find any member of the Liberal or Conservative party suggesting that that ought to be done. If the minister is really optimistic about family allowances he will listen to the hints I have given to him as to the two or three lines along which his optimism might proceed.
Before closing may I say that the amount of debt-free and interest-free money which the government can create will depend upon the goods and services which Canada can produce and upon the portion of those goods and services which will remain unsold after the money which has come into circulation from production has been spent.
The members of our group are heartily in favour of family allowances, of larger family allowances; we are in favour of greater and greater social security, but we are not in favour of taxation in order to finance those desirable objectives. We are not advocating the complete abolition of taxation as perhaps some will be necessary for a long time, but we are pointing out once more that in the state's power to create money lies a most important source of revenue and that when

we begin to use that source of revenue we can go much farther in the matter of family allowances, old age pensions, health measures and educational support measures than we have even dreamed of doing in this house, and we can do that without adding to the taxation burden or the debt of this nation.


Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Chairman, I hope that I shall live to see the day when we shall have all these things without adding to the burden of taxation, as the hon. member suggested in the last sentence of his remarks. Debt-free money, money without taxation- that is something the theorists may write about in books but surely anyone in this honourable chamber who has had any experience of any consequence knows that we will not have those things in our day and generation. They are not designed for our present economy. We will have to get right down to the grass roots and to ordinary common sense and produce in order that we have something with which to extend ourselves and be able to provide social services from the surplus of that which we produce.
I am unable to remain seated and listen to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre put words in our mouths in regard to our action in connection with social services of this kind. There are not many here who can go back with me for two and a half decades and remember some of the things that were said with regard to social services when the Hon. Mr. Forke was sitting over here leading the Progressive party. After some years of real production, after making a good record in the war, our hon. friends who control the government affairs of this country find it possible to more or less change their ways and come along with some social services.
For what reason? We all know why. Something is going to happen shortly, whether it be June or October.


An hon. Member:: Not June.


Joseph Henry Harris: That is the first bright light we have seen from an hon. minister. If I could use a vulgar expression I would say "We care not when it comes or from whence it comes, we are ready; let it come whenever you want, we are ready." May I say to my good friend who is sitting with the Minister of Labour: We do not care how much you-not bribe-entice the people to vote for you because you are giving these social services. We do not mind how much you hand out to them or how soon it comes, because perhaps the people of Canada will see that you get your deserts and someone else may be charged with the responsibility of carrying on with declining markets in
Family Allowances Act difficult times in an effort to pull the country out of the difficulty you have got it into. The same thing has happened three or four times since confederation.
Getting back to the subject which I rose to speak about, may I first thank you, Mr. Chairman, for not calling me to order. I know I was out of order, but I was interrupted. I do not mind repeating what I said 23 years ago from the back rows. I am in favour of helping any movement that will see to it that large families are taken care of in Canada in a like manner as families without children. You may look up the record of Hansard and you will find what I said. There were nine members in my own family; there were eleven in the family of one uncle; thirteen in the family of another and seventeen of another. In that day and age they did not know that they could come to the government where money was available and get some help with which to raise their families.
It was families like those that made up the backbone of this Canada of ours. They worked hard and they asked for nothing. I take second place to no one in this chamber in my appreciation of those members of our community who raise large families. When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre put words in my mouth a few minutes ago, when he said that we objected to this, may I say that the member for Danforth did not object.
I realize that conditions have changed from what they were 25 or 30 years ago. Perhaps in this new generation, perhaps with this new philosophy of helping others, it may be that those who are helped will not feel that they are being subsidized by the government. They may feel that it is their inherent right to have some assistance from the government, when they are bearing their full responsibility as Canadian citizens in raising families whereas many others enjoy life and do not do their duty towards the country which gives them the finest existence any country in the world can offer. Therefore if any government proposes to help out those of our citizens who are family men and women I am not going to sit idly by and have my hon. friend, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, say that I oppose any such resolution.
I am thoroughly in favour of these social services in the present day and generation. No one in this chamber knows that better than the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I challenge him now to name any other member of the House of Commons who is more profoundly sympathetic at heart towards anything and everything that has to

Family Allowances Act do with the welfare of our citizens. His silence gives consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You did not vote for the measure.


Joseph Henry Harris: What a high privilege it is-and I say this to some of the younger members of the House of Commons -after having been here for three decades listening to arguments on all sides of this matter, to be able to reorientate one's views as one decade succeeds another so that they are in keeping with the economics of the country in which it is our privilege to live. I think the minister will understand why I feel a little badly that a member of this house should rise in his place and, while not imputing motives, leave a little smear or a little smudge on some of us who have tried our level best to serve our country, and in trying to do that enjoy ourselves to the full because we appreciate highly the privilege of being of service to our fellow men.
I have not said one word against a resolution of this kind, but I want to add a minor criticism. It is rather odd that this matter should come up at a time when we expect that there may be a general election, and I and other members of the house will be seeking the votes of our fellow citizens. I dismiss all that, however, because the objective is on a higher plane, and is not of a kind that should be dragged into the mud of any political election which may soon be held. We ought to take a higher view of these matters. The government has made it difficult for us to do that because they have brought up this measure at a very inopportune time. I ask my hon. friends on all sides of the house, and particularly those at whom T am looking now, to try to get up on a higher plane when dealing with matters of social services. Let them try to make our people believe we in this assembly, which they fight for, and which they believe in their hearts represents the best form of national life, are not only honest in our convictions but feel disposed to serve them, and to measure up to the full responsibility of our duties.
Let us not play politics with an issue of this kind. Let us try to be big enough to say that we realize what has happened in the economy of the country, and that we appreciate the fact that those who are raising families in Canada are entitled in this day and generation to a little more consideration than they were in the old days when 25 or 30 cents would buy what now costs a dollar. Let us encourage them in their way of life so that we will have a greater Canada, and so that we will be able to lay down our task when the end comes feeling that we have discharged our responsibilities to our communities, not 
only in the matter of pensions, not only in the matter of family allowances, but in the score of avenues where we can be of public service. There are not only family allowances but also twenty or thirty other social service measures of a similar nature. Let us deal with them in a reasonable way. 1 say to the minister that we should not go wild on this matter. Measure your economy versus what you are spending. You know that you are spending plenty, but let us be reasonable about it. Make your expenditures for every spoke in the wheel of social services of one kind and another in keeping with the economy of the country so that each spoke will go out from the hub of the wheel in like measure. Then we will have a perfect circle of real services to our fellow Canadians.
I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that then this House of Commons will continue to live. We will have democracy and not autocracy, not dictatorship, and in the final analysis our people will be satisfied with what you and I are trying to do on their behalf.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Martin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 235, to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1944.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Residence of child.
Mr. Knight:: Since the granting of the family allowance must be based upon need, I suggest that generally speaking the need of those who have just arrived here from other countries is even greater than that of those who may have been here for one year or more. I have had some experience with displaced persons, the parents of large families of small children who, largely owing to faulty government screening, were brought out here as trained mechanics. After a certain time it was discovered that they were not able to do the things they said they could do; and I do not think anyone would blame them for attempting to escape from the conditions under which they were living by saying anything that would help them better their condition. However that may be, and irrespective of whose fault it may have been, they found themselves in this country, out of work and in some cases without having put in the necessary number of days to qualify for unemployment insurance.
In such cases it seems to me rather hard on the municipalities to have to put up money for the relief of these people who were supposed to be accurately screened by the government before being brought here and turned loose-and I use those words advisedly -to fend for themselves. From that point

on the dominion government assumes no responsibility. I know of one case, of a woman who was sent out to work on a farm. As far as I could see she was a good worker and a pleasant person, but she did not get along with the people to whom she was sent. The farmer for whom she was working brought her into a little prairie town, dumped her off on the wooden sidewalk and there she was, without sufficient knowledge of the English language to make her situation known. She was looked after by some kindly person and the matter was fixed up, but she did not know what to do or where to go.
So in this connection I think the government has shown laxity in two respects. In the first place I do not think they follow up these cases sufficiently in order to see that these people are satisfactorily placed. In the second place, as I said in the beginning, I see no reason why it would not be a good investment for the people of this country to give the family allowance to these displaced persons immediately upon their arrival in Canada. I believe it would avoid a great deal of grief later on; and if the dominion government assumed that responsibility the local people would not have to assume other responsibilities later on. I would be interested to hear some comment from the minister on that one point, as to why family allowances are not paid to these people immediately they land in this country. They are potential Canadian citizens. Speaking metaphorically I think it would start them off with a better taste in their mouth; and speaking literally I think it would put more taste in the mouths of the children if they were given this allowance immediately upon their arrival, as a right and not as charity. Would the minister comment upon that point?


Peter Francis Martin: I might reply to my hon. friend very briefly. I think he will agree, as I am sure the house will agree upon reflection, that a waiting period is necessary. In this instance that period has been reduced from three years to one year. In a country like Canada, contiguous to another great country, where there is a relatively free flow of population along a long frontier, to avoid frivolous applications and abuses a waiting period obviously is required. The wisdom of this I think is indicated by the fact that both Australia and New Zealand have a waiting period of one year in their legislation.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I quite agree with the hon. member for Saskatoon City in regard to this period of one year. Let us abolish the waiting period entirely and give them this family allowance if they are going to remain in this country as settlers. It is not very long since the minister refused to have this matter dis-
Family Allowances Act cussed in the house. Apparently some distinction has been made between settlers and ordinary immigrants, but I personally wrote to the minister on several occasions in respect to families which had come to Canada and which needed these family allowances very badly, but there was no way of getting them. Now that the government are reducing the period by two years why not abolish it entirely and pay the allowance from the time these people enter as residents of Canada? That is the year they really need help. Then they will not have to go looking for charity, as they have had to do in many cases in the past. If the minister would look up his files I could refer him to four or five families who have endeavoured to get this allowance; and now I believe this should be made retroactive in the case of families which have already applied for the allowance and have been refused.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I want to say a word or two in reply to the minister. I would point out to him that when a child is born in this country there is no need for a waiting period of one year, and I can see no difference. I am speaking on the ground of humanity. I would point out, too, that Newfoundland children did not have to wait for one year. I would recall further that the government has sent assistance to children in Europe who were not potential Canadian citizens at all. Once they land in this country and become potential citizens I suggest that it would give them a tremendous start in life if we would be sufficiently generous to drop that waiting period of one year and have the allowance begin when they land on our shores. I am looking at this from the point of view of the children. I do not see why they should be mulcted because of an accident of birth or of geography, why they should have to do without things for twelve months before they get this allowance.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I am in favour of the family allowances to people in the low income brackets, but I am opposed to the administrative expenses caused by forcing people in the high income brackets also to accept the family allowances. I do not believe the government should waste money in administration costs, paying these allowances to people who only return this money by means of the income tax. I should like to know if the minister has any records to show how much of this money is paid out to people who return it by way of income tax.


Peter Francis Martin: Yes, I can give that information at the appropriate moment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
2552	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Sinclair
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 31, 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. Cold-well.
James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the budget I must confess that this is a rather novel experience for me, because in the nine years I have been in parliament I have never taken part in a budget debate. The reason is quite simple; I have so thoroughly approved of the sequence of budgets brought down by Mr. Ilsley and the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) that I have seen no reason to prolong the debate merely to voice my approval.
This budget, however, is so exceptional that I think I should at least express the gratification of my constituents at the announcement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). It is not just in my constituency, of course, for from British Columbia to Newfoundland, Canadians have hailed it as the greatest budget in our history. The daily press of the country made it the news of the year in their front pages the day after it was delivered and in their editorial columns they lauded it. I need not weary the house by quoting excerpts of their praise, because all hon. members are familiar with it. Still keener and more impartial has been the praise from other lands, praise untinged by the political bias which might be found in Canadian commentators.
Senator George, who is the democratic chairman of the United States senate finance committee, thought so highly of the minister's speech that he placed it on the United States senate record and urged the United States administration

and this is a democratic senator-to follow a similar program or, he emphasized, there would be a flight of United States capital to the security of Canada. Barron's, the great United States financial weekly, devoted almost their full front page to an analysis of the Canadian budget, holding it up as a model for the United States government to follow and describing


Canada as "O blessed land." I do not intend to put all of this on the record but I think there are two paragraphs which are so significant of United States reaction that I should mention them:
Furthermore, lest anybody think the Canadians economized on the war and allowed others to do the sacrificing, let us remember that Canada contributed to the war effort of the United Kingdom gifts of goods and arms amounting to more than $1 billion annually. Counting in other contributions by Canada, the aggregate lend-lease outlay of that country has been fully proportionate to ours.
The Liberal party in Canada certainly has done well by the people. They have come through a long period of hardships and restrictions in a magnificent manner. Now that the post-war boom is waning, they are in a position to give themselves a large dose of tax relief, a major stimulant to both consumption and new investment.
Then this long article concludes by suggesting that President Truman should give his financial advisers an educational trip and send them up to Ottawa to find out from the Minister of Finance how it is done. These objective remarks from a foreign land are certainly in accord with the sentiments of the Canadian people. I might well ask at this time: What other country in the world today would not have welcomed a budget such as ours? I am quite sure that the British people turned envious eyes westward on the night of April 6 when they heard the bad news in their budget.
Despite this tremendous wave of approval, however, there are members in this house who have been assigned by their parties to find fault with and criticize this budget- which is a perfectly proper democratic procedure. Indeed, in the days before this administration took office, the fiery, sweeping all-out attacks of the opposition financial critics were almost as important as the budget itself.
Those of us who were in the house on the day of March 31, however, will recall how different was the scene that night. The financial critic of the opposition rose to his task and made a delightfully delivered speech, filled with amusing anecdotes and nicely turned phrases-the very picture of a scholar and a gentleman going through the motions of opposing a budget which he knew in his heart was a good budget, and one which had been enthusiastically welcomed by the Canadian people. The house that day accepted his speech in the very temper in which it was given, because I have never seen the house so jovial and happily relaxed-Liberal members and opposition members alike heartily applauding his pleasant sallies. The financial critics of the C.C.F. and the Social Credit group who followed him spoke in similar vein, their main theme being that if they had

been the government they would have done the same thing a little sooner.
Just for fear that I am being a trifle partisan in my approach, because of my own appreciation of the budget and because of my close connection with the Minister of Finance, I will be objective and show how the national press reacted to the efforts of the financial critics. In days gone by the scathing slashing attacks of the financial critics always made the headlines. Let me, therefore, tell you how the largest paper in each of the four principal cities of Canada featured the speeches of the three financial critics in their issues of April 1: The Montreal Star, one-third of a column, on page 4; the Toronto Star, no mention anywhere; the Winnipeg Free Press, no mention anywhere; the Vancouver Sun, one-third of a column on page 30. To me that is the best indication of the ineffectualness, not of the members themselves-because they are all able parliamentarians-but of the ineffectualness of their critical efforts. The fault was not theirs. The story of course is that the budget was so good a budget that there was really nothing to criticize. Nevertheless, I feel that I should make some comments on some of the statements made by the principal financial critic of the Conservative party, the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell).
First and foremost was his comment that the budget was a political bribe, followed almost immediately by the naive observation that the Liberals had increased the income tax exemption to only $1,000 and $2,000 while the Progressive Conservatives had promised $1,250 and $2,500. The minister at that time aptly interjected the following remark:
Did I hear a reference to bribery a short time ago?
Since the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario did not explain the difference, perhaps I should. A Liberal promise carried out is regarded by the Tories as bribery, while a Tory promise unfulfilled is regarded by the people of Canada as just their customary fraud. This criticism, of course, points out the one thing which is really wrong with this budget-"it is fair to the people of Canada but it is unfair to the Tory party." However, while I am on this point I want to go a little bit further. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario once again dragged out and once again misquoted a remark made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce some years ago. It will be found at page 2251 of Hansard for 1945. Here is the quotation:
I call the attention of my hon. friend-
The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario.
-to the fact that we are dealing with an over-all bill for some $1,365 million ... X daresay my hon.
The Budget-Mr. Sinclair friend could cut a million dollars from this amount; but a million dollars from the war appropriation bill would not be a very important matter.
Now it is readily figured that a million dollars on an item of $1,365 million is less than seven one-hundredths of one per cent- surely remarkably little leeway on an estimate of expenditure. The Auditor General told us in committee just before the Easter recess that he would regard a leeway of one per cent on ordinary departmental estimates as extraordinarily close.
The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario however twists this statement around, after three years, as reported on page 2181 of Hansard of 1949, to this:
Yes, said Mr. Howe, we could have saved a million dollars, but what is a million dollars?
Bad though this twisting may be, now let us look at the speech of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario in this regard. In advocating the adoption of the Tory scale of exemption, $1,250 and $2,500, he used this priceless phrase:
As far as I can estimate from the figures I have, that would not have cost very much.
The figures are easily obtainable from the Department of Finance and as he is the chief financial critic of the Conservative party, I presume he did get these figures and study them. These figures show that the extra cost -the "not very much" of the hon. member's speech-is the trifling little sum of $140 million or 23 [DOT] 7 per cent of our present income tax collection. I am sure this house will now agree that whatever laurels the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) won for his casual reference to one million dollars in the war appropriations estimate must now pass to the brow of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario for his careful and studied classification of the sum of $140 million as "not very much."
However, before I leave this question of personal exemptions, I should like to make one observation. The phrase $1,000 and $2,000 rolls off our tongue so easily that we tend to forget that the actual exemptions for the class of people that this government wants most to help-married people with children-are actually far higher. A married couple with children receives an exemption of $150 for each child receiving family allowance or $400 if the child is dependent but does not receive family allowance. In the former case, however, the effect of family allowances must be considered because of the change in our income tax structure which was made to accommodate the payment of family allowances to everyone. That is the point which was raised by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Hatfield) a moment ago. When family allowances were
2554	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Sinclair first brought in it will be recalled that they were paid to everyone as of right below $1,500, but between $1,500 and $3,000 a sliding scale of recovery was effected through a change in the income tax rates. Above $3,000 we took all the family allowances back through income tax. This method of payment aroused the suggestion that there was a means test about family allowances, and it also made it very difficult for the Department of National Revenue to administer collections, and costly too. Therefore family allowances were later made payable to everyone irrespective of income, and the actual tax rates were again changed to effect the same recovery from people of higher incomes. Therefore the true limit of income tax exemption for the family group is where the income tax paid by that group is equal to the family allowances received. The Department of Finance has worked this out as follows: for a family with one child, $2,630; for a family with two children, $3,260; for a family with three children, $3,838; for a family with four children, $4,412; and for a family with five children, $4,960. Hon. members will therefore see that actually our real exemptions are pretty close to the United States exemptions of $600 per child, and combined with our husband and wife exemptions they make our income tax exemptions the highest in the world.
Second only to the cut in personal income tax, as far as the general public is concerned, has been the removal or reduction of a wide range of sales and excise taxes. The reclassification of a great number of varying rates, some at manufacturers' level and some at retail level, will be welcomed for three main reasons. First and most obvious, it has brought an immediate reduction in the price of most of these items. Second, it has greatly simplified our excise tax structure by dividing it into just four main groups today: (1) the bulk of food and construction items on which neither sales tax nor excise tax is paid; (2) a large range of goods not in the luxury or nonessential class, on which only a sales tax of 8 per cent is levied, clothing and household furnishings for example; (3) a large range of goods such as cars, radios, phonographs, jewelry, furs, cosmetics, luggage, on which sales tax and 10 per cent excise tax is levied: (4) tobacco and liquor on which the traditionally high rate is levied. This simplification of categories will make them more easily understood by the public, and easier to administer by the Department of National Revenue. This classification also shows what is generally not understood, namely, that these taxes are in a measure progressive, since the greater the family's income the more its purchases will be in the higher and more heavily taxed groups.
TMr. Sinclair.]

The Budget-Mr. Sinclair
The truth is, of course, that the money is the taxpayers' money, collected to pay for services to them by both the federal and provincial governments. When Premier Hart signed this agreement it was hailed as a great thing for British Columbia, and I particularly remember Mr. Anscomb, Progressive Conservative leader in British Columbia, who was Mr. Hart's right hand man at the time, took good care to get his share of the credit for this splendid deal.
The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) last year, when he was parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, had a careful study made by that department of just what federal services to British Columbia do cost. Since the hon. member for Kamloops used last year's figures, perhaps it would be interesting for hon. members to see what this statement contains. The statement is short, but I do not intend to read it all. It shows that the actual total taken from British Columbia in direct and indirect taxation last year amounted to $187,223,000 whereas the actual amount spent by the federal government in British Columbia through direct payments to the provincial government, direct payments to or on behalf of individual residents of the province, interest paid on Dominion of Canada bonds, major expenditures by government departments or agencies within the province, the proportional share of (a) subsidies paid under price control regulations and (b) dominion government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund, and partial estimates of expenditures financed with moneys advanced by way of loans, totaled $220 million. That makes $187,223,000 as against $220 million.
If there is any interest in this table I shall be only too glad to have it included in my speech, so far as the details are concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Sinclair: Then, the details are as follows:
Dominion Government Revenue from British Columbia in 1947-48
Direct taxes
Income tax	 $117,402,000
Excess profits tax __ 26,511,000
Succession duties ____ 2,747,000

Indirect taxes
Excise taxes
(domestic)	 $ 22,855,000
Excise duties	 11,311,000
Sundry collections ...	85,000

	34,271,000
5 per cent	provincial	corporation tax	6,292,000Grand	total	
$187,223,000
Dominion government expenditures in British Columbia in 1947-48
A.	Direct payments to the provincial government:
(a)	Compensation in lieu of Income
and corporation taxes under the Dominion-Provincial Taxation Agreement Act, 1942 (final payment)	 $ 3,384,000
(b)	Compensation under the Dominion-Provincial Tax Rental Agreements Act, 1947, (three quarterly payments of $5,072,320 each) ... 15,217,000
(c)	Statutory subsidies	 1,003,000

B.	Direct payments to or on behalf of individual residents of the province:
(a)	Family allowances	
$18,037,000(b)	Pensions (World Wars I and II) ..	11,487,000(c)	Veterans' war service gratuitiesand re-establishment	credits	
11,279,000(d)	Veterans' post-discharge rehabilitation benefits	
10,495,000(e)	War veterans' allowances	
1,853,000(f)	Old age pensions and pensions toblind persons	
5,279,000

C.	Interest paid on Dominion of Canada bonds: The amount of interest paid on Dominion of Canada bonds to holders residing within the province of British Columbia	 $40,000,000
D.	Estimate of major expenditures by government departments or agencies within the province:
(a)	Department of National Defence,. $15,600,000
(b)	Department of Veterans Affairs.. 9,530,000
(c)	Department of Agriculture	
5,391,000(d)	Department of External Affairs...	5,113,000(e)	Central Mortgage and HousingCorporation	
4,251,000(f)	Department of Public Works	3,112,000(g)	Department of Transport	
3,567,000(h)	Department of Mines andResources	
2,731,000(i)	Department of Fisheries	
1,431,000(j)	Department of National Revenue	2,820,000(k)	Department of Labour	
2,857,000(l)	Department of Finance	
860,000(m)	Department of Justice	
725,000(n)	Royal Canadian Mounted Police..	403,000

E.	Proportional share of (a) subsidies paid under price control regulations and (b) dominion government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund:
(a)	Total subsidies paid
during year	 $34,500,000
Portion allocated to British Columbia on basis of proportion of British Columbia population to total population
of Canada	
(b)	Total payments during year	 $17,500,000
Portion allocated to British Columbia on basis of proportion of number of insured workers in British Columbia to total number of insured workers in Canada

F.	Partial estimates of expenditures financed with moneys advanced by way of loans:
(a)	From loans to the United Kingdom under the Financial Agreement Act	
$ 6,000,000(b)	From loans to other foreign countries under the Export Credits Insurance Act	
30,000,000(c)	From loans to veterans (Soldier Settlement and Veterans LandAct)	
3,000,000

Grand total	 $220,000,000
No account has been taken of the more general types of budgetary expenditures which are made for the benefit of the country as a whole, and which are of course of direct benefit to British Columbia as to all other provinces. Included in this category are the expenses of the central legislative body and of the financial and administrative departments of Ottawa, the services of such departments as National Health and Welfare, National Defence, External Affairs, Reconstruction and Supply, Trade and Commerce, and research activities of the National Research Council and other bodies, etc. All these services are of direct benefit to the residents of British Columbia and should not properly be omitted from consideration in any discussion of the benefits received by British Columbia in return for tax revenues collected there.
However, the hon. member for Kamloops might regard the Minister of Fisheries as a prejudiced witness. Therefore let me quote Premier Johnson, the leader of the provincial government, which, according to the hon. member, is so badly treated by this government-a government, incidentally, which this year has a budget of over $92 million for a million people.
In the legislature of British Columbia Mr. Harold Winch, leader of the opposition and C.C.F. leader, made a speech in a vein similar to that of the hon. member for Kamloops, which occasioned a debate. The Vancouver Province of Saturday, March 12, reported this debate as follows:
Mr. Johnson said he had done all in his power to press for the inauguration of a dominion contributory superannuation scheme.
"If we had had agreements from all of the provinces, the social security measures would have been implemented before now."
The Premier declared he was not concerned with the political aspects of dominion-provincial relations, but he believed "the smartest thing this government ever did was to enter into the agreement along with six other provinces."
Now, the hon. member for Kamloops might regard Mr. Johnson as prejudiced, since he is head of the Liberal party in B.C. Therefore let us quote Mr. Anscomb, leader of the Progressive Conservatives in B.C., in this same connection, as reported in the Vancouver Sun of March 12, page 3:
Mr. Winch insisted the government must start now studying the effects of the enormous income taxes taken out of British Columbia in relation to what the dominion gives back. (He estimated the rates at $6 to $1.)
The Budget-Mr. Sinclair
Mr. Anscomb insisted the finance department is studying it continually.
But he said British Columbia has made an agreement and will stick to it.
"The facts are now, however, that the benefits we are getting from Canada's new financial system far outweigh the .$140 or $150 million the people of this province pay in federal taxes.
He explained how the dominion, with its big taxation powers, is able to control credits and regulate overseas markets. British Columbia on its own could never finance the overseas purchases of lumber, for instance, like the dominion is doing.
If we did not have this sort of arrangement, do you think we could have got $5 million for flood rehabilitation and $7-5 million for rebuilding the dikes in the Fraser, or $1-2 million for hospital grants or $1-5 million on health grants?
"I say it is well worthwhile."
Then, for fear that Premier Johnson and Mr. Anscomb may have been misquoted, I wrote to the premier in this connection, a letter to which I received on March 17 the following reply:
I have for acknowledgment your letter of March 15 and note your desire for copies of the speeches made by Mr. Anscomb and myself in connection with the debate on dominion-provincial tax agreement. This matter, as you perhaps are aware, came up during the discussion on the Minister of Finance's vote in committee of supply. I spoke extempore, consequently, I have no copy of the speech and as you know we do not keep a Hansard. However, I saw the press reports of the debate and may say that they were fairly representative of what was actually said.
Hon. members will now understand the desperate predicament of the hon. member for Kamloops in deciding which of these two leaders he should be loyal to. If, as may well happen, we have the provincial and federal elections at the same time in British Columbia, he will have to take two different roles. If he is supporting a federal Conservative candidate, "the tax agreement is a vile and iniquitous deal"; if he is supporting a provincial Conservative candidate, "the tax agreement is well worth while"-a real Jekyll and Hyde role.


Mr. Cruickshanlt:: Charlie McCarthy and Mortimer Snerd.


James Sinclair: Charlie McCarthy is often bright and entertaining, which cannot always be said for the hon. member for Kamloops.
Before closing I should like to make brief reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), leader and chief financial critic of the C.C.F. He was in an extremely difficult position in criticizing this budget, not just because of the fact that he knew that the budget had been so warmly welcomed by the people of Canada, but also because of the very sincere compliment paid earlier by his chief lieutenant, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
Perhaps I am inaccurate in referring to him as chief lieutenant, for he very often

The Budget-Mr. Sinclair appears to be captain, too. However, I believe the house will agree that the C.C.F. has no more careful student of parliamentary history, customs and procedure, and his studious and considered opinions are always highly regarded by members of all parties in the house.
Therefore it is especially noteworthy that this distinguished student of parliamentary history should have made so striking an observation as he did as reported at page 1803 of Hansard. The Minister of Finance was approaching the end of his long and welcome list of tax removals and tax reductions when the well-informed member for Winnipeg North Centre asked him, with genuine admiration in his voice:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have you any taxes left?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member is also a very great student and one who does a great deal of research, I hope he has looked up the facts and has found out that there are many taxes left, and also that the price of bread has gone up since the budget was presented.


James Sinclair: 
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) I was reminded of the old saying of whistling to keep up your courage. I think many people have failed to realize that this is a world of failing markets. I am sorry the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and his parliamentary assistant are not here tonight because I wanted to point out some of the things that are happening to our markets. When our farmers lose their markets it will mean that the rest of the people will be in a serious situation. A lot of people have incomes of $3,800 a year, but they do not have the expenditures that farmers have. A gross income of $3,800 is a very small amount of money when farm expenses are considered. During the weeks that have passed since the budget was introduced, and in the days previous to its introduction, we heard it referred to as a sunshine budget. Let me tell you that in the country the sunshine budget has been eclipsed by the clouds of reality. People have found out that it does not mean as much as they thought it did on the night it was delivered. In fact the next morning I said to the first two people I met, "You had better smile this morning; your taxes are down." They said, "not enough." I suppose never in Canada's history has a budget died so quickly. We find thousands of people who are not helped at all, people on fixed incomes, on pensions, widows with children trying to maintain homes, low income groups. Farmers find that their costs are up and their incomes are down because prices for their products are down.
It has been referred to before, but I want to recall again the words of the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) who referred to the sales tax as iniquitous and said that it pressed alike on the rich and the

The Budget-Mr. H. O. White poor. We find that under this budget widows purchasing annuities to provide pensions for their old age are taxed for so doing.
Coming events cast their shadows before. That has been said many times, and the election cycle that has been referred to by others certainly had some influence on the budget. We heard much about taxing in times of prosperity and reducing the debt so that when more difficult times came taxes would not be as high. During the past three years the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) saw fit to extract from the people $1,600 million more than was necessary to carry on the business of the country, but we find that last year interest payments were $8 million greater than in 1947. I and a good many others are wondering what he did with the $1,600 million he took away from us. It certainly was not used for the purpose we were led to believe that it would be used for. How much does this overtaxation amount to? For a family of five it amounts to $250. That is overtaxation, not total taxation; it is just that much more than they should have taken.
In the budget no consideration was given to the needs of the blind people. Four million dollars was provided for television for people who can see; but for the small minority who are blind, and who have no political influence in the country, not a cent is provided. The government also failed to implement in full the promises made to the delegations that came to Ottawa regarding cattle which reacted to tuberculin tests.
I want to refer again to the $4 million set aside for television. That $4 million is lost and will n.ever be regained. It will take another $25 million to follow it up, although that work could be well done by private companies without one cent of cost to the taxpayers. I think that is a terrible waste of the people's money at the present time.
The estimates reveal no economy. As closely as I can figure from the estimates tabled, we are estimating for an expenditure of $2,127 million, and that is up $27 million from the year before. Savings have been effected in the wrong places. I find that the estimates of the Department of Labour are down $2 million, those of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply are down $69 million, and those of the Department of Agriculture are down $10 million. Practically all other departments are up. The Minister of Finance could have taken at least one hand out of the taxpayers' pockets.
The government is budgeting for a surplus of $87 million in the coming year, but what are the facts? The $4 million for television that I mentioned is a total loss. The $55 million for Newfoundland was not mentioned. The $40 million deficit of the C.N.R. was not

mentioned, and the loss of our foreign markets was not mentioned. We will have deficits there. There will be people who have paid income tax in past years but who will not pay income tax in the years that lie ahead. Adding those items, and without taking into consideration the loss of markets, there is $99 million that is not accounted for. If my arithmetic is anywhere near correct, we will have a deficit of at least $12 million. Oh what a tangled web we weave!
I hold in my hand two clippings from the London Free Press. The heading on the first is:
Canada's trade balance records sharp decline. Imports rise; sales abroad show slump.
What are the facts? These figures are from the dominion bureau of statistics. I am quoting from the London Free Press of April 15, 1949. The article reads in part:
Reporting monthly trade totals, the bureau of statistics disclosed today that the favourable balance -the excess of exports over imports-fell to $1,200,000 in February from $15,200,000 in January and $28,100,000 in February, 1948.
If these figures are not revealing as to the state of Canada's trade abroad I do not know what is. They reveal that we are in a much more desperate situation than the government is prepared to admit. There is another reference I wish to make to the London Free Press of April 22, 1949. The article refers to a new deal in trade and money as being imperative. It reads in part:
Because of the rigid "dollar standard," Canada of all her food agreements with the United Kingdom has left but wheat, bacon, cheese and eggs, all of them considerably reduced. Meanwhile the United Kingdom has turned elsewhere for the products that Canada used to provide. The situation is far from satisfactory. But the day rapidly is approaching when a "new deal" in money mechanics and trade will be forced upon Canada, the United States and the sterling area.
I suppose one should not fail to mention the North Atlantic security pact, that historic document which was signed previous to the Easter recess. I want to refer to the able presentation of the needs, aims and desires of the nations that are signatories to that pact, the able presentation by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and the reply of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). I want to point out now one thing that happened. My friends to the left, the C.C.F., never fail to point out the shortcomings of the Progressive Conservative party, and sometimes refer to its members being absent, but eleven of their party failed to vote on the North Atlantic security pact. As you will recall, most of them were in the city of Ottawa, but were not in their seats in the house.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Might I ask the hon. member a question?


Harry Oliver White: Not now.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Just a question?


Harry Oliver White: Not now.


Mr. Matthews (Kootenay East):: When the hon. member makes an accusation he should be sure of the truth of his statements. I did not vote on the pact at that time because I was not in the city when the vote was taken.


Harry Oliver White: I want to point out that there have been other pacts in the past which have failed, as my leader pointed out in his speech on another occasion. They failed because they were not made living, workable, vital realities. The Atlantic pact is a military alliance, a political unity against an apparent common foe. But more important than these considerations is the fact that there should be also economic co-operation between the nations who are signatories to this pact, so that trade may flow both backward and forward more freely than it has in the past. Before it closes, the commonwealth conference now coming to an end should take into consideration the facts I have pointed out, and find a way to help trade. Otherwise the pact and many other things we hold dear may perish. The North Atlantic family of nations must bring into being a more convertible currency or suffer disaster. Not many years ago we read of Willkie's one world. That world has been split in two; but worse still is the fact that the western half of that now divided world is again split, and we find ourselves in a peculiar position. I quote again from the London Free Press of March 25:
Caught as we are with one foot in the sterling area and the other in the dollar area we are in a precarious position.
I doubt if we can long permit international trade organizations and international monetary funds, both the result of socialist planning, to go on strangling trade. We find that these economic planners are providing for a planned scarcity, not for the planned plenty they talked about. In further reference to Canada's dwindling trade I want to quote also from the Ottawa Journal of December 14:
Having accepted fixed prices, controlled marketing, and the oft-repeated promise of long-term food contracts with the United Kingdom, Canadian farmers suddenly find that, with the lone exception of the cheese contract, these food agreements are about as firm as tissue paper. Britain doesn't even want our bacon, or at least cannot pay for it in any coin we will accept. Urged for years to produce in abundance, the Canadian farmer now finds that about the only assured market is the domestic one-which cannot absorb all he can produce.
The Budget-Mr. H. O. White
Canada's dwindling trade can be compared to the extent of our participation in the Berlin air lift; nothing at all. If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) or his parliamentary assistant (Mr. McCubbin) had been in the house this evening I wanted to deal particularly with Bill No. 82, the marketing act. The only thing wrong with it is that it is fourteen years late. For years the farmers have been asking for this legislation, and now it has come too late to do them any good. I am reminded of someone who has bought an expensive machine. He knows nothing about it, but he has fooled with it until it will no longer work. Then he says, "This will not work. I will give it back to you". That is the situation as far as Canada's markets are concerned. Now that we have lost them the government are giving us the means to handle them. Hon. members will remember that early in the session, when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) went to Washington, there was an article in the Ottawa Journal saying that Mr. St. Laurent was after Mr. Truman's secret, that there was some similarity between his position and that of Mr. Truman. I can tell the Prime Minister and the members of the government how Mr. Truman won his election. He gave the farmers of the United States a fair, square deal, and that is more than can be said for this administration.
The Marshall plan is also throttling our trade, for this reason. The United States produces many of the same products we produce; and when these things are declared surplus in the United States, ECA dollars are no longer available to purchase the Canadian surpluses. We have some Canadian products that have not been declared surplus, and I have in mind particularly beans and honey; but they point out to us very carefully that if we offer beans and honey for sale abroad they will declare those products surplus, so the effect will be the same. As the Financial Post says, we have put a picket fence around the dollar world.
I want to say a word or two also about the Agricultural Prices Support Act, which in 1945 was heralded as an election winner. Farmers supported the government because of that act, but what has it become in 1949? It is a millstone around the neck of the government. I have a copy of that act before me, and it is not much better than a scrap of paper. I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, how and why that is so. On March 15, 1949, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), in reply to a question I asked concerning a floor price for flax, said in part at page 1472 of Hansard:
Under the circumstances the government is not prepared to encourage the production of oilseeds by establishing support prices for 1949-50.

The Budget-Mr. H. O. White
The government announced that $400,000 had been set aside to support the price of beans, and a day or so before the house adjourned it was announced that some five million pounds of honey would be bought in order to support the price of that commodity. A pattern has been set in the administration of the Agricultural Prices Support Act for the days that lie ahead. As far as flax is concerned, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said there is no market for it, so they are not going to support it; and they could do the same thing for any other commodity the farmers produce. That is not a very heartening outlook for Canadian farmers in the production years ahead. Let us look at the position with respect to beans. We produce each year about 1,250,000 bushels of beans. Ordinarily we consume one million bushels, so 250,000 bushels are left. The government has set aside $400,000 to support the price. Of that total some $200,000 was used to purchase beans at the floor price for shipment to Israel. That means $200,000 is left to support the price of 200,000 bushels of beans, or at the rate of a dollar a bushel. You might as well try to prop open a barn door with a willow wand as to support the price of 200,000 bushels of beans with $200,000. The same thing applies to five million pounds of honey which are to be purchased. We have a surplus of about fifteen million pounds, and taking five million pounds off the market will not help a great deal. The government should have said they would take every pound of honey offered at Montreal at the price they quoted. They might not have obtained much more than five million pounds because Canadians then would have realized that was the price. But as it is, it does not mean a great deal. So while the beekeepers were hopeful for the time being, the final actual result is that they are still fearful of what is going to happen in the days ahead.
I am just going to point out to the government that they will have to make this floor price program work in the Agricultural Prices Support Act or perish in the attempt. They will never have another opportunity. It is another case of too little and too late.
Right here I also want to point out that it was one of the government's agencies, the dominion bureau of statistics, that helped to get the Canadian farmers and particularly the beekeepers in the position in which they find themselves at the moment. They reported that Canada's crop of honey was the biggest in history and that prices would go down. If the bureau of statistics had said that labour is plentiful and that the price of labour is going down, all the labour organizations in the country would have been down the government's throat, and rightly so. But they could do this to the farmers and the producers of

food, and nothing was said. The bureau of statistics should report figures but they should not predict what is going to happen because of them. They could have said that there is only four pounds per person of honey produced in Canada this year, and it probably would all have been consumed and it would not have cost the government this amount of money it is now going to cost.
At the same time, this same government allowed the importation of two million pounds of inferior honey from foreign lands and now we are obliged to turn around and buy it, ship it out and lose the money.
The export of food products abroad is similar to the export of unemployment. So long as you keep our people busy exporting their products, then we are going to have a market for the things that Canadians produce. We should arrange our agricultural economy so as to make use of our resources of men, labour and soil. This has been done in industry and could be done in agriculture. We are importing many things that could be grown in Canada by Canadian labour, and we would not be sending Canadian dollars abroad to buy them. The importation of goods from abroad is equivalent to the importation of unemployment.
Mr. Graham Towers, in a speech in Vancouver, as reported in the Financial Post of March 26, outlined five ways in which we could overcome our United Kingdom trade difficulties; and by the way, the British market is a traditional market for some of our farm products. He suggested that sales could be improved in the United Kingdom by accepting sterling. I would suggest that many of our farm products, honey included, could be handled in this way, that these goods could be bought and could be shipped to Britain, that Canada would take payment in British sterling and, instead of bringing the sterling out of the country, would invest it in British securities maturing in ten or fifteen years time, and pay the Canadian farmer what it was worth, and later withdraw those funds. I am not taking over all on my own. In the speech that Mr. Graham Towers made, he suggested that was one way that this difficulty could be handled.
I am going to go back for a moment to agricultural price floors. I want to point out to the government that they were zealous in enforcing price ceilings. Many times we read in the press that some merchant was haled into court and fined because his price was half a cent, one cent or a few cents above the price ceiling. But the government are not so zealous to enforce the floors. They certainly wait a long time before they put them into action. Do not think for one moment that the people throughout Canada

who suffered under the price ceilings are not going to realize the implication of this fact. I am going to point out to the government that if they put the skids under agriculture, agriculture will put the skids under the government and they have plenty of oleomargarine and butter with which to do it.


Mr. F. E. Jaenicke (Kindersley):: Before coming to the budget speech, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make reference to a remark which was made by the speaker who has just taken his seat. I am prompted to make this remark because he refused to answer a question which was put to him by the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Knight). He referred to this group as being delinquent, so to speak, when, on the vote on the motion pertaining to the Atlantic pact, there were eleven members from this party absent. He made no reference to the absence of members from his own party or of members of the Liberal party or of any other party. He made no reference to the circumstances under which this vote was taken. According to the amended rules, this house must adjourn at ten-thirty; and about twenty minutes after ten o'clock, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) interrupted the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) and asked for unanimous consent of the house to sit after ten-thirty. A great many members were not present in the house at that time, as happens perhaps every day. No one expected to vote, and not only C.C.F.'ers but Progressive Conservatives and Liberals left the chamber and were not present in the house when the division bells rang.
In order to put the records straight, may I say that there were eleven C.C.F. members absent, which amounts to 34 per cent of our membership in this house. There were twenty-four Progressive Conservatives absent, which amounts to 35 per cent of their membership in this house and there were fifty-two Liberals absent which amounts to 42 per cent of their membership in this house. And I think there were five Social Crediters absent, which amounts to thirty-eight per cent of their membership in this house. I think it was most unfair for the hon. member who has just taken his seat to make reference to this matter.
Coming to the budget speech, I may say that I am not quite as enthusiastic about this budget as is the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair), who finished his speech about half an hour ago. In spite of the atmosphere of curious expectancy surrounding the budget speech on the day that the minister delivered it in this house, I find that it was no surprise to anyone in this country. It certainly was no surprise to me. We all had expected these reductions, which
The Budget-Mr. Jaenicke were only due to the people of Canada. It has been mentioned by the financial critic of the official opposition that it was a bribery or election budget. I would say this. The people of Canada in an election year expect an election budget, and I would say that they expected an election budget this year. I think that they were somewhat disappointed after the first glamour had worn off.
Of course there is some relief, and I give the minister credit for giving us that relief. While I think some of my constituents will be very glad of the relief that has been given, yet there is also a great disappointment. I had expected even from this government some fiscal change which would have had an influence in reducing the high cost of living, while at the same time maintaining the high level of income which this government must collect in order to carry on the business of the country. In spite of the minister's reassuring words about the leveling off of the cost of living index, I might tell him that the high cost of living is still a very burning issue among the people out in the country-at least it is in my constituency.
One of the things which would have had the desirable effect of reducing the cost of living is the abolition of the sales tax on the necessities of life. At the same time it would have given some relief to that large class of our people whose income is below the income tax level as it stood before the minister's budget speech was delivered. There are many of these people.
Someone referred to this budget as a Santa Claus budget. I think that is a correct description. As you know, Santa Claus is noted for being more generous in places where he would not need to be so generous. If the sales tax on the necessities of life had been abolished, it would have necessitated the enactment of some safeguards, controls so to speak, so that business would not absorb the reduction instead of passing it on to the benefit of the consumer. We have an example in point. The abolition of the tax on travel, both by air and by rail, is not being passed on to the consumer. It has been absorbed by the transportation companies. Therefore the public has received no benefit from the abolition of this tax. The immediate future will show whether or not the people will receive the benefit of other taxes which were abolished or reduced in the provisions contained in the budget. Perhaps we shall see in a few months' time that these reductions in taxation have been absorbed by business. I hope not. We shall see whether the public will get the benefit of the minister's efforts, because the government has divested itself of the power to control such matters.
2564

The Budget-Mr. Jaenicke
I spoke about those of our fellow Canadians whose income is below the level of the lowest income tax bracket before the budget was delivered. It has already been pointed out that the lot of these people has not been assisted by the budget and there are a great many of them. As a matter of fact their lot has been made more burdensome by virtue of the government's action in abolishing the subsidies on flour, which has already caused a rise in the price of bread.
However, apart from this bad feature which has placed a burden on the low income groups of our population, I am really surprised that the sales tax was not abolished altogether or at least considerably reduced with respect to the necessities of life and the implements of primary production used by our farmers and fishermen. Sales tax is indirect taxation, and that form of taxation is called pernicious and obnoxious in the dictionary of liberalism; at least, that is what I was taught when I first absorbed the elementary principles of liberalism, namely, that indirect taxation on the necessities of life and on the tools of primary production was anathema to Liberals. I recall those times years ago when I was an ardent supporter of liberalism, and when I supported many Liberal candidates for parliament and for the legislature, and when I talked myself hoarse on the inequity and the injustice of indirect taxation. I would have thought that the Liberal party, which poses as the custodian of liberalism, now that financial conditions are a bit easier, would have jumped at the opportunity to revert to one of the basic principles of liberalism and obliterated this obnoxious tax, at least as far as it affects the necessities of life and the implements of production.
According to the statement appended to the minister's speech, the sales tax yielded $390 million in the last fiscal year. I feel of course that you cannot just abolish a tax such as that unless there is an alternative source of revenue, or unless you can economize to that extent. In view of the precarious position in which we are at the present time, I have no suggestion as to where we can economize to the extent of at least $400 million, and therefore we must look to another source of revenue. My hon. friends of the Conservative party are denouncing the sales tax as strongly as we do in this group, but so far I cannot recall their having made any suggestion as to where the additional revenue is to come from if the government should abolish or reduce the tax at least on the necessities of life. I would suggest that the reimposition of the excess profits tax would supply the needed revenue. It should be a tax somewhat similar to the tax which we abolished a few years ago, but not based so much upon a standard

profit as upon returns on investments. The government would have ample justification for the reimposition of that tax in view of the report of the parliamentary committee on prices which recommended the imposition of a tax on unreasonable profits. I do not care whether you call such a tax an excess profits tax or a tax on unreasonable profits. To me it means the same thing.
In studying the evidence that was taken before it, the prices committee were, in my opinion, justified in recommending the imposition of a tax on unreasonable profits. No doubt there are, and there were, many decent businessmen who realized the seriousness of the responsibilities which they have and who, I believe, were earnest in their endeavour to prevent a condition of inflation, and they were satisfied with reasonable profits. But the evidence before the prices committee showed that there are a great many irresponsible firms which took full advantage of the situation arising out of the decontrol policy of the government and out of the austerity program which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) put before this house at the last session of parliament, and they made what I call unreasonable profits. They made unreasonable profits and they should be taxed.
If one reads the evidence, I think any reasonable man will agree that the committee's recommendation was in line with the evidence, and that a recommendation of such a tax on unreasonable profits would have been justified. I maintain it would have been well received by the large majority of the people in Canada. A tax such as this alone would, I believe, have a beneficial effect upon the whole prices structure, and would have had the tendency to prevent unscrupulous traders from taking advantage of the situation in which we find ourselves in this country. Apart from this, I think that the tax would have taken care of the loss of revenue from the sales tax which would have resulted if this tax had been abolished. I do not think that such a tax on unreasonable profits would have been too great a burden on industry and business. I have no statistics, but from reading the financial pages of the daily press, and from reading these interesting articles and items in the financial press, it would appear that, so far as business is concerned, profits of all corporations seem to be still on the upgrade, and seem to be mounting-even though, of course, there is the odd firm which reports a set-back, so far as profits are concerned.
I think everyone agrees that corporation profits are still on the upgrade, and I submit that this is where the additional money should have come from. Therefore I say that

the failure of the government to abolish or at least to reduce the sales tax on the necessities of life and the implements of primary production has been a great disappointment to the majority of the people because, first of all, they have given no relief to a large group of our people who really need relief more than any other group and, secondly, they have failed to revert to one of the basic principles of liberalism, of which they claim to be the champions.
A great deal has been said in praise of this budget by speakers supporting the government, and they are joyous because of the reduction of our national debt. For instance, the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) mentioned twice this evening that our national debt had been reduced by $1,600 million. I should like to show that this is not quite correct, and I do not think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) made any such statement. It is said the surpluses in the last three years which amount roughly to $1,600 million have been used to reduce our national debt and, as a matter of fact, that is the impression that is prevalent in the country, namely that the national debt has been reduced through this so-called cyclical budgeting in the last three years by this impressive sum of $1,600 million. As I said a moment ago, the hon. member for Vancouver North made that assertion again this evening.
I claim that this is not true. It is rather difficult to figure out the actual amount from the tables which I have at hand; but in 1947 the funded debt of Canada was, roughly, $16,500 million, according to the balance sheet tabled with the budget speech in that year; and at the end of March, 1949, the funded debt of Canada is $15,500 million, according to the statement tabled with the minister's budget speech on March 22, and appended to Hansard of that date.
It seems to me that the reduction of the funded debt was just a little over one billion dollars, and not over $1,600 million, as claimed by the hon. member for Vancouver North.


Mr. Abbott:: I am sure the hon. member wishes to be fair. The reduction of $1,625 million was in Canada's net debt.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I am referring to the funded debt; I shall come to the net debt later. It seems to me that the reduction of the funded debt was just a little over one billion dollars, and that there is a difference of $600 million. I am referring to the funded debt, while the minister is referring to the net debt.
The net debt has of course been reduced and our position in that respect has been improved. But that is only after crediting 29087-162J
The Budget-Mr. Jaenicke against the gross debt the loans which we have made to our customers to purchase our surplus products in the last three years. Because of the doubt as to the repayment of these assets-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Which one does my hon. friend think will not be repaid?


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I do not say they will not be repaid. But I say, as we said in 1947 when these loans were made, that there is a doubt. I hope they will all be paid.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The country which has the most has never repudiated her debts, so far as I know.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I hope they will all be repaid. I repeat that I hope the loans which we made to these countries will all be repaid. At the present time however we owe this money. We took it from the taxpayers, because our loans to those countries have been increased by $600 million in the last three years. I believe the minister will confirm that figure.


Douglas Charles Abbott: More than that.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: No, not according to the table; it is just approximately $600 million; and that is just about the same amount as the difference between the reduction in the net debt and the reduction in the gross debt.
Mind you, I make no objection to this. But the news got out to the country that we had decreased our debt by $1,600 million. Our net debt, yes; but not our funded debt. Our funded debt has been reduced by only about one billion dollars. The minister himself does not claim credit for that. He does not claim that all the surplus he had this year was applied in the reduction of the funded debt. At page 1793 of Hansard is the minister's statement showing the net reduction in funded debt of $472 million, less the increase in the United States funded debt, which we owe to the United States, of $100 million, leaving a net reduction in funded debt of $372 million, as against a surplus of $650 million.
So much for that point. The most important part of the minister's speech, to my mind, deals with our general economic situation, which is tied up so closely with our overseas trade. The minister was most interesting in his discourse respecting this situation. While he points out all the difficulties now confronting us, and which are in prospect for the future, he seems to offer no solution. I shall quote briefly from his speech at pages 1788 and 1789 of Hansard. In what I shall quote I do not believe the fact of lifting these quotations from their context

The Budget-Mr. Jaenicke will result in any misrepresentation of what the minister said. These are his words:
In the light of all these adverse conditions, our -export trade has stood up relatively well but we cannot be satisfied with its present situation or immediate prospects. We must seek improvement . . .
We must search for adjustments . . .
We must develop alternative outlets . . .
We must persevere in working out the constructive solution through trade agreements on a wide and indiscriminatory basis, and by other measures of a basic character that will assist those countries that buy from us to find dollar markets for their own exports in order that they may pay for what they would rightly like to get from us.
I cannot see any solution in this, except that perseverance on our part is the only solution.
Then he speaks of the solution of this problem which has been suggested by this group on several occasions in the present session, when we have urged that the government should try to embark upon a policy of barter deals. He admits in his speech that it is attempting to consider such deals, but he rejects the idea, as set out in his speech in these words:
In the first place, most of our trade takes place with the United States, both export and import, and we cannot deal that way there . . . Secondly, we are not in a good bargaining position to make successful bilateral deals . . . The normal and healthy pattern of our trade is triangular or multilateral.
It seems to me that the minister is trying to go back to international trade as it existed before the two wars. If we look at the whole world I think we must realize that the old concept of world trade is gone. I think history is evidence that the world does not go back, that it progresses. We have no control over the method that our customers or our potential customers might prefer to use in carrying on world trade and it seems to me that we have to learn that lesson if we want to trade. The situation today is not the same as it was before the wars when all trade rolled along in that eternal triangle about which we heard so much when we discussed the bill to deal with the prohibition and restriction of imports last year. There was that old triangular proposition when Great Britain was the clearing house for international trade. Our great neighbour to the south has presumed to take up the task where Britain left off through force of circumstances, not that she wished it or willed it. However, it seems to me that our great neighbour to the south is not measuring up to the task.
Either the United States must imitate Britain or the international bank or the monetary fund must be substantially changed so that foreign trade such as the minister likes to envision can be carried on smoothly without the continual headache of international balances and the convertibility of

currency. I maintain that we are not going backward to pre-war standards but are progressing and must adjust our conditions and policies accordingly.
A very interesting article appeared in Foreign Trade of March 19, a publication of the Department of Trade and Commerce. The title of this article is, "World trade affected by efforts of many countries to balance dollar accounts". Much of the article is copied from the last report of the foreign exchange control board made to the minister and tabled in this house. However, the article goes somewhat further than the report and submits the main types of solution. I should like to quote the pertinent paragraph in the article which refers to the very situation I have been discussing during the past few minutes. This reads as follows:
With the growing severity of import restrictions imposed by many countries, an increasing number of cases have arisen where Canadian exporters find it impossible to sell goods on the prescribed terms of payment. In these cases, alternative proposals for payment are sometimes made by foreign buyers and, where they are acceptable to the Canadian exporters, the foreign exchange control board has indicated its readiness to consider applications for the necessary permits. The following are the main types of case which warrant consideration:
(a)	Exports for payment in the appropriate currencies, but where payment is to be deferred beyond the normal six-month period.
(b)	Exports to previously established markets for payments in "blocked" foreign currencies, i.e., foreign currencies which are not freely convertible into United States dollars or sterling.
(c)	Exports to non-sterling area countries for payment in sterling, where the United Kingdom exchange control authorities are prepared to authorize the foreign importer to transfer the sterling to the Canadian exporter.
(d)	Exports to be paid for by the acceptance of goods of equivalent value.
That article advocates a trial of the very things that we have been advocating in this house since the session opened in January, that we try to make barter deals with our customers as is being done by other countries. This article suggests that a means of improving our foreign trade might be the trying out of exports to be paid for by the acceptance of goods of equivalent value. The minister rejected this in the following words, and I quote from Hansard at page 1788:
. . . the application of a policy of barter, bilateral deals and discrimination requires widespread governmental control of private trade, and even the extending of trade by agencies of the government itself. Deals of this sort would require a multiplication of import controls, export controls, licences, and permits. It is about to lead to more government buying and selling, frequently involving subsidies and trading losses. This may fit into the philosophy of governments prevailing in some other countries, but most Canadians don't like controls and don't want their government getting deeper and deeper into import and export business.
I think the minister is a bit too pessimistic when he foresees the objectionable features of

these deals. However, he made this pertinent observation and I quote him again:
This may fit into the philosophy of governments prevailing in other countries.
That is exactly my point. We have no control over those other governments, but if they are our potential customers I think we should fit in our policies with their policies in order that we might trade and survive. If one studies and follows this excellent periodical Foreign Trade one must come to the conclusion that almost every country in the world except Canada and the United States controls its international trade in this or a similar manner. They are forced to do so. They are forced to form customs unions like that about to be formed in the near future by France and Italy.
In the March 26 issue of Foreign Trade we read that a five-man commercial mission left Peru for London early in March at the invitation of the British government to discuss ways and means by which exports from Britain to Peru could be increased. Almost every week similar items pertaining to world trade and to barter deals, as we call them, are to be found in Foreign Trade and also in the daily press. This is all done with the idea of getting world trade moving because it will not move under the old system.
It has been mentioned in the house that co-operatives and even private traders have endeavoured to conclude deals in foreign countries for the exchange of goods, as is suggested in Foreign Trade of March 19. I cannot see why, without any great interference on the part of the government, organizations such as co-operatives or even private traders could not make deals of this sort. I think it is worth a trial. The government has elaborate machinery in the Department of Trade and Commerce, which I think is an excellent department. There are trade commissioners spread over the face of the globe and we also have the Canadian Commercial Corporation. The machinery is there whereby the government could assist co-operatives, provincial governments if you like, private traders or any person to make barter deals with some of these countries which do not trade today in any other way.
I realize of course that there is the nondiscriminatory principle of the Geneva agreement, but that agreement has many escape clauses. Those escape clauses are being taken advantage of today by almost every country that signed the treaty except Canada and the United States, I was going to say. Even in the United States they have taken some advantage of the escape clause I mentioned a year ago.
The Geneva agreement is trying to take us back to pre-war conditions, and while I am
The Budget-Mr. Blackmore generally in accord with its provisions and its aims, since I was taught that free trade is the proper way to carry on world trade,
I believe that, while an agreement like that would have worked wonderfully twenty-five years ago, it will not do today what its sponsors hope it will. Members of the Atlantic union being pledged to economic co-operation are likely to succeed more satisfactorily among themselves, and I believe that the members who signed the Atlantic pact will have more success by economic co-operation, even if they should leave out Canada and the United States, as they are doing at the present time. I think we in Canada cannot afford to stand aside. I think we must make a trial in view of the prospects for foreign trade at the present time, and that some consideration should be given by the government to the question of barter deals especially since a trial seems to be recommended in the article on foreign trade that I have just read.


John Horne Blackmore: For a
few moments I desire to direct the attention of the house to another type of subject. World war I veteran, Lieutenant Stuart Brown entered Shaughnessy hospital to be treated for neurasthenia and gunshot wounds, a disability that would be pensionable if proven to exist. I should like to have the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg), or anyone else who feels competent to perform the task, find out and tell the house and the country who are the men whose signatures committed Lieutenant Stuart Brown from Shaughnessy hospital to Essondale insane asylum, thereby nullifying Lieutenant Brown's title to pension.
While they are about it I should also like them to say who are the men whose signatures later committed world war I veteran Brown to Colquitz mental home where at that time only the permanently and criminally insane were lodged. All being well, I shall have more to say about Colquitz when and if at some future time I speak again concerning Lieutenant Brown. I believe the house and the country would like to know upon whose orders or consent or acquiescence these outrages were committed against veteran Brown, a free Canadian with no criminal record, a man sane then, sane ever since then, and sane now. I think every normal Canadian would also like to know who it was who wrote into veteran Brown's record two monstrous falsehoods, first that veteran Brown had been in an asylum prior to the war, and second that veteran Brown had been arrested and charged with an offence against children, these falsehoods never having had the slightest foundation in fact; the existence of these falsehoods in his records being utterly unknown to veteran Brown until a legion committee examining his records later found them there;

The Budget-Mr. Blackmore and these falsehoods since having been established as falsehoods beyond the slightest peradventure of doubt.
I must say that I find this account of what happened to veteran Brown incomprehensible and utterly inconceivable, but apparently the thing has happened right here in Canada. The house and the country are entitled to know, and should know without further delay, what steps, if any, any government department has taken to bring to justice the perpetrators of these reprehensible crimes against veteran Brown. We are entitled to know also what machinery the government has set up to discover, liberate and recompense the scores of similar helpless victims probably at present languishing in living graves in insane asylum cells across Canada.
Members who have given some attention to the Thomas Harvey case, which I had the honour of bringing to the notice of the house some weeks ago, will be interested to know that veteran Thomas Harvey told me-almost the first thing he said when he had given his own submission-that there was another man in the insane asylum where he was who was just as sane as anyone could be, and who had been languishing there for twenty-five years.
Another question that ought to be answered -and whatever red tape it is necessary to cut in order to answer it ought to be cut forthwith- is: What adequate measures has any department of the government taken to render impossible the occurrence of like abominations in the future? What steps has the government taken to remove from veteran Brown's record the two falsehoods? It is bad enough if a man's own deeds are recorded in his record. Few people ever succeed in living through life with the record of complete angels. Their own slips are sufficient, but to have a man in the employ of any department of the government free to write with impunity absolute and utter falsehoods into the record of a man, and to have that go by unpunished and unrectified, is a thing which I must say leaves one virtually speechless in contemplation thereof.
I should like to read for the benefit of the members of the house and of the people of the country some quotations from veteran Stuart Brown's own account of his experiences, as the account appears in the January 8, 1949, issue of the Vancouver Sunday Sun magazine.
I would commend this article to everyone who has a heart for the honour of Canada. It appears in three issues of the paper I have mentioned. Stuart Brown is speaking and the article is called, "They put me in Essondale." The article reads:
I was confined four years to lunatic asylums in British Columbia, put there by persons with rotten motives. Psychiatrists and those who know me well said I was sane then. They say I am sane now. I

had no criminal record, still have none. But a record of one of the worst sorts of conviction was set down against me, presumably to help frame up my consignment to the asylum.
Also it was recorded that I had been in asylum. I had not.
My removal from Shaughnessy hospital to Essondale was effected by two doctors putting their signatures to the necessary document. I had no recourse.
If I had not finally escaped, and from the wilds of Vancouver island, where I lived on frozen apples and, before being recaptured, pencilled an, urgent letter to Lord Tweedsmuir, then governor general of Canada, I'd probably be locked up yet in dismal Colquitz prison asylum near Victoria.
And by the time I had died there, if granted threescore years and ten, my maintenance, at even $600 a year, would have cost taxpayers about $20,000.
But, thank God, Lord Tweedsmuir ordered an investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and I am free. Yet I have had no recompense. And, according to the record, I am still insane.
I move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker, and I shall go on with these remarks tomorrow.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the day the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) asked if I would indicate the further business to be brought before the house prior to the end of the session. I think it only fair that I should say to the house at this time, in announcing the business for tomorrow, that I have placed a notice on Votes and Proceedings to take Wednesday for government business, and asking that on Wednesday the house continue to sit after dinner; also asking that the house sit from eleven o'clock to one o'clock on Thursday morning and each day thereafter to the end of the session. That would leave the usual hour tomorrow and Friday for private and public bills, in the order in which they appear on the order paper. In this motion I am also moving that standing order 28 be not applied on Thursday. That is the standing order which provides that the Speaker leaves the chair without question put. For reasons I shall give in a moment, we are asking that this standing order be suspended so that grievances may be brought up on Thursday when the motion is made that the Speaker leave the chair.
All hon. members know there must be a general election within the next year, and there are a good many reasons why one should be held earlier than that. In the first place there has been a change in the leadership of the government since the general election of 1945; and it has always been my view that I should attempt to get from the people, at as early a date as possible, confirmation of what has been done.

When I became Prime Minister in November of last year certain developments were in process which could not be interrupted without serious prejudice to the interests of our own country, and perhaps to wider interests still. I refer to the negotiations then in progress with the delegation from Newfoundland, and to the discussions being carried on at that time in Washington respecting the North Atlantic security pact. Once the agreement with Newfoundland was signed on December 11, it provided that the union should be concluded on March 31, and it was essential to hold a session of parliament in order to approve the agreement. In the opinion of the government it was also essential to deal with certain emergency legislation which otherwise would have expired within two months after the opening of the session or on March 31 last, whichever date was the earlier. It was also felt that the people of Canada would expect to have the budget presented at an early date; and it was the desire of the government, before authorizing the signature of Canada to the North Atlantic treaty, to secure the approval of parliament to the principles underlying that treaty.
All these essential steps have been taken. The union with Newfoundland has been completed. The North Atlantic treaty has been signed. The budget has been presented, and the estimates for the current fiscal year have been before parliament and the public for several weeks. My colleagues and I have reached the conclusion that no important public interest would suffer if the rest of the business forecast for the present session of parliament should be postponed until later this year. It is pretty evident that until a general election is held it will be difficult for hon. members on both sides of the house not to give a good deal of attention to the forthcoming election; and probably it would not be an exaggeration to say that already some of the debates in the house have become tinged by the approach of an election campaign.
General elections, of course, are the most mportant institution in our whole constitu-.ion, since it is through a general election that the public maintains control over the government. But it is also true that a general election campaign is necessarily disturbing to much of the ordinary activity of the community, and there seems to be a widespread feeling that there is no great advantage in prolonging such campaigns. Moreover it is perfectly clear that the holding of an election in the summer months would result in the virtual disfranchisement of a large portion of
Business of the House
the electorate who do not spend the summer in their habitual place of residence.


Mr. MacNicol:: Call it in June.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member will see in a moment what I am proposing. There are many others whose seasonal activities make it very difficult for them to attend meetings or even exercise their franchise during the midsummer or harvest season.
Therefore in fairness to the people the government feels that the forthcoming election should be held either at the beginning of the summer or that it should be delayed until after the harvest season, which in many parts of Canada extends even into October.
Without wishing to reflect on anyone in the house, my colleagues and I feel that more rapid progress would be made-except such as was made today-in a session held after a general election than would be possible if the present session were continued even for two or three months. Moreover, by holding an election at an early date the people will be given an opportunity to decide to whom they wish to entrust the responsibilities of government, and to give some indication of the policies they wish to see implemented.
In view of the very considerable changes in the membership of the administration, that in itself might be thought a sufficient reason for holding an early election. But there is a much more important reason still. It is that about one-third of a million people have been added to the population of our country. There is no doubt that one of the principal reasons why the people of Newfoundland voted for union with Canada was that they wished once more to be self-governing. Since every measure adopted by the present parliament applies to Newfoundland as much as it does to the older provinces, it is desirable to take the earliest possible means of ensuring that the people of Newfoundland are represented in parliament and share, through their representatives, in making its decisions.
Of course it would have been possible to arrange for by-elections in Newfoundland immediately after March 31, but even after that had been done the newly elected members could not have taken their seats before about the end of June, and it is not probable that if we were sitting at the end of June we would continue to sit very much beyond that date. As I think there is a general desire throughout the country that there should be a general election before another session of parliament, they would have had their by-elections, there would have been dissolution, and they would have had to undergo two elections in order to send their representatives here to take part in the conduct

Business of the House
of their country's affairs, because it is theirs now as much as it is our own. Therefore the government has reached the conclusion that it is desirable from the point of view of the country to hold a general election as soon as possible.
As to the matters with which it would be desirable to deal at this time, if possible, there is this pipe lines legislation which has gone to a committee of this house and which the government would ask the house to consider as soon as the committee makes a report. Then we would continue this debate on the budget and the budget resolutions, and the legislation consequent upon these resolutions. It is hoped that that might be disposed of tomorrow or Wednesday; and immediately following the budget resolutions or, if they are not disposed of by Wednesday evening, on Thursday the Minister of Finance will move to go into committee of supply to ask for interim supply for the period required to hold an election and to bring a new parliament together. It is in order that that motion may not come under the effect of standing order 28, which provides that the Speaker leave the chair on Thursdays and Fridays without question put, that I am asking that that rule be suspended; so that if hon. members have grievances which they feel should get the consideration of the house, there will be the ordinary motion for the Speaker to leave the chair in order to go into committee of supply for the purpose of asking for interim supply for a period sufficient to take care of the necessary activities of the country in the time required to hold an election and to bring parliament together as early as convenient after the election is held.


Heber Harold Hatfield: When will that be?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Whoever has the responsibility of forming a government will have to fix the date for the session. All the Minister of Finance will ask the house to do at this time is to vote interim supply for a period that would be sufficient to hold the election and to call the new parliament at a convenient date.
I think all parties opposite us have expressed doubts at least as to the confidence of the country in the present administration. The motion now before the house on the budget resolutions is not that this house has not confidence in the government but that the people have not confidence in the government, and I think it is preferable to have the people themselves answer that question. No measures of which notice has not already been given will be proceeded with, except possibly resolutions to approve the North Atlantic treaty and the international wheat agreement, if there is time to deal with them. [Mr. St. Laurent.!
I wish to be completely frank with the house. It is the intention of the government at the end of this week to recommend to His Excellency that he dissolve this parliament.
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) mentions the resolution dealing with old age pensions. Notice has already been given of that. It is included in the matters of which notice has already been given. The only matters of which notice has not already been given, and which it would be desirable to proceed with if there were time to do so, would be the resolutions approving the North Atlantic treaty and approving the international wheat agreement. The international wheat agreement, by its terms, would apply to the wheat crop year commencing on August 1, if there have been a sufficient number of ratifications deposited by that time, though for a large portion of our wheat crop for the year 1949-50 we have the United Kingdom contract. It would be, I think, desirable to have the international wheat agreement ratified by the required number of countries before the beginning of the next crop year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Prime Minister permit a question at this point? Would he make clear what he said about the resolution respecting old age pensions?, Is it intended to give it priority this week?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is intended to proceed with this pipe lines legislation, then to deal with the budget until it is disposed of, if that happens before eleven o'clock on Thursday. At eleven o'clock on Thursday it is intended to ask for interim supply. Then just as soon as that has been disposed of, if we have to go back to the budget we will go back to the budget. But if not, we will deal with these other matters.


Gordon Graydon: About four years ago, Mr. Speaker, as I stood in a position close to the one in which I now am, and when a similar announcement was made by the then Prime Minister, there was some suggestion by those on the opposite side of the house that there was not enough glee expressed in the opposition with regard to the announcement that had just been made. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that tonight I think no one can make that kind of accusation against this party. We welcome, as will the Canadian people, this government's going to the country at last. The Prime Minister has suggested that this house will be dissolved at the end of this week, if I understood his words correctly. I can readily understand the Prime Minister's position with respect to this matter. With a vote of want of confidence facing the government, with a public accounts committee about to meet and to discuss some

important matters, and with the estimates scarcely touched, I am quite sure that one can understand and perhaps sympathize with a hard-pressed Prime Minister and a weary government.
May I just say this before I resume my seat. This announcement will now give the people of Canada a chance to stand up and be counted on the straight question whether or not they want the kind of socialism which prevails in Russia, the kind of socialism which is preached by the C.C.F., or the kind of socialism that is too frequently practised by the present government in power.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You will give them the Tory stuff.


Gordon Graydon: This government, Mr. Speaker, is afraid to face the house, afraid to wait until fall, and has been chased to the people by those same people who believe it is time for a change.


James Sinclair: Who wrote that for the hon. member? He did not.


Gordon Graydon: You can take a look at it.


James Sinclair: George Drew.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Major James William Coldwell: I think the house and the country will appreciate the frankness of the Prime Minister tonight. As he has said, the people of Canada have the right at this time to elect a government which will be representative of all Canada, including the new province of Newfoundland. What I rose to say was that since the Prime Minister spoke of the desire of giving people such as teachers, preachers, businessmen and their families who might otherwise be away for a summer election, the opportunity of voting in their own constituencies, I was hoping that he would actually announce the date of the election so that we might know that they would have the opportunity at least before July 1.
I merely want to say that so far as we are concerned as a democratic party in this country, we believe that opportunities of this
Business of the House
kind given to the people are valuable both to the country and to this House of Commons. I am not going to indulge in a political speech. All I can say is that the people of Canada will have the choice, and I hope that they will choose wisely, progressively and well.


Some hon. Members:: They will.


Solon Earl Low: I had hoped that the government would see fit to complete the business of the session before calling an election. I do believe that the majority of the people of the country, while they do not relish continuing long in an upset, uncertain situation, appreciate having their representatives tuck in the edges and complete the year's business as it should be. However, since the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has given a lengthy series of reasons why an election should be held at the present time, I just say on behalf of our group in this house that we shall welcome the reference to the people because I believe they have the right to say whether under present circumstances the present government should be returned-


John Ritchie MacNicol: There is no danger of that.


Solon Earl Low: -or some other government be sent back here. There is only one thing which the Prime Minister has omitted, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) said, namely, the date of the election. Seriously, that leaves us in a kind of uncertain position. I think he has the date in mind and I am just wondering whether he will not give it to us.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: It would be quite improper for me to announce the date of the election until His Excellency has accepted the advice we shall tender at the end of the week to dissolve parliament. I said I thought that the election should be held as early as possible. If hon. members will refer to the elections act they will see that with dissolution coming at the end of the week it would leave it possible to have an election on June 27.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.47 p.m.
2573

Tuesday, April 26, 1949