1949-10-20

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, the Prime Minister of India, Pandit Nehru, will be in Ottawa during the early part of next week, and arrangements are being made to have this distinguished gentleman address the members of both houses of parliament in this chamber at three o'clock on Monday afternoon. Because of the proposed visit it will be necessary to delay the opening of the ordinary proceedings of the house until 4.30 o'clock on Monday; and if I have unanimous consent I should like to move:
That when this house adjourns tomorrow it stand adjourned until Monday next at 4.30 in the afternoon.
Once this motion is adopted, arrangements for this visit will be completed.
It would be appreciated if hon. members would arrange to be in their seats just before three o'clock on Monday. Seats are being arranged for members of the Senate on the floor of the house. His Honour the Speaker has directed the Sergeant-at-Arms to cancel all the ordinary sessional gallery tickets for this occasion, with the exception of tickets to the Senate and Speaker's galleries. Hon. members are being provided with special tickets to the galleries for their ladies. These tickets are being distributed to the whips today, and the arrangement suggested is that the ladies of members be admitted, before other ticket holders, between 2.30 and 2.35. Other ticket holders will be admitted to the galleries between 2.35 and 2.45, at which time the galleries will be opened to the general public.
If this arrangement appears to be satisfactory, it will be carried out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Isnor:: 1.	Did the Canadian Commercial Corporation between April 1, 1948, and March 31, 1949, purchase butter from (a) Australia; (b) Denmark; (c) New Zealand?
2.	If so, what amount of butter in (a) pounds; (b) dollar value, was purchased from each of these countries?
3.	To whom was this butter sold?
4.	What was the loss or gain in each case?
5.	By what agency was the loss, if any, paid?
6.	Through which ports did this butter enter Canada, and how much through each Canadian port?
7.	Was any of this butter brought through United States ports of entry? If so, what ports, and in what quantity through each port?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	(a) Yes; (b) yes; (c) yes.
2.	(a) Pounds
Australia	 2,240,000
Denmark	11,200,000
New Zealand	 2,240,000
15,680,000 (b) Dollar value . ..$ 1,580,343 93 ...	8,351,343 42
..	1,579,803 70

3.	Creameries and packers in the mari-times, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia as allocated by the wartime prices and trade board.
4.	Loss
Australia	$ 74,478 00
Denmark	 728,944 50
New Zealand	 56,467 13

5.	Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation.
6.
Australia-Vancouver 2,240,000 lbs.
New Zealand-Halifax 2,240,000 lbs.
Denmark-Montreal ... 7,840,000 lbs.
Halifax, N.S	 1,120,000	lbs.
Saint John, N.B	 2,240,000 lbs.
7. No.


BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Does the dominion government telephone service base its rates for service in whole or in part on telephone rates charged by commercial telephone companies?
2.	If not. on what basis are its rates assessed?
3.	Is the dominion government opposing or otherwise the applications of the British Columbia Telephone Company, a Bell Telephone subsidiary, and the Bell Telephone Company for increases in telephone rates?
Australia ... Denmark ... New Zealand

Inquiries of the Ministry
4. Is the dominion government or the Department of Transport to be represented in any way before the board of transport commissioners on the hearing of the above-mentioned applications? If so, how is it to be represented?


Mr. Chevrier:: Stand.


Mr. Church:: I should like to call the attention of the house to the fact that last Friday I asked a question similar to this, and it is not on the order paper. In the standing committee I moved that no increase in rates be allowed for three years.


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. gentleman will put his question on the order paper, we shall be very glad to answer it, along with the question of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton).


Thomas Langton Church: The board of transport commissioners has exclusive jurisdiction over railway rates. A royal commission has been appointed, but it is not finding out anything.


Mr. Speaker:: Question stands.


RENT CONTROL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. J. Henry (Rosedale):: I should like to direct two questions to the Minister of Finance. Is there a lawsuit pending in the Supreme Court of Ontario in which certain property owners ask that court to determine whether the federal government has ceased to have legislative power to enforce rent control in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Charles Henry: What steps is the federal government taking to be sure that all possible facts will come before the court in evidence to enable the court to decide whether or not the federal government has power to continue rent control in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems clear that the questions which the hon. member has asked are ones which should be placed on the order paper.


TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES VANCOUVER HEADQUARTERS  TRANSPACIFIC SERVICE  ALLOCATION OF PERSONNEL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Transport. Reports from Vancouver indicate that a proposal is now under consideration by Trans-Canada Air Lines to


transfer a substantial portion of the shop work away from Vancouver and to transfer or lay off a considerable number of employees. Will one of the ministers make a statement on this report?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Some time ago there was a plan to organize Vancouver as the terminal for the transpacific service of Trans-Canada Air Lines. Since then it has been decided to grant the franchise for the transpacific service to Canadian Pacific Air Lines. The result has been that Canadian Pacific Air Lines have concentrated their headquarters for both domestic and overseas services at Vancouver. The fact that the overseas service will not be operated by Trans-Canada Air Lines makes some rearrangement necessary in the plans that had been made for Vancouver. To what extent changes will be made, I do not know, but it was described to me as a minor change in the allocation of personnel.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister know how many men will be involved?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know.


Mr. Cruickshank:: May I ask a supplementary question? Since Abbotsford is the only fog-free airport in British Columbia, will consideration be given to transferring the Trans-Canada Air Lines airport from Vancouver to Abbotsford?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Abbotsford is kept in reserve for emergencies. When any emergency arises, a transfer may be made to that field.


REPRESENTATION OF WESTERN CANADA ON BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he has received representations from the Winnipeg chamber of commerce requesting that western Canada be represented on the board of directors of Trans-Canada Air Lines? If so, will consideration be given to such representations?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe that question also might be put on the order paper. I do not know that there is great urgency about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of privilege, may I say that I intended to do that-


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -but the question was related to the question asked by the member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), and I felt it might well be answered at this time.



FRUITS AND VEGETABLES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, this question is urgent, and I should like to direct it to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Finance said on October 4 that dumping restrictions were still in force in respect to fresh fruits and vegetables imported into Canada. Will the parliamentary assistant say why tomatoes are allowed to be dumped into Canada from the United States?


Mr. Robert McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: shall take notice of the question and give an answer later.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I ask whether an answer will be given before the tomatoes go bad?



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is it correct that, through a misinterpretation of the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada and a misapplication of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, Newfoundland importers and businesses are paying twenty per cent more than they should for freight shipments via the Canadian National Railways?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I may say that it is extremely difficult for the Speaker to determine whether or not the question is one which should be placed on the order paper when there is so much noise in the house. From what I did hear of the question, however, it would appear to me it would be better if it were placed on the order paper.


Gordon Francis Higgins: It is a very important matter.


Mr. Speaker:: As I say, I could not hear the question. I do not know whether the minister heard it.


Lionel Chevrier: I did, Mr. Speaker, and I think perhaps there is some urgency about a part of the question. It is worded in such a way that it gives information rather than requests it. In any event, I must tell the hon. gentleman that I am not aware of any misinterpretation of the terms of union; neither am I aware of any misapplication of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. I doubt very much whether
Inquiries of the Ministry businessmen or manufacturers in Newfoundland are paying twenty per cent more for freight than they should. My understanding is that the freight rates in Newfoundland are much lower than they were prior to union with Canada. I am sure the hon. gentleman will understand that when a new freight rate structure is established in a province, there are bound to be some complaints. I should not be surprised if there were complaints, and perhaps discrimination. I am sure that the parties aggrieved will wish to present their case before the board of transport commissioners and have it dealt with there. I understand that is already under way.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The question is based on a statement by the premier of the province.



WAR SERVICE MEDALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Vicloria. Ont):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence or his parliamentary assistant whether it is true that the war medals now being distributed to veterans are not engraved with the name and regimental number of the recipient.


Hon. Milion F. Gregg (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: It is true. The medals which were distributed after the first great war did have engraved upon them the name and number of the recipient. But this time there were a great many more. As hon. members know from the publicity given to the matter, a man might be able to win eight. Some three and a half million medals have been produced by the mint. It was estimated by my colleague the Minister of National Defence and myself, when this matter was undertaken, that it would delay the production and the sending out of the medals by something like two years if the names and numbers were put on them. For that reason mainly, they were not put on, and the medals are going out without being so inscribed.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or, in his absence, to the Prime Minister. Has the government indicated to the Canadian delegation at the United Nations its wishes with regard to the election of the three new members of the

Inquiries of the Ministry security council for the year 1950, specifically as between Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia? If so, is the government prepared at the present time to make a statement of its intention?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government has indicated its views as suggestions to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) who heads the delegation at Lake Success. But, as has been the unbroken practice of Canada since the beginning of these meetings, we do not disclose in advance how we intend to vote-the vote is secret, and by ballot-for these offices.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he say why the portrait of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has not been added to the portrait gallery of distinguished prime ministers on the sixth floor?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not really know why it has not been added to that gallery, but I assume it is because the officials of this house and of the other place have no portrait available. It may be, Mr. Speaker, that having heard this question, you will see fit to arrange that one be made available and added to the portrait gallery of distinguished prime ministers.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is the wish of the house, I shall be pleased to do so.



POST OFFICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: desire to direct a question of importance to the Postmaster General. I have been waiting a couple of days-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. McLure:: In his absence I will put it on record. Will the Postmaster General give a full explanation of the withdrawal of the special stenographic allowance of $5 a month that the stenographers at the Charlottetown post office have been receiving?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think, Mr. Speaker, the question is one which might very well be put on the order paper; it is of the kind that the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret) could not be expected to answer offhand; he would have to secure

the information. I think that the most convenient way of handling the matter would be to have the question placed on the order paper, whereupon I am sure it will receive careful attention.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, October 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for an address to His Majesty the King praying that a measure be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom to amend the British North America Act, 1867, relating to the amendment of the constitution of Canada, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Knowles.
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: It is
always difficult, Mr. Speaker, to resume a debate after an interval of days.
As I said the other evening, this debate has been singularly free from any manifestation of the national pride which permeated the hearts and minds of those in the United States who, from 1840 to 1866, both before and after the civil war, contributed to a discussion of the fundamental principles of the United States constitution. One thing has been pre-eminent in the outstanding addresses made in this debate by the four party leaders and other hon. members. There has been a realization on the part of all of us that we are not temporary tenants of freedom. We are actually making provision for the rebuilding of our constitution, discharging our responsibility as trustees for freedom of those who follow after us.
We can understand the reasons for the lack of national interest in a debate such as this; for all of us in this country accept the great heritage of our freedom. The British North America Act contains no charter of liberty as does the constitution of the United States. It is not couched in grandiloquent language. It is marked by simplicity. It advances no principles of government or of political philosophy. It makes no declaration of the rights of man, as our cousins south of the line do when from time to time they speak with eloquence and power of a constitution that is couched in magnificent language.
I think the precise draftsmanship of the British North America Act has in large measure denied to us the opportunity to express the pride which the people of the United States have in their constitution, and which in such large measure has given unity to the people of that country. All of us who read extensively on this subject must be impressed by the fact that our great leaders in parliament have not left personal

records of the history of their time as it came within the ambit of their public life and experience. One can go into the library and read the records of the steps in the development of our nationhood, but except for Pope's "Life of Macdonald" and Skelton's "Life of Laurier," which involve in part a reference to state papers, our national leaders other than Sir Robert Borden have failed to leave an intimate record of day-to-day experience as it has come to them during their period of office. I hope that the former prime minister of this country, Mr. Mackenzie King, will proceed with his memoirs and thereby give to posterity a record of one of the most challenging periods in our constitutional history. I hope, too, that Mr. Arthur Meighen, whose contribution to parliamentary government was, I believe, among the greatest in this country, will not only prepare a book containing his speeches, but will also give to posterity a record of the great developments that took place during his period of office, and particularly during the days of the first great war. These things animate peoples. The records of our great leaders become the history of this country. These are of the things of which the national spirit is built.
Our constitution contains no provision for amendment. All of us must have endeavoured to secure some information as to the reason why no provision for amendment was made. It suggests itself to me that the reason was this. There is only one way to amend a statute, namely, by act of parliament. One of the things that has held back the national development of our country which we might reasonably have expected has been the fact that our constitution, in its rigidity, has denied a development in Social spheres which would be in keeping with the advances made during the last thirty or forty years.
In his book, "The Governments of Europe," Dr. W. B. Munro gives the reasons why it is necessary to have provision for an amending process in relation to the constitution in these words-
The amending process may fairly be called a most important feature of any constitution. The purpose of a constitution is to preserve order, but it cannot preserve order unless it promotes progress- and it cannot promote progress unless it is capable of being amended either formally or by judicial interpretation to meet the new needs that arise. A constitution should not be too easy to amend; for in that case it will fail to secure order, stability and continuity in the nation's political life.
We should mark these words so far as constitutional freedoms are concerned. I continue:
Nor, on the other hand, should it be too difficult to amend, for it will then ciog the wheels of political progress and serve as an incentive to coups d'etat
British North America Act
or revolutions. The ideal amending process is one that assures stability without impeding the normal development of political and economic activities among the people. On this general principle all makers of constitutions have been substantially agreed.
Our constitution is amendable in three ways. One is by custom or convention. A reading of the British North America Act will indicate the extent to which, as a result of custom and convention throughout the years, many of the provisions of the act have become inoperative. In the British North America Act there is no provision for a cabinet. The right of the dominion to dismiss lieutenant governors of the provinces, or to a lesser extent to disallow provincial statutes, has fallen into disuse; yet it is part of our constitution. The power of reservation to the king of legislation passed by parliament is no longer effective. Custom has changed that. Indeed, in 1929 at a conference of the dominions it was agreed that the power of disallowance of Canadian legislation by the king no longer existed. The same process of constitutional change by custom has taken place in the United States; the electoral college was set up as a body to ensure that the best qualified in the United States and the greatest potential leader of that country would become the president. Within ten years that express provision was no longer in effect.
Having agreed that there is a need for constitutional amendment other than through custom and judiciary interpretation, one arrives at a point on which there is diversity of opinion among hon. members of this house and the people of this country. To amend the constitution, as has been pointed out over the years, is not a simple matter. The seductive simplicity of the plan now before the house will not spell the end of controversy in this country. As I see it, the problem is not one of urgency at this session of parliament, because the part of the constitution with which we are dealing belongs to all our people. Earlier I mentioned the doctrine of the compact theory. I care not what one's views may be, Mr. Speaker-whether one believes that the British North America Act was a pact, a compact, a treaty or a contract; above everything else, being the possession of all the people of Canada, the constitution, if unity is to be preserved, should be amended only in a spirit of co-operation on the part of the federal and provincial authorities.
I do not believe in the veto of any one province of portions of our constitution, other than those preserving constitutional freedoms; for to accept the principle of veto would be to deny the onward march of events. Having said this, I deny as well the
954	HOUSE OF
British North America Act propriety of an attempted coercion of the provinces to achieve amendments to the constitution.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) mentioned-and they have been referred to since-the precedents that have been established year by year since confederation. The precedents until 1946 were on matters regarding which there was little or no dispute. But in 1946, by a simple majority of parliament, a change was made in the British North America Act that did in effect concern the dominion and the provinces. Some ask me: What foundation have you for that? Well, Dr. Ollivier has been quoted on a number of occasions. In his evidence on the subject before the parliamentary committee he said that section 51 should be amended only with the consent of a majority of the provinces and the dominion.
The amendment of 1946 became a precedent, and that precedent is being applied in the present case. The necessity of amendments is generally agreed to in the house. The British North America Act endeavoured to reconcile the great and abiding principles that are our British tradition, with the experience in the United States that resulted in the civil war in the sixties, but could not be expected to meet all of the complex problems arising over eighty years.
The amendments that are necessary are those which will readjust the terms of our constitution-let me make it clear that in no case do I refer to the constitutional freedoms when I say that-to make it a charter of progress which will permit the realization of the yearnings of the people-not too flexible, not too rigid; flexible, but not too fluid; not too rigid, for if so it brings about the kind of stultifying limitations we have in respect of social services; and it should be sufficiently elastic to meet the needs of changing conditions. I remember hearing a former minister of justice in this country, a great constitutional lawyer, giving evidence in 1935 before a committee set up by parliament, say that what the constitution needs-and I use his own words-is "elastic rigidity".
I wish to refer for a moment to the question whether the pact theory is historically correct. Mention has been made of the stand taken by Mr. King in 1925, and by Mr. Meighen in 1925 and on other occasions, both of whom described the act as a pact, as a treaty or contract.
On February 18, 1925, a resolution was brought before the house by Mr. W. F. Maclean, seeking the amendment of our constitution. I shall not read it in detail, but it is of interest to note that Mr. Woodsworth, a former leader of the C.C.F., and a great


Canadian by any measurement, did not hold the view of hon. members who now sit to my left. Perhaps I should read the resolution, which stated:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects . . . pray that you may graciously be pleased to give your consent to submitting a measure to the parliament of the United Kingdom to amend the British North America Act, 1867-
To which Mr. Woodsworth moved in amendment, asking that these words be added-
Upon first obtaining the consent of all the provinces of Canada.
That was in 1925.


Mr. Coldwell:: I know that is correct; but did not Mr. Woodsworth subsequently change his opinion?


John George Diefenbaker: In 1925 Mr. Woodsworth moved that amendment. I have not followed up for any variations and changes of opinions. I do say, however, that in 1925 he said that the consent of all the provinces was necessary. Not satisfied with that, Mr. Irvine on February 19, 1925, as reported at page 323 of Hansard, moved a further amendment respecting minorities-
. . . that, before action be taken on the proposed resolution, the same be referred to the conference proposed in the speech from the throne for consideration and recommendation.
That, sir, is exactly the stand we take in the matter. We say it should be submitted to a conference. We say there is need of compromise between federal and provincial authorities if the aims and desires of our people are to be achieved. The spirit of tolerance which animated the fathers of confederation must animate us in all parts of Canada. We have two divergent groups in this country to consider, one of which is for ever speaking about our lack of sovereignty and our subservience.
Where is the lack of sovereignty? In 1925 Mr. Mackenzie King, speaking in the House of Commons, indicated that to ask for amendments to the British North America Act through the British parliament was no evidence of subservience. It was simply an indication of the failure of the Canadian people as a whole to agree as to the method to be adopted. He concluded, as reported at page 334 of Hansard-and I shall only summarize what he said-that Canada could have her constitution amended any time she asked for it. Yet there are still political Don Quixotes who, every year or so, are wresting from the imperial parliament imaginary powers long since obsolete. They are afflicted with what the Prime Minister calls an inferiority complex. They are for ever dilating on badges of colonialism-which have become out of date, by custom, and have

ceased to exist since the Statute of Westminster, following the Balfour declaration of 1926.
Had I time I would refer to quotations indicating that the Balfour declaration in fact represented the consensus for many years in all parts of the commonwealth. Then there are the strong and outspoken imperialists who believe that any advance in the process of self-government will lead to disruption of our relationship with the commonwealth and empire. No Canadian can but be proud that through the warp and woof of our constitution are the golden threads of our British heritage.
I believe in the British relationship-and I speak as one whose racial origin is not all British. My paternal ancestors came here for freedom under the British crown. I want to see that relationship continued and expanded in the closest concept of our commonwealth. Our problems will not be solved by extremists. There must be a spirit of compromise, lacking in the resolution before parliament. What we are in fact setting out to do is to delineate by a definition of parliament the responsibility and jurisdiction of the federal authority. The Prime Minister shakes his head to say no-in appearance, no; in actuality, yes.
I find it necessary often to quote Mr. Ernest Lapointe, for in the years that he occupied high positions in Canada he epitomized that statesmanship which brought together many of the adverse elements in our country. An experienced statesman, he knew the problems of this country. The Prime Minister has contended that the dominion will not secure the power under this amendment to interfere in any way with provincial jurisdiction. Is the line of demarcation clear? On May 11, 1931, the former minister of justice (Mr. Ernest Lapointe) said:
I have said that the system to amend the constitution is vague. We really do not know what are the amendments in respect to which the assent of the provinces should be first received and those in respect to which such consent is not necessary.
And he referred to the shadowy boundary between them. The right hon. gentleman said that the government does not intend to infringe upon the jurisdiction of the provinces. When did they develop that attitude? Since 1922, in the Fort Frances case, the government of which he has been a member has on more than one occasion infringed upon the jurisdiction of the provinces under the doctrine of emergency. Only ten years ago the doctrine of economic emergency was extended to the doctrine of defence emergency.
My right hon. friend avers that the courts will prevent invasions of the provincial jurisdiction. The United States supreme court
British North America Act is part and parcel of the constitution, and actually rewrites the constitution in the judgments it gives. I would point out that in the United States-I am not advocating that system-while the judges of the supreme court are nominated by the president the appointments must have the support and acquiescence of the United States senate, thereby assuring that under their constitution as far as possible no consideration other than judicial fitness will be a reason for appointment.
The question arises: What procedure should be followed? I shall not deal with the question of procedure, except to say that in the dominion-provincial conference of 1927, to which the Prime Minister made reference, the matter was discussed. What happened? Page 11 of the report sets out what actually took place when no agreement could be arrived at. It was not a case of truculence 'or lack of patriotism on the part of those in attendance, because I think almost all the representatives were of the Liberal party. They could not come to any agreement.
The matter continued to be referred to until 1935, when there was another dominion-provincial conference. If ever a dominion-provincial conference met under auspices which might lead one to expect the dove of peace to be present, it was that conference of 1935. There was only one dissenter in the group so far as politics were concerned, and that was Mr. Aberhart from Alberta. There were representatives from eight Liberal governments. Who was it that dissented? Mr. McNair, the present premier of New Brunswick, was the one who dissented from the recommendations.
In 1927 Mr. Lapointe suggested that the proper way to proceed was by joint resolution of both houses of parliament, with the approval of five of the provinces. In the case of sections 93 and 133, and subsections 12,
13	and 14 of section 92, the consent of all the provinces should be required. Much the same general viewpoint was expressed by Dr. Ollivier in the evidence which he gave before a parliamentary committee in 1935 that there are 53 sections where consent is not required, of which some are out of date. There are 40 sections where the consent of the provinces would not be required; there are 12 sections where the consent of one province would be sufficient, and there are 39 sections-including section 51, which was amended in 1946 by a simple majority of parliament-where the consent of a majority of the provinces would be required. Finally, the consent of all provinces would be required in connection with sections 5, 6, 7, 93, and 133, as well as subsections 12, 13 and
14	of section 92.

British North America Act
It is dangerous for this parliament in effect to say to the provinces: You could not agree during all these years, so we intend to go as far as we can and divide this constitutional amendment into two parts. Anything that can be interpreted as coercion would deny the desire of the Canadian people to achieve that confederation which we all desire. Coercion, or any suggestion of it, will spell disunity and is a denial of the faith of the fathers of this country. Our democratic system is a matter of compromise, not of counting. Under a dictatorship the individual is counted; under a democracy he counts.
There are those who say that the doctrine of compact has no application. I do not intend to argue that question for I cannot speak with the assurance of those who say definitely that the B.N.A. Act is a compact and those who say definitely that it is not. We want to preserve this federal union. There can never be a dictatorship in this country as long as our federal union is preserved. A dictatorship comes only under a unitary state.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired, but I am sure he has the unanimous consent of the house to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not make it a practice to speak beyond the period allotted to me, but I shall complete what I have to say in a matter of a few minutes. I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you the hon. members of the house, for granting me this courtesy.
On October 13, 1943, the Prime Minister spoke to the Women's Canadian Club in Montreal on this subject, and the report in the Montreal Gazette reads as follows:
The only remaining restriction standing in the way of complete freedom from the British parliament was that which makes it necessary to apply to Westminster for an amendment to the British North America Act, which constituted Canadian confederation.
That restriction, said Mr. St. Laurent, was placed there "at our own request."
"We are all, I think, agreed that whenever it (the constitution) has to be amended, that operation should be performed by our own representatives right here within our dominion," he added.
"But we have not devised a scheme to make such amendments which will provide proper safeguards for the rights of the provincial authorities and of minorities, now secured under the terms of the British North America Act."
That is what the Prime Minister said in 1943. As we are not to have a committee of parliament on this subject, I now ask the Prime Minister what plan the government of Canada will submit to the dominion-provincial conference. What subjects of legislation is it intended shall be exchanged between the dominion and the provinces? What are the safeguards to be provided in respect of section

133 and the other fundamental sections which provide for freedoms? How is section 133, which deals with languages and other matters, to be preserved for the benefit of future generations? I ask the Prime Minister whether it is intended, when this address passes this parliament and finally becomes law at Westminster, to amend section 133, and if so, in what particulars? These are some questions which the people of this country would like to have answered. Why the inordinate haste, if the situation be as clear as the Prime Minister says it is, and only matters coming under federal jurisdiction will in fact be dealt with by legislation? What are the matters coming under federal jurisdiction that will shortly find their way into this parliament in the form of legislation introduced as a result of this amendment? The house as a whole has a right to full information.
Why not wait until a constitutional convention is called, such as was recommended by Mr. Bennett in 1937 and approved by Mr. King as the ideal way to go about it? That method was conceived many years ago in the mind of Sir Clifford Sifton, one of the great statesmen who came out of western Canada. It was his idea that such a conference should be convened, giving equality of representation to the provinces and to men of all political faiths. It was his hope that their deliberations would have the same result as the deliberations of those who formulated the constitution of the United States, and of those who on occasions since have made recommendations for the content and scope of constitutions in other states. It was his hope that those attending such a conference could join together, not as partisans but as Canadians, to recommend changes in the constitution to remedy provisions which constitute a detriment to the development of this country. Again 1 refer to Mr. Ernest Lapointe, who, on February 19, 1925, pointed to the dangers of arbitrary action. We are not here to fight over the internecine difficulties that exist as between the Prime Minister of Canada and the premier of Quebec. We are here as Canadians to try to work out a solution to a problem that has tested and challenged the statesmanship of Canadians through the years. Is there anything new in this partly bifurcated step? Mr. Meighen thought about this in 1925, but realized that it would create an anomalous situation in dividing the manner and means of amendment of the Canadian constitution without first having consultations with the provinces.
With the overwhelming majority the government enjoys, sometimes it seems futile to speak here. We cannot hold them back. We cannot determine their course. Warn we can

that to bring in this measure before convening either a dominion-provincial conference or a national assembly for the purpose of considering methods of amending the constitution augurs danger for the future. For it may well turn out that this address, instead of being a landmark in our forward march, will be the gateway to constitutional confusion. Cynicism, despair, fear that we cannot get Canadians together, should not prevent the convening of a conference before this address goes to the British parliament, and where there is unfairness or injustice on the part of anyone in the conference or a refusal to co-operate, the Canadian people will know the facts. We shall never secure what we all want, the kind of Canada pictured by Vincent Massey in his monumental work, by expressions of animosity or truculence as between dominion and provincial authorities.
So once more, Mr. Speaker, I ask, why the haste? Why not postpone this measure until the next session of parliament? Call a conference. If it proves abortive, if we have the power to do what the Prime Minister contends must be done, I will join with him, no matter what others may do, and support him. I shall make my contribution, humble though it may be, to the rebuilding of a foundation that will bring about a constitution in keeping with our responsibility as a nation.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise at this time to reply to the arguments which have been advanced against the course proposed by the government. It will be my privilege to do that at a later stage of the debate. But let me say at once to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) that no matter what disposition may be made of this resolution, I hope we will have his support in our forward march toward the destiny that lies ahead for our country.
I would point out to the hon. member that there are some of us who, in the face of what has been going on, and with all the precedents that have been referred to and commented upon, prefer half a loaf to no bread at all. Though it may be said that this is doing things piecemeal, we would rather have this piece than not have anything.
Because of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I thought at this time I should say that, in spite of what the hon. member for Lake Centre said the other evening, many of us do see some merit in the principle embodied in that amendment. If no reservations were being made in this resolution, there would be no occasion for the amendment proposed by the hon. member;
British North America Act but I think we all recognize that there are no greater safeguards for the democratic institutions of our nation than the right of parliament to be assembled at least once a year and the right of the people periodically to express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with those who represent them in parliament. I am as firmly attached as any Canadian could be to the other privileges mentioned- with respect to education; with respect to the use of the English and French languages in this country, and so on. They are rights which I do not think would ever be interfered with by any free parliament, but as to which there is a feeling that it would be more comfortable to have a safeguard expressed in formal terms. If that be so in connection with the rights of a part of the citizens of Canada, be they majorities or minorities, it does not seem illogical that there be some expressed formal guarantee of the right of the whole of the people of Canada to have their representatives called together at least once a year, and also their right to have their representatives come before them periodically to receive the verdict of the people as to whether they are satisfied or dissatisfied with the manner in which their representatives have been attempting to represent them in their parliament. After all, parliament is not the parliament of the government, nor the parliament of those who are elected to sit on these benches; it is the parliament of all the Canadian people.
Though I am convinced that neither this parliament nor any successive parliament would lightly attempt to interfere with any of those rights, I see no logical objection to having them expressed, when other rights are being entrenched by the proposal that is now before the house. It does seem to me, however, that there might be an occasion when a large majority of the members of parliament would feel it would be against the interests of the country to have an immediate election. It is conceivable that that could be the case, for instance, in times of war. It did happen once. It is conceivable that an overwhelming majority would feel it would be contrary to the best interests of the nation to have an election. It takes about three months to hold an election, and there are periods when it would be most embarrassing to a government charged with the responsibility for the security of the Canadian nation to be thrown into the midst of an election campaign.
During most of the last war I was charged with part of the responsibility of government. There were many, many months during that war when I think it would have been dangerous to the country to have held an election. I believe it would be wise, if we do

British North America Act entrench those provisions, to have a proviso that could not be lightly relied upon, but would be there in case an overwhelming majority did feel that, under war conditions, it would be dangerous to the safety of the state to have an election. That happened in the United Kingdom during the last war. I think it was the feeling of the overwhelming majority in the country that it was wise to avoid having an election.
I would, therefore, ask one of my colleagues to move an amendment to the amendment, which- would strike out some of the words that appear to be unnecessary in a constitutional amendment, such as the reference to section 20 and section 50 of the act. Certain words would be added at the end of the amendment. The amendment to the amendment which I would have proposed would strike out in the fourth and fifth lines the words, "requirement of section 20 of this act," and substitute therefor the word "requirements;" and strike out in the seventh and eighth lines thereof the words, "or as regards the requirement of section 50 of this act," and substituting therefor the word "and". Then, at the end of the proposed amendment there would be added, after the words "five years", the following words, "from the day of the return of the writs for choosing the house." Then, this proviso would follow:
Provided, however, that a House of Commons may in time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection-
I may point out that those are the words in the War Measures Act which describe that condition.
-be continued by the parliament of Canada, if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of such house.
My experience has been that in times of stress, most if not all of the members of parliament sink their partisan feelings and do endeavour to act in a manner which they believe in their hearts and consciences is in the best interests of the country. I would think that if this proviso were worded in that fashion, then a continuation of parliament could be prevented by a third of the members of the house and the constitution would take its course. If there were an overwhelming majority, and I can conceive of a condition in which there might be no objection whatever from any quarter, it would be possible to postpone an election for a reasonable time. It would have to be a reasonable time, otherwise the members would not give it their support.
I do not propose this amendment because I apprehend there will be any circumstances during our lifetime when it would be apt to be used. If, however, the resolution is passed and implemented by the parliament at WesttMr. St. Laurent.]
minster it is something which will go into the constitution. In my view, it will not be wise to have a constitutional convention for a long time, and to disregard eighty-two years of our experience since confederation. We had a very interesting and sincere debate the other day upon the doctrine of stare decisis. A great deal has been decided under our constitutional act of 1867. I think it would be a mistake to throw all that aside and to start with new language and new texts. In such a case, the whole process might have to be gone through again. The decisions rendered might no longer be applicable to the kind of language that would be used.
After all, the very preamble of the British North America Act is an expression of the desire of the people of the colonies of that day to have a constitution modelled on the British constitution. The British constitution is the result of experience, the fumbling, if you will, the trial and error of centuries. It seems to me it would be the part of wisdom to retain the old structure and make such alterations or improvements from time to time as the living generation may feel it in order to do. We should retain the substance of that which has been the outgrowth of the language used in the original act. Because I foresee the continued existence of much of the language of the British North America Act, and because no one in these days can be sure what the future may bring, I think it would be wise, if we do entrench these essential rights of the Canadian citizen with respect to his parliament and his government, and to have a proviso that might some day be useful.
I would therefore ask my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), if he would move, as an amendment to the amendment, the words I have cited. If that subamendment were adopted, it would mean that the amendment as amended would read as follows:
The amendment from time to time of the constitution of Canada, except as regards matters coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces, or as regards rights or privileges by this or any other constitutional act granted or secured to the legislature or the government of a province, or to any class of persons with respect to schools or as regards the use of the English or French language, or as regards the requirement of section twenty of this act that there shall be a session of the parliament of Canada at least once each year, or as regards the requirement of section fifty of this act that no House of Commons shall continue for more than five years from the day of the return of the writs for choosing the house, provided however that a House of Commons may in time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection be continued by the parliament of Canada if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of such house.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Before this motion is put, will the Prime Minister permit a question purely for clarification? When you speak of one-third of the members, I take it that you mean one-third of the members present and voting?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker; I thought that would then be a serious matter and that anyone who was not in agreement that an election should be postponed would come forward and say so. It could not be done except with an almost overwhelming majority. In drawing this amendment I felt that it would be a matter of such gravity that anyone who took the view contrary to that of the majority should come forward and register his vote against the proposed continuation.
I am not making this answer to the hon. member as an argument, but merely to clarify what I had intended in drafting the amendment to the amendment.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You did consider the point?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We considered it, and it was done purposely to accentuate the gravity of the matter with which it was supposed to deal.


Mr. Fleming:: Will the Prime Minister permit another question in order to elucidate the effect of the amendment? In the case indicated by the Prime Minister, suppose the two-thirds vote is not favourable; what is there then to prevent parliament, by a simple majority in both houses, proceeding to pass an address asking the parliament at Westminster to suspend those two sections of the constitution which require the holding of an election every five years and a session of parliament once a year?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There would be nothing but the sense of responsibility that would have developed in the Canadian nation by exercising at home its control over its own affairs. There would be no other thing than that. But I would imagine that if and when this is done, and if and when, after a conference with the provinces, the other provisions are subjected to a process of amendment in Canada, it would then be rather distasteful to members of parliament to recognize the fact that they could not, under the machinery they themselves had set up, do what was required and that they had to ask a parliament responsible to other electors than their own to do it for them.


Agar Rodney Adamson: May I ask the Prime Minister this question? It would then take eighty-eight recorded votes in this house to postpone an election?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes, provided there were no vacancies and there was a majority that
20. 1949
British North America Act felt it could take the unusual step of refusing to the electors an election at the given moment.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It is just a question of procedure.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is something which, during the whole of the last war, my predecessor always stated he would not take the responsibility of proposing. The hon. gentleman will remember that there can be diverging views in perfectly good faith about that, and even changing views. If my memory serves me correctly, the leader of the opposition in 1915 agreed to or did not oppose the extension of the life of parliament; then in the next year, when a further extension was proposed, he did oppose it. It is a matter which I think members try to deal with according to their own views of what is at the moment in the best interests of the nation.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Prime Minister a question, Mr. Speaker? As I understand it, this amendment would mean that the present government, which has over two-thirds of the members of the house, could, if it so wished, extend the life of parliament beyond the five years.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That question is, I suppose, merely for clarification, Mr. Speaker; but a hypothesis like that would not arise except in the case of war, real or apprehended. I can give the hon. member the assurance that for the duration of this parliament there is no thought at the present time that there need be any fear about war, real or apprehended.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the Prime Minister this question? Where does the Senate come in?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The act would of course have to be passed by both houses of parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: Does it say that in the amendment?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It says by an "act of parliament". An act of parliament is something that is passed by both houses and is assented to by the crown. What it does add to the ordinary formalities of an act of parliament is this fact: If one-third of the members of this house are opposed to it, it shall not be enacted and become law.


Thomas Langton Church: It just makes a scrap of paper out of the British North America Act.


Mr. Garson moved:: That the amendment proposed to the resolution be amended by striking out the words "requirement of section 20 of this act" and substituting therefor the

British North America Act word "requirements" and by striking out the words "or as regards the requirement of section 50 of this act" and substituting therefor the word "and", and by adding at the end of the proposed amendment after the words "five years" the following words:
"from the day of the return of the writs for choosing the house; provided however, that a House of Commons may in time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection be continued by the parliament of Canada if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of such house.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: This amendment to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, merely serves to emphasize why this motion should not be proceeded with at this time. It recognizes that there was considerable concern, in the minds of the provincial governments and of those who understand our federal system, about a course of this kind. In the original motion there is a reservation with regard to education and with regard to minority rights. The fact is that if this motion were as clear as the Prime Minister and those who have spoken in support of it say that it is, there would be no need for a reservation of any kind. But the very fact that the reservations are there recognizes the uncertainty of this procedure; and now when another matter of concern is raised, a new reservation is introduced, this time one not affecting directly the rights of the provinces as provinces, but affecting the rights of the parliament of Canada to continue its life beyond the ordinary period of five years. With the purpose behind this amendment of assuring that there will be a meeting of parliament once a year, and an accounting to the electorate at least once every five years, I am sure there will be agreement everywhere in this house. But it is only one of many things that are of concern in regard to the amendment or possible amendment of our constitution. True, the periodic accounting of the elected representatives of the people to those who elect them is the very hallmark of democracy; and certainly the representatives of the people in this democratic assembly should make sure that nothing is permitted to limit the right of the people to have those they have chosen appear before them to give an account of their stewardship during the time that they have sat in the parliament of Canada. The desirability of assuring such an accounting, the desirability of making sure that parliament will meet regularly and not be suspended, as it was on one historic occasion in Great Britain many years ago, may be a very commendable thing, but the fact is that this amendment to the amendment is simply something to attract attention and produce no practical results.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was asked whether there would be anything

to prevent a subsequent submission to Westminster to remove this limitation he said, as he had no choice but to say, that there would be nothing to prevent such a submission being made by the parliament of Canada except that measure of responsibility that would exist in the minds of the members of parliament because of their experience. Is the Prime Minister suggesting that we who have been boasting of our sovereignty have not developed that responsibility yet? Certainly we have. And that responsibility has been demonstrated for many years. It is because of that responsibility that every one of us believes that we should have the full right to amend the whole of our constitution here in Canada for Canadians by the elected representatives of the Canadian people without anyone outside Canada having the right to say how any part of the constitution shall be amended in the future. But this limited concession to a natural concern about the danger of the unlimited extension of parliament is only an admission that there is no clear procedure, and nobody knows what would happen if this amendment goes through.
This amendment itself, and the amendment to the amendment, constitute themselves the very best argument why this motion should stand. The very fact that it is considered desirable to put this amendment and the amendment to the amendment before this house is evidence of the concern that does exist about the fact that there is no established procedure now known to hon. members as to how our constitution will be amended if this motion passes. This amendment, with its subamendment, does not in any way lessen the basic weaknesses of what is now proposed in this house.
It seems to me that one thing has been overlooked by hon. members in the discussions that have taken place. Since I had the privilege of speaking earlier on this debate on the motion itself a number of statements have been made which have indicated that those who are supporting this resolution are of the opinion that its adoption will give to the parliament of Canada the right to amend the constitution only in regard to those matters that are exclusively federal. I ask every hon. member to read the resolution again, because that is not what the resolution says. The resolution says the very opposite. The resolution does not follow what has been said in this house. At pages 833 and 834 of Hansard the Prime Minister said in this debate:
This resolution deals only with matters which concern exclusively the federal authorities.

And that is what has been put before hon. members; but that is not what the resolution actually says. The resolution is something entirely different. The Prime Minister pointed out something that should not be forgotten at any time in the consideration of the effect of this resolution. He pointed out that there are three fields of legislative and administrative responsibility that are affected by the constitution of Canada under our federal system. The first is that field that, subject to definition and judicial decision, may be regarded as exclusively federal. The second is that field that may be regarded as exclusively provincial, and the third is that field that is occupied to some extent by both the dominion and the provincial governments, or in which there may be a common interest. Bearing that in mind it is very important in the consideration of the effect of this resolution when we are told that this relates alone to those matters that are exclusively of federal concern. This is what the resolution says. After that part which calls for an amendment to the act it would provide that the following would be inserted:
The amendment from time to time of the constitution of Canada, except as regards matters coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces.
That is a very different thing. If this resolution were passed there would be the power to amend the constitution of Canada in regard to all matters which are not exclusively within provincial jurisdiction. If these words mean anything they mean that the power to amend would cover not only the field of exclusive federal jurisdiction but also that intermediate field as well where there is some overlapping interest from the legislative or administrative point of view so far as the dominion and the provinces are concerned. Instead of this resolution calling merely for the power to amend those things which are exclusively federal, it would give to the parliament of Canada the right to amend all those things that are not exclusively provincial.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he not think the expression, "or as regards rights or privileges by this or any other constitutional act granted or secured to the legislature or the government of a province", does include everything that would be the provincial part in joint matters?


George Alexander Drew: No, I do not agree that that covers it. I certainly do not agree that that covers it, because there are a number of matters where there is very real overlapping in administrative responsibility at the present time.
British North America Act


An hon. Member:: Such as?


George Alexander Drew: Such as agriculture; such as health; such as public welfare. And, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if there is not, behind the haste for this resolution, some hidden reason that has not been disclosed to the house. I am wondering if the real reason behind the resolution is not that there is an intention to avail themselves of the power which would be conferred to invade that middle area, and by presenting this submission to Westminster now to be free at the next session of parliament to deal with something that is not at this time being disclosed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) does not intend that as an insinuation that anything is being withheld in this debate by members of the government.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I have a very definite reason for being greatly concerned about the adequacy of that information, and it goes back to a reply made by the Prime Minister on February 4 of this year to a question relating to this very subject. At page 232 of Hansard there is a record of a question and answer which, I believe, has a real bearing upon the extent to which the members of this House of Commons should be perfectly sure that they do know all the implications of this resolution. At page 232 I asked this question:
Mr. Speaker, there is a matter which I suggest does require that some information be given to the house, in view of other proceedings which will be taking place. In a radio speech last night the Prime Minister said, in part:
"You all know that the terms of confederation are set out in the British North America Act. That act is the foundation of the Canadian union. The British North America Act is a most important part of the Canadian constitution. But it is also a statute of the British parliament. Every time we Canadians want any change made in the British North America Act we have to go through the form of getting the change made by the parliament of the United Kingdom. As a Canadian, I do not like to have to do that. What is more, I feel sure the United Kingdom parliament does not like it either. I believe we Canadians should work out a method of making our constitutional changes right here in Canada."
In view of the fact that certain matters are before the house which may well raise a question as to the necessity of amendment of the British North America Act, I believe the house should be inform d this afternoon whether it is the intention of government to take proceedings which would have the result of empowering the parliament of Canada to change our constitution, and if so, whether that is to be done without consulting the provincial governments.
To that the Prime Minister replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, no one could contemplate anything of that kind without consulting the provincial governments. As the leader of the opposition knows,
S62	HOUSE OF
British North America Act
there was a consultation with the provincial governments ten or twelve years ago, perhaps more than that. The negotiations reached a stage where it was required to have the provincial governments consider the situation as it had developed throughout the conference. While that consideration was being given by some of the provincial governments, there was a provincial election in my province which brought about a change in government, and the matter dropped. The procedure which I believe would be required to deal with a question of the kind would be similar to that which was followed at that time, some twelve or fourteen years ago.
May I repeat that sentence, because that, after all, is the undertaking by the Prime Minister of Canada as to their intentions concerning amendments to the constitution:
The procedure which I believe would be required to deal with a question of the kind would be similar to that which was followed at that time, some twelve or fourteen years ago.
I was astonished to hear the Prime Minister say that the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) must be naive if he thought that his undertaking to consult the provinces had related to that part of the constitution which affected the affairs with which the dominion parliament is concerned. But the Prime Minister of Canada on February 4 gave a definition which is open to no misunderstanding. He did not merely say that they were going to consult the provinces; he said they were going to follow the course that was followed back in 1935. Therefore every one of us has the right to examine what happened in 1935. We had the right then, and we have the right now, to see that his undertaking was clear, and that the government will ask the house and parliament to follow the procedure agreed upon back in 1935 at the very conference to which he referred.


John George Diefenbaker: Consultation if necessary, but not necessarily consultation.


George Alexander Drew: That was the effect of it. As I pointed out earlier in this debate, the discussion of this subject at that time had the unique importance that it began in the spring of 1935 under the government of Mr. Bennett, when a committee dealt with this matter. Among their recommendations was the one that the committee further expressed the opinion that before any decision upon the subject matter was finally made, the opinions of the provinces should be obtained, and recommended that a dominion-provincial conference be held to study carefully the adoption of a recognized yet flexible method of amendment.
Then I also referred to what took place later in the year, when a government headed by Mr. King had taken office. Following the recommendation of the committee appointed in the spring by the Bennett government, a conference was called in December. At that


conference Mr. Taschereau, as premier and attorney general of the province of Quebec, presented a resolution which was adopted by the conference, and which made it perfectly clear that they expected the procedure would be the result of a meeting between the dominion and the provinces, and that there would be an agreed procedure as to the method of amendment.
Paragraph (c) of that resolution read in this way:
That the minister of justice convene at an early date a meeting of appropriate officials of the dominion and of the provinces to prepare a draft of such method of procedure to be submitted to a subsequent conference.
(d) That a conference be held at an early date after such draft has been prepared to consider such a method of procedure.
The Prime Minister has referred to that conference and has pointed out that following that resolution presented by Mr. Taschereau and approved by the conference certain general features in regard to procedure were adopted. We must examine those now in the light of the assurance given by the Prime Minister on February 4. An examination of what took place at that conference makes it clear that all the discussion was directed to a procedure which would embrace the amendment of the whole constitution. At no single time was there any suggestion that our constitution should be ripped down the middle and that those who were claiming to end subservience to Westminster would be the very ones to perpetuate it by following a course that would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, ever to obtain consent in regard to the amendment of our constitution.


Thomas Langton Church: It would make it only a scrap of paper.


George Alexander Drew: That is what this would do, make our constitution a scrap of paper. It would proceed to amend the constitution in a way that was never contemplated before. Naive? Well, if accepting the assurance of the Prime Minister of Canada given in clear words is being naive, yes we are naive. If accepting the clear assurance of the Prime Minister of Canada that there would be consultation with the provinces was naive, yes the people of Canada were naive.
We are being asked to accept the assurance that there is no danger in dealing with this because the responsibility of the members themselves would be a safeguard against the infringement of our basic constitutional rights. If we are to feel confident in that, then certainly the whole procedure that was worked out and advanced to a considerable degree in 1935 and 1936 should be continued and the undertaking given by the Prime Minister on February 4 should be observed.

Desirable though the purpose of the subamendment and the amendment may appear, they in no way meet the serious weaknesses that exist in this resolution. When so important a step is being taken it is more important than at any other time that an attempt should be made to obtain the wholehearted support and co-operation of all provincial governments so that when our new constitution takes form it will be acceptable to all governments of Canada and all the people of Canada and not be one that has simply been put through by a majority vote in the parliament of Canada.
When it is so clear, and it is abundantly clear, that all hon. members of this house are anxious to have the amending of our constitution carried on here in Canada under our own parliament, surely every step should be taken to avoid those misunderstandings and unnecessary conflict which can only defeat the very purpose for which it is said this resolution is presented to the house. As the Prime Minister said when introducing this resolution, this is an historic milestone in the history of Canada. Let us not mar that step by following a course that will precipitate constitutional arguments and misunderstandings in different parts of Canada for years to come.
Even suppose that all in this house were agreed, think of how strong the government's position would be if it followed another course, namely, that even if the premiers of five provinces in Canada, who represent about eighty per cent of the population, are wrong when they express concern about this matter, the government met them to discuss the subject so that any misunderstanding might be avoided before so important a step is taken.
After all, we have concern expressed by the premier of Nova Scotia in regard to one aspect of this problem. We have concern expressed by the premier of Quebec in regard to procedure on a very broad base.


An hon. Member:: Politics.


George Alexander Drew: When I hear an hon. member say "politics" I wonder to whom that expression is being applied?


An hon. Member:: Duplessis.


George Alexander Drew: If this matter is as important in the minds of hon. members as they claim it is, they will look for every possible way of avoiding any conflict. The way to avoid that is to bring the provinces together and find out whether there cannot be agreement before a course of this kind is followed which is certain to precipitate disagreement in the years to come.


An hon. Member:: You are naive.
45781-61J
British North America Act


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: That laughter indicates cynicism in regard to this matter which is out of keeping with the importance of what we are discussing. We have had a perfectly clear undertaking that the provinces would be consulted. We have perfectly clear evidence from what we have read that certain provinces feel that there should be discussions before this proceeds any further. If we want agreement and if we want the whole constitution to be an indivisible Canadian constitution, let us make sure that we do not tear this constitution in two and that we do not just take part of the constitutional authority and leave the rest in a position where the dominion government and the provinces must still go to Westminster under the disabilities that are being created by this course.
The procedure is the important thing. The procedure has not yet emerged. Unless there is some reason for this being dealt with now, a reason which has not been stated to the hon. members of this house, the opportunity to amend our own constitution will be greatly hastened by postponing consideration of this resolution until the next session of parliament and until after all the provincial governments can be consulted in regard to the possibility of finding an acceptable means of amending our whole constitution which will cause no conflict in the years ahead.
Debate has proceeded on the main motion, on an amendment which was ruled out of order, on a further amendment and a subamendment. In all earnestness, regardless of what the government may feel to be their strict right in this matter, having regard to the unanimous desire expressed in this house that there be the right to amend our whole constitution here in Canada, I do urge the Prime Minister to leave no possibility of suggestion that there has been a breach of faith. I urge the Prime Minister to follow a course which will encourage the good will of the provinces. I urge the Prime Minister to bring the governments here and then, and only then, if agreement cannot be reached will any member of this house have the right to say that any province was opposed to an agreed procedure in amending our constitution. It is too early yet; there is nothing but guesswork, nothing but suspicion to justify the statement in this house by any hon. member that such a procedure would not work out, because no attempt has been made since the governments met in 1935.
Therefore in stating that we will oppose the subamendment because, desirable though its purpose may be, it is simply an amendment to a motion that will be disastrous in its consequences if it is proceeded with at this stage, I do urge the Prime Minister to avoid

British North America Act any possibility of misunderstanding by agreeing to let this motion stand until the next session of parliament.


Mr. W. E. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: The second intervention in this debate by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) only emphasizes the point he made in his first speech and, as I recall it, the point he always made in the last parliament; that he agreed in principle with what we were doing, but did not like the method. That seems to be the unfortunate position in which we find the leader of the opposition almost every time we approach the problems of Canada. It is not that we ever depart from a principle which he wishes to maintain; it is simply that he disagrees with the method adopted.
Following the hon. gentleman in the debate, and following the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), I think it can be said that if there is one thing in common between those two speeches, and in fact the speeches of all members of the official opposition, it is that they agree that the Canadian constitution should be amended in this country. At one time when I heard the leader of the opposition make that statement I had some hope that he would proceed to help us do that very thing. However, he takes the view that, desirable though it may be, now is not the time and this is not the method.
Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to examine the arguments of the members of the opposition to see the nature of their objections and whether in fact they bear any relation to the motion before the house. In particular, I have no hesitation in following the hon. member for Lake Centre, because his address this afternoon was completely different from the address he began the other evening. There were some points in that part which, as he tried to say in his introductory remarks this afternoon, were hard to gather up; and upon reflection I fancy he will agree that perhaps they would have been better left unsaid.


John George Diefenbaker: What were they?


Walter Edward Harris: I shall come to them; in fact I may refer right now to what was said. Throughout the whole of the last parliament, and at practically every opportunity in the country, the hon. member for Lake Centre was foremost in the presentation of what he felt were certain fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens, and in fact there is on the order paper a resolution- in his name having to do with that subject. When I heard the amendment suggested by the leader of the C.C.F party CMr. Coldwell) and moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) it
(Mr. Drew.]

occurred to me that almost the first person in this house who would stand up and vote for that amendment would be the hon. member for Lake Centre. If any single thing has been part and parcel of his criticism of this government, it has been his constant iteration that we have been exercising arbitrary power at one time or another, and I thought he might consider this a means of preventing us from doing so in future. Yet for reasons of his own he has taken the position that he will not support what on its face must be taken as a safeguard against the possibility of the use of arbitrary power.
When one reads sections 20 and 50 of the British North America Act one thinks it would have been likely, if the hon. member had to do it over again or perhaps if he had thought of it, that the hon. gentleman would have spoken about the great past of parliament. He might have drawn attention to you, Mr. Speaker, as a successor of the great Speakers of the past. He might have seen in your person Mr. Speaker Lenthall, who, on one memorable occasion, defended the rights of parliament against the exercise of arbitrary power. He might have summoned up all the great men of the past who have made parliament possible; and perhaps in conclusion he would have demanded an absolute restriction against this and succeeding parliaments extending their life. Those thoughts were in my mind, as I think they were in the minds of those who suggested these amendments, and I am quite sure they were in the mind of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in having his amendment moved this afternoon. Because if there is one great advantage we now possess, it is the advantage of periodically registering our approval or disapproval of those to whom we have entrusted the affairs of the country, and of being given the opportunity of putting the seal of approval upon them or of dismissing them if they have been either unfaithful or unsatisfactory. Perhaps we might think, also, when considering those who in the past made it possible for us to meet here, of those in Canada who, in more recent times, by what they did in two world wars, saved us from having arbitrary power imposed upon us from abroad. Under these circumstances I appeal to the hon. member for Lake Centre to reconsider the arguments he has advanced in this house, and to see if he cannot find it possible to support the amendment now before the house.
Now I should like to come to a few remarks which have been made by two other members of the opposition, in opposing the resolution itself. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), having reiterated the position of his leader that of course they agree that the

amendment of the Canadian constitution should be carried out in this country, went on to say:
But, sir, to say that we ought to have in Canada complete power to amend our constitution as we see fit is a very different thing from saying that this parliament ought to have unlimited power to make amendments to the constitution.
By the use of the word "unlimited" the hen. member entirely passed over the wording of the resolution and committed an error which unfortunately was continued by a subsequent speaker on the other side of the house. Let us examine the resolution to see how much the hon. member was in error when he used the phrase "unlimited power to amend the constitution of Canada in this parliament".
The resolution reads in part as follows:
The amendment from time to time of the constitution of Canada-
I agree that it is unlimited in time, and the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) is correct in that, respect. The resolution continues as follows:
*-except as regards matters coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces,-
It seems to me, sir, there are sixteen subheadings under section 92 of the British North America Act. Section 93, I believe, deals with education. Those seventeen subjects are seventeen exceptions to the power to amend as contained in this resolution; so that while the member for Eglinton may be right in one instance, he is wrong in the following seventeen.
Now, sir, if we will proceed with the resolution, it goes on to make a further exception "with regard to the rights or privileges by this act granted or secured to the legislature of a province." That is a further exception upon our unlimited power to amend the constitution in this parliament. This makes the eighteenth exception to our power to amend our constitution. Then it goes on to say:
*-or as regards rights or privileges by any other constitutional act granted or secured to the legislature of a province,-
This makes the nineteenth exception to our power to amend the constitution in this parliament.
Then, there are two similar exceptions with respect to the rights and privileges granted to the government of a province, so that there are twenty-one exceptions to my hon. friend's so-called unlimited power of this parliament to amend the constitution.


Mr. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: He is five per cent right.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is the independent view, is it not?
British North America Act


Walter Edward Harris: There is also the clause with respect to schools which makes the twenty-second exception to our right to amend the constitution in this parliament. There is also the exception with regard to the use of the English or French language which makes the twenty-third exception to the power of this parliament to amend the constitution of Canada. If the member for Eglinton is right in the first instance as to time, he is wrong twenty-three times thereafter.
Unfortunately, the new member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) was obliged to follow the hon. member for Eglinton^ and assumed he was right when he said there was unlimited power in this parliament as the result of the amendment. Further than that, the hon. member for St. John's East raised one question with respect to his own province which I think it is desirable to settle at this moment. He spoke of the compact theory as it applied particularly to his own province. The hon. member for St. John's East referred to the memorandum of agreement between Canada and Newfoundland as to union. He asserted at one stage that, because of this agreement and because of the compact theory which he thought it established, the province of Newfoundland had rights secured under this agreement so that the British North America Act might not be amended by this parliament without the consent of the provinces.
I should like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that section 3 of the memorandum of the terms of union with Newfoundland reads as follows:
The British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946, shall apply to the province of Newfoundland in the same way and to the like extent as they apply to the provinces heretofore comprised in Canada, as if the province of Newfoundland had been one of the provinces originally united, except insofar as varied by these terms and except such provisions as are in terms made or by reasonable intendment may be held to be specially applicable to or only to affect one or more and not all of the provinces originally united.
Then, by section 17 of that memorandum, under the heading "Education" there is a specific clause about education in Newfoundland. There is nothing in the agreement which asserts the proposition that the British North America Act has been given to Newfoundland in any different way than to the other provinces. In other words, there is no agreement that the British North America Act might not be amended in due course in the proper manner. On the basis of this agreement and the special interest in education granted to Newfoundland by section 17-


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Newfoundland being a dominion and defined as a dominion

British North America Act under the Statute of Westminster, did it not make an agreement with the Dominion of Canada when those terms were settled? Was it not an agreement, therefore, between those two countries?


Walter Edward Harris: I think perhaps I can answer that by referring to the comments of the hon. member's seatmate, the member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins). Somewhat to my surprise, he said that the agreement between Newfoundland and Canada was an agreement between the peoples of those two places and had been approved by their people. To my knowledge, neither of the hon. [DOT]gentlemen had made that argument before he entered this house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is no answer to the question.


Walter Edward Harris: The terms of the agreement between Newfoundland and Canada are contained in the pamphlet, "Report and Documents relating to the Negotiations for the Union of Newfoundland with Canada." Newfoundland became a province of Canada in precisely the same respect as the other provinces, subject only to a variation of the terms as may be set out in the agreement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But as a result of an agreement; that is the point.


Walter Edward Harris: Nobody denies there was an agreement. It is there, and it has been tabled in the house.
Now, sir, we come to the references of the hon. member for Eglinton, and throughout his speech he was quoting from the various leaders of our party in the past, evidently seeking to convince the house that the Liberal party has departed from former policies. I do not suggest that the quotations he gave were inaccurate, nor do I suggest they were unfairly taken from the various speeches that he used. I do suggest, however, that there is a radical difference between an abstract discussion on an abstract principle, such as a general resolution of this house, and the more immediate duty of legislators who are confronted with a problem which has to be solved.
In many of the cases which my hon. friend has cited, there were discussions on resolutions as to the desirability or otherwise, and as to a final method of amending the Canadian constitution. I should like to draw to the attention of the house not what has been said under those circumstances, but what has been done by the governments of Canada in the past with respect to amending the Canadian constitution. In particular, I should like to refer to the action taken by the very gentlemen to whom the hon. member referred.

In the first instance he quoted Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and I intend to refer to what Sir Wilfrid did as well as to what he said. The first occasion on which Sir Wilfrid had to deal in this house with an amendment to the Canadian constitution was in 1886. That was an address to the United Kingdom parliament for the purpose of obtaining for this parliament the power to grant representation in this house to the Northwest Territories. It cannot be alleged that that was an academic discussion. It cannot be alleged that whatever action was taken might not be of detriment, in theory, to those provinces who might rely upon the compact theory. Throughout the whole of this debate, Sir Wilfrid Laurier made no suggestion that the provinces should be consulted.
To indicate what the public as a whole thought of that particular action, the following year there was an interprovincial conference at which most of the then provinces were represented. Remember, this was only twenty-one years after confederation. No one at that interprovincial conference suggested that the parliament of Canada had gone beyond its legislative right in seeking that power the previous year. It is a long time from 1886 to 1915, but I will speak of that year and then go back to 1907.
In 1915 there were further discussions in this house having to do with the representation of the western provinces, both in the house and in the Senate. Once again it could be argued that what they were doing might in some sense upset the balance of confederation in the representation of members from the various provinces. One person in that debate did suggest that it might be desirable if they did consult the provinces. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in speaking, made no mention of that matter. He did not support the contention at that time that we needed to consult the provinces on that particular question. Yet it cannot be denied that what parliament was doing was in fact amending the constitution of Canada by that proposal. I should like to read what he did say in that 1915 debate, and this will be found at page 1460 of Hansard 1915:
It has been a grievance with the maritime provinces that their representation in the House of Commons has continued to decrease from decade to decade. It has been explained, and it is the true explanation, that at the time of the formation of confederation no one anticipated the extraordinary developments which were to take place west of lake Superior and in consequence of which the representation of the maritime provinces in the House of Commons has decreased from decade to decade. We had to deal with the matter in 1902. At that time the province of New Brunswick, in particular, felt very much the diminution in representation which it had to undergo. It was a special grievance in the province of Prince Edward Island, which always contended that under the terms of confederation they should at all times

be entitled to six members. Whatever may be the merits of this contention-it is true the record does not show it-I believe that what is now proposed is a fair compromise, and ought to be so accepted by all the provinces, so that henceforth, whatever may be its fall in population, the province of Prince Edward Island shall be entitled to a representation of four members.
Nowhere in that speech did he suggest that the provinces need be consulted on that particular motion to amend our constitution.
In 1916, once again, we have an amendment to the constitution in the sense of extending the life of parliament. Laurier consented, as I understand it, and made a speech on the occasion, but did not suggest that the provinces were interested in that particular phase of our constitution. So that on those three occasions on which action was taken in this house, at no time did he suggest that the action being taken was contrary to the interests of the provinces. It is only fair to say that in 1907 all the provinces were consulted, but they had a special interest in the financial part of the British North America Act, which was the subject of that particular amendment.
That is not the record only of the leader of the Liberal party. It happens to be the record of both Sir Robert Borden and Mr. Arthur Meighen when they were leaders in this house. Sir Robert Borden went through the 1915 and 1916 constitutional debates without saying that the provinces should be consulted with respect to those particular matters. In 1920, when he was about to leave the government, preparation was being made for another address to the United Kingdom parliament, and in this particular matter no consultation with the provinces was suggested. Mr. Meighen, when he became prime minister, continued those representations to the United Kingdom but did not in fact consult the provinces, nor in the debate did he suggest that consultation was necessary. That particular amendment had to do with the obtaining for this parliament of the right of giving extraterritorial effect to our legislation. It is quite true that the address was not passed, for those reasons which the Prime Minister has given. But the fact that these Conservative leaders did not think it necessary to consult the provinces is, I think, significant of their belief in that particular matter.
Now we come to 1924 when the late Ernest Lapointe had to deal with the very same subject of giving extraterritorial effect to dominion legislation; and on that occasion Ernest Lapointe did not suggest that the provinces should be consulted. On the contrary, he was faced with the argument in a most particular manner and I should like to read to you from what he said in order to show you how he felt on the subject. The premier of Ontario, who at that time was the
British North America Act leading exponent of the compact theory, had intervened in the discussion of this resolution by making a speech at that time, and this is Ernest Lapointe's answer, which is to be found at page 4778 of Hansard of 1924:
I now desire to refer to a statement which has been made concerning this matter by the hon. premier of Ontario, at a meeting held at Prescott on the 12th of July last. He stated that the adoption of this resolution was a blow to the constitution and an infringement of the rights of the provinces, which ought to be consulted every time an amendment to the British North America Act was sought. The charge is not justified, and is not altogether fair. My only answer is that the provinces were in no way interested and in no way concerned in our demand of the imperial parliament to recognize that our purely federal legislation has an extraterritorial effect.
On those occasions on which the hon. gentlemen quoted by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) had to face concrete cases to be dealt with by this house; in every case having to do with the federal jurisdiction, none of them thought it necessary, and most of them refused to agree, that the provinces need be consulted.
I should like to continue the quotations down to 1931, when there was a discussion, this time not on a concrete case, I agree, but on a resolution moved by Mr. Woods-worth, that it was desirable that we should have the right to amend our own constitution. It is interesting to see what the late Mr. Guthrie-at that time minister of justice, I believe-had to say in this house. Mr. Guthrie preceded his remarks, which are to be found at page 1473 of Hansard of 1931, by saying:
... I agree that the time has come when we should seriously consider this whole question of amendments to the Canadian constitution.
Later in his remarks he goes on:
My contention has always been that in all matters appertaining to the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada the parliament of Canada has the right, and should have the right expressed, to make such amendments to the constitution as it shall see fit.
And in the same debate both the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) have taken a quotation from Ernest Lapointe. The latest quotation given by the hon. member for Lake Centre is as follows:
We really do not know what are the amendments in respect to which the assent of the provinces should be first received and those in respect to which such consent is not necessary.
Let me go on and quote what he did say on the particular subject of this kind of resolution. At page 1479 he is reported as follows:
... to insist on having the consent of all the provinces to every change would be asking almost an impossibility; to ask that either British Columbia in the west or Prince Edward Island in the east
9S8	HOUSE OF COMMONS
British North America Act should be able to block a change with which it is essential for the federal power to go ahead within the limits of its jurisdiction on certain matters, I do not think would be right.
I therefore sum up this part of my remarks by saying that a great many of these discussions were of abstract resolutions having to do with the amendment of the constitution; and it is quite true to say, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has said, that in those discussions everybody was considering a comprehensive rewrite, I think the word is, of the Canadian constitution. But these were abstract discussions. In the House of Commons we are engaged in doing the business of Canada and perhaps doing it piecemeal at times. In this chamber we are under the necessity of doing something about a particular subject rather than discussing general subjects all the time.
I think it was the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) who first wanted to know why the haste in this particular matter. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) have repeated that question. But it is the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Lake Centre and all the hon. members of the opposition who have .repeatedly said: "Of course we agree with the principle. Of course it is not a matter of dispute that we should amend our constitution in Canada." In fact the hon. member for Lake Centre suggested that for the last fifteen years, at least, it has not been a matter of political disagreement in this country.
There is no one in this house who has gone through law school who has not at one time or another debated this subject. I recall a debate in law school in my first year, in which it was unanimously agreed that we should have the right to amend the Canadian constitution in Canada. But when I realize that there are hon. members here who were not born at the time we passed that resolution I am of opinion that it is time the Canadian parliament did something about it.
I should now like to deal with some of the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). The hon. member indicated fairly clearly that since he came from British Columbia it was not possible for him to subscribe wholeheartedly to the compact theory. In his address the hon. member spent most of his time conjuring up the most terrible consequences which might follow upon the passage of this resolution. Having recited one or two steps which were taken in the past parliament to amend the Canadian constitution he went on to indicate what he thought our next steps might be, and he ended in this way, as reported at page 883 of Hansard:

This is the final step in a series of steps, culminating in the delivery of the constitution of Canada, tied and bound, to the sole and exclusive custody of this federal parliament.
Sir, I cannot imagine the day when such a conclusion will be reached, no matter who may be in office in this country. Let me say that it is neither the intention nor the desire of any member of this party that we should come to that end, nor that we should take from the provinces not just the right to amend their constitution, but not one single part of their jurisdiction unless for their own reasons they wish to give it to us under terms acceptable to everyone.
In his argument the hon. member for Lake Centre pointed to a change in section 51 of the British North America Act, which was made in 1946. He said that that was a new departure and something that had not been contemplated by the provinces, and that they should have been consulted. I suggest, sir, that section 51 as amended had to do only with the representation in this house. It did alter the method of computation; it did change the number of hon. members in the house; but, sir, no one can suggest that the result was detrimental to any province or to any interest in any province.


John George Diefenbaker: I was quoting from Dr. Ollivier, who had been placed before the house as an authority. In 1935 he gave evidence to that effect.


Walter Edward Harris: That only confirms what I said earlier, or if I did not say it I intended to say it. Hardly a speaker of the opposition has actually pledged his own word that he believes in the compact theory. It is easy to quote someone, but as I understand the rules of the house, when one does that he does in fact indicate a personal belief in the quotation. Yet I point out that not a single member of the opposition, except the leader, said that confederation was a pact and that he believed unequivocally in that theory.
Let me return to the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre. I said that the amendment of 1946 had certain consequences but did not have others. There is no question whatever that the prior amendments to the constitution of 1915 and 1886 were quite different in principle to the one of 1946. If, at that time, any of the provinces had felt that this was a matter in which they had some vested interest I am sure they would have had more right to feel aggrieved in those years than they could have had in 1946.
I should like to conclude with the hon. member for Kamloops by pointing out that to further his imaginings of dire results he,

along with other hon. members of the opposition, did suggest, by reference to the Prime Minister's speech of May 19, that there had been something in the nature of broken faith connected with this resolution. The leader of the opposition has repeated that. He quoted part of the address of last February; but every hon. member of the opposition has pointed to the address of May 19 and indicated, perhaps not directly, though in one case directly, that he believes the Prime Minister had been guilty of a breach of a pledge, and suggested bad faith in this resolution. It seems to me, sir, that some hon. members will never learn. In the last parliament there was hardly a debate in which my hon. friends did not suggest bad faith. They suggested that there were some dark and devious intentions behind the simplest of words in bills, and, throughout the whole four years, they tried to convince the Canadian people that there were motives which were not disclosed, such as the leader of the opposition suggested this afternoon. I thought, in fact, I am sure, that suggestion of bad faith in a leader in public life in Canada had been consigned to oblivion on June 27. If the address of May 19 was the only address made by the Prime Minister an hon. member of the opposition would feel justified in asking for an explanation of it. An explanation has been given. But it was not the only address that the Prime Minister made during that campaign touching on the constitutional question. I should like to read from another address he delivered in Kingston on a later date than the one to which reference has been made. He said:
The Liberal party has always stood for the maintenance of the Canadian constitution as a federal constitution. And we have always stood for proper respect for provincial rights.
Now, in the early days of confederation, many Liberals felt that the Conservative party was trying to centralize too much power at Ottawa, and the great Liberals of the 19th century and the early years of this century, with Laurier at their head, gained great fame for upholding the rights of the provinces as set out in the constitution.
But the Liberal party never took the view that the powers given by the constitution to our national parliament should be placed under the control of the provincial legislatures or provincial premiers.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the hon. member quoting from?


Walter Edward Harris: A speech delivered by-


John George Diefenbaker: But who gave you the speech? Is it a press report?


Walter Edward Harris: It is a speech made by the Prime Minister at Kingston on June 18. What I have just quoted may be used as an illustration of what seems to be the difference of opinion as to the manner in
20. 1949
British North America Act which this resolution should be dealt with. No one has suggested from this side of the house, and no one will suggest from this side of the house, that any action should be taken by parliament, or certainly by this government, which would infringe upon the rights and privileges of the legislatures of the provinces. Not only have we not suggested that, but we have put in the plainest words in the resolution a provision to that effect.
On the other hand the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) suggested throughout his speech that what is needed now is not so much an amendment of this kind, but that we should have a constitutional convention, perhaps, to rewrite in large part our constitution.


John George Diefenbaker: I never said that. I never said anything about rewriting the constitution. I referred to considering the necessary amendments for recommendation, the same plan referred to by Mr. Mackenzie King and Mr. R. B. Bennett.


Walter Edward Harris: I quite agree that the hon. member for Lake Centre restricted his suggestion to that effect. But constitutional conventions are something which have been known to many countries. Constitutional conventions are different from ordinary conferences between premiers and a prime minister. They are conferences resorted to at a time when there has been a serious breakdown in the working of the constitution of a country, or perhaps when there has been a more violent change in government than is usual in this country.
I believe every member of the house would agree that not only are the people of Canada happy, contented and prosperous, but that, in large measure, they are working their constitution out so that it will best serve the interests of the Canadian people.
We are here asking for an amendment to the constitution. Therefore, as everyone has said, we consider amendments necessary. But the constitution has not yet reached the point where a breakdown is imminent-and I doubt very much if it ever will. A constitutional convention along the lines I believe the hon. member has in mind would at this time probably create that confusion which he says he wishes to avoid.
The difference in approach between the government and the official opposition on this resolution is easily understood. Every provincial premier and every attorney general, by reason of his oath of office and by reason of his election, is charged with the responsibility of protecting the interests of a provincial government, and the interests of the people in his province. We are sent here as members-in my case from Grey-Bruce-to

British North America Act represent our local constituencies, our provinces and the dominion. We must see that provincial interests are not improperly infringed upon-in fact we must see that they are not infringed upon in any respect.
But that is a different matter from saying that here in the House of Commons we must take the attitude that our first duty is in the protection of those interests. On the contrary our first duty is to see that our rights and privileges are equally preserved for the future parliaments of Canada-and in my mind it is not difficult to balance the two. I should not like to suggest that it is the duty of an opposition or a government to think first of provincial rights. I would rather suggest that our attitude should be that, as members of the House of Commons from our local communities and our respective provinces, we should see that the government and the executive of Canada would not improperly discharge their duties by attempting in any way to infringe upon provincial rights.
As I said before, we have an equal duty to maintain, support and uphold the rights and privileges of this parliament, and consequently to be in a position to exercise those duties which the Canadian people have entrusted to us.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, we have had a long and learned discussion on this resolution, and the subsequent amendments. I am frank to admit that I have learned a great deal from what has been said, and I am sure most hon. members would speak in a similar fashion.
We have listened to a legal analysis of the resolution; we have heard a good deal of historical background from hon. members who are capable of analysing the matter from that viewpoint. My reason for taking part in the debate is to attempt to tell hon. members exactly the way I view this resolution, from the standpoint of the man in the street. Because, in the final analysis, if any constitutional amendment does not bring about the greatest good for the greatest number, it is the man in the street who will be most affected.
In my opinion the resolution moved by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) required no amendment, despite the fact that the party to which I belong did offer one. After listening to this discussion for several days, and after a careful reading of the resolution,
I am convinced that we are not at this time amending the constitution. The Prime Minister has placed before the house a resolution in which he asks members of the House of Commons if they are prepared to take the responsibility of amending the constitution 
in Canada. If they, are, then he wishes to have a change in section 91 to give us that right. No amendment to the constitution is involved; any amendment will come afterwards. That is my understanding of it. The government is asking merely for the right to amend the constitution. Following that, any amendment will be made by the members of the House of Commons. So what are hon. members afraid of? Are they afraid of themselves?
This is something that has been needed in Canada for many years, if we want to be masters in our own home. We do not want unemployment insurance and other national legislation held up year after year because ten little Canadas cannot agree. Each one wants to hang on to its own jurisdiction.
After listening to the discussion I am convinced that the amendments which have been offered were not necessary. The argument has been offered by the official opposition that this resolution has been presented in great haste, and that the provinces should be consulted. I believe the Prime Minister made it quite clear that before any amendment to the constitution would take place a conference of the provinces would be called and a formula worked out as to how such amendments would be made. That provides for a dominion-provincial conference after we have obtained the right to amend the constitution, and before it is amended.
Second, the people of this country have been led to believe from the discussions here and the reports in the press that the constitution had never been amended before unless there had been a dominion-provincial conference or agreement by the provinces. That is not so. The constitution of Canada has been amended eleven times in the last eighty years and on eight of those occasions the provinces were not consulted. On one occasion only four of the provinces were consulted and on another occasion British Columbia disagreed. Despite that there was no revolution, none of the provinces pulled out. The amendments were made and Canada went on and has developed. I just wanted to stress that we are not doing something that is new.
The fact of the matter is that we are adopting a most democratic procedure because we are placing responsibility where it belongs, on the members of the House of Commons. If and when amendments are made in the future the formula will have been worked out. The amendments will be made here and not as they have been made on eight occasions in the past with the dominion government deciding what is going to be done without consulting the provinces and then the amendments being made in another country.

I think the procedure suggested by the Prime Minister is one hundred per cent more democratic, more in keeping with Canadian mentality, than the procedure that has been followed in the past.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) made a wonderful address, as he always does, but I found it rather difficult to follow him at times. There is one point I should like to clear up in connection with something he said this afternoon. He looked over at the leader of this group, shook his finger at him and said that the late J. S. Woodsworth, the founder of this party, had said that no amendments to the constitution should be made unless the provinces were consulted.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, that statement was not made. I simply quoted the amendment that Mr. Woodsworth had moved when Mr. Maclean moved a resolution to the effect that parliament should have the authority to amend the British North America Act. 1 simply said that Mr. Woodsworth moved an amendment stating that that should be done only with the consent of the provinces.


Clarence Gillis: If the hon. member had let me finish, it would not have been necessary for him to get up. He did not go far enough back into history, or he went back too far. The resolution he referred to was moved in 1925, but the resolution I am going to refer to was moved in 1931. After more experience and a more mature judgment, on May 11, 1931, Mr. Woodsworth moved the following motion:
That, in the opinion of this house, it is desirable that Canada should have the right to amend her own constitution, but that in proceeding to make any amendment, scrupulous care should be taken to safeguard the rights of minorities.
That is exactly the position we are taking today. Members of His Majesty's loyal opposition have taken the position that there is great haste in doing this. They want to know why we are in such a hurry, why the necessity for this. I do not think there has been great haste. I think this matter has been hanging in the sling since 1935. It is unfinished business.
The dominion-provincial conference of 1935 decided that we should do what is being done here. That conference suggested, first, that changes concerning parliament and federal matters only should be made by parliament; second, that changes affecting some provinces should be made only with their consent; third, that changes affecting all provinces, such as minority rights and education, should be made only with the consent of the large 45781-621
British North America Act majority of the provinces. Thus the procedure to be followed would depend upon the nature of the proposed change.
That formula was worked out at that time and the dominion government had every right to go ahead and do what the Prime Minister is now doing. There were the instructions. Instead of this being done in great haste I see this in the same perspective as I would someone who was climbing a mountain. He gets to the top and he cannot go any farther. The dominion government climbed the mountain and they have been sitting on the top since 1935. They were afraid to go back and they were afraid to go forward, I compliment the Prime Minister upon climbing to the top, upon taking over where his predecessor left off. He is prepared now to go down the other side and have a look at the valley.
There has been no great haste. The reverse is true. This has been hanging in the sling since 1935. I say that we should do this thing if for no other reason than the position in which the Canadian delegates to the United Nations have been placed. They have had to refrain from voting on resolutions dealing with human rights and fundamental principles or with the instruction and teaching throughout the country of matters coming under the United Nations because the national parliament under the present arrangement cannot deal with these matters without consulting the provinces. Our delegates have been placed in an awkward position when attending this international forum. They have had to tell delegates from other parts of the world that they cannot vote on these resolutions even though they represent the national government of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned until later this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 28, on Thursdays and Fridays when the order of the day is called for the house to go into committee of supply or of ways and means, Your Honour leaves the chair without putting any question. When this Thursday was selected for the motion to go into committee of ways and means on the budget, it was

The Budget-Mr. Abbott not intended in any way to deprive hon. members of the privilege they usually exercise to debate that motion. In order that they may not be deprived of that opportunity, I would ask leave of the house to move:
That the provisions of standing order 28 respecting the committee of ways and means be suspended for this day.
If the motion is adopted, the motion to go into committee of ways and means can be made as if this were an ordinary day, and can be debated in the usual manner.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved:: That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the special circumstances in which I am proposing this motion, hon. members will neither expect nor desire me to give as full or as complete a review of our economic and financial position as is customary in bringing down the annual budget. Although this is a new parliament, and more than one-third of our present members are new members, I am sure that almost all hon. members, old as well as new, are acquainted with the general trend of the exposition and with the broad lines of the proposals which I presented to the last session of the previous parliament. My task this evening, therefore, can properly be limited to three things.
First, bringing up to date the general analysis of our economic and financial position and prospects;
Second, giving the house certain revised statements and estimates of our revenues and expenditures; and
Third, re-introducing, with a few modifications, the tax changes which I proposed last March.



ECONOMIC REVIEW

[Stage Direction]
First, then, may I bring up to date the general economic review which I gave to the house nearly seven months ago. A great deal has happened in this period of time. Some trends that seemed obscure then have become clearer now, and some new developments have occurred. But taken as a whole the general assessment of the situation which I made last March has proved to be sound, and the changes in taxation which I proposed were in the right direction, and I think, about right in degree.
TMr. St. Laurent.]
In so far as the trend of events on the domestic side of our economy is concerned, I have no changes to suggest in the general conclusions I had reached. Production, employment and incomes are continuing at levels as high as or higher than those upon which my budget proposals were originally predicated. Prices and the cost of living have held well within the limits I forecast. Variations in the general level of wholesale prices and in the cost of living index have been of a fractional character. The latest figure for the wholesale price index is one per cent below a year ago, and for the cost of living index two per cent above a year ago. Average hourly earnings and average weekly earnings in industry are both up about seven per cent over a year ago. So far as one can see at the moment, the net effect of the recent world-wide realignment of currency rates does not require any significant revision in my estimate that the level of prices during the current fiscal year will not vary significantly from that of last year.
It is obviously more difficult to see further into the future. Our total exports, which is one of the basic supports of our economy, were higher during the most recent twelve months' period than in any other peacetime year in our history. Nevertheless, some declines in our overseas export markets have already occurred and some further declines can hardly be avoided. The government will do everything in its power to limit this decline in overseas trade but much will depend on the progress which our overseas customers make in overcoming their dollar difficulties.
The decrease in overseas exports has so far been more than offset by increased sales to other markets, particularly the United States. Any change in economic conditions in the United States will directly affect the level of our exports to that country. Any sharp downturn in American economic activity and in American willingness to import cannot but have sharp and embarrassing repercussions all over the world. Despite the decline in the rate of activity which took place in the earlier part of the year, United States production and incomes have been maintained at levels which have rarely been exceeded in the past. Furthermore, we must recognize the extent to which the United States has moved during the past decade toward adopting measures designed to moderate swings in economic activity. Nevertheless, we cannot afford to overlook the possibility of short run declines in the absorptive capacity of the American market.
It is with these possibilities in mind that the government is actively reviewing

measures to counteract any serious downturn that might develop in our export markets and in the level of economic activity at home. As hon. members know, we have already taken steps to give still greater encouragement to housing construction, and we are in the midst of discussions with the provinces regarding both the magnitude and the timing of extensive work on the trans-Canada highway. Other development projects are also under review, so that they may be undertaken at the most appropriate time. We have also been considering measures to deal with any special situations or difficulties which have already emerged or which may emerge even though general economic activity remains high.
Nevertheless, for the balance of this fiscal year, we continue to expect high levels of employment and income, and see no reason to change the financial and fiscal policies embarked upon earlier in the year.

[Stage Direction]
The most significant change in economic conditions since my budget speech last spring has been in the field of international trade and finance. Events have followed quickly upon one another and reached their climax one month ago with the announcement of the devaluation of the pound sterling by 3fi§ per cent in relation to the United States dollar. This action was followed closely by a widespread series of devaluations by other countries. The adjustments which have taken place during the past month constitute a realignment of currencies in relation to the United States dollar, which is greater, both in scope and degree, than anything that has ever taken place before. These far-reaching changes abroad created an entirely new situation for Canada. It was immediately necessary to consider the position of the Canadian dollar and on September 19 I announced to this house the decision of the government to reduce the parity of the Canadian dollar by what works out at 9-1 per cent.
I should like to review very briefly the developments which led up to these events. Hon. members will recall that the announcement of the United Kingdom reserve position early in July revealed that a sharp fall in the dollar receipts of the sterling area had taken place during the second quarter and was still in process. The consequent drain on the central gold and dollar reserves of the sterling area had reached alarming proportions, in spite of the assistance which was being received under the Marshall plan.
This serious deterioration in the dollar position of the sterling area was much more
The Budget-Mr. Abbott than an isolated problem of the United Kingdom. This was a critical development in the economic relations between North America and the whole sterling area. Consequently, it was immediately decided that the situation should be examined by representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada as well as by the members of the sterling area. The discussions held early in July between the secretary of the United States treasury, the United Kingdom chancellor of the exchequer and myself as Canadian minister of finance, were followed by a meeting of commonwealth ministers of finance.
At these talks consideration was given both to short-term measures for reducing the heavy immediate drain on the central sterling area reserves and to the lines along which the longer-term and more fundamental solutions should be sought. In order to reduce the immediate dollar outgo, the commonwealth members of the sterling area agreed to endeavour to limit their dollar ouying during the 1949-50 fiscal year to about 75 per cent of the 1948 rate. Canada, not being in the sterling area, of course took no part in reaching that decision. With regard to the longer-term and more positive approach, it was agreed that the objective for all of us must be the achievement of a pattern of world trade in which the dollar and non-dollar countries can live together within one single multilateral system-a system under which a balance will be achieved by the expansion and not the contraction of trade. As the Canadian representative, I was particularly anxious that this should be the common purpose.
It was not possible in the time available at the London talks to translate these aims into concrete measures. It was therefore agreed that this task should be resumed at tripartite economic discussions to be held in Washington in September. Hon. members are familiar with the results of the Washington meetings. I need only recall the highlights, and perhaps point to some of the significant features of what took place. I have already told hon. members about the excellent spirit of co-operation which prevailed, and about the deep realization on all sides of the importance of the issues which were at stake.
The discussions resulted in a number of specific arrangements that would help to reduce the immediate impact of the dollar deficiency, such as arrangements for ECA financing, stockpile purchases, and so forth. The main attention, however, was directed to the underlying causes of the dollar shortage and to a re-examination, by each of the three participants, of their policies in the
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Abbott light of these causes. It was necessary to endeavour to change the trend of events away from the repeated dollar crises which were threatening to divide the western world into two economic blocs. It was necessary to achieve an increasingly better balance in the trading relationships between the dollar and non-dollar countries instead of the widening gap with which we were being confronted. It was clear that the remedy was not to be found in the extension of further extraordinary financial assistance beyond that which was already being given under the Marshall plan and the Canadian loan. It was agreed that the solution must be sought primarily in a rapid and substantial increase in dollar earnings through an expansion of trade.
In the achievement of this necessary increase in dollar earnings, each side has an appropriate part to play. A common responsibility was clearly recognized in the Washington communique. The first essential, of course, was that the deficit countries should pursue policies and create incentives which would make it possible for them to expand greatly their sales to dollar areas. The dollar countries in turn would have to facilitate these efforts through the maintenance of conditions and the removal of barriers which would provide adequate opportunities in their markets. In particular, the surplus countries would have to refrain from measures which would frustrate the attempts of the deficit areas to earn their way.
I think hon. members will agree that this course of policy, charted at the Washington conference, is the guide which governments should seek to follow. We must not underestimate the magnitude of the problem. In the Washington talks it was understood that extraordinary aid from North America will come to an end in 1952. The deficit countries will have to overcome not only their present dollar drain, but over the next few years get themselves into a position where they can do without the assistance which they are now receiving.
The initial steps in the achievement of this task have been taken. The major devaluation undertaken by the United Kingdom, by virtually the whole sterling area and by many other countries, is an integral part of their determination to correct the disequilibrium in their trade by selling more to the dollar area. It gives their producers a new and greater incentive to sell in dollar markets. Where their prices were not competitive, it provides new scope to make them so. It is, of course, much too early to say what the full effects of the new situation will be.

All of us, the dollar countries and the nondollar countries, must do everything possible to enable these measures to achieve the result which is intended. On our part, we must be willing to receive the goods which our customers overseas should now be able to send to us. If we place restrictions in the way by increased tariffs or otherwise we shall defeat the purpose which, we all know, must be accomplished in our own interests.
It can be expected that a considerable part of the increased imports from the sterling area and western Europe will replace supplies which we have been buying from dollar sources. To this extent they will assist us in meeting our own dollar problem and help to bring our trade into better balance. It is possible that a part of the increased imports from overseas may result in greater competition with some of our domestic producers. Some adjustments may be necessary but this will be a small price to pay compared with the inevitable results which would flow from the inability of our customers to earn more dollars in our country. I do not need to remind hon. members how heavily the prosperity of our great primary industries, of agriculture, forestry, mining and fishing, are dependent upon adequate markets overseas. We must not expect that these markets will be maintained indefinitely through credits and gifts from this continent. Sooner or later our customers must be in the position where they are able to pay for what they buy from us, out of the proceeds of what they sell in dollar markets. We cannot afford to be shortsighted about a matter so vital to the welfare of every industry and every region of this country.
In this general problem of how to achieve a better balance in world trade, the position of Canada is of course not the same as that of the United States. We are a dollar country, but we have our own dollar problem. We are a member neither of the dollar area nor of the sterling area, though we are inextricably linked to both. We have a large trading surplus with the sterling area and western Europe and a large trading deficit with the United States. The United States has, as for many years in the past, a substantial export surplus with the rest of the world. In Canada we now have a very small margin of safety in our international accounts as a whole. Our imports from all sources, in the broad sense of that term, are today almost as large as our exports. This is the situation which we must constantly keep in mind. Our policies should work in the direction of attempting to achieve a relative

increase in our imports from non-dollar sources and an expansion of our exports to the United States. We should look to positive measures of this kind rather than to restrictive devices for the means to overcome our dollar difficulties and to achieve a better balance in our trade.
government accounts: 1948-49; 1949-50
When 1 brought down the budget in March, I gave to the house a series of statements showing revenues and expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1949, and estimates for the year ending March 31, 1950. The accounts for the past year-that is, the year ended March 31, 1949-have since been closed and we are now more than half way through the current fiscal year. I am therefore in a position to give to the house the final figures for 1948-49 and closer estimates of probable revenues and expenditures for the year 1949-50.
All details of our financial operations for the year ended March 31, 1949, are shown in the public accounts for that year, which are now in the hands of the king's printer and should be ready for tabling in the near future. The final figures of our revenues turned out to be $2,771 million or $3 million more than I estimated last March, and the final figures of expenditures were $2,176 million or $17 million less than I had estimated. Our surplus for last year was therefore $595 million, or $20 million greater than my earlier estimate.
For the convenience of hon. members and with their consent, I should like now to table and have printed as an appendix to today's Hansard the usual tables showing details of revenues and expenditures for the fiscal year 1948-49 and comparable figures for each of the four preceding fiscal years, together with the balance sheet as at March 31, 1949.
I turn now to operations of the current fiscal year ending March 31 next. Six months ago my forecast of revenues for this year was $2,800 million before taking account of any tax changes, and $2,477-5 million after taking into account the effect of the tax changes I then announced. Since that time the yields of several of our important sources of revenue have been somewhat more buoyant than I had expected and I would now be inclined to raise my revenue forecast moderately, say to $2,885 million before any tax changes and to $2,550 million after allowing for the tax changes announced in March.
The Budget-Mr. Abbott
But there have also been offsetting changes on the expenditure side of the account. Last March I estimated total expenditures for the year at $2,390 million. At that time I had to make a guess as to the probable amount of supplementary estimates which would be proposed at this session of parliament; we now know the exact total of those estimates, namely, $62 [DOT] 7 million, and we can also make a more accurate forecast of the probable total savings in the estimates of all branches of government. Moreover, we must now take into account the effect of two new developments. The first of these is the assumption by the government of Canada of the sterling debt (the 3 per cent guaranteed stock) of Newfoundland, in accordance with the terms of union, which became effective at the beginning of this fiscal year. This transaction has added $62-3 million to the net debt of Canada and for bookkeeping purposes has therefore to be treated as an expenditure in the current fiscal year. In the second place, there is the effect of the recent currency devaluations on our external liabilities as well as on our holdings of gold and our cash balances in New York and London. As hon. members are aware, it is our practice to value our sterling and United States dollar liabilities at the current official rates of exchange and the recent revaluations have been appropriately reflected in our accounts. In regard to our holdings of gold and United States dollars, we have taken into our own accounts only the profit resulting from revaluation of such assets held directly by the Minister of Finance and not the profit from those held on his behalf by the foreign exchange control board, which profit is reflected only in the exchange fund account, an account kept separate, as hon. members know, from the consolidated revenue fund. The net total of the various debits and credits which have passed through our premium, discount and exchange account as a result of the revaluation of liabilities and assets is a debit or expenditure of about $12 million.
Including these expenditures, which are in the nature of bookkeeping charges, along with the other probable expenditures of all government departments and agencies, and making due allowance for the inevitable savings in so large and varied a program, I would now estimate that our total expenditures for the year 1949-50 will be of the order of $2,460 million.
If these over-all estimates of revenues and expenditures prove accurate, our budgetary surplus for the year will amount to around
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Abbott $90 million. Even after taking into account certain additional tax changes which I shall propose, I believe that the budgetary surplus for the year will be fairly close to the $87 million which I forecast on March 22 last.
A budgetary surplus of this magnitude would mean, of course, a corresponding reduction in the net debt of Canada. That would bring the total reduction which we have been able to achieve in this and the preceding three fiscal years to about $1,730 million. Of this achievement we have every right to be proud but, on the other hand, we have no right to be complacent, as under the assumptions made the total net debt of Canada on March 31 next would still amount to about $11,690 million-surely no inconsiderable burden for a nation of thirteen and a half million people.
In the budget speech of last March I stated that it was particularly difficult this year to estimate the amount of the probable cash surplus. I believe that hon. members are now familiar with the distinction between this concept and the more common term "budgetary surplus", which is simply the excess of revenues over expenditures in the strict accounting sense. If we exclude the non-cash items from both revenues and expenditures, we find that cash revenues are likely to exceed cash expenditures not by $85 million but by about $250 million. To this we must add various receipts in pension and trust accounts and similar deferred liability accounts which are likely to run about $75 million, thus bringing total available cash funds to about $325 million, before taking account of the proceeds of any sales of government securities held temporarily in our securities investment account. Actually so far this year sales out of this account have amounted to $445 million.
A substantial part of our available cash resources is required, of course, to make loans, advances and investments which are authorized by legislation and which are carried on our books as active assets. We can make very rough and tentative estimates as to the probable amount of cash required for some of these outlays, including loans for housing, loans to veterans and farmers, loans to the Canadian National Railways and other crown corporations, and for the current fiscal year I now estimate that, after taking account of repayments in respect of loans or advances previously made, we will require a net additional outlay of about $165 million for these purposes. However, I would not like to make even a guess as to the amount of cash we shall have to find to finance our export sur-
[Stage Direction]

plus for the year-using the term "export surplus" in the broad sense as meaning our total surplus on international account. In this connection, we must of course finance the United Kingdom's current drawings of $10 million a month on its credit less repayments in respect of other export credits previously granted and we also have to provide cash to the foreign exchange control board to finance any addition to our gold and United States dollar reserves resulting from all our transactions on international account. It is only after taking care of all these extra-budgetary requirements that we have available cash to devote to the reduction of our outstanding debt.
In this connection I wish to refer very briefly to the notable record of financing for which this government has been responsible already this fiscal year.
In the United States market the government of Canada had a strikingly successful flotation in the latter part of August. To provide United States funds with which to redeem three called issues bearing our guarantee, two of the Canadian National Railways and one of the national harbours board, we offered $100 million of our 2f per cent bonds at a price of 100-25 to the public and the issue was immediately oversubscribed. To the best of my knowledge, this was the cheapest long-term borrowing ever done not merely by the government of Canada but by any foreign government in the United States market.
In the domestic market, aside from the normal refunding of various issues of shortterm securities, we have arranged for the redemption or refinancing of a very heavy volume of security issues which have either matured or been called for payment in order to take advantage of lower interest rates. On September 2 we redeemed out of cash $100 million deposit certificates held by the chartered banks. On October 1 we paid off from our cash resources $324-9 million of 3 per cent second war loan bonds due October 1, 1952, but called for payment at the earliest call date. On November 1 there will come due $267-8 million of 1J per cent eighth victory loan bonds and there have been called for payment on the same day $289-7 million of 4£ per cent conversion loan bonds due November 1, 1959. To provide cash in part to redeem these two issues totalling $557-5 million, the government has arranged for the sale to the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks of $300 million of 1J per cent three year bonds due November 1, 1952, at a price to yield 1 * 69 per cent. It should be realized

that this $300 million short-term issue replaces a substantially larger amount of the called and maturing issues previously held by the banking system and therefore represents a contraction rather than an expansion of bank financing. The remaining cash required to pay off the called and maturing securities will be provided from the treasury. Our depleted cash balances will be replenished in part from the proceeds of the fourth series of 2J per cent Canada savings bonds which went on sale on Monday. In this connection I wish again to pay my tribute to the splendid work which has been done both by voluntary and professional workers in promoting the sale of the various series of these bonds and again to appeal to hon. members and others to give their enthusiastic support to the present campaign. I am happy to say that our first reports indicate that sales through the payroll savings plan will be higher than in any previous campaign. This seems to confirm our belief that wage and salary earners as well as the general public welcome the continuing opportunity for systematic saving afforded by these offerings.
Apart from this fourth issue of Canada savings bonds, the government has decided not to make any general public offering of its securities during the present fiscal year.
To summarize the end result of these domestic financial operations, the government has during the last few months provided for the redemption of $982-4 million of its outstanding securities which had matured or were called for payment in order to take advantage of lower interest rates. To the extent of $682 [DOT] 4 million, it was able to do so out of its cash surplus and the proceeds of sales of securities out of the securities investment account, the account in which the government temporarily holds some of its own securities rather than holding larger cash balances.

[Stage Direction]
Our four preceding post-war budgets- those of 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948-were all brought down at times when shortages of commodities, materials and men were either acute or serious, and when the fundamental economic conditions called for anti-inflationary policies. The 1949 prospects were different. Production, employment and incomes were at very high levels-indeed, at record levels-but over most sectors of our economy production and demand had come into better balance and the post-war price inflation had passed its peak. The international economic position, while still difficult and full of uncertainties, had improved greatly, production in Europe and in other
The Budget-Mr. Abbott overseas areas had shown a gratifying improvement, and our own balance of payments position had shown a remarkable recovery from the low point of December, 1947. The principal area still affected by shortages and inflationary pressures was the field of capital construction and housing.
Under these conditions, it was appropriate that we should modify our fiscal policy by moderating its anti-inflationary aspects and aiming at a closer balance in over-all revenues and expenditures. On the expenditure side, in addition to practising the most careful economy and efficiency in all departments, it seemed wise for the immediate present to continue the policy of postponing wherever practicable all major construction work under our control, except in those few areas where some local unemployment was coming into evidence. On the revenue side, we could propose tax reductions which would bring revenues within a safe margin of total expenditures.
Having decided on a general policy of limiting expenditures and reducing taxes, our next question was where should the major tax reductions be concentrated. The supply of consumer goods had come pretty well into balance with even the very high level of consumer demand, but boom conditions and inflationary pressures still characterized the capital goods field. It therefore seemed appropriate to concentrate the tax reductions in the field of consumer incomes and consumer purchasing. At the same time we were anxious to initiate certain changes in the corporation tax field with a view to encouraging small businesses and reducing the element of double taxation that exists on corporate profits and personal incomes received in dividends with a view to stimulating equity financing.
These are the main considerations that were in our minds as we prepared the 1949 budget, and as I have already said, conditions have not altered sufficiently to warrant any significant changes in our tax proposals.
I can now summarize briefly the tax changes which I proposed last March, and which I am reintroducing this evening, together with a few additions and some revisions. In accordance with the traditional practice most of these changes became effective on the night of the budget, subject of course to later parliamentary approval.
First, as to the personal income tax, it was proposed that the personal exemptions, which have been $750 for single persons and $1,500 for married persons, be increased to $1,000 and $2,000 respectively; that the exemption
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Abbott in respect of children eligible for family allowance be increased from $100 to $150, and in respect of other dependents from $300 to $400; that the schedule of rates applicable to various levels of income be substantially lowered; and that the exemption from the extra tax on investment income be raised from $1,800 to $2,400. All these changes were to be effective from January 1, 1949.
There are, as the house will recall, a great many individual employees for whom tax deductions were made at the source by their employers during the first few months of this year but who now will have no income tax liability for 1949. It had been intended to expedite refunds to these individuals during the spring and early summer months. However, the dissolution of parliament before the budget legislation had been passed made it impossible to do so. Work, however, has gone ahead in preparing for the issuance of these refund cheques and they are now ready for mailing. They will be mailed just as soon as parliament approves the legislation.
Our only record of those persons entitled to refunds is their name and that of their employer. The cheques, therefore, will be made out in the name of the individual concerned but will be mailed to the employer through whom the deduction was made. Individuals affected, who have changed employers since last March, should therefore apply to their former employer for the refund cheques. Employers who find themselves unable to deliver these cheques to the proper persons will return them to their local district income tax offices and we shall then endeavour to locate the payees.
I repeat, however, that no cheques can be issued until after the legislation has been passed and employees should not apply to their employers until after that date.
In the second place, no changes were proposed in respect of succession duties, since the 1948 budget completely exempted all estates up to $50,000.
Thirdly, substantial changes were proposed in the corporation income tax. Instead of the former fiat rate of 30 per cent, it was proposed to make the rate 10 per cent on the first $10,000 of income and 33 per cent on all income in excess of $10,000. I had proposed also that individuals be granted a credit against their personal income tax equal to 10 per cent of the dividends they receive from common shares of Canadian taxpaying corporations. This proposal has received a great deal of constructive criticism in the press and I have had a considerable number of representations from a variety of sources, some asking for clarification and others

pointing out practical difficulties in the proposal as it stood or making constructive suggestions. As a result of these representations and public discussion, I am prepared to modify the application of my proposal by extending the 10 per cent tax credit to include dividends from all classes of shares, both common and preferred.
This change will remove a great many technical difficulties and anomalies which would have arisen in attempting to administer my original proposal of limiting the tax credit solely to shares "having no preference of any kind". It recognizes the fact that it is extremely difficult, if not indeed logically impossible, to determine where the burden of double taxation finally rests under a good many complicated capital structures used in modern corporate financing. Finally, it is calculated to accomplish the real objective which I was seeking of encouraging equity investment and thereby lessening the incentive to finance corporate enterprise by undue reliance on borrowed capital.
I might add that while it is difficult to measure precisely the loss of revenue resulting from this modification, I believe that it will not exceed $1 million a year.
It was also proposed to extend the present three-year period for the carrying forward of losses to a five-year period. There were in addition proposals respecting depreciation allowances, respecting expenditures on oil, mineral and gas exploration, and respecting a number of other minor or technical matters. All these changes were to be effective from January 1, 1949. I understand from my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, that drafting of the regulation providing for the new depreciation allowances is practically completed and that it will be promulgated as soon as the bill to amend the Income Tax Act has been passed.
Fourthly, no further changes were proposed in the customs tariff. I informed the house last March that new trade and tariff negotiations were to be started in April with a number of countries at Annecy. The results of these negotiations were officially announced last week, and the new rates of duty will be put into effect by order in council in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Customs Tariff Act. Their effective date will be January 1, 1950, or as soon after that date as the other countries concerned are able to take reciprocal action.
In my budget address of last March I said that it was the policy of the government to seek another trade agreement with the United States, similar to those entered into in the past, in which we would attempt to secure a further reduction in trade barriers between

our two countries. The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act has now been renewed by the United States congress. In commenting with approval on this action by the congress, President Truman made these remarks respecting the policy of his government:
From the long range standpoint it is clear that only by a large expansion of our purchases of foreign goods will the needed readjustment in international economic relations be possible, on a basis consistent with a liberal world trading system and the richer world it offers.
We must reduce our own barriers, wherever possible, to permit our people the freest access to the foreign goods they may want to buy. The maintenance and the enlargement of our export markets are impossible without a substantial expansion of our imports.
This leadership given by the President of the United States in the task of removing barriers to world trade is most encouraging.
Plans are now under way as the house is aware for another set of multilateral trade negotiations during the course of next year, under the procedures established in the general agreement on tariffs and trade. At that time we shall seek to negotiate further tariff reductions with the United States and with the other signatories of the Geneva agreements.
Finally, in my budget proposals of last March extensive revisions, reductions and removals of taxes were proposed in the field of commodity taxes. These included the complete repeal of the special taxes on soft drinks, candy, chewing gum, transportation tickets and telephone, telegram and cable charges. Special taxes on jewelry, watches, cosmetics, luggage, cigarette lighters and sundry smokers' supplies were to be reduced from the former rates of 25 per cent or 35 per cent to a straight 10 per cent. The structure of the tax on matches was to be recast and reduced. These changes in commodity taxes were to be effective as from March 23, 1949, and since that date collections have been on the reduced basis.
In addition to these commodity tax reductions, I have two new proposals to make. I propose that, effective midnight tonight, the sales tax be removed on all fuel oils, that is, on all petroleum-based oils used for heating or lighting in homes or in industry, but not including fuels used in internal combustion engines. There is at present no sales tax on coal, coke, wood, gas or electricity, and there has been some element of discrimination in keeping it on these fuel oils both for domestic and industrial use. The removal of this tax on fuel oils will reduce costs of production and remove the element of discrimination in those industries, particularly certain sections of the pulp and paper and steel industries,
The Budget-Mr. Abbott where fuel oil rather than coal is the principal fuel used. It should serve as well to enlarge the market for oil producers in western Canada who are now reaching the position where current output exceeds their present marketing facilities. It should also largely offset the recent price increases arising out of the premium on the United States dollar. For all these reasons I think it appropriate to make this change at this time. Our loss in revenue from this tax change will be about $10 million in a full year and about $4 million in the balance of this fiscal year.
I have one other minor change to suggest which I am making now as it may be of assistance in enabling the apple industry to dispose of an additional quantity of apples. The proposal is that the present tax on cider and other wines containing less than 7 per cent of proof spirits be reduced by one-half, that is, from 50 cents a gallon to 25 cents a gallon. The loss of revenue, if any, which we will forgo as a result, will be very small.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that at an earlier point in my remarks I estimated that had no changes been made in the tax structure we had in effect last year, our total revenues for the current fiscal year would probably amount to about $2,885 million. Our revised estimates of the loss of revenue occasioned by the tax changes I proposed last March indicate a total reduction of about $376 million in a full year and of about $335 million in the current fiscal year. The additional tax changes which I have proposed this evening are expected to cause a further revenue reduction of about $11 million in a full year and about $5 million in the current fiscal year. However, as I said a few minutes ago, even after taking jnto account the effect of the additional tax changes I have just announced, total revenues for the current year are likely to be maintained at a figure which, after deducting the total expenditures I have estimated, will produce a budgetary surplus very close to the $87 million which I forecast last March.
With the consent of the house, I now wish to place on Hansard a table showing our forecast of probable revenues from each major source before taking account of any tax changes, the probable loss of revenue caused by the major tax changes, and the resultant probable revenues for the year 1949-50.
Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister the consent of the house to table the statement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The Budget-Mr. Abbott Mr. Abbott: The statement follows:
Revised Forecast of Revenue for Fiscal Year 1949-50 Taking Account of Proposed Tax Changes
Customs Import Duties ..
Excise duties	
Sales tax (net)	
Other excise taxes	
Personal income tax	
Corporation income tax ..
Interest and dividends ___
Succession duties	
Miscellaneous taxes	
Total tax revenue ____
Non-tax revenue	
Total ordinary revenue
Special receipts	
Total revenue ....
Reduction in revenue in fiscal year 1949-50
Forecast of revenue before tax changes $ 235,000,000 215.000.	000 410.000.	000 260.000.	000 855.000.	000 580.000.	000 48.000.	000 26.000.	000 4,000,000	resulting from budget proposals $ 4,000,000 92,000,000 252,000,000 8,000,000	Revised forec of revenue: 1949-50 $ 235,000,000 215.000.	000 406.000.	000 168.000.	000 603.000.	000 588.000.	000 48.000.	000 26.000.	000 4,000,0002,633,000,000	340,000,000	2,293,000,000202,000,000	202,000,0002,835,000,000	340,000,000	2,495,000,00050,000,000	50,000,0002,885,000,000	340,000,000	2,545,000,000
There is little that I need add, Mr. Speaker, by way of conclusion. The budget resolutions which I am now tabling differ only slightly from those which I tabled last March. They represent, both as to general policy and as to practical substance, a program which seems to have commended itself to all sections of the country-a program upon which the people of Canada, after careful reflection, have already placed the overwhelming stamp of their approval.
I beg leave to table the resolutions:



THE EXCISE TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
Resolved that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act and to provide:
1.	That the following excise taxes be repealed, namely, the excise taxes on:
(a)	soft drinks;
(b)	chocolate, candy, and confectionery;
(c)	chewing gum;
(d)	cable, telegraph, and telephone messages, and on telephone extensions;
(e)	transportation tickets or rights of transportation, and on seats, berths, or other sleeping accommodation;
(f)	motor buses; and
(g)	carbonic acid gas.
2.	That the retail purchase tax be repealed and replaced by an excise tax of 10 per cent, payable by the manufacturer or importer, on all articles now subject to the retail purchase tax.
3.	That the following excise taxes be reduced from 35 per cent to 10 per cent, namely, the excise taxes on:
(a)	trunks, suitcases, bags, and luggage of all kinds;
(b)	ash trays, tobacco pipes, and smokers' accessories; and
(c)	fountain pens, propelling pencils, and desk accessories.
fMr. Speaker.]
4.	That the following excise taxes be reduced from 25 per cent to 10 per cent, namely, the excise taxes on:
(a)	toilet articles;
(b)	devices commonly or commercially known as lighters; and
(c)	coin, disc, or token operated machines and vending machines.
5.	That the sales tax on the following articles be repealed; lactose; malt syrup except when sold for beverage purposes; diesel powered self-propelled trucks, mounted on rubber tired wheels, for off highway use exclusively at mines and quarries, and complete parts thereof.
6.	That the rates of excise tax on matches be amended from the present specific proportionate rate of tax on each package, to an ad valorem tax of 10 per cent.
7.	That the present specific tax of 5c per pound on tires and tubes be amended to an ad valorem tax of 10 per cent.
8.	That the sales tax on the following articles be repealed: liquid fuel for lighting or heating, but not including fuel when for use in internal combustion engines; crude oil to be used for the production of fuel.
9.	That the excise tax on wines containing not more than 7 per cent of proof spirit be reduced from 50 cents per gallon to 25 cents per gallon.
10.	That paragraphs 1 to 7 shall have effect on and after March 23, 1949, and paragraphs 8 and 9 shall have effect on and after October 21, 1949.

[Stage Direction]
Resolved that it is expedient to amend the Income War Tax Act and the Income Tax Act and to provide, amongst other things:
1.	That, for the 1949 and subsequent taxation years, the following shall be the exemptions from individual income tax:
(a) $2,000 in the case of a married person and persons allowed a deduction equivalent to that of a married person and $1,000 in the case of all other persons; and

(b) $400 in the case of dependents not eligible for family allowances, $150 in the case of children eligible for family allowances.
2.	That, for the 1949 and subsequent taxation years, the schedule of graduated rates for individual income tax be replaced by the following schedule:
On the first $1,000 of income or any portion thereof, 15 per cent per annum; or $150 upon the income of $1,000; and 17 per cent upon the amount by which the income exceeds $1,000 and does not exceed $2,000; or
$320 upon the income of $2,000; and 19 per cent upon the amount by which the income exceeds $2,000 and does not exceed $4,000; or $700 upon the income of $4,000; and 22 per cent upon the amount by which the income exceeds $4,000 and does not exceed $6,000; or
$1,140 upon the income of $6,000; and 26 per cent upon the amount by which the income exceeds $6,000 and does not exceed $8,000; or $1,660 upon the income of $8,000; and 30 per cent upon the amount by which the income exceeds $8,000 and does not exceed $10,000; or $2,260 upon the income of $10,000; and 35 per cent upon the amount by which the income exceeds $10,000 and does not exceed $12,000; or
$2,960 upon the income of $12,000; and 40 per cent upon the amount by which the income exceeds $12,000 and does not exceed $15,000; or $4,160 upon the income of $15,000; and 45 per cent upon the amount by which the income exceeds $15,000 and does not exceed $25,000; or
$8,660 upon the income of $25,000; and 50 per cent upon the amount by which the income exceeds $25,000 and does not exceed $40,000; or $16,160 upon the income of $40,000; and 55 per cent upon the amount by which the income exceeds $40,000 and does not exceed $60,000; or
$27,160 upon the income of $60,000; and 60 per cent upon the amount by which the income exceeds $60,000 and does not exceed $90,000; or $45,160 upon the income of $90,000; and 65 per cent upon the amount by which the income exceeds $90,000 and does not exceed $125,000; or
$67,910 upon the income of $125,000; and 70 per cent upon the amount by which the income exceeds $125,000 and does not exceed $225,000; or $137,910 upon the income of $225,000; and 75 per cent upon the amount by which the income exceeds $225,000 and does not exceed $400,000; or $269,160 upon the income of $400,000; and 80 per cent upon the amount by which the income exceeds $400,000.
3.	That, for the 1949 and subsequent taxation years, there may be deducted from tax payable by an individual resident in Canada 10 per cent of the amount of his income that is from dividends on shares in a corporation resident in Canada that was liable to corporation tax in the taxation year: Provided that in the case of dividends deemed to have been received from a personal corporation the deduction shall only be 10 per cent of that part of the income deemed to have been received by the shareholder as a dividend that the income of the corporation derived from dividends is of the whole income of the corporation.
4.	That, with respect to income of corporations earned on and after January 1, 1949, the present rate of tax of 30 per cent shall be reduced to 10 per cent on the first $10,000 of income and increased to 33 per cent on income in excess of $10,000 with corresponding changes in the rates in the case of consolidations.
5.	That interest on unpaid taxes on incomes of the 1948 and subsequent taxation years for which no assessments have been issued will cease to accrue twelve months after the date for filjng the return in place of twenty months.
The Budget-Mr. Abbott
6.	That, for the 1949 and subsequent taxation years, the business losses that may be deducted from income shall include losses sustained in the five years preceding and the year following the taxation year in the place of the three years preceding and the year following the taxation year.
7.	That, for the purpose of computing income of the 1948 and subsequent taxation years of a member of the clergy or of a religious order or a regular minister of a religious denomination there may be deducted the value of the residence or other living accommodation enjoyed by him as such member or minister to the extent that it would otherwise be included in his income or the rent paid by him for or the fair rental value of such a residence or living accommodation.
8. That, for the 1949 and subsequent taxation years, the exemption from income of an individual in respect of a spouse supported by him shall not be reduced because of exempt income of the spouse.
9. That, for the 1949 and subsequent taxation years, all amounts whether in the form of lump sums or otherwise, received by employees from their employers, whether before, during or after their employment, shall be included in computing income of the employee unless it is established that they cannot reasonably be regarded as consideration for entry into the employment, remuneration for services or consideration for restrictions on the activities of the employee.
10.	That, for the 1949 and subsequent taxation years, payments made for a wheel chair may be included in the medical expenses for which a deduction from income may be made for the purpose of computing taxable income.
11.	That, for the 1949 and subsequent taxation years, $500 may be deducted from income for the purpose of computing taxable income of a taxpayer who, throughout the whole of the taxation year, was necessarily confined by reason of illness, injury or affliction to a bed or wheel chair.
12.	That special deductions from income to taxpayers engaged in exploring or drilling for natural gas, oil or minerals be allowed for expenses incurred in the 1950, 1951 and 1952 operations on the same basis as for expenses in 1949 operations.
13.	That special deductions from taxes to taxpayers engaged in exploring or drilling for oil for expenses incurred on deep-test oil wells be allowed for such expenses in 1950 operations on the same basis as for such expenses in 1949 operations.
14.	That the provision for the exemption of income derived from a metalliferous or industrial mineral mine that came into production during the calendar years 1946 to 1949 inclusive during the period of thirty-six months after the mine came into production be extended to exempt income from such mines that come into production during the calendar years 1950, 1951 and 1952.
15.	That tax concessions under Statutes of Newfoundland shall not apply in respect of taxes imposed by any act of the parliament of Canada.
(For details of the budget, see appendix, pages 997 to 1009.)
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: It is
not my intention to follow the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) at any length tonight. I do not think anyone can fail to appreciate his genial, pleasant and satisfied style. I always find it pleasant to listen to him whether I agree with him or not. In fact, I find it pleasant to overlook the things he does not say as well as to listen to the things he does say.

British North America Act
It is a unique experience in my many years in this house to hear the same budget presented twice in the same year. The Minister of Finance presented his budget last spring in a most fluent, pleasant, jovial and happy style.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The same government too.


William Earl Rowe: As an hon. member says, the government was the same as it is tonight.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The people thought they should come back.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member is lucky to be back. As I say, it is a unique experience. After hearing the rehearsal tonight I think the eloquence of the genial minister has improved with practice, as might be expected. But in view of the alarming changes in international trade relations and world currencies during the past summer I am sure the house is somewhat disappointed to find the government presenting the same old plans that were presented last spring.
Through the courtesy of the Minister of Finance I have had a copy of this important document. It is important because we all contribute to it more or less. Even we farmers contribute to it. I feel it would be lacking in respect to my genial friend, the Minister of Finance, and a denial of my responsibilities on this occasion, if I spoke impromptu, without careful consideration of the minister's presentation. I always sleep well, but tonight I shall spend a few hours studying the budget in an effort to discover some of its strong points, which I cannot see in it tonight. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for an address to His Majesty the King praying that a measure be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom to amend the British North America Act, 1867, relating to the amendment of the constitution of Canada, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Knowles, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Garson.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: With the consent of the hon. member who is to resume his remarks and of the other hon. members of the house I should like to state that my attention has been called to the fact that in moving an amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I referred to certain lines as the
'Mr. Rowe.]

fourth and fifth lines and the seventh and eighth lines. Those references were to lines in the typewritten copy which I had received of the hon. member's amendment, but it will be printed in much smaller type in Votes and Proceedings. I should like to ask the consent of the house to authorize the clerk to make the wording conform with what is in Votes and Proceedings. If it is the pleasure of the house to have that done perhaps the Clerk would see that it is corrected.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, when we took recess at six o'clock I was attempting to draw the attention of the house to many weaknesses in the arguments of those who are opposing the resolution moved by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I should like to remind hon. members that in discussing this suggested method to permit Canada to change its constitution there are really three propositions before us. The original motion of the Prime Minister merely suggests that we should have the right to amend our constitution in some particulars. In the original motion he did not suggest that the constitution should be amended in all particulars. There were certain reservations in connection with education, minority rights and the use of the two languages in this country.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggested an amendment that would place another reservation upon those matters on which we might constitutionally legislate in this country. He suggested that a proviso be added that this parliament should not be placed in a position where it might perpetuate itself merely by a majority vote in this house. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) now suggests a subamendment adding still another reservation. In addition to what has been suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the Prime Minister would add that parliament should have the right to extend its life in the event of war, rumours of war, and so on.
When we come to vote on this matter I believe we should keep these things in mind. Earlier in the discussion I said that perhaps there was no need for an amendment to the original motion. On further consideration I think perhaps the steps now proposed in the subamendment and the amendment are necessary, so we may understand that we are not taking unto ourselves the right to amend the constitution as a whole but that there are certain reservations. If it is considered advisable to deal with those matters by legislation, it will still be necessary for us to go to the United Kingdom parliament for that authority.

Earlier in the debate I pointed out that amending the constitution without consulting the provinces is nothing new. The constitution has been amended eleven times, and on only three occasions were the provinces consulted before those amendments were made. On one occasion of the eleven an amendment was made after only four provinces had been consulted. On another occasion British Columbia dissented; nevertheless the amendment was made. I suggested that nothing was upset as a result, that Canada went along and none of the provinces pulled out of confederation. The argument now put forward that the provinces should be consulted first falls flat, I think, in view of the reservations made in the amendment and subamendment as to certain things which may not be done in regard to the constitution.
I also pointed out that there was a mandate to amend the constitution from a dominion-provincial conference held in 1935, and I put on record the suggestions made at that time. I am not going to waste time in repeating them. Many hon. members have advanced legal and technical arguments in this debate, and have suggested that there is no hurry. Well, certainly there has been no hurry up to the present; this has been unfinished business since 1935. As I said earlier, I compliment the Prime Minister on giving us action now, and I think this is the time to take this step, at the opening of this parliament. We have more than 260 members here, most of whom will be here for the next four years. Any amendments to the constitution that have to be made probably will be made during that period, so the members who are deciding this question of constitutional change now will be here to see that any changes are made in the right way.
I do not think any province has anything to fear. Quebec is strongly represented in this parliament, with some 67 members. Knowing most of them as I do, I believe Mr. Duplessis may rest assured that if there is any interference with the rights of his province he will have 67 vocal and explosive members here who will see that those rights are protected. As far as Nova Scotia is concerned, our premier also takes the stand that he wants to be consulted. Well, he was a member of the federal cabinet here all during the war, and I think he is pretty well acquainted with many members of this house, particularly the members of the government. He has been a member of the Liberal party all his life, but he does not appear to trust them very much. He wants to hang on to his jurisdiction. He wants a dominion-provincial conference first. Well, it was not so long ago that he attended a dominion-provincial conference in this city, and if my recollection
British North America Act serves me right at that time the dominion made some very good proposals to the provinces. But the premier of Nova Scotia was one of those who joined with the premiers of Ontario and Quebec in blocking that conference, and I believe they did the people of Canada a great disservice. I think we lost a great deal, particularly in the over-all health program for this country which was to cost the federal government some $200 million. If the premier of Nova Scotia wants another dominion-provincial conference now so that he may veto what the federal government may have in mind with respect to amending our constitution in this country, as far as I am concerned he can stay at home.
I do not see what he wants to hang on to. Sometimes it amazes me when I hear them talk about dominion or provincial rights. What rights? As far as Nova Scotia is concerned, they have had their rights since confederation. What have they done with them? In the province from which I come they leased the birthright of the people of that province to corporations for ninety-nine years. They sold them out. Since confederation some two hundred industries have been siphoned off from Nova Scotia and moved to central Canada; and those who talk most about provincial rights presided over that liquidation of their own province. I want to get clear of all that kind of thing. I want to see Canada welded into a nation, and I want to see the stumbling blocks of the past removed. The powers most of the provinces have had since confederation have militated against the best interests of the people in those provinces. For example, for many years as a member of the trade union movement I spoke in halls and write resolutions which were sent to provincial and dominion governments on the question of an unemployment insurance act. For years we were denied such legislation because the federal government did not have the authority and provincial governments would not agree to it. Then when war broke out the Prime Minister took the bit in his teeth and put that legislation on the statute books; but it was held back for many years because of this question of jurisdiction. Again, under existing conditions it is impossible to establish an over-all health plan in this country, though I am sure every member of this house and ninety per cent of the people of Canada agree that this is absolutely necessary. The provincial governments have the authority but they do not have the finances to look after the health of the people. The federal government has the means but does not have the authority. Under the legislation now proposed by the Prime Minister the responsibility will become ours of changing the constitution to make the national government
984	HOUSE OF
British North America Act supreme in that field, so I think it is up to us to go ahead with it whether the premier of Quebec or the premier of Nova Scotia or any other individual in this country agrees with it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Does the resolution do that?


Clarence Gillis: I think it does. It will be up to us if we take to ourselves the right to amend the constitution in this country.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Will the Prime Minister agree with that?


Clarence Gillis: I don't know, but I am selling him ideas, and I hope he accepts them. Then again, there is a matter of a national labour code. Many of the members in this house who were here during the war went through the strikes after the war, and watched the industrial relations committee in action. Those members will also remember our attempts to hammer out a national labour code in this country, something that is absolutely necessary in order to secure uniformity of labour legislation across the country. Every time a member started to talk about a national code, one of our legal friends started waving the British North America Act. We were told we could not do that because section so-and-so of the British North America Act prohibits it. We were told we had to go over to the old country to get it amended. All right, now is the time to change it.
There is a national labour code, so-called, in existence. It is not a national labour code at all because it only embraces a very few industries that fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government. It is still not national. I want this parliament to have the right to change the constitution to enable us to establish a national labour code in this country which will empower the government to fix minimum wages and vacations with pay. No restrictions would be placed on the provinces if they wanted to raise those mini-mums. I believe, however, there should be a national minimum wage rate applicable all across Canada.
I should like to ask my friends from Quebec this question, and through them Mr. Duplessis, who so strongly guards the rights of the provinces. How much did he respect the rights of his municipalities in events which occurred not so long ago?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Clarence Gillis: I remember when the asbestos workers, who were working for very low wages and who were in a union known as the Catholic Syndicate-which could not be con-


sidered radical or communistic by any stretch of the imagination-used every piece of machinery Duplessis made available in order to settle the dispute. In the final analysis they were forced to take a stand to settle that dispute. Did Mr. Duplessis respect the rights of the municipalities when he sent in his police to smash the strike without any solicitation from the municipalities? He invaded their rights, smashed things up, and was not very particular at that time about democracy or conferences with the municipalities before he usurped their privileges.
I am afraid that Mr. Duplessis and those who oppose the steps now being taken by the federal government merely wish to retain a veto. It is not a matter of sitting down and reasoning out some methods for changing our constitution; it is a matter of retaining the machinery so that one province in this country can veto anything that means progress and advancement for the people.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What province is that?


Clarence Gillis: It could be Alberta.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You know quite well it could not be that province.


Clarence Gillis: I do not know, but I will let you know after I hear my hon. friends on my left speak.
I just wish to say this, Mr. Speaker, that in these matters we cannot continue to think in terms of the past. So far as I am concerned, I believe we have reached the end of an age. We have closed the old book and are starting to write a new one. Society is developing new mechanics. I should like to remind those who argue that we should continue to go to the parliament of the United Kingdom for amendments to our constitution, and to retain the privy council as the final court of appeal, that the country to which we are still clinging on that basis has gone through a revolution and is going through a revolution. Canada today has to begin thinking in terms of the future and close the book on the past. The past offers us no guide for what is going to take place in the future in this world.
Great Britain no longer represents what it represented in 1867. Drastic changes have been made and will continue to be made in that country. It is time Canadians began to think for themselves in terms of building a nation and working out our own destiny in this world. There is no going back. We will either have to go forward or become stagnant and fall into disrepute in the eyes of the world. When I pick up a newspaper and see that the Canadian delegates at the United Nations are not in a position to vote on a

certain question because the federal government has not authority to legislate on that matter, I feel it must be very embarrassing to those delegates.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my time has nearly expired but I should like to leave this thought with the members of the house. So far as this group is concerned, it is not a matter of politics. On many occasions, we are accused of supporting the government. It is immaterial to us who proposes the legislation. If our group believes it is a step in the right direction, we will support the proposal. The measure may not go as far as we want to go, but if it is a step in the right direction, no matter who proposes it, we will support it. I believe the step the Prime Minister is now taking is a step that should have been taken back in 1935. It is unfinished business since that time. I complimented the Prime Minister on his courage in bringing this measure forward at this time so early in this session. The members who are debating the question will be able to carefully scrutinize what changes may be made.
In 1935 the dominion-provincial conference recommended this change. It is unfinished business since that time. I do not believe either Quebec or Nova Scotia, or any of the provinces who are sceptical about it, have anything to fear. I have been looking over the members of this house for the past month and I believe they compare favourably with the members of any house since I had the privilege of coming to Ottawa. Most of them are young and vocal. They have no inferiority complex; they are prepared to debate issues and have been debating them. I believe that with the sort of parliament we have now we should have no fear of accepting the responsibility of regulating the future of this country.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have all listened with much pleasure to the address by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. He takes part in a good many of the debates in this house and always adds something to them. At the outset of his remarks, I was interested in hearing him take the Prime Minister on what might be termed a Cook's tour up the side of a high mountain and leave him at the top of that mountain. I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that the top of a mountain is a rather cold and slippery place, and even with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) as his guide I am sure the Prime Minister would have to watch his step.
The hon. member also spoke about the humiliation which certain of our representatives feel when they attend the United Nations conventions because of their inability to carry
British North America Act out certain ideas which are within the jurisdiction of the provinces. It is that very thing, Mr. Speaker, to which the provinces are objecting. The hon. member seemed to indicate that he was willing for the provinces to lose some jurisdiction they now have, without being consulted as to why it should be taken from them. In closing his remarks, the hon. member also said that we are no longer going to Great Britain to have our constitution amended. During the course of this debate I have not heard one speaker advocate going to Great Britain to have our constitution amended. I am sure there is no member in this party who has advocated that our constitution should not be amended by the representatives of our own people. But what we are asking is that the whole constitution be amended at the one time. What we object to is its being amended piecemeal, as the resolution of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) would suggest. Unless it is amended as has been suggested by our leader I am satisfied that, as he has clearly pointed out, we shall have to do the very thing that the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) objects to.
It is not my intention to prolong this debate to any great extent; but coming as I do from New Brunswick, which was one of the pillars of confederation, I felt that I should say a few words in this debate, particularly as no one from my province has already spoken.
At the present time New Brunswick does not constitute as important a part of this dominion as we did in 1867. At that time, together with the province of Nova Scotia and the province of Canada, as it was called, we were the pillars or the basis of the confederation of Canada. We were therefore quite important then. Today we are not so important. Quite a number of changes in our constitution have taken place since those early days, but most of them have not worked out to the benefit of my province nor to the benefit of the other two maritime provinces, or perhaps I should say the other three maritime provinces as there are today.
In his remarks this afternoon the Prime Minister said-and it has been repeated by some other members-that the people of the dominion knew well that constitutional changes would be brought before this house at this session. I remember that, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister spoke rather casually of this matter in the city of Moncton in my own province. But I want to say that, outside of the Prime Minister himself, I never heard any of the candidates on any side mention constitutional issues during the election campaign. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister himself tried to impress upon the people of Canada the idea that there

British North America Act were no issues; he said there were no issues in this campaign. The issues which we heard most of during the campaign were the family allowances and the old age pensions. Those were the issues in my own constituency; they were the issues all over my province, as they were in most parts of Canada. Instead of being told that their constitution was to be changed, the people were told that if they did not vote for the Liberal government they were going to lose their baby bonuses and their old age pensions. Those were the chief issues during the campaign, Mr. Speaker.
As I say, I think there is arising in this dominion at the present time an interest over this matter which was not manifested at all during the election campaign. I was rather disappointed at the response of the premier of New Brunswick, Mr. McNair, when he replied to the Prime Minister's letter with regard to the resolution and with regard to the calling together of the various provincial premiers. The Prime Minister's letter was sent out on September 14. The premier of New Brunswick replied to it on September 16. He said:
I am this day in receipt of your letter of September fourteenth which has reference to-
And so on; he mentions this matter of the constitutional changes. My point is this. Instead of giving any consideration to this matter, the premier of New Brunswick simply acknowledged the Prime Minister's letter. He did not even call together his cabinet, as was done by the premiers in most other provinces of the dominion.
Reading the letters, I gather that the only other premier of a province who did not call together his cabinet was the premier of Prince Edward Island, who wrote a three-line letter in acknowledgment of the Prime Minister's. He said that if and when that conference was held, he and his cabinet would be pleased to attend.
The premier of Newfoundland took some time to reply. His letter is dated October 4, and in it he indicates that he had brought the matter fully before his government. Then the premier of Nova Scotia, Hon. Angus L. Macdonald, who has just received some attention from the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), replied on September 27. He also took the matter up with his colleagues. Despite what the hon. member for Cape Breton South has said this evening, I think that the premier of Nova Scotia reflects the feeling of the people of the three maritime provinces. He said:
There is, I believe, considerable support for the view that the abolition of appeals to the privy council is in effect an amendment of the constitution and that, therefore, it is a question which should be the subject of discussion at the dominion-provincial conference which you suggest.
TMr. Brooks.]
I believe that paragraph expresses the opinion which is quite generally held by the people of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
I will not quote further from the letters of the premiers of the various provinces, but the point I wish to make is this. They all took time to consider the letter which was written by the Prime Minister of Canada, except the premier of Prince Edward Island and the premier of New Brunswick. In their replies they also gave considerable attention to the subject matter. But if the premier of our province has not given much attention to this matter, I feel that the people of the province today are giving considerable attention to it. I base my opinion on a report in the Saint John Telegraph-Journal of Monday, October 17. This is an article written by Dr. A. P. Paterson, former New Brunswick minister of education and federal and municipal relations. He was a minister in the Liberal government in the province of New Brunswick. The heading of this article written by Dr. Paterson is as follows:
An Appeal to the People of New Brunswick, in all Walks of Life, to Protect Their Rights and Interest from Misuse of Authority by the Government and Parliament of Canada.
That is a strong heading, Mr. Speaker.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: He is a man of strong views.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: As the Prime Minister has said, he is a man of strong views; but he is also a man who has spent most of his life in discussing and studying constitutional matters. I do not know that everybody agrees with him; but then, everyone does not agree with the Prime Minister. Dr. Paterson, however, is a man whose views, I think, are held in quite high esteem by a good many people. In this article Dr. Paterson says:
In the face of Ottawa's speech from the throne, if at any time since New Brunswick was established as a province, we, the people of New Brunswick, needed competent leaders in all walks of life to protect our rights and interests we need them now.
I should like to quote further from Dr. Paterson. In speaking about confederation he had this to say:
The legislatures of the original provinces created the original Dominion of Canada and only the legislature of New Brunswick has the power to agree to amendments of Canada's constitution lawfully so far as this province is concerned. All the authority delegated to the government and parliament of Canada by the provinces, for particular objects, is defined in written documents and Canada's constitution is something sacred not something to be changed or amended by a group of political leaders, except by following the procedure by which it was created.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that at the time of confederation the province of New Brunswick was a sovereign state. When

speaking the other day an hon. member said that the provinces were not sovereign states. New Brunswick was never a colony. It was made a province in 1791. In discussing confederation they discussed the problems with Nova Scotia, which was also a sovereign body, and with the province of Canada, which at that time was made up of upper and lower Canada under the Union Act, and afterwards it became the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
We had such men as Sir Leonard Tilley from New Brunswick, Sir Charles Tupper from Nova Scotia and also Joseph Howe who, as hon. members know, was opposed to confederation. These are some of the very able and outstanding men whom we had in the maritime provinces discussing this matter. I would also point out that in both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick there was a very strong feeling against confederation. These provinces came in not because there was a great feeling in the provinces that we should join with the rest of Canada, but because Sir John A. Macdonald, and other statesmen from what was known as upper Canada at that time, visited the maritime provinces and begged that New Brunswick and Nova Scotia become a part of confederation. I doubt very much whether Canada would ever have become the great country she is today had New Brunswick and Nova Scotia refused to enter confederation at that time. I point out these things, sir, simply to show the importance of our two provinces at the time of the confederation pact.
Since that time New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have lost in importance, but there are two matters that are important to us in these provinces today. One is the matter of taxation, and the other is the matter of representation. So far as representation is concerned, we wish to be assured that we who in the past have lost so many members to the rest of Canada will not lose our representation in the future. That is one of the main points so far as our provinces are concerned. At the time of confederation New Brunswick had a population of around 250,000 people. At that time she was given a representation of fifteen members. Nova Scotia had a population of over 400,000 people. She was given a representation of nineteen members. Today, after all these years, when our population has increased from 250,000 to almost 500,000, instead of fifteen members we have ten. Nova Scotia instead of having nineteen members has thirteen. That is one of the main reasons why we in these little provinces are jealous and afraid of any tampering with the constitution.
Sections 21 and 22 of the British North America Act deal with the composition of the
British North America Act Senate. The representation in the House of Commons is covered by sections 51, 51A and 52 as amended in 1946. Today under these sections the representation of New Brunswick cannot be fewer than the number of senators we have, which is ten. The representation of Prince Edward Island cannot go below four, because that is the number of senators from that province. If, as we sometimes fear, the responsibility of amending our constitution rests entirely with the Dominion of Canada, changes may be made in that representation. Today there are sections in Canada -and I have heard it expressed in the House of Commons-which say that these small provinces down by the sea have been accorded special treatment. They say that we have too much representation. As a matter of fact the late Mr. Woodsworth, who was the leader of the C.C.F. party at one time, said that we were receiving special privileges and it was something which should be corrected. This sentiment exists in Canada. As I have said, I have heard it expressed by hon. members since I have been in the house. For this reason we are exercised over the fact that the provinces of Canada, especially New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, should not be consulted before any changes are made so far as representation is concerned.
Another important matter is taxation. Today New Brunswick has the largest per capita debt of any province in Canada. We pay the highest taxation of any province in Canada. A few years ago when I happened to be in London I met Sir Andrew Rae Duncan, the man who was responsible for the Duncan report. He asked me what part of Canada I came from. I told him New Brunswick. He said, "You are long-suffering people in the maritime provinces". He told me about making his report for the betterment of conditions in the maritime provinces. He said, "That report has never been implemented. If you depend on the rest of Canada I fear that it never will be implemented". It is on account of the treatment that we have received in the past, not only in the matter of representation, but in the matter of taxation, that we fear this method of amending the British North America Act.
I might also refer to other amendments of the British North America Act. When the territory of Quebec was extended, which was done by an amendment to the British North America Act, we in the maritime provinces received no compensation, although we had helped to pay for the Hudson bay territory which was bought by the dominion government and taken over at that time. The same was true of the boundaries of practically every other province in Canada. Our boundaries were fixed by the British North

British North America Act America Act. The province of Nova Scotia could not expand. New Brunswick could not expand, neither could Prince Edward Island. While we helped to pay, and while I believe these territories belonged in part to these provinces down by the sea, we received no compensation.
We hear hon. members in different parts of the house say that we in the maritime provinces have received special favours as far as representation is concerned. The British North America Act was passed, first, to unite this country into one great dominion; second, to protect minorities; and third, to protect the people who lived in the smaller provinces not only for the time being but for all time. I am emphasizing this because I believe that, unless the provinces are consulted when amendments are made to the British North America Act, they may suffer in the future. These are matters which are not under the jurisdiction of the provinces.
If for instance the representation was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces we would need have no fear; but this is something which is under the jurisdiction of the federal house. The same applies in the matter of financial arrangements which have been made with the different provinces.
Some time ago I spoke on the matter of redistribution, and on that occasion I quoted a statement made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1907 regarding confederation. We have heard it stated continuously in the house that confederation is not a compact. However, we find that in 1907 Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
Confederation is a compact, made originally by four provinces, but adhered to by all the nine provinces, who have entered it, and I submit to the judgment of this house and to the best consideration of its members, that this compact should not be lightly altered. It should be altered only for adequate cause, and after the provinces themselves have had an opportunity to pass judgment on the same.
Those are the words of a leader of the party of hon. members opposite. He was addressing his remarks to the then hon. member for York, Mr. Crocket, and said:
My hon. friend from York, New Brunswick, stated in the course of his argument that we have announced in the speech from the throne that we are going to ask parliament to alter the financial terms of confederation. That is very true; but my hon. friend should know that we did not come to that conclusion except after conference with the provinces and after all the provincial governments had united in a prayer for the same.
That was a matter of financial arrangement, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier said at that time that they did not come to any agreement until they consulted all the provinces. Surely the arrangements we wish to make regarding the change in our constitution are just as important as was the financial arrangement of 1907.
Sir Robert Borden spoke on the same day. I think all hon. members will agree that he was a great constitutional lawyer. On that Occasion he said:
I agree with what has been said by the right hon. gentleman regarding the undesirability of lightly amending the terms of our constitution and am inclined to agree with him on the necessity of some consultation with the provinces, although of course all the provinces are represented here. But inasmuch as this is a federal compact which we are asked to vary, it is only right that each province should be consulted and its decision given, in the right of its separate entity. But I am not inclined to agree altogether in some of the suggestions urged by my hon. friend.
I have many other quotations here, but I shall not weary the house by quoting them. Most of them have already been placed on Hansard.
Another point has been brought up, namely the suggested inferiority complex of the Canadian people brought about by their having to go to London so often to have our constitution amended. I have seen very little inferiority complex among the people of Canada. We in the maritime provinces fear more the superiority complex of some of our friends from other parts of Canada than we do any inferiority complex which has manifested itself.
Canada is a nation, and has been a nation for many years. I remember reading as a schoolboy some lines of Kipling written over fifty years ago, where he said, in pointing out that Canada was at that time recognized by the British people:
A nation spoke to a nation,
A queen sent word to a throne:
"Daughter am I in my mother's house,
But mistress in my own."
England recognized Canada as a nation in those days; she recognized her as mistress in her own home. I am sure that there was no inferiority complex to be found among the men who took part in the first war. They held their heads high, and felt that as Canadians they were the equal of, indeed if not better than any people with whom they came in contact. The same was true of the men in the second world war. If there was any inferiority complex in Canada, certainly it was not from the men who made Canada the great nation she is. If such a complex has ever existed it may have come from those who possibly did not see the necessity of bearing the burden at that time as did some others.
In closing I would make only two points. The first is that, whatever is done, provision should be made for the protection of the smaller provinces which, I contend, are not in a position either financially or in the matter of population to protect themselves. In my province we always look to the privy council for protection. I have no doubt that
Mr. Brooks-'

the government's intention will be carried out; there is no question in my mind about that. I have no doubt that whatever amendments the government wishes to make it will make. I do appeal to them however to make amendments such as will protect those of us in the smaller provinces. We would prefer to have the provinces consulted, and I feel they should be consulted in all matters pertaining to their future.
I hope, too, that whatever changes are made in the constitution, within the ambit of that constitution there will grow in Canada a stronger nation, and that in future there may be no suggestion of any inferiority complex. We have had none in the past. I believe it is the destiny of this Canada of ours to become the greatest nation in the British commonwealth. I trust that, whatever is done in this parliament, it may be done with that object in view.


Mr. Jean Frangois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at great length. I have no quotations from the dead or from big books to offer. Since the beginning of this debate there have been countless quotations from big books or from the speeches of the illustrious dead. These provide interesting reading. However, if we are going to go on like that I suggest we might better adjourn to the library or to the reading room, so that everyone would have an opportunity of becoming a bookworm.
I like better to hear a personal opinion expressed by any one of my colleagues. That is why I enjoyed so much the first portion of the speech by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), wherein he voiced the grievances of the maritime provinces. And although I am a great admirer of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and of the other gentleman he quoted, this time I suggest we should consider the proposal before us. I have already congratulated the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) upon his courage in taking this stand to amend the constitution. It is a difficult task. But where would we be if we followed the suggestion made by Mr. Beauchesne before the committee in 1935 and attempted to draft a constitution before a constituent assembly of 225 members? Whoever would think of doing that? We would have something like what happened in France at the time of the assemblee constituante. It would be nothing but chaos and a tower of Babel. It could not be otherwise.
As hon. gentlemen know, the work of the many must be preceded by the work of the few or sometimes by the work of one man. There are those who prepare drafts of legislation or of the work to be handled by a committee so that there may be unity in the subsequent work that is done. There should be
British North America Act direction; there should be a start. First there should be the decision and then something should be offered to the legislative body which is concerned.
Complaints have been made by hon. gentlemen on the other side who are brilliant members of the bar that this matter should be discussed in committee of the whole. That is not necessary because this address will be followed by a bill which will go through all the stages of ordinary legislation-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: -first reading, second reading, committee of the whole-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This is just a resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This goes direct to His Majesty.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is an address to the British government asking the right for the parliament of Canada to amend our constitution. That amendment will be made by the parliament of Canada, not by order in council. Who would ever think of that? If the amendment to the constitution is made by the parliament of Canada it will be done by means of legislation in connection with which each hon. member will have an opportunity to ask questions of the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the hon. member is now referring to amendments to the constitution that may be made by this parliament after this measure passes, then I agree with him.


Jean-François Pouliot: Exactly. My hon. friend should have agreed at first.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not what the hon. member said at first.


Jean-François Pouliot: That disposes of the objection that no questions may be asked.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just to be clear. When could an hon. member ask questions of the government?


Mr. Casselman:: When it is too late.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member made one suggestion with respect to holding a session of parliament every year and the term of a parliament, and apparently that was the principal thing that interested him. The question now is not whether amendments will be made at this time; the question is to get permission for this parliament to make amendments later on by means of regular legislation. There would then be an opportunity for all members to ask questions of the government and when that is done I assume that most hon. members will have their minds satisfied by the answers given.

British North America Act
Strong arguments have been put forth by those who contend, on the one hand, that the British North America Act is a compact or contract and those who, on the other hand, contend that it is imperial legislation. It is quite easy to solve that problem; nothing is simpler. In the first place, unquestionably it is an agreement. All we have to do is look at the Quebec resolutions passed in 1864, at the London resolutions adopted at a conference of delegates from the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick held at the Westminster Palace hotel, London, December 4, 1866, and at the British North America Act which was assented to on March 29, 1867.
It is clear that the fathers of confederation proceeded by stages. They met first in Charlottetown, adjourned to Quebec, and then to London. While in London they discussed the matter further with the British government. The British North America Act is not composed of the text of the London resolutions, and the London resolutions were not composed of the text of the Quebec resolutions. The British North America Act indicates that there was progress in the discussions, that finally agreement was arrived at and there was a drafting of the act. Not only was there agreement itself; that agreement is wrapped up in an imperial statute. Every time an amendment was made to the constitution the bag was opened.
The main essence of the British North America Act is to be found in the separation of the powers. I have just noted the number of times that the words "exclusive" and "exclusively" are repeated in the two sections which deal with the distribution of powers between parliament and the various legislatures. Section 91 reads:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces; and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this act) the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to say,-
Then paragraph 29 of that section reads:
Such classes of subjects as are expressly excepte'd in the enumeration of the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces.
And any matter coming within any of the classes of subjects enumerated in this section shall not be deemed to come within the class of matters of a local or private nature comprised in the enumeration of the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces.

Now I come to section 92, concerning the exclusive powers of provincial legislatures:
In each province the legislature may exclusively-
"Exclusively" again.
-make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to say...
In section 93 the question of education is dealt with, and in each province the legislature is given exclusive power to make laws concerning this matter. Then we come to section 130, which provides:
Until the parliament of Canada otherwise provides, all officers of the several provinces having duties to discharge in relation to matters other than those coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces shall be officers of Canada . . .
and so on. It strikes me that the important parts of the act concern the distribution of powers as between Ottawa on the one hand and the provinces on the other. It is abundantly clear that the principle which guided the fathers of confederation in the first place and those who sponsored the act in the second place was to apply to the dominion and the provinces respectively the doctrine "Mind your own business." I believe that is clear. Ottawa was given exclusive jurisdiction to do certain things. On the other hand the provinces were given exclusive jurisdiction to do other things. And so there would be no controversy, no conflict of jurisdiction, it was established in the most definite manner. If in turn the dominion or the provinces have applied to the courts regarding encroachments upon the jurisdiction of the other, it was because in each case someone was complaining that the other party had transgressed the provisions of the act. So the separation of powers was the principal part of our constitution and I do not see how it could be otherwise, unless you wished to change the whole thing from A to Z. But it is an entirely different matter to deal with what concerns only this parliament, without touching what has been left to the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
It is said also that the British North America Act protects the rights of minorities with respect to separate schools and the use of official languages. So there may be no misunderstanding I shall put on record the text of section 133, concerning the use of the English and French languages:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the houses of the parliament of Canada and of the houses of the legislature of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court of Canada established under this act, and in or from all or any of the courts of Quebec.

The acts of the parliament of Canada and of the legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published In both those languages.
That is all we have with respect to the protection of the English and French languages. We can hardly say that is great protection for the French language, and in that respect the constitution has been overrated. With respect to separate schools we have section 93, which hon. members have read and with which they are familiar. That is all.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) spoke of the distribution of powers as between the central government and state or provincial legislative and government bodies; and at page 831 of Hansard he had this to say:
Another consequence of the fact that there Is no procedure Indicated in the British North America Act for its amendment is that there is no prescribed legal protection in that act for the fundamental provisions of our constitution.
Then on page 832:
It is our own responsibility to see that the fundamentals of the Canadian constitution are protected and preserved.
Then, quoting what he had said at Moncton, he went on to say at page 833:
The record of Canadians in two world wars demonstrated beyond any question our ability and our capacity to bear the responsibilities of full nationhood. But our adult nationhood is not yet fully recognized in our constitution and our laws... A method should be worked out to amend our constitution in Canada.
That won't be easy.
That is true.
We do not want the Canadian constitution to be too rigid, but we do want to make sure it contains the fullest safeguards of provincial rights, of the use of the two official languages, and of those other historic rights which are the sacred trusts of our national partnership.
It is our intention after the election to consult the provincial governments with a view to working out a method, which will be satisfactory to all Canadians, of amending the constitution in Canada.
If we are to reaffirm the declaration of the rights of minorities, so much the better. It would be a fine gesture for the parliament of Canada to reaffirm, in a stronger and more decisive manner, what was indicated eighty-two years ago. Here I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, how satisfied I was to listen to all the speeches that have been made, especially the speech by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). He said something I appreciated greatly, something I have never before heard *rom any leader of his party. At page 837 of Hansard the leader of the opposition said:
There is no suggestion that we must assert our sovereignty, or declare that we are no longer under my limitations. We have asserted that; we have iemonstrated that, and we all believe it.
Well, what is the difference between sov-ireignty and independence? It shows that [DOT]he wind is turning. Progress is being made ;owards Canadian emancipation. On the
British North America Act other hand, we cannot get away from the tradition that has been established in this country. Our ancestors had to fight for their liberty. It was not given to us on a silver platter. Those who contend that it was, ignore and distort history.
At first, our forefathers had great difficulties. They had difficulty in managing their own finances, and they fought for responsible government. I can speak of this because my great-grandfather voted for the ninety-two resolutions that established responsible government in this country. When Baldwin was defeated in York my great-grandfather gave his seat to him. My grandfather voted against confederation. His fear was that it would be a legislative union. My father supported Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was the leader of the party at the time, and I am satisfied to support the Prime Minister as well as I can in his endeavour to do something that is really a gesture of fine Cana-dianism.
There may be some disagreement. No one expects unanimity at first in the drafting of such an important piece of legislation as the constitution of this country. I am sure that if the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other two groups met with the premiers of the provinces, these sons of Canada would do an even better job than was done by the fathers of confederation. It may seem surprising at first, but the only way in which we can arrive at an understanding in the drafting of that part of the constitution which concerns the parliament of Canada is to weed out all the obsolete sections and redraft that act in the same spirit as it was drafted in the first instance.
It is seldom, sir, that the necessary distinction is made between what is ancient and what is antiquated. Some parts of the constitution are antiquated, but it is not because the constitution was drafted and passed eighty-two years ago that it should be changed. I hope that the good spirit that has prevailed in this house since the beginning of the debate will continue until we have a new constitution, which will be accepted not only by this parliament but by all the provinces of Canada. It is my earnest hope because we are now building for the future.
Why should so much importance be given to the opinions of some people who have made a study of this question? Their opinion does not count in this house. They come from outside. They have given some thought to our problems, but why should we quote their books as if the words were gospel. Let the members express their own views. The people of Canada are much more interested in those views than in the views of any

British North America Act author. Let the members support their own opinions by reading the text of the constitution. I am sure all members have done so, but perhaps it would be a good thing to read it again. Then, everyone might realize there is so much good in it that we cannot dispense with it entirely.
For many years, sir, I was concerned about the future of this country. During the war, the policies of all parties and groups were the same with regard to the relations between Canada and Great Britain. In my heart I thought that the destiny of the Liberal party should be to serve Canada first. I expected my party to be a real Canadian party. For many years I waited and suffered in silence, as I said last year. It was only after the present Prime Minister took over the reins of government that we realized the country was advancing in the right direction in matters that have been discussed here with sincerity. I am sure that if the present Prime Minister had not been the leader of the party during the last election, the result would have been different. If he was returned to power with a large majority, it was not due solely to his speech in Moncton about amending the constitution. It was due to the fact that he made speeches in every constituency and appealed to the heart and common sense of the people. A tremendous response was given him because the people realized he was sincere, and was doing his best to promote the welfare and the happiness of our citizens.
I cannot speak much longer, but I sincerely hope that no amendments prejudicial to national unity will be sponsored by this government. I am sure that will not be the case. I shall ask my colleagues, and I shall urge upon them, the necessity of showing the same spirit in this house as should prevail at a meeting of those who would be called to draft a new constitution. The speeches that have been made during the course of this debate are a credit to each member. I make no exceptions. Whether the members spoke from this side or the other side of the house, they have done their best. Sometimes they have used hasty words, but that is of no consequence. The tenor of the debate has been good. I congratulate all my colleagues on what they have done; I congratulate the government. I again wish them success. I hope that there will be amicable discussion with the provinces of all phases of the act. I also hope that the provinces will show the same spirit as Ottawa has shown. There is no question of encroaching upon the rights of anyone. If the thing is done by the legislation that would follow the permission to amend the constitution, they will all be there to see to it and to defend the traditions of the past.


But I will tell my friend the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), whom I admire, and who has the natural gift of eloquence and persuasion, that he should come to the province of Quebec. It is a bit late now, but next summer if he wishes to come to my constituency I will drive him around and will give him the opportunity of meeting the people of my province. Then I am sure that he will change his views.


Clarence Gillis: May I say this, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). In my short discussion on this particular subject I had nothing to say about the people of the province of Quebec. I did have something to say about their premier.


Jean-François Pouliot: We will go to see him together.


Thomas Langton Church: May I ask the hon. gentleman this question: Where do we go from here if this resolution passes?
(Translation):


Mr. Paul E. Gagnon (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, on June 19, 1946, during the debate on redistribution, I stated, in this house, that the British North America Act was a compact which could not be amended without the consent of the parties thereto.
The resolution before us gives me the opportunity of coming back briefly to this argument and of pointing out once again that the consent of the provinces is needed to amend the Canadian constitution. The late Minister of Justice, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, whose name has been repeatedly mentioned in the debate, stated in this house in 1925 that confederation was based on a compact between the provinces who reached a compromise and granted certain rights to the federal authority, but the central power may not alter the constitution without first securing the permission of the provinces, which are responsible for it and work with the federal authority under a well-balanced division of powers and responsibilities. Sir Robert Borden, during the course of a debate, also stated:
There is no need of changing the terms of our constitution and I am inclined to believe that it would be necessary to consult the provinces.
It is also the opinion of Mr. Arthur B. Keith, an authority on constitutional law. In his book "Responsible Government in the Dominions" he states that it was explicitly recognized by the imperial government in 1907 that confederation is a pact which cannot be altered without first obtaining the consent of the provinces. Lord Carnarvon and Viscount Haldane, both eminent jurists, were always of that opinion. The same applies to the fathers of confederation, Sir John Macdonald, George Brown and Thomas D'Arcy McGee, who said:
The document on the clerk's table Is a contract.

I now come to Lord Sankey who stated: (Text):
The process of interpretation as the years go on ought not to be allowed to dim or to whittle down the provision of the original contract upon which confederation is founded.
In 1938, in the minimum wage case Lord Atkin, in delivering the decision of the privy council, speaks of the distribution of powers between the dominion and the provinces under the act as "the interprovincial compact".
The attitude of Downing street may be found in a dispatch of March 18, 1865, to the Hon. Arthur Hamilton Gordon, Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick. The cordial approval of the proceedings of the Quebec conference is here given.
Measures based on the plan drawn up by the delegates at the Quebec conference would be submitted to the imperial parliament if the provincial legislatures should sanction that plan.
It is evident from this undertaking that the right was conceded to the provinces to conclude an agreement which was in the nature of a treaty among themselves.
(Translation):
In pretending that the B.N.A. Act is only a statute, the Prime Minister sets aside the aside the unequivocal opinions and expressed views of statesmen and jurists such as Alexander Campbell, Langevin, Cartier, Galt, Tache, Adderley, Laurier, Mercier, Meighen, Ferguson, Bennett, Borden, Mignault, Loran-ger, and others. He asserts that we have been wrong for eighty years and that we must henceforth abide by his point of view with respect to the act of 1867. And yet, since the time of confederation, all our leaders, without exception, have recognized that it is impossible to amend the B.N.A. Act without consulting the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that never would the French Canadians have agreed, in 1867, to the passing of a law liable to interpretation and amendment according to the wishes of only one of the contracting parties. If it had been the intention of the fathers of confederation to wrong us, to deceive us and to leave us at the mercy of an encroaching central power, they would simply have deprived us by stealth of our rights and prerogatives, taking away from us the freedom to live as we thought fit, to be our own masters. In that case, we would not be bound to observe the provisions of this act. Lower Canada did not want a legislative union and we do not want it any more today.
Mr. Speaker, no province is as highly concerned as the province of Quebec with the procedure to be followed in amending our constitution.
British North America Act
Because of our mentality, our traditions, our language and our faith, this is a vital matter. Let us not forget that in 1867, at the time of confederation, the province of Quebec negotiated on an equal footing with the other provinces and represented, above all else, a national entity. Nowadays, people scoff at our claims. Yet, the hundreds of millions of dollars which, every year, we pour into the dominion treasury should give us a voice in the affairs of the country.
Confederation was more than a pact between nations; it was also a pact between two great races. No one can amend the British North America Act without consulting the province of Quebec, cradle of the Frenchspeaking community in Canada. The Canadian state owes its existence to the provinces that brought it into being. These same provinces also continue to provide it with the funds it needs to survive.
If the British North America Act does not afford sufficient protection for the rights of the provinces, what assurance have we that future amendments will guarantee us more? Under the pretext of rendering our constitution more pliable, they are endangering rights and prerogatives that are much more important than such pliability itself.
The constitution is above the federal government; it cannot be amended by that government alone since it is the result of a compact between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, as well as Upper and Lower Canada- that is Ontario and Quebec-to which were subsequently added our other provinces. We are told about this procedure not having been followed in the past, and about the number of times the constitution was amended without prior consultation of the provinces. We are now asked to add a new precedent to those already established. We do not wish to be tied down by what has already been done; we refuse to be the accomplices of previous violations. If we did not act properly several times, are we justified in doing it over again? Repeated illegalities have never produced anything legal. There is no clause in the British North America Act indicating the way in which it can be amended. Was that omission not deliberate?
The province of Quebec is now being attacked because it has no faith in the gospel of centralization. Yet we know very well that Messrs. Mercier, Gouin and Taschereau, former liberal prime ministers of my province, were violently opposed to centralization and highly in favour of provincial autonomy. The men are no more, but the doctrines and principles remain unchanged.
In establishing the supreme court, whose judges are appointed by the governor in
994

British North America Act council, as the final tribunal on constitutional disputes, this parliament, which determines the powers and duties of those judges, thereby indicates that henceforth our constitution will be amended at the discretion of the party in power. So much the worse if a mistake is made. In fact it is not easy, as was seen in the past, to determine what matters come under the central power's jurisdiction and what matters are within the purview of the provinces.
(Text):
Writing in the Toronto Saturday Night on September 27, Mr. B. K. Sandwell said:
Many of the provincall fields have extremely vague boundaries and these boundaries could be contracted without the slightest trouble by an amendment merely asserting a hitherto uncertified power of the dominion. Civil rights, as a provincial field, could be reduced to the area which it occupied in the 'seventies, before the provincializing tendency began, by merely enacting that the dominion has power to do things which it actually did in that period but which later judicial decisions prevent it from doing except under the emergency doctrine. A sympathetic supreme court would declare that this amendment relates "to matters not coming", et cetera, and there you are; the thing is done.
The provinces will certainly maintain that they have rights, or at any rate vested interest, extending far beyond the limits of section 92. The definition of the powers to be vested in parliament would certainly, for example, enable it to reduce the number of members sent to Ottawa by Prince Edward Island, which is specially provided for by the constitution but has nothing whatever to do with the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature.
(Translation):
We are exhorted to have respect for and confidence in our judicial system; we hear a lot-and rightly so-about the integrity of those who hold the foremost place in that system. Fine, I am all for it. However if we want that system to remain what it is, if we want justice to be above politics, we should not confront judges with the alternative of having to displease the party who chose them or the members who set the limit of their sovereignty.
Being free of the necessity of going to Westminster to amend our constitution is one more step towards our final emancipation. I am highly pleased about it but that liberating step should not be taken at the expense of the sacred agreements which were signed in 1867. The adoption of the procedure suggested by the government would place before the provinces a fait accompli. We would bring them into subjection, deprive them of their autonomy to make that of Canada more secure. Might has never made right, and I do not think that the procedure resorted to today by the federal government is likely to promote harmony and good understanding between the different parts of this dominion. Certain provinces want to be con-


suited; well, let them be consulted! Good manners would at least require that they be informed as to the way in which it is intended to proceed to destroy the last trace of their autonomy.
The extreme haste displayed by the government authorities in the settlement of this all-important matter is surprising and disturbing to those who are concerned with Canada's future.
We are assured that not one minority right is endangered at present, but who knows what tomorrow has in store? The effects of this measure will be felt much later. The future generations may deplore our having thus upset the constitution of 1867 which, although it was not always very efficient in preventing encroachments by the central power, has at least restrained efforts of centralizers. If dominion governments had always respected the spirit of the constitution, if part of the population had not been brought, through propaganda and election speeches, to believe that the time had come to modernize the British North America Act, that the latter no longer met the needs of the Ottawa politicians; if instead of a constant effort toward centralization, an endeavour had been made to bring about a decentralization of powers and administration we would not witness the jurisdiction conflicts which confront us today.
The refusal on the part of the Prime Minister to consult the provinces before taking action is more than regrettable, and I desire to register my protest in this regard.
(Text):


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Since it is so late in the evening and since we have had so much fine debating I hesitate to rise to take part in the debate. My only reason for doing so is to show how the question before us appears to an ordinary Canadian like myself unlearned in the art of analysing constitutions.
Before I start to develop the points I wish to make I want to make it abundantly clear that I am personally supporting the resolution that is now before us. I am supporting it because, first, I do not believe that it interferes in any way with the rights of the provinces; second, I believe that it would be a mistake for this government to approach the provinces before it has gone as far as it is possible to go without that consultation. I believe that it would weaken the position of this government and be a disservice to the country to do that.
I think we have made progress. We all agree on at least one point, namely, that we should take to ourselves here in Canada the full power to amend our constitution. So far I have not heard any difference of opinion on that point. Our disagreement arises when

'we begin to consider how we are to take to ourselves that power. I will agree at once that there are legitimate grounds for differences. The government proposes to make the change in two steps, the first of which is proposed in this resolution, whereby we should petition the parliament at Westminster to amend the British North America Act where matters concerning federal jurisdiction only are concerned.
The question has been raised as to who shall define the field as between federal and provincial jurisdiction. It seems to me that that is not a difficult question to answer. If this resolution carries, and if the British parliament makes the change asked for, the line between federal and provincial jurisdiction will be defined as it has always been defined, namely, by the courts of the country.
After this resolution is passed and the amendment is made, if the federal parliament encroaches upon the field of provincial jurisdiction, I am quite sure the courts will declare such action ultra vires, just as it would have been ultra vires before the passing of this resolution. I do not believe, therefore, that there is any great difficulty in that respect.
This party agrees with the government's method of amendment. As I have already said, we believe it would be bad policy to approach the provincial governments seeking agreement with them on this first step. It might not be possible to come to agreement, and I doubt if we would be then in as good a position to proceed with this resolution as we are today. The official opposition and the Social Credit party disagree with this method, and, as I said before, there are legitimate grounds for disagreement. In my opinion, however, the argument is now all in favour of the government's method. Like the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), I am not greatly impressed by quotations from the speeches and opinions of the great men of the past. I must admit however that I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Temiscouata make that statement, because of his profession-a profession in which nearly all opinions are based upon some hoary and musty precedents of ancient times.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He went back to his grandfather.


Mr. Knight:: Stare decisis.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was his grandfather.


Angus MacInnis: I am of the opinion that it is much more difficult to be a great man under the conditions we have today than it was to be a great man at the time of either Sir John A. Macdonald or Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I think, too, that we have today men who are just as great as were those men, great as they appear to have been. Perhaps they only seem 45781-631
British North America Act great to us, because we know them only by tradition. I should not like to detract anything from that tradition which has grown with the years. While a person sitting as I do on the opposition side of the house should always be careful not to give comfort to the enemy, I am of the opinion that the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), when history is written, as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) would say, will stand up with the best of them.


Arthur Leroy Smith: And you say it
in a kindly way.


Angus MacInnis: Yes. I hope that will not be used against me at some future time.


An hon. Member:: You will not get to the
Senate that way.


Angus MacInnis: Well, you can't say I didn't make a good try.
Those were placid and simple times in comparison with the swift-moving conditions which the statesmen of today have to meet. And here may I point out that it is world economic conditions, and how those conditions affect Canada, that cause us to give so much attention to changing our constitution. Changes have become necessary to meet the needs of today, which have changed so much since 1867.
It is really only since the thirties that there has been any great demand in this country for constitutional changes. The need for change began to become apparent around that time, because under the British North America Act the provinces were charged with responsibilities they did not have the resources to discharge. And we will soon reach the same condition again, when the post-war period of prosperity is over, where the provinces will not be able to discharge the responsibilities given them under the constitution. When that day comes the provinces themselves in conjunction with the federal government will initiate and work out the changes that will be necessary to enable them to discharge the responsibilities with which they are confronted.
This afternoon the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) referred to an amendment moved to a resolution in the house in 1925 by the former leader of this party, the late Mr. Woodsworth. He pointed out that Mr. Woodsworth wanted changes made only with the consent of the provinces. Like other men-and I think like all other men whose opinions are worth anything-Mr. Woodsworth held his views only so long as they were supported by facts. If the facts no longer support them, it would be a foolish man indeed who continued to hold the same opinion.
I find that in volume I of Hansard for 1935

British North America Act Mr. Woodsworth introduced a resolution, to which reference has already been made, asking the house to set up a special committee to study and report on the best method by which the British North America Act might be amended. In support of that resolution he said, as reported on page 219 of Hansard:
Further I think it is fairly generally conceded that the consent of the provinces is not necessary, at least from the legal standpoint. There was a time when we were told that we could not amend the British North America Act without the consent of all the provinces, that in fact confederation was something in the nature of a treaty and that it could not be changed without the consent of all parties. I think that theory has been absolutely discarded, and we need not continue to debate it.
Then on page 218 of the same Hansard appears a report of what the late Mr. Lapointe said on May 11, 1931, which reads as follows:
Again I say that to insist on having the consent of all the provinces to every change would be asking almost an impossibility; to ask that either British Columbia in the west or Prince Edward Island in the east should be able to block a change with which it is essential for the federal power to go ahead within the limits of its jurisdiction on certain matters, I do not think would be right; but on essential matters, such matters, for instance, as the protection of minorities, of language, of schools, as they are inserted in the British North America Act, I believe it should not be possible to make a change without the consent of all.
The matters mentioned by Mr. Lapointe, which were not to be interfered with are the same as in the resolution now before us. I think that his is the only position anyone can take. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) made what I thought was an unfavourable comparison between the constitutions of Canada and the United States. He mentioned that there was no charter of liberty or declaration of the rights of man in the Canadian constitution. I think if history has demonstrated anything it is that paper constitutions are very poor things on which to lean. I think history has amply proved that if freedom, liberty, toleration and justice are not written into the traditions, habits, hearts and souls of a people, there is little protection in a written constitution, as so many people in the United States and elsewhere know at the present time and have known for many, many years. I think I can give this house a good example of the value of written constitutions by quoting from "Men and Politics" by Louis Fischer. I think most hon. members have read this book as it was a "best-seller" a few years ago. Referring to the Soviet union he says this at page 335:
The constitution, now the supreme law of the Soviet union, does two things; It describes a system of government and it enunciates a bill of rights. The bill of rights is inspiring. But there is nothing in the system of government to safeguard the rights. The popular enjoyment of the rights thus depends


on the good will of the person or persons who control the government, and they have chosen to ignore the right. One of the latest violations of the bill of rights is the introduction of payment for tuition in high schools and colleges. This contravenes article 121 of the constitution which says:
"Citizens of the Soviet union have a right to education. The right is implemented by universal, compulsory, elementary education and by free education, including university education."
The government did not ask the people or parliament whether it could introduce paid education. The constitution was not amended to allow paid education. The government simply decreed paid tuition by ukase and that was all there was to it except for the pain in the hearts of many silent people.
I do not say that, in a country such as Canada where government by majority has been accepted for so long a time, where it has become a tradition in the minds and hearts of the people, safeguards in our constitution are not a good thing. That is why 1 support the resolution with the safeguards that were originally in it as well as those which have been added by the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the amendment to that amendment moved by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson).
On motion of Mr. Maclnnis the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is understood that the debate on the budget resolutions will be resumed tomorrow. If it is completed or adjourned the Minister of Transport will proceed with his motion for the second reading of Bill No. 12. The minister intends to ask that it be referred to a committee as soon as second reading is completed. Then the Minister of Veterans Affairs would resume discussion of his estimates. If they are completed, they would be followed by the estimates of the Department of Transport.


Mr. Graydon:: May I ask the Prime Minister if some time before tomorrow at three o'clock the clock behind him might be fixed. I would not like to see the government continue to be so far behind the times as they have been this afternoon.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We were ahead of the times by a couple of hours according to that clock. Perhaps I should mention that it is hoped that during the hour from eight to nine, if private bills can be disposed of, we will continue with the debate on the second reading of the bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Kamloops to amend the Criminal Code in connection with the portrayal of crimes.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

THE BUDGET-Appendix


[Stage Direction]
Budget Papers presented by the Honourable D. C. Abbott, M.P., for the information of Parliament on the occasion of the Budget of 1949-50﻿OCTOBER 20. 1949
The Budget-Appendix

[Stage Direction]
SUMMARY OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR THE FIVE FISCAL YEARS 1944/45 TO 1948/49
Detailed Tables of Revenues and Expenditures for the Five Fiscal Years 1944/45 to 1948/49
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Appendix

[Stage Direction]
Liabilities-
Floating Debt-
Matured Funded Debt Outstanding	$	35,873,098 41
Notes and other obligations payable on demand	 252,013,791 35
Interest due and outstanding	 81,998,853 34
Outstanding cheques and warrants	 73,91l'985 06
Post Office Account	 6,902,102 70
. 
[Stage Direction]

Deposit and Trust Accounts-
Post Office Savings Bank	 37,741,388 62
Indian Trust Funds	 18,642,641 60
Miscellaneous	 51! 116', 553 67
Insurance, Pension and Guaranty Accounts-
Government Annuities	 501,737,659 00
Insurance and Guaranty Funds	 69' 895^ 221 27
Pension and Retirement Funds	 146,382,809 20
Deferred Credits	
Sundry Suspense Accounts	
Province Debt Accounts	
Reserve for certain contingent liabilities
450,699,830 86
107,500,583 89
718,015,689 47 4,350,636 00 59,617,634 02 11,919,968 64 13,262,872 58
Funded Debt Unmatured-
Payable in Canada-
Bonds, Deposit Certificates, Treasury Bills and Notes. 15,107,363,908 81 Refundable Portion of Excess Profits Tax (estimated)..	170,416,412 68
„	., . -	,	15,277,780,321 49
Payable m London	 9,256,258 44
Payable in New York	 298,000,000 00
[Stage Direction]
 15,585,036,579 93
16,950,403,795 39
Assets-
Cash and other Current Assets-
Cash in Current and Special Deposits	:
Other Liquid Assets-
Foreign Exchange Control Board Cash and Securities...
Securities Investment Account	
Working Capital Advances-
Departmental	
Crown Corporations	
Loans to, and Investments in, Crown Agencies-
Bank of Canada-Capital Stock	
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-Capital and
Loans	
Canadian Farm Loan Board-Capital Stock and Loans...
Railway and Steamship Companies-Loans	
Miscellaneous	
Other Loans and Investments-
To Provincial and Municipal Governments	
The United Kingdom and Other Governments	
Canada's subscription to capital of-
International Monetary Fund	
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development Miscellaneous	
90,671,288 59
1,071,192,875 33 455,769,619 14
21,919,461 41 20,705,420 54
[Stage Direction]
y.	[DOT]	y. |	.	.	vfOj	j Ul O 57 [DOT]
Province Debt Accounts	 2,296,151 87
Deferred Charges-Unamortized Discounts and Commissions on Loans	 65,784,892 49
Sundry Suspense Accounts	 54,256,182 66
Total Active Assets	 5,420,138,831 79
Less-Reserve for possible losses on ultimate realization of active assets.	-245,869,188 38
Net debt-
Non-active Assets-
Capital Expenditures...
Other	
Consolidated Deficit Account
5,174,269,643 41
1,051,576,512 74 564,329,772 21 10,160,227,867 03
[Stage Direction]
 11,776,134,151 98
16,950,403,795 39

The Budget-Appendix
SUMMARY OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES (in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal Year Ended March 31				
1945	1946	1947	1948	1949$	$	8	$	$Revenues	Ordinary revenues	2,300-1	2,363-2	2,588-5	2,629-8	2,649-1Capital refunds	0-7	0-4	0-1	0-1	0-1Special receipts and other credits	386-5	649-6	419-3	241-8	122-2Total Revenues	2,687-3	3,013-2	3,007-9	2,871-7	2,771-4Expenditures	Ordinary expenditures	767-4	1,061-9	1,236-2	1,380-0	1,573-4Capital expenditures	3-2	4-5	11-2	15-7	18-5War, demobilization and reconversion	expenditures	4,418-4	4,002-9	1,314-8	634-4	425-6Special expenditures	7-5	17-4	31-9	63-1	34-8Government-owned enterprises	1-3	1-3	10-7	18-7	39-7Other charges, including the write down	of assets	47-8	48-2	29-4	83-7	83-9Total Expenditures	5,245-6	5,136-2	2,634-2	2,195-6	2,175-9Budgetary Surplus or Deficit (-)	-2,558-3	-2,123-0	373-7	676-1	595-5
64
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Appendix
STATEMENT OF REVENUES FOR THE LAST FIVE FISCAL YEARS (Thousands of Dollars)
-	1944-45	1945-46	1946-47	1947-48	1948-49$	$	$	$	%Tax Revenue-	Direct Taxes-	Direct Taxes on Incomes-	Individual Income Tax	767,755	691,586	694,530	659,828	762,564Tax on Interest and Dividends....	27,053	26,824	28,428	33,929	40,965Taxes on Rents and Royalties	1,546	1,486	1,708	1,960	2,480Corporation Income Tax	276,404	217,834	238,792	364,131	491,990Excess Profits Tax	465,805	494,196	448,698	227,030	44,792Total Direct Taxes on Incomes..	1,538,563	1,431,926	1,412,156	1,286,878	1.342,791Succession Duties	17,251	21,447	23,576	30,828	25,550Total Direct Taxes	1,555,814	1,453,373	1,435,732	1,317,706	1,368,341Indirect Taxes-	Customs Import Duties	115,091	128,877	237,355	293,012	222,975Excise Duties-	Spirits, malt, etc	72,133	91,274	97,820	97,675	101,105Cigars, cigarettes and tobacco	83,142	98,228	101,163	102,116	106,241Licences	37	39	40	37	39Less refunds	-3,390	-2,815	-2,979	-3,034	-2,733Total Excise Duties	151,922	186,726	196,044	196,794	204,652Excise Taxes-	Taxes on Commodities-	Sales Tax	404,109	326,253	328,073	383,012	390,17498,164	41,198	338	Automobiles, rubber tires and	tubes	6,480	6,701	16,340	31,949	36,943Beverages	19,442	16,657	18,635	23,767	27,689Candy and chewing gum	12,874	11,904	13,277	18,279	19,888Cigars, cigarettes and tobacco	62,306	70,229	76,318	68,606	77,665Cigarette papers and tubes	6,658	4,645	6,943	6,419	6,999Electric and gas appliances	4,057	1,272	7	2,824	3,894Furs	5,217	4,976	3,102	3,139	3,69329,671	29,836	36,220	2,208	Matches and lighters	3,117	3,675	4,088	3,967	3,412Phonographs, radios and tubes....	1,112	646	2,526	5,325	3,562Special excise on importations	545	787	1,185	2,113	27911,744	9,974	11,339	10,572	Toilet preparations and soaps	6,347	7,107	7,522	7,146	7,757Trunks, bags, luggage, etc	4,134	4,711	5,710	4,962	5,565Wines	1,772	2,066	2,394	2,342	2,060Sundry	2,977	3,811	5,109	4,716	4,700Taxes on Amusements and Services-	Amusements	12,284	13,387	14,552	15,369	2,483Tax on pari-mutuel bets	1,904	2,188	2,510	2,519	105Transportation and communication	24,205	26,893	27,931	27,531	29,034Stamps, including payment of taxes	on jewellery, chinaware, cabaret	attendance, etc	18,296	21,697	24,437	24,300	22,725Licences, interest and miscellaneous	369	302	313	376	382Less refunds (mainly sales tax)....	-194,719	-114,005	-29,845	-10,683	-12,871Total Excise Taxes	543,065	496,910	579,024	640,758	636,138Other Taxes-	Chartered bank note circulation....	350	270	220	188	166Insurance Companies	7,182	7,951	8,796	3,004	3,339Miscellaneous	702	751	690	613	531Total Indirect Taxes	818,312	821,485	1,022,129	1,134,369	1,067,801Total Revenue from Taxes	2,374,126	2,274,858	2,457,861	2,452,075	2,436,142
The Budget-Appendix
STATEMENT OF REVENUES FOR THE LAST FIVE FISCAL YEARS-Concluded
(Thousands of Dollars)
-	1944-45	1945-46	1946-47	1947-48	1948-49$	$	$	$	$Non-Tax Revenue-	66,056 60,749 4,586	68,613 70,915 4,954	72,978 69,439 2,098	77,759 75,800 1,731 3,736 18,745	80,604 107,889 3,253
14,080	16,322	16,355		21,202
					
	145,471	160,804	160,870	177,771	212,948
					
	2,519,597	2,435,662	2,618,731	2,629,846	2,649,090
					
Special Receipts and Credits- Refunds of previous years' Special	53	20	10	7	16Special Receipts-War and Demobili-	352,918 177	626,616 161	412,763 170	225,757 138	117,121 69
Canadian Wheat Board-	589				
Surpluses in certain special accounts. Canadian National Railways- Net credit due to increase in Canadian National Railways Securities	2,625 22,400 7,143		1,762	16	121
		22,631 174			
Investment in Crown plants trans-			2,053	3,704	2,528
					
385,905	649,602	416,758	229,622	119,855Capital and Non-active Accounts- Capital Accounts- Refunds of previous years' ex-	728	376	110	61	82Non-active Accounts- National Harbours Board, reduc-	19	10	82	1936 and 1937 Saskatchewan Seed Grain Loans Guarantees- Adjustment pursuant to The Western Provinces Treasury Bills and Natural Resources	9,773 256	Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited,	549	1,105	Transfer to Consolidated Deficit Account from Capital	158	Write-downs to Consolidated Deficit Account- Canadian National Railways Securities Trust Stock-reduction due to retirement of equipment during calendar years 1946 and 1947	1,308 54	1,885 63	Seed Grain and Relief Loans..	36	45	45Total Capital and Non-active Accounts	1,332	421	2,587	12,278	2,450Total Special Receipts and Credits	387,237	650,023	419,345	241,900	122,3052,906,834 219,500	3,085,685 72,500	3,038,076 30,200	2,871,746	2,771,395Less estimated amount of refundable Income and Excess Profits Taxes	
2,687,334	3,013,185	3,007,876	2,871,746	2,771,395
					
45781-64J
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Appendix

[Stage Direction]
(Thousands of Dollars)
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
1944-45
[Stage Direction]
1945-46
[Stage Direction]
1946-47
[Stage Direction]
1947-48
[Stage Direction]
1948-49
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
S
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
Ordinary Expenditure
[Stage Direction]
Agriculture
[Stage Direction]
9,424
[Stage Direction]
10,319
[Stage Direction]
13,300
[Stage Direction]
16,311
[Stage Direction]
20,376
[Stage Direction]
Auditor General's Office
[Stage Direction]
361
[Stage Direction]
379
[Stage Direction]
390
[Stage Direction]
395
[Stage Direction]
533
[Stage Direction]
Civil Service Commission
[Stage Direction]
461
[Stage Direction]
479
[Stage Direction]
593
[Stage Direction]
665
[Stage Direction]
771
[Stage Direction]
External Affairs
[Stage Direction]
1,910
[Stage Direction]
4,522
[Stage Direction]
5,128
[Stage Direction]
7,195
[Stage Direction]
8,676
[Stage Direction]
1' inance-
[Stage Direction]
Interest on Public Debt
[Stage Direction]
318,995
[Stage Direction]
409,134
[Stage Direction]
464,395
[Stage Direction]
455,455
[Stage Direction]
465,138
[Stage Direction]
Cost of Loan Flotations and Annual
[Stage Direction]
Amortization of Bond Discounts and
[Stage Direction]
Commissions
[Stage Direction]
20,679
[Stage Direction]
22,311
[Stage Direction]
12,139
[Stage Direction]
10,914
[Stage Direction]
9,745
[Stage Direction]
Premium paid on redemption of called
[Stage Direction]
5,842
[Stage Direction]
271
[Stage Direction]
35
[Stage Direction]
9
[Stage Direction]
Subsidies to Provinces
[Stage Direction]
14,445
[Stage Direction]
14,447
[Stage Direction]
14,383
[Stage Direction]
33,394
[Stage Direction]
17,095
[Stage Direction]
Miscellaneous Grants and Contributions
[Stage Direction]
531
[Stage Direction]
617
[Stage Direction]
95
[Stage Direction]
113
[Stage Direction]
147
[Stage Direction]
Civil Pensions and Superannuation....
[Stage Direction]
325
[Stage Direction]
293
[Stage Direction]
253
[Stage Direction]
224
[Stage Direction]
190
[Stage Direction]
Government contribution to Superan-
[Stage Direction]
nuation Fund
[Stage Direction]
2,341
[Stage Direction]
2,696
[Stage Direction]
3,161
[Stage Direction]
3,488
[Stage Direction]
4,050
[Stage Direction]
Old Age Pensions, including pensions to
[Stage Direction]
blind persons
[Stage Direction]
32,187
[Stage Direction]
(') -
[Stage Direction]
(*) -
[Stage Direction]
(*) -
[Stage Direction]
« -
[Stage Direction]
16,348
[Stage Direction]
14,734
[Stage Direction]
9,172
[Stage Direction]
Compensation to Provinces under Dom-
[Stage Direction]
inion-Provincial Taxation Agree-
[Stage Direction]
ments-
[Stage Direction]
Income and Corporation Taxes
[Stage Direction]
82,977
[Stage Direction]
94,343
[Stage Direction]
94,380
[Stage Direction]
122,497
[Stage Direction]
84,387
[Stage Direction]
10,357
[Stage Direction]
3,709
[Stage Direction]
Administrative and Sundry Expend-
[Stage Direction]
iture
[Stage Direction]
4,724
[Stage Direction]
7,569
[Stage Direction]
9,599
[Stage Direction]
11,313
[Stage Direction]
14,729
[Stage Direction]
Fisheries
[Stage Direction]
2,159
[Stage Direction]
3,262
[Stage Direction]
3,599
[Stage Direction]
4,097
[Stage Direction]
5,158
[Stage Direction]
Governor General and Lieutenant-
[Stage Direction]
Governors
[Stage Direction]
223
[Stage Direction]
227
[Stage Direction]
252
[Stage Direction]
239
[Stage Direction]
242
[Stage Direction]
Insurance
[Stage Direction]
185
[Stage Direction]
199
[Stage Direction]
212
[Stage Direction]
237
[Stage Direction]
263
[Stage Direction]
Justice
[Stage Direction]
2,696
[Stage Direction]
2,848
[Stage Direction]
3,194
[Stage Direction]
3,917
[Stage Direction]
4,025
[Stage Direction]
Penitentiaries
[Stage Direction]
2,936
[Stage Direction]
3,258
[Stage Direction]
3,806
[Stage Direction]
4,564
[Stage Direction]
5,863
[Stage Direction]
Labour
[Stage Direction]
1,446
[Stage Direction]
1,620
[Stage Direction]
2,010
[Stage Direction]
2,319
[Stage Direction]
4,712
[Stage Direction]
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940-
[Stage Direction]
Administration
[Stage Direction]
5,113
[Stage Direction]
6,185
[Stage Direction]
7,496
[Stage Direction]
17,641
[Stage Direction]
18,965
[Stage Direction]
Government Contribution
[Stage Direction]
12,746
[Stage Direction]
12,514
[Stage Direction]
15,200
[Stage Direction]
17,500
[Stage Direction]
20,103
[Stage Direction]
Government Annuities-
[Stage Direction]
Payments to maintain reserve
[Stage Direction]
257
[Stage Direction]
294
[Stage Direction]
977
[Stage Direction]
332
[Stage Direction]
11,408
[Stage Direction]
Legislation-
[Stage Direction]
House of Commons
[Stage Direction]
1,612
[Stage Direction]
2,235
[Stage Direction]
2,786
[Stage Direction]
3,022
[Stage Direction]
2,628
[Stage Direction]
Library of Parliament
[Stage Direction]
72
[Stage Direction]
74
[Stage Direction]
90
[Stage Direction]
103
[Stage Direction]
127
[Stage Direction]
Senate
[Stage Direction]
485
[Stage Direction]
727
[Stage Direction]
881
[Stage Direction]
946
[Stage Direction]
736
[Stage Direction]
General
[Stage Direction]
95
[Stage Direction]
98
[Stage Direction]
167
[Stage Direction]
270
[Stage Direction]
272
[Stage Direction]
Chief Electoral Officer, including
[Stage Direction]
elections
[Stage Direction]
179
[Stage Direction]
3,091
[Stage Direction]
144
[Stage Direction]
151
[Stage Direction]
287
[Stage Direction]
M ines and Resources-
[Stage Direction]
Administration
[Stage Direction]
108
[Stage Direction]
164
[Stage Direction]
173
[Stage Direction]
268
[Stage Direction]
366
[Stage Direction]
Immigration
[Stage Direction]
1,309
[Stage Direction]
1,524
[Stage Direction]
2,047
[Stage Direction]
2,665
[Stage Direction]
5,564
[Stage Direction]
Indian Affairs
[Stage Direction]
6,162
[Stage Direction]
4,466
[Stage Direction]
5,948
[Stage Direction]
7,180
[Stage Direction]
10,378
[Stage Direction]
1,831
[Stage Direction]
2,689
[Stage Direction]
4,962
[Stage Direction]
5,630
[Stage Direction]
11,863
[Stage Direction]
1,610
[Stage Direction]
1,323
[Stage Direction]
3,444
[Stage Direction]
2,554
[Stage Direction]
126
[Stage Direction]
1,216
[Stage Direction]
1,303
[Stage Direction]
1,847
[Stage Direction]
5,318
[Stage Direction]
17,970
[Stage Direction]
19
[Stage Direction]
Dominion Fuel Board Administration
[Stage Direction]
coal subsidies and subventions
[Stage Direction]
2,737
[Stage Direction]
o -
[Stage Direction]
(2)
[Stage Direction]
(2) -
[Stage Direction]
(2) -
[Stage Direction]
National Defence-
[Stage Direction]
Administration and sundry services...
[Stage Direction]
67
[Stage Direction]
127
[Stage Direction]
253
[Stage Direction]
615
[Stage Direction]
1,127
[Stage Direction]
Pensions-Militia Pensions Act
[Stage Direction]
(') -
[Stage Direction]
(*) -
[Stage Direction]
(3) -
[Stage Direction]
(3) -
[Stage Direction]
4,863
[Stage Direction]
Government contribution to Perman-
[Stage Direction]
ent Forces Pension Fund
[Stage Direction]
(4) -
[Stage Direction]
7,867
[Stage Direction]
0) See Department of National Health and Welfare.
(2) See Department of Reconstruction and Supply or Trade and Commerce.
(*) Included under Veterans Affairs.
(4) Included under Demobilization and Reconversion-Army, Navy and Air Services.

The Budget-Appendix
STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES BY MAJOR CATEGORIES AND BY DEPARTMENTS FOR THE LAST FIVE FISCAL YEARS-Continued
(Thousands of Dollars)
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
1944-45
[Stage Direction]
1945-46
[Stage Direction]
1946-47
[Stage Direction]
1947-48
[Stage Direction]
1948-49
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
Ordinary Expenditure-Con.
[Stage Direction]
National Health and Welfare
[Stage Direction]
1,725
[Stage Direction]
7,294
[Stage Direction]
8,616
[Stage Direction]
10,815
[Stage Direction]
14,381
[Stage Direction]
Old age pensions, including pensions to
[Stage Direction]
blind persons
[Stage Direction]
(s) -
[Stage Direction]
33,715
[Stage Direction]
35,928
[Stage Direction]
58,090
[Stage Direction]
66,764
[Stage Direction]
172,632
[Stage Direction]
245,141
[Stage Direction]
263,165
[Stage Direction]
270,910
[Stage Direction]
7; 528
[Stage Direction]
National Revenue (including Income
[Stage Direction]
Tax)
[Stage Direction]
20,114
[Stage Direction]
22,030
[Stage Direction]
28,551
[Stage Direction]
37,312
[Stage Direction]
49,323
[Stage Direction]
838
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
Post Office
[Stage Direction]
54,629
[Stage Direction]
57,730
[Stage Direction]
64,213
[Stage Direction]
67,944
[Stage Direction]
77,643
[Stage Direction]
Prime Minister's Office
[Stage Direction]
64
[Stage Direction]
61
[Stage Direction]
88
[Stage Direction]
99
[Stage Direction]
106
[Stage Direction]
Privy Council
[Stage Direction]
81
[Stage Direction]
419
[Stage Direction]
808
[Stage Direction]
1,287
[Stage Direction]
4,351
[Stage Direction]
Public Archives
[Stage Direction]
124
[Stage Direction]
127
[Stage Direction]
149
[Stage Direction]
157
[Stage Direction]
173
[Stage Direction]
Public Printing and Stationery
[Stage Direction]
232
[Stage Direction]
238
[Stage Direction]
293
[Stage Direction]
536
[Stage Direction]
753
[Stage Direction]
Public Works
[Stage Direction]
13,169
[Stage Direction]
16,283
[Stage Direction]
26,360
[Stage Direction]
35,545
[Stage Direction]
50,644
[Stage Direction]
Reconstruction and Supplv
[Stage Direction]
969
[Stage Direction]
2,103
[Stage Direction]
1,932
[Stage Direction]
12,342
[Stage Direction]
3,403
[Stage Direction]
Dominion Fuel Board Administration,
[Stage Direction]
(6) -
[Stage Direction]
2,339
[Stage Direction]
1,776
[Stage Direction]
1,143
[Stage Direction]
(7) -
[Stage Direction]
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
[Stage Direction]
7,183
[Stage Direction]
7,284
[Stage Direction]
8,604
[Stage Direction]
10,406
[Stage Direction]
13,717
[Stage Direction]
Secretary of State
[Stage Direction]
864
[Stage Direction]
954
[Stage Direction]
1,157
[Stage Direction]
1,345
[Stage Direction]
1,559
[Stage Direction]
Trade and Commerce
[Stage Direction]
5,830
[Stage Direction]
6,356
[Stage Direction]
9,776
[Stage Direction]
10,846
[Stage Direction]
24,778
[Stage Direction]
Dominion Fuel Board Administration
[Stage Direction]
2,164
[Stage Direction]
Mail Subsidies and Steamship Sub-
[Stage Direction]
ventions
[Stage Direction]
869
[Stage Direction]
994
[Stage Direction]
1,103
[Stage Direction]
(*) ~
[Stage Direction]
(8) -
[Stage Direction]
Transport-
[Stage Direction]
Administration and general
[Stage Direction]
1,390
[Stage Direction]
1,440
[Stage Direction]
1,499
[Stage Direction]
1,973
[Stage Direction]
3,492
[Stage Direction]
Air Service
[Stage Direction]
3,939
[Stage Direction]
4,196
[Stage Direction]
5,653
[Stage Direction]
10,390
[Stage Direction]
15,932
[Stage Direction]
Marine Service
[Stage Direction]
4,897
[Stage Direction]
4,895
[Stage Direction]
5,963
[Stage Direction]
6,831
[Stage Direction]
8,176
[Stage Direction]
Railways and Canals
[Stage Direction]
3,306
[Stage Direction]
3,391
[Stage Direction]
3,702
[Stage Direction]
4,073
[Stage Direction]
5,124
[Stage Direction]
Maritime Freight Rates Act
[Stage Direction]
4,733
[Stage Direction]
4,345
[Stage Direction]
4,871
[Stage Direction]
5,090
[Stage Direction]
6,606
[Stage Direction]
Mail Subsidies and Steamship Subven-
[Stage Direction]
tions, including Canadian Maritime
[Stage Direction]
1,764
[Stage Direction]
2,166
[Stage Direction]
Veterans Affairs-
[Stage Direction]
Departmental Administration
[Stage Direction]
196
[Stage Direction]
1.142
[Stage Direction]
1,680
[Stage Direction]
1,677
[Stage Direction]
2,225
[Stage Direction]
Pensions (World War 1 and military)..
[Stage Direction]
39,372
[Stage Direction]
39,996
[Stage Direction]
40,771
[Stage Direction]
41,227
[Stage Direction]
Pensions (World Wars 1 and 2 and N.W.
[Stage Direction]
Rebellion, 1885)
[Stage Direction]
(9) -
[Stage Direction]
(9) -
[Stage Direction]
(9) -
[Stage Direction]
(9) -
[Stage Direction]
102,951
[Stage Direction]
War services gratuities and re-estab-
[Stage Direction]
lishment credits
[Stage Direction]
20,228
[Stage Direction]
(9) -
[Stage Direction]
(9) -
[Stage Direction]
(9) -
[Stage Direction]
([DOT]) -
[Stage Direction]
Treatment and after-care of returned
[Stage Direction]
soldiers and allowances to depend-
[Stage Direction]
ents
[Stage Direction]
19,845
[Stage Direction]
28,551
[Stage Direction]
44,303
[Stage Direction]
46,286
[Stage Direction]
69,937
[Stage Direction]
Soldiers Settlement and Veterans
[Stage Direction]
Land Act
[Stage Direction]
1,391
[Stage Direction]
3,160
[Stage Direction]
6,551
[Stage Direction]
8,092
[Stage Direction]
7,885
[Stage Direction]
Total Ordinary Expenditure
[Stage Direction]
767,376
[Stage Direction]
1,061,902
[Stage Direction]
1,236,235
[Stage Direction]
1,380,002
[Stage Direction]
1,573,450
[Stage Direction]
Capital Expenditure
[Stage Direction]
Railways
[Stage Direction]
630
[Stage Direction]
2,313
[Stage Direction]
2,654
[Stage Direction]
3,809
[Stage Direction]
3,239
[Stage Direction]
Public Works
[Stage Direction]
2,534
[Stage Direction]
2,195
[Stage Direction]
8,546
[Stage Direction]
11,847
[Stage Direction]
15,234
[Stage Direction]
Total Capital Expenditure
[Stage Direction]
3,164
[Stage Direction]
4,508
[Stage Direction]
11,200
[Stage Direction]
15,656
[Stage Direction]
18,473
[Stage Direction]
(5) See Department of Finance.
(<) See Department of Munitions and Supply.
C) See Department of Trade and Commerce.
(!) See Department of Transport.
(*) See War, Demobilization and Reconversion Expenditure.
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Appendix
STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES BY MAJOR CATEGORIES AND BY DEPARTMENTS FOR THE LAST FIVE FISCAL YEARS-Continued (Thousands of Dollars)
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
1944-45
[Stage Direction]
1945-46
[Stage Direction]
1946-47
[Stage Direction]
1947-48
[Stage Direction]
1948-49
[Stage Direction]
*
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
War, Demobilization and
[Stage Direction]
Reconversion Expenditure
[Stage Direction]
National Defence-Army, Navy and Air
[Stage Direction]
189,360
[Stage Direction]
238,915
[Stage Direction]
4,090
[Stage Direction]
6,024
[Stage Direction]
16,033
[Stage Direction]
National Defence-Army-
[Stage Direction]
1,243,733
[Stage Direction]
935,006
[Stage Direction]
208,106
[Stage Direction]
1,580
[Stage Direction]
L002
[Stage Direction]
135
[Stage Direction]
Inspection Board of the U.K. and
[Stage Direction]
8,362
[Stage Direction]
6,124
[Stage Direction]
2,819
[Stage Direction]
8,080
[Stage Direction]
7,446
[Stage Direction]
8,064
[Stage Direction]
1,861,755
[Stage Direction]
949,578
[Stage Direction]
219,124
[Stage Direction]
417,099
[Stage Direction]
241,759
[Stage Direction]
64,873
[Stage Direction]
National Defence-Air Services-
[Stage Direction]
759,070
[Stage Direction]
197,076
[Stage Direction]
4,779
[Stage Direction]
227,942
[Stage Direction]
108,032
[Stage Direction]
37,697
[Stage Direction]
272,342
[Stage Direction]
74,770
[Stage Direction]
11,962
[Stage Direction]
72,153
[Stage Direction]
16,325
[Stage Direction]
38,6231
[Stage Direction]
14,884J
[Stage Direction]
17,109
[Stage Direction]
815 J
[Stage Direction]
Headquarters and Commands Admin-
[Stage Direction]
17,880
[Stage Direction]
11,315
[Stage Direction]
102
[Stage Direction]
97
[Stage Direction]
84
[Stage Direction]
1,859,456
[Stage Direction]
524,330
[Stage Direction]
99,271
[Stage Direction]
Reconstruction and Supply (formerly
[Stage Direction]
Munitions and Supply)-
[Stage Direction]
Administration, reconversion and
[Stage Direction]
operation of Crown Companies and/
[Stage Direction]
10,784
[Stage Direction]
1,558
[Stage Direction]
(10) -
[Stage Direction]
Administration
[Stage Direction]
8,841
[Stage Direction]
6,858
[Stage Direction]
4,140
[Stage Direction]
1,305
[Stage Direction]
122
[Stage Direction]
35,323
[Stage Direction]
38,558
[Stage Direction]
1,013
[Stage Direction]
Production and transportation subsidies
[Stage Direction]
for Canadian steel producers, etc
[Stage Direction]
(..) _
[Stage Direction]
(ii)
[Stage Direction]
12,663
[Stage Direction]
7,950
[Stage Direction]
(.0) _
[Stage Direction]
Research and development of jet
[Stage Direction]
4,500
[Stage Direction]
(10) _
[Stage Direction]
205,039
[Stage Direction]
112,675
[Stage Direction]
1,964
[Stage Direction]
1,906
[Stage Direction]
24,743
[Stage Direction]
1,007
[Stage Direction]
151,846
[Stage Direction]
55,200
[Stage Direction]
6,400
[Stage Direction]
Other
[Stage Direction]
2,932
[Stage Direction]
5,522
[Stage Direction]
4,287
[Stage Direction]
1,056
[Stage Direction]
242
[Stage Direction]
818,776
[Stage Direction]
278,807
[Stage Direction]
147,140
[Stage Direction]
62,334
[Stage Direction]
1,377
[Stage Direction]
Agriculture-
[Stage Direction]
Disposal of agricultural products ren-
[Stage Direction]
1,194
[Stage Direction]
354
[Stage Direction]
958
[Stage Direction]
7
[Stage Direction]
Freight assistance on western feed
[Stage Direction]
grains
[Stage Direction]
15,943
[Stage Direction]
17,317
[Stage Direction]
18,828
[Stage Direction]
20,092
[Stage Direction]
18,154
[Stage Direction]
Fertilizer subventions and freight
[Stage Direction]
446
[Stage Direction]
438
[Stage Direction]
283
[Stage Direction]
Subsidies and bulk purchasing of
[Stage Direction]
597
[Stage Direction]
Subsidy on western wheat used ex-
[Stage Direction]
7,471
[Stage Direction]
7,864
[Stage Direction]
6,474
[Stage Direction]
4,421
[Stage Direction]
Subsidy on milk and milk products..
[Stage Direction]
42,330
[Stage Direction]
41,659
[Stage Direction]
36,759
[Stage Direction]
1,861
[Stage Direction]
Premium on hog carcasses suitable
[Stage Direction]
for export to U.K
[Stage Direction]
14,091
[Stage Direction]
9,573
[Stage Direction]
4,506
[Stage Direction]
5,474
[Stage Direction]
4,585
[Stage Direction]
To provide for reserve stocks of feed
[Stage Direction]
715
[Stage Direction]
1,274
[Stage Direction]
1,551
[Stage Direction]
434
[Stage Direction]
Sundry
[Stage Direction]
5,864
[Stage Direction]
4,499
[Stage Direction]
1,757
[Stage Direction]
347
[Stage Direction]
439
[Stage Direction]
88,054
[Stage Direction]
82,978
[Stage Direction]
71,116
[Stage Direction]
33,233
[Stage Direction]
23,178
[Stage Direction]
(10) See Department of Trade and Commerce. (") Included in Expansion of Industry.

The Budget-Appendix
STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES BY MAJOR CATEGORIES AND BY DEPARTMENTS FOR THE LAST FIVE FISCAL YEARS-Continued
(Thousands of Dollars)
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
1944-45
[Stage Direction]
1945-46
[Stage Direction]
1946-47
[Stage Direction]
1947-48
[Stage Direction]
1948-49
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
%
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
%
[Stage Direction]
War, Demobilization and
[Stage Direction]
Reconversion Expenditure-Con
[Stage Direction]
External Affairs-
[Stage Direction]
Contribution to International Refugee
[Stage Direction]
5,468
[Stage Direction]
5,412
[Stage Direction]
16,927
[Stage Direction]
325
[Stage Direction]
Sundry
[Stage Direction]
296
[Stage Direction]
383
[Stage Direction]
837
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
102
[Stage Direction]
296
[Stage Direction]
388
[Stage Direction]
837
[Stage Direction]
22,400
[Stage Direction]
5,839
[Stage Direction]
Finance-
[Stage Direction]
Comptroller of the Treasury
[Stage Direction]
9,216
[Stage Direction]
9,369
[Stage Direction]
6,072
[Stage Direction]
1,702
[Stage Direction]
(12)
[Stage Direction]
Wartime Prices and Trade Board-
[Stage Direction]
Administration
[Stage Direction]
12,720
[Stage Direction]
14,753
[Stage Direction]
12,738
[Stage Direction]
5,794
[Stage Direction]
3,321
[Stage Direction]
Subsidies due to application of Order
[Stage Direction]
placing a ceiling over all prices
[Stage Direction]
107,338
[Stage Direction]
97,819
[Stage Direction]
88,778
[Stage Direction]
34,341
[Stage Direction]
14,911
[Stage Direction]
Advances for payment of drawback
[Stage Direction]
claims to millers and other manu-
[Stage Direction]
facturers of wheat products
[Stage Direction]
19,700
[Stage Direction]
14,750
[Stage Direction]
26,000
[Stage Direction]
17,000
[Stage Direction]
11,000
[Stage Direction]
Advances to the Canadian Wheat
[Stage Direction]
Board to cover deficits in certain
[Stage Direction]
13,058
[Stage Direction]
(IS) _
[Stage Direction]
(U) _
[Stage Direction]
(IS) _
[Stage Direction]
House Conversion Program
[Stage Direction]
4,053
[Stage Direction]
1,764
[Stage Direction]
(*) _
[Stage Direction]
(U) _
[Stage Direction]
(IS) _
[Stage Direction]
Old Age Pensions increased benefits. ..
[Stage Direction]
8,788
[Stage Direction]
(")
[Stage Direction]
(") -
[Stage Direction]
(IS) _
[Stage Direction]
(IS) _
[Stage Direction]
Halifax V-E Day disorders and explo-
[Stage Direction]
4,610
[Stage Direction]
2,127
[Stage Direction]
248
[Stage Direction]
161
[Stage Direction]
1,646
[Stage Direction]
958
[Stage Direction]
999
[Stage Direction]
363
[Stage Direction]
1,457
[Stage Direction]
176,519
[Stage Direction]
144,371
[Stage Direction]
136,875
[Stage Direction]
59,200
[Stage Direction]
30,689
[Stage Direction]
Labour-
[Stage Direction]
1,617
[Stage Direction]
701
[Stage Direction]
15
[Stage Direction]
'333
[Stage Direction]
3
[Stage Direction]
National Selective Service program. ..
[Stage Direction]
11,098
[Stage Direction]
11,268
[Stage Direction]
11,230
[Stage Direction]
(IS) _
[Stage Direction]
(") -
[Stage Direction]
Removal of enemy aliens from pro-
[Stage Direction]
2,137
[Stage Direction]
2,203
[Stage Direction]
3,161
[Stage Direction]
Vocational training for discharged
[Stage Direction]
members of the Canadian Armed
[Stage Direction]
Forces
[Stage Direction]
602
[Stage Direction]
4,365
[Stage Direction]
13,049
[Stage Direction]
6,405
[Stage Direction]
3,472
[Stage Direction]
Vocational Schools - Payments to
[Stage Direction]
607
[Stage Direction]
2,442
[Stage Direction]
3,264
[Stage Direction]
(17)
[Stage Direction]
3,877
[Stage Direction]
3,712
[Stage Direction]
2,757
[Stage Direction]
1,723
[Stage Direction]
1,767
[Stage Direction]
19,664
[Stage Direction]
22,859
[Stage Direction]
32,654
[Stage Direction]
11,392
[Stage Direction]
5,239
[Stage Direction]
Mines and Resources-
[Stage Direction]
Prince Rupert - Terrace - Cedarvale
[Stage Direction]
2,499
[Stage Direction]
8
[Stage Direction]
511
[Stage Direction]
262
[Stage Direction]
45
[Stage Direction]
Aerial Photography
[Stage Direction]
51
[Stage Direction]
572
[Stage Direction]
944
[Stage Direction]
726
[Stage Direction]
851
[Stage Direction]
Sundry
[Stage Direction]
2,753
[Stage Direction]
2,633
[Stage Direction]
1,509
[Stage Direction]
1,086
[Stage Direction]
138
[Stage Direction]
5,814
[Stage Direction]
3,45 7
[Stage Direction]
2,498
[Stage Direction]
1,812
[Stage Direction]
989
[Stage Direction]
National War Services-
[Stage Direction]
15,933
[Stage Direction]
13,070
[Stage Direction]
1,856
[Stage Direction]
'859
[Stage Direction]
8,193
[Stage Direction]
316
[Stage Direction]
29
[Stage Direction]
25,982
[Stage Direction]
14,245
[Stage Direction]
29
[Stage Direction]
National Health and Welfare-
[Stage Direction]
Old Age Pensions increased benefits. .
[Stage Direction]
(IS) _
[Stage Direction]
9,103
[Stage Direction]
9,517
[Stage Direction]
996
[Stage Direction]
(17) _
[Stage Direction]
Sundry
[Stage Direction]
1,340
[Stage Direction]
2,135
[Stage Direction]
157
[Stage Direction]
107
[Stage Direction]
31
[Stage Direction]
1,340
[Stage Direction]
11,238
[Stage Direction]
9,674
[Stage Direction]
1,103
[Stage Direction]
31
[Stage Direction]
Privy Council-
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Information Service (form
[Stage Direction]
erly Wartime Information Board). .
[Stage Direction]
1,700
[Stage Direction]
1,229
[Stage Direction]
58
[Stage Direction]
43
[Stage Direction]
45
[Stage Direction]
8
[Stage Direction]
1,758
[Stage Direction]
1,272
[Stage Direction]
45
[Stage Direction]
8
[Stage Direction]
(12)
[Stage Direction]
Included in ordinary expenditure.
[Stage Direction]
(13)
[Stage Direction]
Included in special expenditure.
[Stage Direction]
(n) See Department of Reconstruction and Supply.
(15) See Department of National Health and Welfare.
(is) Included in ordinary expenditure (Unemployment Insurance administration). (U) Included in ordinary expenditure.
(1!) See Department of Finance.
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Appendix
STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES BY MAJOR CATEGORIES AND BY DEPARTMENTS FOR THE LAST FIVE FISCAL YEARS-Continued (Thousands of Dollars)
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
1944-45
[Stage Direction]
1945-46
[Stage Direction]
1946-47
[Stage Direction]
1947-48
[Stage Direction]
1948-49
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
War, Demobilization and Recon-
[Stage Direction]
version Expenditure-Con.
[Stage Direction]
Public Works
[Stage Direction]
6,500 3,709
[Stage Direction]
6,205
[Stage Direction]
3,651 1,896
[Stage Direction]
1,242 1,627
[Stage Direction]
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
[Stage Direction]
4,775
[Stage Direction]
Trade and Commerce-
[Stage Direction]
Gift of wheat to Greece
[Stage Direction]
6,749
[Stage Direction]
Administration
[Stage Direction]
1,000
[Stage Direction]
Administration, reconversion and oper-
[Stage Direction]
ation of Crown Companies and/or Crown Plants
[Stage Direction]
2,585
[Stage Direction]
Production and transportation subsi-
[Stage Direction]
dies for Canadian steel producers, etc
[Stage Direction]
7,062
[Stage Direction]
Research and development of jet
[Stage Direction]
engines and aircraft
[Stage Direction]
2,000 1,157 13,80/,
[Stage Direction]
670 7.J19
[Stage Direction]
1.772 1.772
[Stage Direction]
682 682
[Stage Direction]
126 126
[Stage Direction]
16,433	15,013	9,723	6,387	1,637
Acquisition of airfields and works from					
United States Government		18,661				
Veterans Affairs-					
Treatment-Defence Forces		11,449 11,939	26,298 22,200	50,982 33,763	27,130 40,517	m - (.7) _
Pensions-Defence Forces						
Additions, alterations and improve-					
ments to departmental hospitals,	5,738 2,468	7,371 32,131	8,334 96,762	6,805 78,323	5,095 44,826
Post-discharge rehabilitation benefits. War service gratuities and re-establish-					
ment credits		(*') -1,165 33,759	239,585 774 328,359	318,325 273 508,439	84,175 418 237,368	36,148 1,181 87,250
Sundry						
					
	3,960	2,453	2,181	805	593
Write-off of Air Training Plan Loans and					
Advances as per United Kingdom Financial Agreement Act, 1946			425,000 766,862			
Mutual Aid (excluding administration)..	793,200				
Military Relief		i0,199	34,463 142,852			
Canada's Contribution to UNRRA		11,093				
					
Total War, Demobilization and Recon-					
	4,418,446	4,002,949	1,314,798	634,421	425,574
					
Special Expenditure					
Agricultural and Other Projects		3,869	4,423	4,432	5,253	10,489
Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939-					
	188	327	333	450	
Advances to Prairie Farm Emergency					
Fund		1,295	12,052	6,597	10,744	8,640
Wheat acreage reduction plan-
[Stage Direction]
Administration
[Stage Direction]
261
[Stage Direction]
159
[Stage Direction]
Payments of awards to farmers
[Stage Direction]
1,707
[Stage Direction]
397
[Stage Direction]
2
[Stage Direction]
Deficits-Canadian Wheat Board
[Stage Direction]
(.*) _
[Stage Direction]
20,562
[Stage Direction]
31,450
[Stage Direction]
4,454
[Stage Direction]
Provision of reserve to meet deficits
[Stage Direction]
resulting from the operations of the
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Wheat Board not previously provided for
[Stage Direction]
186
[Stage Direction]
Subsidies on oats and barley used as feed
[Stage Direction]
for live stock-Dept, of Agriculture.. .
[Stage Direction]
13,963
[Stage Direction]
Reimbursement to Canadian Wheat
[Stage Direction]
Board for expenses of regulating deliveries of grain-Department of Trade and Commerce
[Stage Direction]
733
[Stage Direction]
128
[Stage Direction]
(17) Included in ordinary expenditure.
(1#) Deficits charged to the War Appropriation in 1944-45.

The Budget-Appendix
STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES BY MAJOR CATEGORIES AND BY DEPARTMENTS FOR THE LAST FIVE FISCAL YEARS-Concluded
(Thousands of Dollars)
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
1944-45
[Stage Direction]
1945-46
[Stage Direction]
1946-47
[Stage Direction]
1947-48
[Stage Direction]
1948-49
[Stage Direction]
Special Expenditure-Con.
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
%
[Stage Direction]
*
[Stage Direction]
Reimbursement to Canadian Commercial Corporation for expenses in purchasing materials, etc., on behalf of Dept, of National Defence-Dept, of
[Stage Direction]
548
[Stage Direction]
776
[Stage Direction]
Fraser Valley, B.C., Flood Area-
[Stage Direction]
4,500 5,000 424
[Stage Direction]
Grant for emergency relief and rehabil-
[Stage Direction]
Repairs to Federal Government structures and telegraph and telephone
[Stage Direction]
Total Special Expenditure...	7,506	17,358	31,926	63,141	34,813
Government Owned Enterprises					
Losses charged to Consolidated Deficit Account- Prince Edward Island Car Ferry and	773	688	888	932	1,220 33,533 2,933 238
			8,962	15,885 1,370 137
[Stage Direction]
National Harbours Board
[Stage Direction]
59
[Stage Direction]
86
[Stage Direction]
114
[Stage Direction]
Total Charged to Consolidated Deficit Account....
[Stage Direction]
832
[Stage Direction]
774
[Stage Direction]
9,964
[Stage Direction]
18,324
[Stage Direction]
37,924
[Stage Direction]
Loans and advances non-active-
[Stage Direction]
526
[Stage Direction]
560
[Stage Direction]
718
[Stage Direction]
371
[Stage Direction]
1,739
[Stage Direction]
Total government owned	1,358	1,334	10,682	18,695	39,663
					
Other Charges
[Stage Direction]
Write-down of assets chargeable to Consolidated Deficit Account- Reduction of soldier and general land
[Stage Direction]
325
[Stage Direction]
36
[Stage Direction]
232
[Stage Direction]
3
[Stage Direction]
129
[Stage Direction]
2,097 63
[Stage Direction]
1,000 45
[Stage Direction]
Yearly established losses in seed grain and relief accounts- Department of Mines and Resources. Cancellation of Canadian Farm Loan
[Stage Direction]
36 1
[Stage Direction]
45 1
[Stage Direction]
54
[Stage Direction]
Canadian National Railways Securities Trust Stock-reduction due to retire-
[Stage Direction]
1,308 25,000 2,663
[Stage Direction]
1,885 75,000 4,505
[Stage Direction]
Provision for reserve for possible losses on ultimate realization of Active
[Stage Direction]
25,000
[Stage Direction]
25,000 464
[Stage Direction]
75,000 5,631
[Stage Direction]
Provision for reserve for conditional
[Stage Direction]
Canadian National Railway Securities Trust Stock- Net Changes in Dominion's equity in
[Stage Direction]
22,400
[Stage Direction]
22,631
[Stage Direction]
Transfer from Capital Accounts-to Con-
[Stage Direction]
158
[Stage Direction]
2,243
[Stage Direction]
47,762	48,177	29,386	83,711	83,919
					
Grand Total Expenditures..	5,245,612	5,136,228	2,634,227	2,195,626	2,175,892
[Stage Direction]
Friday, Oclober 21, 1949