1949-03-08

PROVISION FOR EVENING SITTINGS 7.30 TO 10.30 UNTIL LAST SITTING DAY IN APRIL

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. St. Laurent that, except on Wednesdays, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair at six o'clock p.m. until seven-thirty, and shall adjourn the house at ten-thirty p.m. without question put, unless the closure rule (standing order No. 39) be then in operation, this order to be in effect until and upon the last sitting day of the month of April.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I understand that a large number of members of the house wish to give further consideration to the matter involved in the motion, debate on which was adjourned yesterday. I therefore ask that the motion stand.
Motion stands.



EXTRADITION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Unfortunately 1 have not sent him a copy of it, but he will probably be able to answer it. Is the government negotiating with the government of the United States for a new treaty of extradition? Can the government say whether the principle of dual criminality will remain a part of the treaty?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I am unable to answer that question without notice. I shall look into the matter and give the hon. gentleman an answer tomorrow or the next day.



GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: My
question would ordinarily be addressed to the Minister of Labour, but in his absence will the Prime Minister indicate whether it is the intention of the government to introduce a bill during the present session, similar to that introduced in the 1948 session, to revise or amend the Government Annuities Act?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The matter is still under consideration, and no decision has yet been reached.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ronald Moore (Churchill):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, or to his parliamentary assistant. Notice was sent to the minister, but I do not know whether the parliamentary assistant has received it. What action does the Department of Labour intend to take to protect tradesmen and other workers from being put out of work by the use of large numbers of displaced persons? This question is raised on behalf of trades and labour councils at the following points: Windsor, Fort William, and Flin Flon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that if he wishes to put a question before the orders of the day are called, it should be brief.


Mr. Paul E. Cote (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: 1 wish to thank the hon. member for having given notice of his question. In answer I wish to state that the Department of Labour, and the immigration branch of the Department of Mines and Resources, have already taken every precaution to protect Canadian tradesmen and other workers from being displaced by immigrants. In the case of workers who are related to people already in Canada, the Canadian relative is required to sponsor the immigrant, to provide housing, and to undertake that he or she will not become a public charge and, if he or she is a worker, that employment is available.
In the case of persons brought in under the group labour plan, it is first of all ascertained that there are no local people available to fill the vacancies, and the employer who applies is required to guarantee at least twelve months' continuous employment.
All applications are reviewed by an interdepartmental committee on which there is a

Inquiries of the Ministry representative of the national employment service, and if there are people in Canada already available the application is not approved. No workers have been brought to Canada since November 1, 1948, other than those sponsored by persons already in Canada, and who have a relationship with them; and a number of girls for domestic service. Of course, workers' dependents have been coming forward.
The Department of Labour is watching the situation closely, and reports from the national employment offices have in no way indicated that new arrivals are displacing persons already in Canada.



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: desire to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, of which I have given him due notice, together with some information which may help him answer the question. Have any new agreements been entered into with the province of Prince Edward Island for the construction of potato warehouses, other than those provided for in the regulations approved by P.C. 4633 under date of December 3, 1947?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The short answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, is that there have been no changes in the regulations. As the hon. member has stated, he sent me his file along with notice of the question. To answer his question in full I would say that the telegram he sent on March 1 is in accordance with the facts. With respect to what has been stated by the premier of Prince Edward Island, I would say tha\ he has been to Ottawa and has discussed the possibility of making changes; and I take it from the newspaper reports that he intends to suggest that some changes be made. Up to the present time, however, we have not received the suggestions.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. D. F. Brown for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. Harry R. Jackman (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the

throne there are very few matters that can still usefully be brought up, or in respect of which one may submit a humble contribution, but I should like to say a few words about three matters in particular. The first is the very singular omission from the speech from the throne of any reference to old age pensions or a national retirement plan; the second is the matter of housing, which was touched upon very sketchily, and finally, I should like, before the budget is prepared, to make a few remarks on the subject of taxation.
The most striking omission from the speech from the throne was the complete absence of any reference to old age pensions or a national retirement plan. Last season we saw the present government reduce the rate on government annuities from four per cent to three per cent, making it that much more difficult for our people to provide a little self-help and thus in part at least look after themselves in their old age. Surely this was a backward step; for I do not suppose there is a single member of any party in this house who does not believe in contributory old age pensions. And what a little contribution it was, under the old dominion government annuities scheme, for the government to allow four per cent; it was not a high average rate, having in mind the average rate paid on government bonds over a long period. But the government saw fit to reduce it to three per cent.
I should like to bring before the house a suggestion I offered last year, the acceptance of which would enable the ordinary citizen to make some provision, before taxation, for his old age. Many industrial companies, as well as the government, have old age pension plans or superannuation benefits, and to these plans the employer, the employee and the state make contributions. The contribution made by the employee, usually about four or five per cent of his weekly wage, is tax free; in other words the employee does not pay any tax on the amount he puts into this superannuation or old age pension plan. According to an estimate made the other day by one of our fellow members there are
800,000	people in Canada today who are able to take advantage of government-approved plans under which one may save before taxation. If this government were genuinely and sincerely interested in the problems of old age and in making some kind of provision therefor, long ago they would have put on the statute books a plan under which any individual, whether a government employee, an employee of some large company with an approved plan, or anyone else, would be able to make a weekly contribution to a national retirement plan-which is the name I shall

give it. These contributions would all be deductible from earnings before tax is collected, and they would come off the top bracket. Thus it is possible for some fortunate individuals to save before taxation. The majority of our people, however, are not favoured by being permitted to come under such a plan.
Just to bring the idea home to hon. gentlemen may I suggest what it would do for members of this house. Our indemnities are $4,000. If we were allowed to put something by before taxation, as do 800,000 of our people, five per cent on $4,000 would be $200 that we might put into a retirement plan; and that $200 would not be subject to taxation at whatever our top bracket might be. A cabinet minister would be able to put by five per cent of his salary, or $800. These plans also contain provisions under which one may make contributions in respect of previous years of service, up to a maximum amount of $900 per year. Therefore a cabinet minister would be allowed to deduct $800 from his current earnings and to put by $900 per year until he had made up for his past services; he would have a total of $1,700 off his top bracket, and thus would be able to make some provision for his old age.
In the same way, Mr. Speaker, this plan can be adapted to all our people, and the savings are proportionate in all brackets. When the contributor under the plan receives his annuity he is taxed in respect of the whole amount; therefore the revenue department would not lose out entirely by allowing this saving before taxation. However, as will be readily seen, when a man retires he is no longer in receipt of his weekly pay envelope; he has only his small annuity, and if he is in any tax bracket it is a very low bracket.
What I complain about, sir, is that the government has accepted this principle of saving before taxation for a large proportion of our people, but it refuses to set up any plan under which the majority of our wage earners and others who want to make some provision for their old age may receive the same consideration. No one will deny the great social advantage of helping a man to help himself to provide for his old age. Why, then, should the government not make it possible for all our people to save up to five per cent of their earnings before taxation?
If the employer does not contribute because the majority of people work for small companies or are self-employed and there is no plan available, why should these people not be allowed to save up to ten per cent, if possible, of their yearly earnings, this amount to be put into a government-sponsored plan such as dominion government annuities? I throw 29087-79
The Address-Mr. Jackman out a challenge to the great life insurance companies of this country to design a plan which will receive government approval to the end that the individual who does not come under a superannuation plan may pay up to five per cent, or, as I have just suggested, up to ten per cent of his earnings where no employer is contributing on his behalf. By this method a very substantial sum would be accumulated which would permit a man a decent retiring allowance at a reasonable age.
If that were done in the case with the members of this house-so that the point will be readily understood-ten per cent of the $4,000 indemnity would be put aside. This amount would be deducted from the gross income and put into this government-supervised or government-approved plan. The deduction would be $400 per year, and the regular tax rates would apply on the balance of his income. I cannot advocate too strongly, Mr. Speaker, the plan I have been suggesting, because it does seem most unfair that some of us are enabled to take advantage of such a plan-and I may say I am one of these-while others cannot. As I have pointed out, there are some 800,000 people who do take advantage of such a plan, but there are probably several times that number who are unable to do so because of the laxity of the government in the matter of passing reasonable legislation based on principles which the government has already approved.
The second point to which I wish to address a few remarks, Mr. Speaker, has to do with housing. It is of particular importance in my riding, because the Regent Park housing development, which is attracting attention not only throughout Canada but perhaps throughout the whole of North America, is located there. It is the first experiment in co-operation between the city, the province and the federal government in sharing the cost. In the city of Toronto the housing situation is probably more acute than it is in most other centres in Canada. I am informed that Toronto and its suburbs are today the fastest growing areas in Canada. This is partly due to a natural growth and partly due to a large influx of immigrants in that vicinity. At the same time we find that the amount of construction of housing units in Toronto proper in 1947 was less than seven per cent of the total construction. The remaining ninety-three per cent went into commercial enterprises, such as moving picture theatres, warehouses, stores, churches, hotels, etc. In 1947 almost as much construction was for the housing of automobiles as for the housing of people. A substantial amount of house construction
1248	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Jackman was undertaken in the adjoining municipalities.
In Toronto there is a shortage of land on which to construct any large-scale housing development. Nevertheless there is plenty of room for apartment house sites and multiple dwelling units. This is borne out by the construction figures for the city of Toronto proper in 1948. Instead of $2,156,000 being spent on housing, as in 1947, including apartments, we find that $3,563,000 was spent in 1948. In other words, whereas in 1947 only seven per cent of the total construction undertaken in Toronto was for housing units, in 1948 eleven per cent was for this purpose. Business and commercial enterprises undoubtedly had a priority over veterans' housing, but by 1948 the demands of industry and commerce were beginning to fall off. The failure of the government to adopt a system of permits from Ottawa until the post-war housing shortage was eliminated has resulted in a great diversion of labour and building materials from housing to commercial structures.
I make no apology, Mr. Speaker, for bringing up the subject of controls after the war period when so many hundreds of thousands of our young men were overseas. When these men returned they were getting married and beginning to raise families. During their long years of absence they were unable to provide themselves with a house. Undoubtedly, therefore, we were faced with an emergency at that time for which the government did nothing to find a satisfactory solution. The result was that the municipalities were left to control housing permits. One municipality could not say: No; you must not build this factory or this moving picture palace here, because the company or the moving picture exhibitor would simply go to the adjoining municipality. There would be no net gain for the country as a whole so far as housing units were concerned. The cost of building a moving picture theatre is not nearly as important to the exhibitor as the cost of building a house is to the returned man or any other young man who is endeavouring to set up his own home.
The result has been the outbidding of the prospective home owner for labour and materials, and his consequent inability to afford a house. Some control should have been exercised from Ottawa over the type of building which has been allowed during the last five years. Had such controls been put into operation, today we would have solved the real difficulty of a housing shortage. We might not have had quite so many motion picture houses as we have in some areas, and even now some people are alarmed over the possibility that all these theatres are not 

going to be required. There is a possibility that the motion picture industry has overbuilt.
The minister of reconstruction is quoted as saying that even if the government and industry are successful in constructing 100,000 additional housing units in 1949, that could not come close to solving the housing shortage. He said the over-all housing situation was not good, Mr. Speaker-and this is after five years. A main factor in the demand for houses is the formation of new families. The minister said that last year there were 83,000 units completed, and new familiy formations were estimated at 80,000; so you can see that we gained only 3,000 units from that point of view alone.
The government has no adequate housing policy for our people. In fact the government, through one department and another, has done more to discourage housing than to assist it. While rent controls were necessary, the handling of them and the maladministration by the government has done much to discourage investment in rental housing. In my riding there are many people who, once they have acquired their own little home, put their savings into a neighbouring house as their nest egg. The administration of rental controls has been a definite discouragement to the construction of rental housing which the government would like to see brought about.
It might also be pointed out that just as our wheat farmers feel that they have been made to bear the whole burden of selling cheap wheat to the United Kingdom, so many landlords feel that they have been made to bear the full burden of rent controls based on pre-war rentals and vacancies. In both cases justice might well have dictated that the burden be borne by all our people rather than by the few.
One of the most serious handicaps to building in our suburban areas is municipal taxation. Small suburban municipalities had a difficult time in the thirties, and they do not want again to get themselves into a similar position. These communities are mostly residential, and the men work in the adjoining cities. If times become difficult, local taxation is hard to collect, and there are no large companies with reserves out of which taxes can be paid. Therefore one can understand the position of some of these small municipalities which do not want to increase their population too rapidly, and which therefore insist on fewer but costlier houses being built in a given land area.
It should be realized that when so many services, together with the cost of education,

are taxed against a small municipality, its tax burden may become great-indeed, in difficult times, impossible. It is lor this reason that the province of Ontario is now bearing more than fifty per cent of the cost of education. At the same time the unfair distribution of the cost of education and other services clearly shows why there should be a resumption of the dominion-provincial conference, to the end that the taxing power of our political authorities may be adjusted according to their needs and responsibilities. The leader of the official opposition (Mr. Drew) has long been aware of this situation, and it is for that reason that he has at all times desired the resumption of the sittings of the dominion-provincial conferences.
The government has done nothing to stimulate the chief bottleneck in the building industry. That bottleneck is not so much a scarcity of labour as it is a scarcity of building materials, such as electrical and plumbing fixtures, bricks, hardware items, and so on. For years I have recommended that the government stimulate the production of building materials to meet the acute housing shortage resulting from the lack of any building during the war years. In particular, in March, 1946, in a speech on housing, I recommended that the government allow manufacturers of building supplies to create additions to their factories in order to meet the emergency which at that time I said might last for five years, even though there might not be use for that additional capacity in the distant future. As I said then, it may last longer than that, but I do not see how it can last for less. I said that the government should allow the owners of these industries to write off the cost of the excess building material capacity during the period of the crisis. Nothing has been done in this regard, and we are still short of building materials.
The last suggestion for solving the housing difficulty, with which the government is admittedly making no headway, again brings me into the field of taxation. If building tradesmen and contractors were given some reward for additional production rather than a penalty by way of a higher tax rate, one might expect a material improvement in the number of housing units constructed. If it is made worth while, there is no doubt that many tradesmen would like to work on Saturday mornings in order to help to relieve the housing shortage, particularly where veterans are concerned, but not when the workmen are obliged to work for considerably less per hour than they do during the rest of the week because of the effect of getting into a higher income tax bracket.
29087-79J
The Address-Mr. Jackman
I should now like to make a few remarks about the bare statement in the speech from the throne with regard to taxation. It reads as follows:
Prosperous conditions now prevailing are being reflected in the buoyant level of national revenues; a condition to which due consideration is being given by my ministers in the preparation of forthcoming budgetary proposals.
Some members of the press and others have taken this to mean the foreshadowing of some reduction from the present discouraging rates of taxation. This is by no means a necessary inference. Last year, because of the "buoyancy"-a word which the officials of the Department of Finance seem to be fond of using-of our national income and of our national economy, no relief could be given to the taxpayer. Indeed, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in his budget address of May 18, 1948, said, by way of apology and justification for not reducing the discouraging rate of taxation, that there was never a better time to continue high taxation and to reduce the burden of our national debt. On page 4057 of Hansard of that date the Minister of Finance is reported to have said:
We can do it now-
That is, debt reduction.
-without hardship and thereby get ourselves in better position to bear the extra burdens we may have to assume when our national income becomes less buoyant or other untoward developments occur.
We have seen nothing to indicate that we are not to have a prosperous 1949. Indeed the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) only a few weeks ago said that the volume of business and the total of our national income would be most satisfactory and would compare most favourably with 1948. If therefore we are to take the reasoning of the Minister of Finance last year, we cannot expect any reduction in taxation.


An hon. Member:: We can expect higher taxation.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Yes. As one of my colleagues remarked, if the national income is higher, as I think the minister said it might be, we may expect higher taxation.
In the speech from the throne the government declares that:
Prosperous conditions now prevailing are being reflected in the buoyant level of national revenues-
-and that this is to be given due consideration in the forthcoming budget. What does the government mean? Is it ambiguity and double talk? If we are to give them credit for honesty of intention and language last year, it can only mean that no relief from discouraging taxation is promised to our people at
1250	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Jackman the present time, despite their insistent clamour. However, 1949 is likely to be an election year; and although the government has declared its belief in the principle that taxation should not be reduced when our economy is prosperous, they will no doubt give "due consideration" to abandoning their declared principles and to descending to what in their eyes must be the low level of political expediency.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I wonder what the bureaucrats in the Department of Finance will say to the ministers when apparently the ministers now refuse to follow the dictates of these men who have for so long been controlling the destinies not only of our country but of our individual lives.
The Progressive Conservatives, on the other hand, have always believed in fairness and a rate of taxation which would not discourage production; for without production there can be no increase in the standard of living of our people, which is our chief desire and aim. It is not unreasonable to expect that, with a growing and expanding volume of national business, under reasonable rates of taxation the total of national revenues would be greater rather than less, and that any necessary debt reduction could be better achieved in this manner. Particularly do we believe that relief from discouraging rates of taxation should be given when our surplus of revenues over expenditures amounts to no less than $600 million for the present fiscal year, or an amount equal to $50 per head for every man, woman and child.
I wonder what the great majority of the people in Rosedale riding would say if you were to call on them and say: Not only have you paid your federal bills, but here is a rebate of $50 per head. They could do so many things with that. It would be very much like four or five Christmases rolled into one. First of all, they could pay their bills. Second, they could acquire a few more necessities which they badly need. I have already mentioned the Regent Park development and the improvements which are planned for that large area. Third, many of my people would ibe able to send their boys and girls to high school instead of letting them go to work when they are fifteen or sixteen years of age, if they could only get this $50 per head which the government has wrongly taken from them this year, as it did last year. Fourth, many of my people have never had a decent holiday in their lives. If it were not for the fresh air camps in some of the areas in Rosedale riding, many of the children would never have had a summer camp holiday. If you could give them back $50 of their own money-not the government's money- these children would be able to build up their 

little bodies for the school season and the rigours of the winter. There would be much greater satisfaction all round if the government wguld not seek to overtax the people as it does at the present time.
If debt reduction, sir, were the sole byproduct of high taxation and surplus revenue, the government might have some measure of justification; but everyone knows what one does when one's pocket is full-he spends. Last year the budget surplus was $670 million. This year it promises to be well over $600 million, an amount greater than the total of all the taxes on personal incomes. It is almost incomprehensible to many of us that the surplus which the government hardly expected to get is greater than the total of all the taxes on personal incomes-and I am not now speaking of corporation incomes. In other words, if we did not believe that personal income tax was a substantial and worth-while part of our tax structure, because of the revenues which we have taken this year and in 1947, we could abolish the whole thing. But the added by-product of this surplus and excessive taxation is not only that the people are deprived of what is justly theirs, but that the government, with an overflowing treasury, spends with a free hand. Free spending is the inevitable result of a full pocketbook-easy come, easy go.
If we are to have taxation reduced to a reasonable level, then not only must the government budget more closely, but it must reduce its expenditures. The estimates now take up over 300 pages of closely-printed material; but in many cases there is no fault to find with the purposes for which the money is asked. The same thing would apply to every individual in Canada if he or she were to budget his or her expenditures for a ten per cent or a twenty-five per cent increase. In practically every instance a very good case could be made out, not only for the desirability but for the necessity of these increased expenditures. But the reason that we ordinary people live within our incomes is that we have to. We cannot levy taxes on someone else as does the Liberal government. We have to earn by the sweat of our brows the money which we spend, and we adjust our expenditures accordingly. Unfortunately the government can itself earn nothing, because it can create nothing. But by the same token the government should say that it will spend of the national income so much and no more. Only by this means can taxation be held within reasonable levels and the people be left with some share to meet their own increasing costs, to provide a down payment on the house that they wish to buy, or to put something by for their old age.

The present rates of taxation are simply an aftermath of wartime taxation. The government has grown accustomed to these extraordinary rates of taxation, and the people, while complaining, have not yet put up that resistance which will be more manifest when this government shortly goes to the polls. The government is reluctant to give up these high taxing powers, and the people are becoming insistent on getting some reasonable share of their own income to spend in the way in which they see fit.
What is the effect of the present discouraging rate of taxation? In 1939 the total personal income tax collected from our people amounted to $57 million. Can hon. members believe that? In 1948 it amounted to $659 million, an increase of over 1,100 per cent. In 1939 the personal income tax exemptions were $1,000 for a single person and $2,000 for married persons. Now these exemptions are $750 and $1,500. During the same period the cost of living index has risen from 100 to 160, or sixty per cent. Relating this increase to the cost of living in terms of ability to buy things or to maintain a standard of living, the exemptions allowed in 1939-that is, $1,000 and $2,000

would in 1949 be worth $1,600 for a single person and $3,200 for a married couple. Thus we find that not only have income tax rates gone up excessively, but present day exemptions of $750 and $1,500 are less than half, so far as ability to live is concerned, what they were in 1939. The present low exemptions reduce the standard of living of our people below the level which the resources of our country and a reasonable standard of living demand.
If some of our cabinet ministers would become better acquainted with the life of our people they would find what deprivations have to be made in order that people may meet their bills and at the same time pay their taxes. Any restaurant proprietor in Ottawa will tell you that the customary lunch of many government employees in the lower salary brackets consists of a sandwich and a cup of coffee, a diet which is inadequate for health and efficiency. Yet the same employees have pay-roll deductions from their small income.
How it is possible for any single person to live, particularly in the larger cities and away from home, on $750 per annum is something that the government should take some pains to demonstrate. Or how a married couple can live on $1,500 a year, with the present high cost of nearly everything they require, is a problem which hundreds of thousands of our citizens are finding great difficulty in solving. Yet once anything over these small exemptions is earned, the income tax applies, starting at 10 per cent on the first $100 of
The Address-Mr. Jackman income over the minimum exemptions and 20 per cent on anything over $500. Then the tax proceeds up to 80 per cent with an additional four per cent on investment income. Are these not discouraging rates?
Not only have government expenditures been excessive, but the overtaxation which is now being carried on has resulted in a surplus of over $600 million. There are many points which I should like to make, Mr. Speaker, in regard to matters which I hope might be given some consideration when the budget comes down. The reason I have taken this opportunity to put forward a few of them is that the budget is a hard and fast document, and a debate on the budget affords very little hope of having constructive suggestions adopted. Yet we find that over half the income tax is paid by people whose incomes are $5,000 or less; we find these taxes going down to the lower brackets, with the result that production is discouraged. We cannot expect to have a better standard of living if we do not do something to encourage production.
Here may I draw attention to the platform of the Progressive Conservative party as laid down at its convention last October. The suggestion was that exemptions for children should be increased by $200 per child. That is to say, it would be $300 per child where the mother of such child is in receipt of family allowances, and $500 per child where family allowances are not received. At the same time personal exemptions should be increased to at least $2,500 for married persons and $1,250 for single persons.


Some hon. Members:: Time.


Mr. Cruickshanlt:: Too bad you couldn't read the last page.


Mr. L. D. Tremblay (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish in the first place to join wholeheartedly in the well-deserved compliments which have been paid to the mover and seconder by hon. members who have preceded me. The hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown), who was elected to the house in 1945, was not long in winning the friendship of his fellow members.. No sooner had he arrived here than he was noticed for his industry and his regular attendance in the house as well as in committees of which he was a member. He was noticed for his courtesy and his ever-present cheerfulness, and for his understanding of the various problems constantly brought to the attention of hon. members. Those qualities were strikingly exemplified by the splendid speech he delivered in moving the address. I am glad indeed to congratulate him.
1252	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Tremblay
(Translation):


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Demers), who seconded the motion on the address in reply, had just crossed the threshold of this house for the first time, when, in his maiden speech, he displayed the great qualities of heart and mind that immediately earned him the esteem and regard of all his colleagues, after the splendid tribute of confidence he had received from the constituents of the county he represents here with such distinction. We congratulate him most heartily.
(Text):
No one needs to have a gift of prophecy to predict for both these hon. members a long and fruitful political career.
I do not claim that these few words of mine will add much to the thousand and one testimonials of affection and appreciation which flowed from all parts of the country after the rise to the position of Prime Minister of the man whom we are now so proud to have as our leader. Ever since the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) decided to relinquish the office he had held for so long because of the high confidence placed in him by the Canadian people, Canada and all democratic countries have found cause to rejoice in the fact that our country ha? been able to find among its most distinguished sons a worthy successor to that great man, the right hon. member for Glengarry, and his predecessors. Since he has been at the helm of state, each day we find cause to thank Providence for the wisdom, common sense, efficiency and enlightened patriotism which the new Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has constantly shown in the directing and managing of our national affairs.
The speech from the throne, which I intend to discuss in a moment, truly indicates his never-failing concern for all matters in the field of our political, social, economic and family life. On January 31 last in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix Bruce Hutchison, referring to our Prime Minister's "curious instinctive shyness" said, among other things:
At first meeting with a stranger this shyness is maintained as a kind of protective armour, but not for long.
As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) experienced at the very outset. Mr. Hutchison goes on to say:
Within five minutes it drops off suddenly to reveal the composite thing we call the Canadian, the authentic article by birth, instinct and environment.
And in conclusion he says:
Such a man is now to undergo the test of parliament. But parliament itself will be tested in the process. We shall now see St. Laurent: the qualities of simplicity, frankness and homeliness, are the


Canadian confederation. Like the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), I believe that the great majority of Canadians, and all members of this house with a single exception, sincerely rejoice that the people of Newfoundland will now contribute to the greatness of our country. To our new fellow countrymen we extend our heartiest and most fraternal welcome.
I wish to point to certain other matters mentioned in the speech from the throne, such as the economic recovery of European countries in spite of the social and economic agitation systematically planned by the communists; the industrial development of Canada; the unprecedented level of employment; the freedom of trade in our country capable of ensuring to all a high standard of living, of social justice and of individual liberty; the St. Lawrence deep waterway project; the abrogation of appeals to the privy council; Canada's part in drafting the United Nations' trade charter and the general agreement on customs tariffs and trade to be submitted for parliament's approval during the present session. This brief and incomplete list is sufficient to show the variety and far-reaching effects of the problems our government must consider and solve, and to which I am sure it brings all the attention, patriotism and high degree of efficiency required.
There is one field of government policy to which I would like to draw particular attention; that is the health and welfare program. In this connection the speech from the throne states:
The national health program inaugurated by the government last year, is receiving co-operation from all the provinces. In supplementing provincial health measures, the program has already made a contribution to the health facilities of Canada and will thereby bring increasing benefit to our people.
In the masterful summary which he gave this house on February 23 last, the untiring Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) made known the strong impetus given to national health throughout Canada by the federal government's policy of helping the province. Recalling to us the outline of the national health program announced on May 14 last by the former Prime Minister, the Minister of National Health and Welfare declared, as reported at page 833 of Hansard for February 23, 1949:
(1)	Federal grants totaling $620,000 have been provided to enable the provinces to make comprehensive surveys of the Canadian health scene.
(2)	To strengthen and extend provincial health services, initial grants of $16,495,000 will be available each year for public health research and public health projects; to train professional health workers, to help crippled children, to fight venereal disease, to control tuberculosis, to strengthen cancer control campaigns, and to promote mental health.
(3)	Great increases in hospital accommodation are being encouraged by annual grants to the provinces, totalling $13 million a year.

These grants make possible an additional expenditure of $30 million or more each year on Canada's hospitals and health services. This is almost as much money as was spent on public health by all governments in Canada-federal, provincial and municipal-as recently as 1933. This program of federal health grants is twice as much on a per capita basis as the federal health grants program in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, this is how the Liberal government of Canada co-operates with the provincial governments towards the health and welfare of Canadians. I take this opportunity to thank the government and more particularly my good friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare for having allowed my constituency, under the order concerning grants for building hospitals, a grant of $200,557.50. My constituents and all the citizens of Canada will not fail to note, I am sure, the spirit of justice, the broadmindedness, the generosity and impartiality of the Liberal government at Ottawa in the distribution of its bounty to the provinces of the Canadian confederation. Whether in the field of public health, family welfare or any other sphere, the Liberal government does not ask the provinces if they have a Liberal, a Conservative or other kind of government; it does not try to find out whether or not the mother who has just given a son to the nation supports the government; its beneficial legislation comes to the help of all the provinces and all the citizens of the country, and its solicitude extends to every Canadian, regardless of race, religion, language or political creed.
Among the most beneficial measures mentioned in the speech from the throne there is one, Mr. Speaker, which perhaps more than any other will warm the heart of every Canadian mother and father and which proves conclusively the concern of the government and its leader for the constant improvement of the living conditions of our large families. I refer to the one mentioned in paragraph 10, page 3 of Hansard of January 26, which reads as follows:
A bill will be introduced to broaden the scope of the Family Allowances Act, as a further instalment of the policy of the government to provide a national standard of social security and human welfare designed to assure the greatest possible measure of social justice for all Canadians.
We will always be happy and proud, Mr. Speaker, to be able to state that the Liberal party was the originator, the father of social legislation in Canada. I pay tribute to the leader of the government for his courageous and patriotic stand on the matter. It will remain to his credit and glory that at the very first session of his administration he made the welfare of our fine large Canadian families his first concern. Is it not strange, Mr. Speaker, that the elimination of the decreasing rate under the Family Allowances
The Address-Mr. Tremblay Act by the new Prime Minister, at his first session, should coincide with the entry into parliament of the new leader of the opposition, the most bitter opponent of family allowances who, when this act was introduced, stated on August 3, 1944, as reported in the Globe and Mail:
This bill is an outrageous bribe offered to the people of Quebec immediately before an election on which Mr. King's last chance of political survival depends.
And who, again on August 9, 1944, said over the radio:
But I assure you that the government of Ontario-
-of which he was then prime minister- -intends to do everything within its power to make sure that this iniquitous bill does not go into effect.
After that Mr. Sabourin, the juggler, will rummage through his master's past in order to prove to the people of Quebec that "Drew is the father of family allowances." How ironical fate can be, Mr. Speaker, when it deals with political opportunists!
Knowing as I do the good disposition of the leader of the Canadian nation, who is also a good father, I shall conclude by calling his attention and that of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to a feature of our taxation system which constitutes a heavy, if not unjust, burden upon the shoulders of the heads of households. It is the paltry $100 exemption granted for each child in receipt of family allowances and the inadequate $300 exemption in the case of each dependent child over sixteen years of age and under twenty-one still attending school.
A memorandum recently forwarded to the' proper authorities by the chamber of commerce of Montreal contained the following recommendations:
That the $750 exemption granted taxpayers having no dependents be increased to at least $1,000.
That the $1,500 exemption granted taxpayers having married status be increased to at least $2,000.
That all exemptions granted in favour of children and other dependents be increased to at least $400 per dependent instead of $100 and $300, family allowances being excluded from consideration and being entirely separated from the system of taxation applicable to taxpayers with dependents.
Not only do I fully agree with the above suggestions, but I would go even farther. I believe that the legal exemptions from income tax should be increased to $3,000 for the heads of families and $1,500 for a single person. I am asking the government to enact this. Those who have gone through the hardship which the raising of a large family entails, and who have sacrificed themselves to give their children the benefit of a university education, know quite well that it is not when the children are fifteen, eighteen or even twenty years old that the cost of their education is the highest. It is highest when
1256	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Bowerman the children are between twenty and twenty-five. The burden upon the father of a family with two, three or four children attending university is a frightening and crushing one. The government should extend the exemption granted for children until the children graduate from the university. Furthermore, this exemption should be increased to at least $400 for each child.
These suggestions are being offered to the government on behalf of thousands of Canadian fathers. I am confident that the budget will show how far the government is prepared to go in helping them.


Mr. E. L. Bowerman (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, there is a matter with which I should like to deal before this debate is concluded. It has to do with the treatment of Indians in northern Saskatchewan, of which my constituency is a part. The throne speech fails to refer to this matter and some of us are wondering why. For the basis of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, on the educational requirements of treaty Indians, I intend to use a brief submitted by Mr. M. F. Norris, Saskatchewan government field agent for northern Saskatchewan, and a survey made by C. H. Piercy, the northern education administrator for the same government.
While treaty Indians are constitutionally the responsibility of the federal government and the department of Indian Affairs, they are also citizens domiciled within the provinces.
I	should like to call to the attention of this house that the government of the province of Saskatchewan has fulfilled its obligation towards providing educational facilities in the northern settlements of Saskatchewan for Metis and other franchised citizens. This is in keeping with the mandate given that government which maintains that, so long as any person or group of people in this province is under-privileged, the social and economic democracy to which the government is pledged cannot be realized. In the case of the Indian settlements the responsibility is primarily upon this government and the department of Indian Affairs.
In a report of a survey made by C. H. Piercy, northern education administrator, he submits the need for schools in settlements in northern Saskatchewan where the population is predominantly treaty Indians. Twelve such settlements in northern Saskatchewan are mentioned in which schools are required. In addition, he recommended the replacement of three schools. He further recommended that construction of these schools and grants for them be shared by the dominion and provincial governments on a proportional basis according to enrolment. In the case of Stanley and other such similar settlements where 

treaty Indians predominate, the responsibility is primarily that of the department of Indian affairs.
Mr. Speaker, the crown promised to provide schools for Indians. In the book "The Treaties of Canada", Lieutenant Governor Alexander Morris stated:
The treaties provide for the establishment of schools, for the instruction of Indian children. This is a very important feature, and is deserving of being pressed with utmost energy. The new generation can be trained in the habits and ways of civilized life-prepared to encounter the difficulties with which they will be surrounded by the influx of settlers, and fitted for maintaining themselves as tillers of the soil.
While such an eminent person as the former lieutenant governor advocated that education should be pressed with utmost energy, it is unfortunate that subsequent agents of the crown have not fulfilled their obligations to treaty Indians in this regard.
The union of Saskatchewan Indians, representing treaty Indians in every part of the province, have long realized the urgent need for a progressive program of education. They have made repeated requests for this through the proper constitutional channels. In a brief submitted by that organization in May of 1947, there is a detailed outline of their educational requirements. Again at their annual convention, held in the city of Saskatoon in January of 1948, they reaffirmed their request for educational facilities in the following resolutions:
(a)	Whereas the treaty Indians, members of the John Ballantyne, Amos Charles and John Roberts bands, resident at Deschambault lake, Pelican Narrows, Lac La Ronge and Stanley settlements, represent bona fide locals of the union of Saskatchewan Indians and,
Whereas we reaffirm the representations made by the union in May, 1947, with regard to education and schools, and
Whereas we have forty-six children, twenty-nine of whom are of school age at Deschambault lake and greater numbers at Pelican Narrows, Lac La Ronge and Stanley, all of whom reside with their parents at their respective settlements.
Be it resolved that we petition the Indian Affairs branch, requesting that day schools with teacher's residence be established at the places hereinbefore mentioned at the earliest possible time.
(b)	Whereas the union of Saskatchewan Indians have made representations to the Indian Affairs branch with regard to education, and
Whereas the need for education is such that early and immediate implementation of education facilities is of paramount importance, and
Whereas in the third report of the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, to both houses of parliament at the conclusion of the 1947 sittings, it is recommended among other things, "That the whole matter of the education of Indians be left over for further consideration,"
Be it resolved, that we urge in the strongest terms possible that immediate implementation be effected to our representations for educational facilities in northern Saskatchewan.

With respect, sir, to the above resolutions, attention is directed to a subsequent report made by the special joint committee hereinbefore mentioned, at the conclusion of the 1948 sittings wherein it is mentioned that since May 13, 1946, the said committee had held one hundred and twenty-eight meetings with one hundred and twenty-two witnesses heard. In addition, 411 written briefs from Indian bands and organizations have been received. In the report submitted the committee recommends, among other things, the following:
Your committee recommends the revision of those sections of the act which pertain to education, in order to prepare Indian children to take their place as citizens.
Your committee, therefore, recommends that wherever and whenever possible Indian children should be educated in association with other children.
Further, sir, the union of Saskatchewan Indians assert that there are in the province of Saskatchewan at least one thousand treaty Indian children who are without school facilities. Of this number it is estimated that approximately sixty per cent or six hundred are residing in northern Saskatchewan.
The following figures, covering four settlements only in northern Saskatchewan, were recently supplied to me by the person I have already named:
	No. of	No.	
treaty	attending	BalanceIndian	residential	notchildren of	school at	attendingSettlement	school age	Prince Albert	schoolStanley 	... 67	12	55Pelican Narrows.. 45	9	36Deschambault	... 25	3	22Lac La Ronge.	... 60	33	27Total	... 197	57	140
These figures are representative for treaty Indians in northern Saskatchewan. It will be observed that only approximately thirty per cent of the children of school age are attending school. It may be argued by those who are unsympathetic to the establishment of day schools for treaty Indians that there is at Prince Albert a residential school which they may attend. I should like, however, to call to the attention of the house a statement made by one of the chiefs of one of the Indian groups. I shall quote his letter in full. It reads as follows:
My belief and my earnest desires are these. I believe that our government should abide by their treaties with us Indians in the way of education; to establish day schools on our reserves they will be contributing the greatest single factor for our advancement. Education is something that should be continually improving. The children of today will be the men and women of tomorrow. It is therefore very important that our children are equipped with facilities for earning a living in a modern world.
The Address-Mr. Bowerman
The children should learn to be able to think for themselves, and be prepared for living with others. Does the present system give us the highest standard of education? No. We have come to the stage where we are more particularly interested in education as a way of life. We want it to teach our children how to live among their fellow men, how to adapt themselves to others and how to meet life's situations in the school room, from which they will derive lessons which will govern their conduct in later years. Working for the common good of all is the basic principle. It is up to all of us to work for better educational facilities, as we want our boys and girls to be able to accept the responsibilities of tomorrow. We are now living in a time of great opportunity.
We Indians feel that we have not been treated in the past as if we were members of the human family, or like citizens of Canada. Nor do we feel that we are at present considered worthy to participate in the benefits arising from the modem way of thinking. We resent this as an insult to the dignity of man in us-that feeling which we have inherited from our worthy fathers, the Indian chiefs, whose advance towards a brighter life has been so cruelly interrupted by the unscrupulous usurpers of our rights. We demand that the government of Canada accept our petition of rights in the same spirit that other rights of mankind throughout the world are accepted.
When our country suffered a depression and the governments found it necessary to relieve the situation by various relief measures, we Indians were not considered for the same benefits, and we starved when our neighbours, some of whom were not even required to be Canadian citizens, were given help by the government. That was not right, was it?
When all the people of the provinces are having schools in their communities, our children are taken from us and we don't see them for a year at a time. Don't we love our children? Don't our hearts break with longing for the only thing we have in life? Does not blood run through our veins? Are we made of different material to the white man? Do our children need the loving companionship of their mothers and fathers less than the white children?
Are we made of stone that has no feeling? Don't we feel the pain of a hungry heart as does every human being? Why are we deprived of the simple rights that God has conceded to every one of his children? We want the white man-our white brothers-to practise his Christianity the same which he has preached to us Indians. We want him to demonstrate that God's love covers all people. Indians are unable to exercise the cruelty of depriving children of their parents as the present system of education facilities provided the Indians entails. We should have our schools right at home, where parents, teachers and the children will be in constant living contact with each other. This would relieve the present heartache suffered by Indians in their separation from their children.
And, Mr. Speaker, he continues in this manner:
Why do our sons fight for the principle of democracy when at home we Indians are not accorded these simple fundamentals of decent living? Give us back our freedom and our privileges which we enjoyed before we were dispossessed. We Indians are sometimes subjected to the kind of indignities that our fascist enemies have inflicted on freedom-loving peoples. This situation makes it difficult for us to distinguish between the evils we hear about in fascism and the democracy that we are fighting for. Is there a special justice for Indians? We do not believe it! We'll fight for our rights! We
1258	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Bowerman
would rather be dead heroes, worthy of our forefathers, than to be like rats, a shame to our ancestors, a disgrace to our children. When the four freedoms finally come to this world, may we have our share?
I should like to give a little bit of additional information concerning these educational matters as they affect the residents of northern Saskatchewan. I wish to refer to certain settlements in particular, in order to give a brief picture of the situation in those settlements.
At Stony lake and Black lake there are 255 treaty Indians and sixty-five Metis people. There are no educational facilities for the treaty Indians. At this place there is an Indian agency. A residence was built for the agent and completed last fall. The estimated cost, fully furnished, is $17,000, but in that settlement there are no school privileges for some 255 children. Of medical services there are none.
At Fond du Lac there are 258 treaty Indians. There are no educational services for the treaty Indians in that settlement. There are no medical services for these Indians. There are no statistics as to the numbers at Garson lake, but there are no educational and medical facilities there. While at this settlement money has been provided by the Saskatchewan provincial government, through the department of education, for the erection of a school, this has not been built owing to a suggestion emanating from J. P. B. Ostrander, superintendent of Indian agencies, Saskatchewan, that the treaty Indians residing there at the present time would be moved to the north end of Peter Pond lake. That was two years ago. These two years have gone by and nothing has been done.
At Dillon the Indian population is 221. There are no educational facilities for the treaty Indians. At the Clear lake settlement situated on the west bank of Churchill lake, approximately twenty-five miles from Buffalo Narrows, there are 309 children. There are no educational facilities for these treaty Indian children. I could go over the whole list of these Indian settlements in the upper part of Saskatchewan.
I have gone to some length to place on the record the immediate need of our northern Saskatchewan treaty Indians for schools and educational facilities, which we promised long ago. I have done so because it seems to me that the government's refusal up to now to reconstitute the committee on Indian affairs, or to mention it in the speech from the throne, is evidence that they have decided to drop the whole matter, or have failed to arrive at any definite decision on policy. Meanwhile, as in the past, in many instances 

the government is permitting this disgraceful neglect to continue. So far the work of the committee has been that of investigating the deplorable conditions existing among the vast majority of our Indians. It was the unanimous opinion of this committee that the Indian Act needs to be revised in order to implement the necessary changes required to complete the work assigned to the committee. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would urge that without delay the government implement the recommendations of the committee with regard to setting up immediately a claims commission and the redrafting of the Indian Act.
The manner in which we have fulfilled our treaties and obligations to the original citizens of this land is a disgrace to us. Canadians everywhere are incensed at the indifference of this and past governments in regard to this matter.


Mr. R. J. Henderson (Lambion-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a small contribution, humble though it may be, to this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Without going any further may I say that I have noticed that nearly all hon. members have had a bundle of papers in their hands when they rose to speak. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will overlook the fact if I adhere very closely to my notes.
By now we realize that many worthy contributions have been made by the previous speakers, and we would almost think that nothing more could be said; but ideas are inexhaustible. Some of the speakers that I have heard have been very critical of the government and its policies. Others have come to the rescue of the several government activities, and still others, like myself, have been neutral and have suggested ways and means to make this Canada of ours greater and better. In many instances these ideas have been worthy of consideration. In many other instances, because of our financial structure, they were well nigh impossible of implementation.
Before proceeding further I shall pay my respectful tribute to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. To the mover, the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown), I wish to pay a special tribute and extend to him sincere congratulations on a job well done. The hon. member is from my home town of Petrolia, having been born and having received his elementary education there. He was initiated into the language, the ways and the smell of our product, hard rock oil, in infancy and even yet he pays tribute to that town, and divides his allegiance between his present city of Windsor and his boyhood home of

Petrolia. I do feel that his first love is for Petrolia. It is more abiding, and no prouder tribute can be paid to him, nor one that gives him a greater thrill, than to be called, as we all proudly are, a hard oiler.
I wish also to pay a tribute to the seconder, and extend to him my congratulations on his excellent reply. I had to read the speech of the hon. member for Essex West in Hansard the next day. He stood so far away from where I sat that I could not hear it all and get the exact connections. The same is true of the seconder. Although he spoke loudly, he spoke in his native tongue; and, like many others, I had to wait for the translation before enjoying its contents. It was an experience that will live long in the memory of these two young men, and it is an honour which is extended to the very few.
As is customary on occasions of this kind, I wish to extol the many virtues of my home constituency of Lambton-Kent. I think it is fitting and proper that I do so now, since in this year, 1949, we are celebrating our one hundredth anniversary. Committees have been set up by the Lambton-Kent council to prepare plans and make arrangements for this gala event. I do not know what the final arrangements are, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, hon. members and the members of the press gallery also, that everything worth while will be done to make this an historic occasion.
Incidentally, in mentioning this centennial in Lambton county I should like to take this opportunity to mention another one hundredth birthday. It is that of the London Free Press, which has rendered one hundred years of service to its home city and to all western Ontario. The Free Press this year rounds out a full century of service. I should like to voice on behalf of all members of parliament who represent constituencies in western Ontario-and there are more than twenty of them in the two larger parties-the congratulations expressed respecting this public service newspaper. I hope it will continue to serve and continue to share in the advancement and further development of western Ontario for another full century at least.
Originally my county of Lambton actually formed part of the counties of Kent and Essex. But when our population reached the 7,000 mark we were able, by provincial legislation, to become a separate unit. We were given legislative representation and local municipal government by both local township councils and county council authority.
We have a fine municipality of an area of some 1,000 square miles, comprising ten townships, three towns and eight villages, and also the large and thriving city of Sarnia. Origin-
The Address-Mr. Henderson ally Lambton county was a very heavily timbered area with hardwood forests in the north and on the higher gravelly soils, and the soft woods, elm and ash, on the lower and swampy areas. I have mentioned that these forests were a great source of revenue to the hardy pioneers. But eventually the land was cleared and agriculture and mixed farming on our many well-tilled farms was developed, and is now carried on successfully. To assist our farmers we have an excellent department, of agriculture. This department is headed by a graduate of the agricultural college at Guelph, with junior assistants helping him. The department has done much to put our several farming activities on a higher plane; and we now have as our slogan: If a farmer cannot succeed in Lambton he cannot succeed elsewhere.
It is true we have a fine type of agricultural soil, varying from the lighter gravelly loams to the heavier clay types. We have no natural drainage, and ditches must be dug and maintained to drain off the top water and provide outlets for our underdrainage.
This adds materially to the heavy burden of municipal taxation. But we have learned that drainage, and even more drainage, is not only essential but compulsory. This, and the maintenance of our soil fertility, comprise: two of the problems which we have learned! to master. This leads to a diversity of farm projects, varying from our fine fruit land of the north, our celery beds and onion surpluses, to the growing of wheat and the coarser grains, our large acreage of husking hybrid corn and beans, and last but not least our canning products and large acreage of sugar beets. All these, with our rich and succulent pasturage areas with their cows and fine herds of beef cattle or, as the case may be, dairy herds, have given our farmers an era and degree of prosperity that is not surpassed elsewhere.
But like all other areas across Canada we have our social problems with which to contend. One of these, which has been stressed and illuminated by many other hon. members in this debate, is that of old age social security for the rising generation, and particularly for those who have already reached the age of seventy and, one might say, the stage of insecurity.
It is true that we have what might be called an old age pension plan, making provision for $30 a month, with a means test. The federal government contributes 75 per cent or $22.50 and the several provincial governments 25 per cent or $7.50 a month. The provinces are to administer the act and, because of this administration cost, their payment is about the same as that from the federal treasury.
12S0	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Henderson
In addition to this $30 a month the provincial treasury could augment this by any sum it saw fit and practical. We in Ontario can get from the provincial treasury an extra $10 a month in cases of extreme need or where circumstances warrant it.
Practically every pensioner felt he or she was eligible and applied for this extra, which meant an immense amount of reviewing and detailed examination of applications and living requirements. Little by little pensions are being increased, but even yet with the increase due to the high cost of living, particularly of food and fuel, many of these senior citizens find they must skimp and sacrifice to eke out a bare existence.
Some will argue that our financial circumstances will allow us to raise the pension to $50 a month at the age of sixty-five for males and at the age of sixty for females, with the abolition of the means test; and others who are in responsible positions will argue that this would impose a greatly increased financial burden which our young and growing country could not undertake.
Much has been said about the means test; and as I had much to do with filling out many applications, while serving as a municipal clerk, I shall try to place on Hansard just what this means. I note the new and modern applications vary but little from the older ones. In many instances they are most embarrassing for the applicant to answer.
However, as long as the means test is in vogue, I cannot find much out of place with the line of questioning followed. I do believe, of course, that this iniquitous test should be abolished entirely.
I wrote to the Department of National Health and Welfare here in Ottawa, and they were good enough to forward to me an application form which a person applying for old age pension would have to fill out in the presence of a municipal clerk. We hear a good deal about the means test. I imagine a good many people have never seen this application form, and I trust they will never reach the stage where they may have to ask that same be filled out in their names.
The first requirements on the form are for age and name. Then we come to the request for the date of birth. As one who has occupied the position of a municipal clerk,
I know it is most difficult in many instances to find out and to trace the date of birth of an applicant. This is a most necessary requirement, however, and the filling out of the application must be deferred until that information is secured.
Before 1869, I believe it was, there were no registrations of births. The municipal clerk


who preceded me in office was, at the date of his retirement, well advanced in years. He had reached the age of eighty-five, having held office at the time of the Fenian raids. When the registration of births was made compulsory many people were averse to having the births of their sons registered because they felt such registration would make those sons eligible for military service. The result is that there are many now reaching the age of seventy who find, when they search for their birth certificates, that they are not registered anywhere. Yet on many occasions I have conducted searches in family bibles. The old age pensions commission accepts the bible as a registration to prove age. All of us will recall that in the pioneer homes the family bible was an essential part of the furniture, and held the place of honour in the centre of the table in the parlour.
The difficulty with respect to getting the date of birth is now overcome through the clerk filling out a form and sending it to the vital statistics branch at Ottawa, which branch in turn goes through old census records to get the required information. Now that matter is expedited, and applications are not so long in being granted. There is in this form the means test about which we hear so much. Question No. 20 has to do with the income of the applicant and spouse, and involves a description of what their income is, and from what source it comes. Then the income of the applicant has to be shown as so much and in the next column the income of the spouse is shown as so much. Question 21 deals with the means of subsistence of the applicant and spouse. I find that, when these old people reach the age of seventy, they have not very much on which to exist. Question 22 is about real property owned by the applicant and spouse at the dates of the application. If the applicant owns a small house he has to give a description of the property and must show the assessed value. If it is owned by the spouse the assessed value also has to be shown. In 1948, I believe, all property up to a value of $2,000 was exempted under the Old Age Pensions Act.
A good many old people have become very hesitant about applying for the pension because they are afraid they will have to assign their small properties or small holdings to the government, and that on their death the government will be able to step in and take them away from them. For that reason they were very hesitant about applying, but in the year 1948 property up to a value of $2,000 was exempted.
Question 23 concerns personal property owned by the applicant and spouse at the date

of the application including cash on hand owned by the applicant and owned by the spouse, which is sometimes very small, money in post office, savings bank, chartered bank or other institution.


Mr. Martin:: Is that a dominion government form or a provincial form?


Robert James Henderson: It is a form of the department of welfare.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But what government?


Robert James Henderson: It is the Old Age Pensions Act, 1948.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a form of the provincial government of Ontario, is it?


Robert James Henderson: I think so; they are the
only ones who issue the forms in administering the act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to get that on the
record.


Robert James Henderson: I think the form covers
several parts of the Old Age Pensions Act. Then under question 23 there is a question about money loaned or held in trust for the applicant or spouse, and the name and address must be stated. Then they have to give the value of any livestock. They have to declare any securities owned by the applicant or by the spouse, and interest in business or venture of any kind owned by the applicant or by the spouse. Particulars have to be stated as to other properties owned by the applicant or owned by the spouse. In answer to question 24 the applicant and the spouse have to state whether they transferred any personal property exceeding a total value of $500, or any real property, to any person or persons within the five years preceding the date of the application. Then particulars of real property transferred must be shown, including the name and address of the person to whom the transfer was made, and the relationship, if any, the date of the transfer, and the amount still due. Then they have to show the names of all living sons and daughters and the amount contributed by each for the maintenance of the applicant or spouse during the past year. Here you have to give the names of the sons and daughters, their age and occupation, whether the son or daughter is married or single, the number of children the son or daughter has, the income of the son or daughter during the past year, the amount contributed by the son or daughter, and whether the son or daughter is living with the applicant. Then the applicant signs the form. These are the questions asked by the department of public welfare.
The Address-Mr. Henderson
Under form 4, the Old Age Pensions Act, 1948, the applicant must consent to inspection of assets. The form reads:
I	 an applicant for a pension under
the Old Age Pensions Act, 1948, consent that the investigator under the act inspect and have access to any account held by me alone or jointly, in any bank, trust company or other financial institution or to any assets held in trust for me by any person or any records relating to any of them.
The applicant must give the right to the inspector under the act to go to any bank and inspect the amount that the applicant may have there, if he has anything. In a good many cases they have not.
I am sure we are all pleased with the new set-up, announced last week by the provincial treasurer, whereby a long-required need has at last been budgeted for. That need is for homes for the aged and the maintenance of them. It is a new step, and it is going to fulfil a long-felt need. It is a step in the right direction, if ever one was taken, whereby the province will pay fifty per cent of the cost of building such homes, and fifty per cent of the cost of maintaining them. They are not to be established indiscriminately here and there, but in every municipality in the province of Ontario. At the present time we have such homes in my town of Petrolia. I can recall four homes which private persons have established in my county for taking in old age pensioners. They have what they call mass feeding and mass production. I know that in one home in my town the charge is $38 a month. Some of them charge $30 and others $40 and $45 a month. The pension of $30 a month is augmented by a grant from the local township council or from the county council.
Ontario has ever been in the lead in social legislation. Just as our workmen's compensation act has been a model for others to follow, so also will this newer and modernistic social service of providing homes in every municipality head the list; and it will no doubt be taken up and followed by our sister provinces to the betterment of the welfare of our older citizens who are so deserving of this grateful treatment we have in store for them. I hope when these homes are established we shall give them a name befitting the purpose for which they are intended, and not call them by some name that is derogatory to our good intentions. We have spoiled the purpose of some of our good institutions by an ill-fitting name. For instance, our first social need was in the form of an institution called the poor house. I can recall the revulsion of people to going to that place because for too long it was considered a disgrace to have to go to the poor house. We softened up a bit, and now we make it more acceptable by calling it the house of refuge,

The Address-Mr. Henderson Even with this name it is still associated with the poor-house idea, and creates an atmosphere of horror. First names create an idea that seem to stick down through the ages. As we are now launching on a new idea of social reform, let us give these newer institutions names befitting the purposes for which they are being created. I suggest that the Department of National Health and Welfare offer a suitable prize to the person suggesting the most applicable name, one that will never carry the stigma of public beneficence.
I believe these homes will fulfil a long-felt need; but I still have faith in the youth of our land, who soon will be our senior citizens, and believe that as time goes on they will provide their own social security by well-devised plans of their own, apart from government paternalism. The sooner this becomes an actuality, the stronger, the better and more virile our nation will become.
I find no fault with those who are up in years now, with their earning capacity gone, and who find themselves in want. They had no guidance given them in any of the ways the young and growing in our land have today. I refer to the many insurance plans, government annuities and other fields of investment that are both appealing and consistent. I do know that in the field of insurance a great majority of our youth are making plans for their future. Study the annual reports of our many insurance companies and a beautiful story will unfold, that of continued growth through over-all annual increases in insurance taken out.
My plan of thinking was changed considerably by an editorial which appeared in the London Free Press, which no doubt many hon. members have seen, dealing with this particular phase of social security. I should like to read just a paragraph or two:
In Canada where vast sums are to be spent by federal and provincial governments on various aspects of national health, state medicine is under brisk discussion by both doctors and laymen. The tremendous growth of the various voluntary insurance health schemes reflects the tendency of the times, also the frightening cost of hospitalization and adequate treatment . . .
The Canadian medical association has a continuing study under way. There has been a movement toward more or less local plans in each province and a tendency to deal with different aspects separately-hospitals, treatments, home services and so on. The energizing force behind all this "new look" in medicine is the universal demand by laymen for extended services at reduced costs, a necessity they intended to see met in one way or another.
At the present time we are all more or less insurance conscious. There is no trouble selling insurance now; as a matter of fact we actually go out and buy it. Our pioneer forefathers built up an estate by themselves in

the only way they could; that was by building a home of their own. Many of our youth are doing the same thing today, and they are also augmenting their future security by some form of life insurance. There is no difference in the targets if you decide to build, pay for and own a $10,000 home or business or if you decide to pay for and carry out the requirements of a $10,000 life insurance policy or government annuity. The end is social security, attained by a different route.
The tremendous growth of our many voluntary health schemes reflects the tendency of the times. Practically every earner has voluntarily come under some hospitalization plan at a low group insurance rate. In my locality the Blue Cross is very popular as a group plan, and as it is operating for service more than for profit, it is offering more and more by way of health benefits as time goes on. We also have some medical plans of insurance, such as the Windsor medical plan, where on payment of a small annual fee, free medical services can be secured. This is far removed from state medicine, and is voluntary on the part of our medical practitioners and those seeking the benefits such a plan can give.
On the whole, and being very optimistic as to the future, I can see a decrease in the social services required. It is true that they are very great at present, and probably will remain so for at least twenty years to come, during which time those reaching sixty-five or seventy years of age may have to be looked after. But I am very optimistic as to the future, because I believe that as time goes on these various forms of health insurance, social security and so on will enable our people to take better care of themselves. Given a chance, I am sure our future citizens will be able to take complete care of themselves in their advancing years, and that all they will ask of the government is good social guidance. Then we will have a Canada of which we can say we have pride in our past, belief in our present and faith in our future.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it is coming near the time when we must fill in these income tax forms. We have all been anxious to see the simplified forms promised us by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). Not long ago I secured mine, as many hon. members did, after that little trip we all make to the nice sunny room in the southwest corner of the basement floor. There we get two things, one very popular and the other not so welcome. Being a part-time farmer, I chose the form suitable for my situation. I have the agricultural application form in my hand, and must offer some plain, constructive criticism concerning it. This is the new form, which we were promised would be much shorter

than that of last year. I find that this year it is down to four pages for the farmer, and that it is quite a lot like a love story, only when all is said and done income tax is no love story. If you are in a hurry when reading a love story you generally look at the first chapter to find out all the particulars, who is in love with whom and what the particular hook-up may be. Then you turn to the last chapter, where you find that they have got married and are living happily.
So it is with this income tax form. There is nothing wrong with the first page; you list your name, occupation, and so on. Then pages 2 and 3 are full of things the farmer does not understand or know anything about. " Do not include the following exemptions," it says. "Your family allowance." That is all right; you do not include that. "Unemployment insurance benefits." Here the farmer begins to scratch his head. "Sickness and accident insurance benefits; workmen's compensation benefits; war disability pensions; non-taxable portion of pension or annuity income; war service gratuities; re-establishment credits; educational, vocational and technical training benefits received by discharged members of the forces or their dependents." I do not find fault with any of these items, but I do find fault with the way the whole thing is set up. You have to turn away over to the back page, where' in a small, cramped space you see the heading, " Income from farming or fishing." The only information the farmer needs for the calculation of his taxable return is found in a small, cramped position in the finest print on the very last page of the form. Of course, there is a little book sent out with these forms which the farmer reads. I know the attitude of the farmers towards this matter because when they get stuck they come to me for help. I give them a start on it and then they can go through the remainder of it. Here, we see a heading, "Crops and seeds." The farmer has to put a value on that. If he sells any of it, we know he has to put a value on it. At the very last we find the part of the form the farmer should make out first. When he starts to read the form and sees all this unnecessary stuff in between, be sees red, tears the form in two and throws it away.
I would recommend to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) that the income statement on the farmer's income tax form be put on the first page. The income received from the farm could be shown on one side and the expenditures on the other side. If the remainder shows the farmer is in the red, he will not have to pay any income tax. I notice all these headings on the tax form are in red, so I presume the farmer is sup-
The Address-Mr. Lesage posed to be in the red. I believe if the minister took my advice the farmer would be happier about filling out these forms. I know that is a fact. In this regard I am like the apostle Paul; I can testify whereof I have seen. The farmers have told me about it. I hate to go home because the farmers come to my door with their income tax forms in their hands requesting my help.
Do not think the farmer is averse to making out his income tax form. The information requested of the farmer is beyond his capabilities. I do not mean to imply the farmer is not intelligent, but these forms are beyond his comprehension. We want the farmers to co-operate in this matter. The farmers are honest and honourable. They wish to pay their share, but these income tax forms are not helping the situation. I see that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker, but I want to thank you for listening to me so patiently.
(Translation) :


Mr. Jean Lesage (Monimagny-LTslei):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to join those who have already spoken in congratulating warmly the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown), and the seconder, the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Demers), on the excellence of their speeches.
I do not intend to make a long speech. I thought I might deal with a few subjects which are of special interest to those I represent in this house, the electors of the constituency of Montmagny-L'Islet.
My constituents form two main groups; on the one hand, the farmers and on the other the workers employed in industry, large or small. The industrial workers of my constituency are more prosperous than they have ever been up to now. The prosperity brought about by the last war has continued and they still benefit largely from it, although there are certain indications of a slight decrease in employment. I sincerely believe that this trend is only seasonal and the workers of my constituency may rest assured that the government of their country will do all in its power to ensure proper and stable employment, that they and their families may keep on enjoying the comforts to which they are entitled.
The case so ably stated the other day by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was most gratifying to us for, if we can rely on the figures he quoted, as we have every reason to, industrial production and trade will no doubt be as great in 1949 as in 1948.
1264	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Lesage
For a few days fanners had been a bit concerned at the news, especially press reports of falling prices for second grade butter, which brought on some uneasiness.
In Quebec, and Ontario too for that matter, but especially in Quebec, and in my constituency, the dairy industry is the basis of agriculture.
The dairy industry accounts for 36 per cent of the farming income in the province of Quebec, and the proportion is undoubtedly the same, if not higher, in my constituency. If anything is done involving serious harm for the dairy industry, agriculture will surely be ruined in the province of Quebec.
Let us bear in mind that farm prices are guaranteed by the dominion government. Let farmers remember that it was the dominion government which set floor prices on first grade butter and guarantees that butter prices will be held at levels permitting farmers to operate at a profit, considering their production costs.
Of course what worries the farmers of Montmagny-L'Islet is the margarine issue.
I wish to discuss it, because I have had many representations on that matter from farmers in my constituency. They feared that the placing of margarine on the market might cause considerable harm to the dairy industry in particular, and to agriculture generally.
Representations made to me are perhaps due to the fact that certain political opponents, more concerned with fancied political success than respect for the truth, spread the rumour and even said openly that the sale of margarine in Canada was due to some action by the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, anyone conversant with the facts knows that it was the Senate which proposed, at the last session, that the question of the validity of the ban imposed on margarine be referred to the supreme court. This ban on margarine was imposed by section 5
(a)	of the Dairy Industry Act, R.S.C., 1927, c. 45. The supreme court was being called upon to decide whether the manufacture and sale of margarine or oleomargarine was actually within the jurisdiction of the central government which in 1886 enacted legislation prohibiting the manufacture and sale of certain butter substitutes. Subsequently, this law was incorporated into others and finally became a part of the Dairy Industry Act, as I was saying a moment ago.


<
Various public groups were represented at the supreme court, including the federal government. The deputy minister of justice, Mr. Varcoe, representing the latter, held that the act was intra vires of the federal government's jurisdiction, and was valid; whereas other public bodies, such as the Quebec provincial government, represented by L. E. Beaulieu, K.C., held that the matter was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces and that, therefore, the federal statute was unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, Mr. Beaulieu, in his brief, presented in the name of the attorney general of Quebec, dated September 21, 1948, concluded his argument thus:
For the above reasons, the Attorney General for Quebec respectfully submits that section 5, subsection (a) of the Dairy Industry Act, R.S.C. c. 45, is invalid, ultra vires and unconstitutional.
The supreme court passed a judgment on December 14, 1948, and decided by a majority of five against two that the section in question of the federal statute prohibiting the manufacturing and sale of margarine was unconstitutional. Mr. Justice Taschereau passed the judgment in French as follows:
On this point, in my estimation, jurisprudence entertains no doubt. It must therefore be concluded that the control of the sale of margarine and oleomargarine in a province, considering its local and private nature, is outside federal government jurisdiction.
Section 5 (a) of the Dairy Industry Act, to the extent where it prohibits the manufacture, oifer for sale, sale or holding for sale, is ultra vires of the powers of the Canadian parliament.
The case is definitely settled. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture and other associations have requested the federal government to appeal against this decision to the privy council. Obviously it would be difficult for me, Mr. Speaker, to recommend or ask the federal government to appeal against this decision as even before I was a member of this house I have always claimed that the right of appeal to London was a colonial humiliation. That is the exact term which I used to say that we should rid ourselves of these appeals to the privy council as soon as possible. Under the circumstances, it would not be proper for me to recommend to the government or ask them to appeal from that decision. Besides, the matter has now been settled and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has quite well understood the position in which the dominion government

The Address-Mr. Lesage
was placed, since it has decided itself to lodge an appeal from that decision with the privy
Duplessis intended to introduce a bill prohibiting "the importation, manufacture, sale and possession of margarine" in the province of Quebec.
council.
The federation and other agricultural associations have also requested that parliament should enact rules with regard to the colouring of margarine.
I can tell you quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that on reading again the judgment of Mr. Justice Taschereau, I wonder how the dominion parliament could enact a regulation of that character that would be consistent with the constitution.
Let us ponder the words of Mr. Justice Taschereau which I quoted a few moments ago. We can only infer from them that the control of the sale of margarine or oleomargarine is not within the jurisdiction of the dominion government. Could not the supreme court decision be construed as meaning that the federal government can no longer deal with the matter, that federal legislation in this regard is unconstitutional, does not concern the federal government and that the matter is now up to the provinces?
Mr. Speaker, the legislature of the province of Quebec has subscribed to that decision by passing a law-the merits of which I do not have to discuss-a law which does not control the sale and manufacture of margarine but allows the Quebec provincial government to control by means of orders in council or prohibit in the same way the sale, manufacture, or possession of margarine or oleomargarine.
Obviously, the dairy industry in my constituency and throughout the province of Quebec will benefit from that law. I am sure the federal government could assist in the application of such provincial laws. I am pleased to quote in this connection the report, dated Wednesday, February 23, 1949, of Mr. Lorenzo Pare, parliamentary reporter for L'Action Catholique, about an interview he had had with the Prime Minister (Mr. St.
And further:
Last night, Mr. St. Laurent clearly indicated that his government would not contest the legality of the bill that Mr. Duplessis is supposed to introduce regarding margarine. On the contrary, the present leader of the government intends to co-operate in its enforcement.
And again further, I quote:
It is clear that regulations pertaining to the importation of margarine come under the jurisdiction of the dominion government and, in.that regard, the bill on margarine which will be introduced in the Quebec legislature within a few days could well be challenged as ultra vires.
With respect to importation, Mr. St. Laurent is so willing to support provincial autonomy that he is even ready to confirm a precedent of great significance from the constitutional standpoint. The Prime Minister does not think that the provincial legislatures could prohibit the importation of margarine without the co-operation of the dominion government. If a province takes any steps in this respect, the federal authorities, having jurisdiction over imports, would most probably co-operate with the provincial authorities so that the wishes of the people in any particular province, as expressed by their legislature, might be carried out. Mr. St. Laurent has already indicated that this practice is followed with respect to interprovincial trade in intoxicating beverages.
This interview not only shows the very high respect which the Prime Minister of Canada has for provincial autonomy but also the extent to which he is ready to co-operate with each provincial government in order to bring about what they believe is in the best public interest.
Mr. Speaker, no matter how much we may be called centralists, it is impossible to quote a single instance where invasion of provincial fields occurred since the war. On the contrary, the dominion government-and the present parliament-have co-operated very closely at all times with the provinces while remaining respectful of their autonomy and while giving them the means to exercise their prerogatives within the limits of their jurisdiction. That is what we have sought to do and that is what we shall keep on doing, in spite of the absolutely unjustified attacks leveled against us.
Laurent):
Prime Minister St. Laurent indicated last night that the provinces are entitled to greater powers than are generally recognized in the commercial field. He even gave to understand that the dominion government would co-operate with a province in enforcing a measure that would prevent certain products of other provinces from crossing the boundaries of the other province.
Mr. St. Laurent had already expressed those opinions in the house, but yesterday they assumed special importance. There was concern in parliamentary circles when it was announced that Premier
In conclusion, with respect to this matter of margarine, let us remember that it comes within the exclusive purview of the provinces, that it is out of bounds to the federal parliament. However, the farmers of my constituency and of every constituency in Canada may rest assured that the dominion government will take the necessary steps to ensure that they are protected in this regard. In so far as dairy industries located within the boundaries of the various provinces are concerned, the federal government is prepared

The Address-Mr. Lesage to co-operate in every way with all provinces, as was so ably expressed by the right hon. the Prime Minister during the interview he granted to Mr. Pare.
Mr. Speaker, the other question in which my constituents-and all of them this time- are greatly interested, is that of income tax. It is true that nearly every member has referred to it but I should like to hark back to a subject I discussed during former sessions.
At each session, on the budget debate, I felt it a duty to make certain representations and to offer certain considerations on that subject. This time, I believe it is more advisable to make my representations at this stage, before the budget speech is delivered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). My representations originate with my electors and I want to state them objectively.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the time has come for the government of Canada to grant the Canadian taxpayers a considerable income tax reduction. Some people would like to propose total or near total suppression of income tax so that it could be replaced by another taxation system, for instance a direct retail tax similar to the sales tax which is levied in the province of Quebec. Frankly, with all due respect to the promoters of that idea, I cannot admit that such a system is fair according to the principles of social philosophy. Let us take, for example, the case of two taxpayers. On one hand we have the man of means and on the other the labourer or farmer with an average income and a family to support. The man of wealth who has no dependents, or very few, now pays a goodly share of the income tax, although he would pay much less if a sales tax were to replace the income tax. Now, the labourer earning $2,000 per annum, for example, who has five or six dependents, does not pay any income tax at all but he would have to pay the sales tax on everything he buys, especially on children's clothing. It could, of course, be argued that children's clothing would not be taxed. We all know however that a boy of fourteen dresses like a man and in this respect there is no difference. I know quite a few family men in the house who would know all about it.
Such a sales tax would necessarily be levied on all kinds of articles required to raise a 
family. The worker I mentioned a moment ago, who does not pay any income tax at present, would have to pay in sales taxes the amount that would no longer be collected in income tax from rich people.
I do not think I am going too far in saying that such a system would be the opposite of social justice.
I have often expressed my attitude regarding taxation. In 1946, I stated in this house that according to principles of social justice taxes should be proportionate to the means and obligations of the citizens.
That is why I contend that under certain conditions income tax is the fairest way of collecting funds for the state. In 1947 I said, as reported at page 3000 of Hansard:
You will often hear people say-and at times they are well informed people-that the personal income tax involves inequality of charges because too many citizens escape its provision^. One has to admit that that is true to a certain extent, but theoretically and even in fact, because the cases of evasion are the exception, it is still based on the fairest principles of taxation as long as it does not take away from the citizen what is necessary for him and his family to live according to the general standard of living in the country.
The reasons which justify me, and my constituents as well, in asking that the tax levy be appreciably reduced during this session bring me to request that this reduction be effected by increased exemptions rather than by lowered rates.
There is no doubt that, in view of the present day cost of living, the $750 and $1,500 exemptions granted single taxpayers on the one hand and married people on the other, and the $100 and $300 deductions regarding, in the first case, the children who benefit from family allowances and, in the second, those who do not, are far from sufficient.
Exemption levels must be considerably increased. I take the liberty of quoting, in this connection, part of an editorial appearing in L'Action Catholique of Friday, February 21, 1949, under the signature of Andre Eoy, as follows:
On the other hand, while it is hoped that the cost-of-living index has reached its peak and that the consumer may expect some relief in this direction,-although, because of several factors of a varied nature, such as the operation of the Marshall plan, and the growing tendency towards collective labour agreements, the drop will fortunately be quite small,-it is important that the small and average earning groups be granted the necessary respite in order that they may be able to meet those obligations which, from a social standpoint, are obviously becoming more urgent than ever, while from an economic viewpoint, the collapse of

purchasing power amongst these earning classes might bring about a rather serious depression, even though our foreign trade remained prosperous.
The high cost of living is obviously the argument that impresses most the greater portion of the people, but there are others and I discovered one while listening to the member who spoke before me. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Henderson) referred to the intricacies of farmers' income tax forms. There is no point in trying to do away with the intricacies of income tax forms. It is a hopeless undertaking. It will never be possible for a farmer to make out an income tax form, an annual report on his earnings, without submitting a financial statement, a detailed account of earnings and expenses.
All this is, of course, highly complicated work for a farmer. In order to do that he would have to keep books, not only on a daily, but on an hourly basis.
Does he have time enough for that? Has he the inclination for that? Working as he does, from dawn till dusk, and often from before dawn to after dark, he has no time left to look after all these things. If he cannot fill out his form himself, he will have to seek the help of an accountant or of a notary who will charge him a fee.
Then, by raising to a proper level the basic exemptions for single as well as for married people, and by increasing the exemptions granted in the case of children, most of the farmers will be taken off the income tax roll and the government will avoid spending a fairly large amount of money to collect only a few dollars.
In this same connection, the low-income workers lot is not to be envied either. Is there anything more aggravating for the worker than to see his weekly salary cheque, which is hardly sufficient for the needs of his family, cut down, even if only a little, through income tax deductions?
By raising the exemption levels the government would take off the income tax roll the workers who earn but little, those who have a family to look after, those who need to be helped.
I fully understand that government requirements may have justified this condition in the past because on the one hand the needs of taxpayers and their dependents are one of the main bases for any taxation system, and on the other hand government requirements are a second and fundamental basis.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
The Address-Mr. Lesage AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at seven-thirty o'clock.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, when the house took recess at six o'clock, I was stating the reasons why I believe that a general rise in the level of income tax exemptions is imperative this year and I was about to quote an excerpt from the budget speech which the Minister of Finance delivered last year. Here are his words as recorded on page 4063 of Hansard:
I believe that all parties in this parliament and most Canadians share the view that the national budget is no longer merely a matter of the government accounts that should be balanced every twelve months on some financial rule of thumb. We view the national budget now as an integral part of the nation's business, influenced by and having an influence upon the state of employment, income and prices. I think we would all agree that in times of widespread unemployment and insufficient demand for goods and services our expenditures should be increased in order to support employment and incomes, and that they could and should exceed our revenues under such conditions. Now we are at the opposite extreme and we should follow the opposite course. We should deliberately budget, as a matter of policy, for substantial surpluses in times like these. Only that way can we hold inflationary forces in check.
It is evident that by these words the Minister of Finance was expounding the theory or system of cyclical budgeting. I submit that the very application of this system justifies a reduction of income tax this year. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is certain that inflationary forces are much less active than last year. The cost of living tends to become stabilized and in fact at this time it seems that the trend is towards a decline. There are certain districts in Canada where industrial and economic activities have slowed down in the past few months. I realize that to a great extent this slackening may be due to many factors, such as weather which has afflicted certain districts in Canada but we must admit that, in spite of all, there is a slight decline generally in industrial and economic activities. Savings also are decreasing and for all these reasons, although I do not wish to raise a scare, because I consider this recession only seasonal and temporary, I feel the income tax should be reduced in order to give a break to those in the lower income brackets and afford them the means to improve, if possible, their standard of living.


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: Sure.
1268	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Lesage


Jean Lesage: It is quite certain that, by giving a chance to those who have only low or fair incomes, inflationary forces are not so stimulated because, with the money that they save from the income tax, these people will be able to procure not luxury articles but the necessities of life.
The Montreal board of trade has suggested that the exemption for single persons be brought up to at least $1,000 and that for married people to at least $2,000. Note that in both cases it is a minimum. The Canadian federation of agriculture suggested that the exemption be increased for single persons and married people to $1,200 and $2,400, respectively. I feel the government, in accordance with the financial position of the country, should allow the greatest margin of exemption possible. Information from reliable sources indicates that the increase of the exemption to $1,000 for single persons and to $2,000 for married people would alone cause a loss of revenue of about $275 million. It is easy to say that a surplus of several hundred million dollars is anticipated; but the anticipated surplus will not be as high as expected, because part of it will serve to increase our reserves of foreign exchange and for other capital investments. The actual surplus for the fiscal year will be far less than has been mentioned in some circles.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the increase in the rate of exemptions will bring about a decrease in the surplus because it would be only fair that all increases in exemptions be made retroactive to January 1, 1949. Thus the surplus for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1949, will be reduced in proportion to the increases in exemptions for the three-month period from January 1 to March 31, 1949.
As far as exemptions for single persons are concerned, I do not think that they should necessarily be exactly half those granted married persons. Everyone will agree that a married couple can enjoy the same standard of living as a bachelor but that it does not cost them twice as much. In view of the fact that young people should save for the future and plan for marriage,
I feel that the government would be justified in granting single taxpayers an exemption of a little more than half that allowed married people.
I believe that an exemption of at least $200 regarding children under sixteen and of $400 regarding children over that age is fully warranted. While I am on the subject, may I support what the hon. member for Dor-


Chester (Mr. Tremblay) said this afternoon in his splendid speech when he requested that exemptions be granted with respect to college and university students, even though they were over twenty-one years old. I can do no better than repeat what I said when discussing this matter during the 1946 session, as reported in Hansard of July 23:
Before I go on, I should like to say a few words about the exemptions for children going to college or university. I submit that there should be no age limit of twenty-one and, in addition, that the cost of sending a son or daughter to university is so much more than $300 a year that a man should be allowed to deduct the actual expenses incurred in the education of his son or daughter falling within that category. Let him produce receipts, if necessary, but give him a chance. Taxpayers of average means cannot afford such advanced education for their children. However, I submit that those children have the same right of education that the children of rich men have. The interest of the state itself is to have the greatest possible number of advanced and educated men, and its corollary duty is to encourage young people and their parents to do so, in giving all classes of society equality of opportunity in that field.
(Text):


Mr. J. W. Burton (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, many people living in the constituency I have the honour to represent would consider me remiss in my duty if I did not take advantage of the opportunity afforded by this debate to place before the government some of the many problems confronting the people not only of my own constituency but of all parts of Canada.
During these past days and weeks many of my colleagues who have preceded me have advanced ample argument in support of the amendment to the amendment moved by my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold well); but before proceeding to deal with the speech from the throne I should like to say a few words in appreciation of the services rendered to this country in general and to agriculture in particular by the retiring deputy minister of agriculture, Dr. Barton. I am sure we all wish him success in his new undertaking, which I understand to be in the nature of a roving representative of the Minister of Agriculture; and I hope he will now have more time to place the viewpoint of the Canadian farmer before international gatherings.
In this connection I should like to refer to the book "Canada and the United Nations, 1948" released by the Department of External Affairs on February 28 of this year. There reference is made to the food and agricultural organization; and in order to refresh the memory of hon. members as to the aims

and objects of the FAO I am going to quote the first paragraph on page 121:
The food and agricultural organization, which came into existence in 1945 as a result of the United Nations conference on food and agriculture held in May, 1943, at Hot Springs, Virginia, was founded for the purpose of raising levels of nutrition and standards of living, securing improvements in the efficiency of the production and distribution of all food and agricultural products, and bettering the condition of rural populations and thus contributing towards an expanding world economy.
Then further, on page 122:
At its fourth session, held in Washington, November 15-29, 1948, the conference of FAO adopted a report on the state of food and agriculture which urged that, in spite of the generally good crops of 1948, there should be no over-optimism regarding future levels of nutrition and living standards.
Then further on down the same page:
The question of the world food supply was placed on the agenda of the third session of the general assembly by the delegation of Poland which requested that the assembly consider the problem of food wastage in certain countries, and by the delegation of Cuba which recommended the reduction of taxes on foodstuffs. These two resolutions initiated a long general discussion in the course of which many resolutions and amendments were submitted to the second committee which considered the question. Finally by a vote of 22 in favour, 7 against with 11 abstentions (including Canada) a lengthy resolution was recommended to the general assembly for adoption.
When this resolution was considered in the plenary session of the general assembly, amendments jointly sponsored by the Canadian, the United Kingdom, the New Zealand and the United States delegations, which deleted specific references to high profits of middlemen and speculators, and which put into general terms a recommendation to the economic and social council concerning its continuing study of the problem, were adopted.
I should like to know why our representatives to these gatherings should be so considerate of the feelings of those who extort high profits, be they middlemen or speculators. In my opinion our representatives should voice the demands of our farmers, who want prices that are fair to both consumers and producers.
At this time may I also express my personal pleasure over the appointment to the important post of deputy minister of agriculture of a former minister of agriculture of my province of Saskatchewan. I sat in the same legislature with Mr. Taggart; and while I did not always agree with his policies I did admire his ability, and I appreciate his fairness in debate. I wish him success in his new duties. Both he and the minister are going to have a battle on their hands to keep the other departments of this government from putting agriculture in this country in an impossible position. Let me warn the government that our farmers are not in the mood to let themselves be pushed around.
During this debate many of my colleagues in this party have placed on record the fears
The Address-Mr. Burton and anxieties that today are uppermost in the minds of our farmers. Now let us look at the speech from the throne, which is supposed to forecast the legislation the government intends to place before us during the course of this session. There is not one single sentence having reference to agriculture; and in only two places could a person, by any stretch of the imagination, find anything that might even indirectly affect this basic industry. When a person looks at that speech and bears in mind the indifference of some of the ministers of this government to the vital problems affecting so many sections of our country, one feels like really making a job of taking them apart to see what makes them tick. On the other hand there are times when I cannot help feeling sorry for the government. They remind me so much of an old work horse that has served you well for years but has come to the end of its usefulness. I never could bring myself to the point of lashing an old plug like that.
This brings to mind a conversation I had last fall with a friend of mine. He was complaining about the difficulty he found in keeping up with his work, keeping his weeds under control and so on. He said to me, "Look at that old plug there," pointing to a horse which he called Lib. "Why, Lib used to be a pretty good horse in his day, but I simply can't get anything out of him any more." I said, "When I saw him galloping around in the Rosthern pasture he seemed to be kicking up his heels quite a bit." He said, "Yes, he did fool a great many people at that time. He even had some people thinking there was water in places where there will not be any for a long time to come." I said, "What are you going to do with old Lib? Are you going to pack him off to the horse-meat packing plant?" He said, "No, I do not think I will do that." "Well, I have had some offers from Barney Google, from down Melville way, who came along with a bunch of city slickers from Winnipeg. They wanted me to trade him for what they called the western bloc, but I am not going to fool with that." I said to him, "There is neighbour Conn up on mortgage hill and he has an old grey plug he would like to trade off." "Oh, no," he said, "that fellow has had different riders for that old plug almost every year. You know what happened to that college professor who had a lot of experience gentling creatures like that; he even threw him. Now, they have another fellow up on top decked out in fine clothes and they are rearing to go for the stampede. They are asking me to put my money on him, but not me. I have been fooled too often; that fellow has been thrown by lesser horses than the old grey one. I am
1270	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Burton not going to take a chance." He said, "You know, Joe, I think it is time I became modern. I am going to follow your example and have modern equipment on my farm so I can get rid of these horses of mine. I am going to vote modern by voting C.C.F. and see if we cannot get rid of some of these combines and cartels."
Our farmers are not very exacting in their requests, Mr. Speaker. Our farmers do not want anything that is not theirs. Friends, we should stop to think of the farmer who rises in the early dawn along with the birds. He and they offer a song of praise to God at the opening of the day. The farmer then carries on through the heat and the burden of the day. In the twilight hours of his life of usefulness, all he asks for is a measure of security for himself and his family. The farmer is the instrument through which God produces the foodstuff by which the human race is fed. It is through the farmer that it is possible for the human race to continue. All that he asks is a fair deal.
I should like to remind you that at this time our soil, after being locked in winter's sleep, is even now beginning to stir. It is bursting those shackles of ice and snow and will soon be ready to receive the seed planted by .the farmers. I say to this government that when the farmer continues to do that year after year he is doing his share, and the least the government can do is to see that he has the security that he requires. What have we? Even at the present time the government is dilly-dallying and we still do not know whether we are going to have the coarse grains handled by the speculators or whether they will be handled in a decent and orderly manner.
When we talk about security, I should like to say there is another section or group of people who are very much in need of security.
I have no intention of becoming involved in the controversy between the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Reid) and my colleague the member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Argue). Let me just say this: In spite of the arguments which may flow back and forth, the people in the province of Saskatchewan, as well as the people in a number of other provinces, are resentful of the fact that this government has failed to bring into effect the health program proposed at the dominion-provincial conference, at least for those provinces that were willing to co-operate and have shown that willingness by signing taxation agreements with the dominion government.
Turning to what the member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) said the other day,


I wish to express my appreciation of the acknowledgment he made at that time. On page 1144 of Hansard of March 4, he said:
Everyone who knows anything about what is happening in Saskatchewan must give the authorities and the people of Saskatchewan a great deal of credit for what has been accomplished in the matter of hospitalization and social services. 1 say that in all fairness. The province from which I come is endeavouring to emulate what has been done in Saskatchewan, because we believe a fair standard has been set by that province. It is true that according to the table appearing at page 1087 of Hansard, Saskatchewan has only received 1-1 per cent of the hospital construction grant. This is simply due to the difficulties experienced by that province, as well as other provinces, in sending in accounts for projects.
That answer, Mr. Speaker, might be correct for the time being, but it overlooks the fact that, before the province of Saskatchewan could inaugurate this scheme of hospitalization to which the member for New Westminster was referring, additional bed space was needed. The province proceeded to make those additional hospital facilities available, and in the past few years it has doubled the hospital bed capacity. A good deal of the construction for that purpose had already taken place before the minister's scheme came into effect. In many cases the cut-off date in the scheme debarred these projects from sharing in it.
We are now in this position: We have hospital space and we have our hospitalization plan in effect, but we cannot share in the construction grants that are available. This places us in the position of not being able to properly care for the people for whom we should really be caring under a national health program. I refer to the incurables. It is all right for the minister or his officials to refer these people to the provinces and say, "There is where you should get your assistance."
The minister's speech, which I enjoyed, contained a wealth of information. He referred to the number of rheumatic and arthritic cases with which his department has to contend, but I would say, Mr. Speaker, there is a considerable number of people in addition to those. I have only time to list a few examples. I know a girl who is only thirty years of age. In her childhood she either suffered an accident or had infantile paralysis-I have not been able to ascertain which-and she has been crippled ever since. She has to be carried from one room to another. She cannot take a single step. This girl is helpless physically, yet her mind is as bright as a new dollar. There is no help for that girl, and she is only one of hundreds- yes, thousands-like her throughout the country.

I want to draw your attention to another case. Here is a woman who wrote to me as follows:
It will be four years August 6 since Mr. Blank-
She gives his name.
-had a stroke which left his right side paralysed. He has not gotten any better. Our doctor tells us he will never walk again. I cannot go out to earn even my own living as I cannot leave him alone. I have no income. He has no pension of any kind. He will be 67 years old on the 26th of this month. There are pensions for old age, for blind people, and many other kinds. We would be so grateful if this bill would go through very soon.
I have one more case to which I should like to refer; and again I would point out that these are only examples of thousands like them.


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: No
names, no dates; nothing at all.


Joseph William Burton: This is the case of a girl nearly thirty years of age. She writes as follows:
I have been a'cripple since birth. I walk with aid of crutches all the time and wear braces to the hip.
Further on she says:
So, on behalf of all incurables in Canada and myself I am sincerely asking our government at Ottawa to help us unfortunate people for a fair pension . . .
I am placing that matter before the minister and the government. As time is passing rapidly, I wish to deal with a number of other matters. Reference has been made to income tax. I do not intend to go into all the details. We all have heard them time and again. Only yesterday the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka) placed on the record vividly a description of some of the abuses that are taking place in our income tax department. In my opinion it is high time that the minister or someone got busy and had things cleaned up in that department. I wish to remind the minister of the question I asked in the house some time ago. In fact, this question stood on the order paper for quite a long time. It is a reasonable question. It should not require much digging to find the necessary information. The question was:
1.	Do rural telephone companies organized on a non-profit basis have to complete income tax returns?
2.	If so, for what reason?
When I finally got the answers, I found they were as follows:
1.	Yes.
2. Sections 33 (1) and 35 (2) of the Income War Tax Act and section 40 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Act require all corporations to file returns. It should be noted that in order to qualify for the exemption, a company must not only be organized, but must be operated, on a non-profit basis.
The Address-Mr. Burton The difficulty, Mr. Speaker, is that the department officials just simply do not concern themselves enough to inform themselves properly as to what is going on. We have a good example right in Saskatchewan where we have 1,039 rural telephone companies organized. Of that number, 237 were incorporated quite a few years ago and could be classified as share companies that could pay dividends if their returns warranted their doing so. But none of these 237 companies have paid dividends on their shares for the past ten years. Nevertheless, from some of those companies the income tax department is extracting income tax, in spite of the fact that some of these companies' lines are nearly forty years of age. They have a little money that they have been putting in reserve in order to be able to reconstruct those lines. Then the department steps in and attaches their reserves. That is bad enough. But when we get to the other class of telephone companies that later on were organized under a new act, what is the situation? This act made it possible for people in the rural areas of the province to provide themselves with telephone services. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) himself was a member of the government during the time that a considerable amount of construction work of that kind was going on. We have 802 companies that are operating on a service-at-cost basis and not for profit. They are incorporated under the provincial act, and they operate those systems only to give service to the people.
I have not the time in which to give a full outline, but I shall endeavour to do it as briefly as possible. Back in 1919 I helped to organize a company which constructed a rural telephone line serving about 150 or more farmers. We borrowed on debenture in the neighbourhood of $40,000. We then proceeded to pay back that money, plus the interest, by having our municipality levy a tax on the land alongside the telephone lines. Each subscriber of necessity- under the bylaws under which we operated and under which we were incorporated- had to be a shareholder. But these shares bore no dividends. All that we did was to have those shares issued, so that the subscribers were shareholders before we provided them with service. Then we just charged them for the maintenance costs of those lines. Every one of those 1,039 companies will be obliged to clutter up the offices of the income tax department at Saskatoon. The hon. member for Vegreville was telling us what happened in Alberta with regard to the man to whom he made reference. Similarly, I am prepared to tell

The Address-Mr. Burton you, Mr. Speaker,-and through you, the house-that the income tax department will endeavour to extract from these companies money that in the first place was raised by taxation of the land alongside these telephone lines.
There is another matter to which I would like to refer, namely, the small flour mills. I also inquired of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) what provision his department was making for these small flour mills to have an opportunity to share in the flour export business. His answer was far from satisfactory. Later on the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Viau) made reference to the question I had asked. In spite of the fact that the minister said it would be something in the nature of a private enterprise that would solicit this business for export. The hon. member for St. Boniface pointed out that the big flour milling concerns that have their headquarters in the eastern part of Canada are sitting on the lines of traffic and can grab off that business.
I have here a letter from the operator of a flour mill in my constituency, which reads in part as follows:
Just received House of Commons debates official report, February 25, for which I thank you.
Mr. Howe's reply is partly correct. Each flour mill sells its product in the domestic market, but I do not agree with him when he says "or the foreign market as it sees fit."
The matter of individual enterprise is a joke.
I should like to make reference to the big corporations that are making it impossible for the small enterprises to operate. In that connection I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Prairie Messenger, which is printed in Muenster, Saskatchewan. It is dated February 24, 1949, and reads in part as follows:
"Better men for better times," a report of the commission on American citizenship appointed by the Catholic University of America and published in 1943. Speaking of "untrammeled competition" in business, the report said:
"It exalts ruthlessness, sharp practice, indifference to human values, and selfishness of every description ... It is the negation of all that is implied in the sermon on the mount. No man and no combination of men have the right to seek prosperity at the expense of the common welfare. . . The blithe assumption that, as long as we hew to the line of personal success, the chips will fall in the nature of a benediction on our fellow man has proven empty. In the midst of contemporary world turmoil and domestic confusion, we are learning in the hard way that society must put brakes on competition and that, if it is to survive, capitalism must be shorn of its individualism and made to submit to social controls.
I offer that to the government for its consideration.
There is another matter to which I should like to call the attention of hon. members.
I hold in my hand a copy of what is called 
the Canadian Mail, which contains the following headline: "Socialists dissemble-but they cannot deny these frightening truths." The paper contains thirteen questions with which I had intended to deal, but time does permit me to do so. The whole front page and the first inside page is full of their extracts from speeches of members of the C.C.F. taken from here and there to try to bolster up their arguments. My reply is that not only do we deny the accusations made in this paper, but they have been branded for what they are, and yet they keep on publishing this stuff. We of the C.C.F. believe in liberty, but we also adhere to the truth that liberty does not mean licence. We believe in freedom of the press but we deny that that freedom carries with it the right to prostitute truth by taking sentences here and there from their context to convey a meaning different from what was meant by the speaker.


Mr. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: Who is to
judge that?


Joseph William Burton: If time permitted I could bring ample proof of that. Much of what I had intended to say this evening will be left over for some other time. I do not wish to tax your patience, Mr. Speaker, or the patience of hon. members; but I want to say that we of the C.C.F. have been accused quite a number of times of being mixed up with the communists. I believe that very often those who have made that accusation have made it for the purpose of distracting attention from themselves. Let me repeat that we are opposed to communism. We reject its atheistic and materialistic philosophy. We disagree with many of its policies. We abhor the methods by which it endeavours to gain and retain power. We are opposed to any form of dictatorship, be it either of the right or of the left. We have many examples, Mr. Speaker, of people who did not acknowledge these truths becoming enmeshed. Very often those who were the loudest in disclaiming communists were accessories in helping to bring communism into effect.


Mr. Probe:: Just look across the way.


Mr. Hartt:: Speak for yourself.


Joseph William Burton: When we stop to consider the deplorable conditions that we find in many parts of the world our hearts cannot help but grieve that in our time we have to contend with matters of that kind.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to the attention of hon. members, through you, the immortal and memorable remarks contained in Lincoln's Gettysburg address. To me it has always seemed that Lincoln, whose heart was filled with anguish

and his shoulders stooped with the responsibility of leading his country through the greatest of all national catastrophes that can befall a nation, the tragedy of civil war, standing that day with his feet on the soil saturated with the blood of his fellow countrymen, prayed:
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
May I appeal to hon. members in our time that we also turn our hearts to God and pray for the rebirth of our democratic institutions, and that through them we may be able to bring about the brotherhood of man under the fatherhood of God.


Mr. Lewis Menary (Wellington North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne as to the needs of my riding. We are largely an agricultural riding, and it contains some of the best dairy herds in Canada. Owing to the demand for dairy cattle in the United States during the past few years, thousands have gone from our riding to build up the herds of our neighbour to the south. This has been beneficial to both countries. We get the United States dollars badly needed in this country and they get cows so urgently required to provide milk and butter for their people.
This has been a great era of prosperity on the North American continent, and we hope that this trend of trade will continue, as it is a great help to the economy of our country. We not only sent many of our dairy cattle, but very many of our beef cattle have gone to the United States since the embargo was lifted. Farmers in my riding are not in a very happy mood at the present time. They are all willing to do their share in our national economy, which they did in wartime and have done since. I know many farmers who during the war period carried on with no help. The result was that the wife, husband and children were working on the average twelve hours a day. Since the average farmer has ten cows, forty hogs and perhaps 1,000 chicks, as well as laying hens, a great deal of work has to be accomplished to keep the farm operating. The hour of six or earlier in the morning saw the farmer out milking the cows and feeding the hogs. The mother or wife often had the task of looking after the fowl.
The exemptions for income taxes are too low, $750 for single persons and $1,500 for married persons. By the time the house is kept, the children clothed, the coal and food purchased, there is not much left over for a rainy day. The same thing applies to the married couples living in towns. I would
The Address-Mr. Menary like to tell the government it cannot be done. Would one of our ministers like to trade his job and salary with these people, even for a short time?
Since last summer they have been hounded by income tax inspectors for taxes on the great contribution they made to supply food in this period of our history. It might well be said that either we supply food or we lose the battle for freedom. If our farmers only knew how this government has spent their money, they might feel even worse.
A question was asked on the order paper as to why this government paid W. C. Thomson, a Toronto lawyer, a large sum of money. It is true Mr. Thomson contested the provincial leadership with Mr. Farquhar Oliver, and lost; but inside of two months after Mr. Thomson's defeat the dominion government paid him $173,300. True, it would look like a good deal for Mr. Thomson; but the people want to know what he did to get such a generous sum.
I have received letters from my riding protesting the various taxes. The sales tax especially has been the target of much criticism. The federal tax takes a big slice of many day-to-day commodities. This is a so-called luxury tax. These taxes-imposed as a purely wartime measure-run from 10 to 35 per cent, and are of course additional to the 8 per cent federal sales tax. Here are some of the goods on which the luxury tax is paid: toothpaste, shaving soap, antiseptics, perfumes and cosmetics, 25 per cent; chocolates, candy, chewing gum and all candy-like confectionery, 30 per cent; soft drinks, 40 per cent-almost half; trunks, suit cases, handbags, wallets, purses and all luggage, 35 per cent; fur coats, dressed furs, dyed furs, 10 per cent; automobiles, 10 per cent.
Under modern living standards in Canada most, if not all, of these items are not luxuries to be enjoyed by the wealthy, but necessities for the mass of the people. Who would call toothpaste, shaving soap, clocks, trucks or pens luxuries? Even such items as soft drinks, chocolate bars and candies are not necessarily luxuries. If these items are not luxuries, why should they continue to bear this heavy burden of taxes?
I would like to say a few words in this debate about the plight of our aged people. It is a tragic situation when they have to keep up a home, and especially when one is living alone. They must find it extremely hard to buy fuel, food and clothing on $30 a month. If the government has any idea of increasing this pension, why not do it now? In view of the large surplus, the government should be able to increase this pension.

The Address-Mr. Warren
These elder citizens should not want, as they have helped to make Canada what it is today. I have always contended that the old age pension should be on a contributory basis and I was the first one to bring this forward in the House of Commons. There is no one who cannot pay, let us say, one or two dollars per month, and get more when he or she reaches the age of sixty or sixty-five. By making these small payments these people will feel that it is an insurance, and that they are part of the plan.


Mr. R. M. Warren (Renfrew Norih):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Knowles:: Question.


An hon. Member:: Louder.


An hon. Member:: He has not started yet.


Ralph Melville Warren: I have not been having as much practice as some hon. members at this session. However, 1 shall not occupy much of the time of the house this evening. There are a number of matters I am going to discuss at a later time, but not tonight.


Mr. Wylie:: Tell us about that $400 house.


Ralph Melville Warren: I will have a word to say some time later about that, and also a word about the old dairy cow.
However, my main purpose in rising this evening is to discuss an old subject, one which I have brought before the government, and particularly the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), on many occasions since coming here in 1937. We have not got action yet; but I propose to continue to pester him until he gets around to the point where, for the sake of getting rid of me, he will build a bridge across the Ottawa river by way of Morrison's island. I hope the minister heard me.
There can be no argument whatever as to the value of such a bridge, because it would connect Quebec highway No. 8 with Ontario highways 17, 41 and 62. All of these are important roads. This would offer one of the finest trips not only for United States tourists but for Canadians who' like to take a pleasant drive once in a while. However, that is only a small part of the urgency. The island has an area of about a thousand square miles of fertile land, and on it are many farms and homes. They have their own schools and churches; and their chief place of business is Pembroke.
A recent survey has shown that thousands of pounds of honey, butter, fruit, pork, beef, lamb, horses, wool, hides, potatoes, grain, pulpwood and fuel hardwood are transported from the island to Pembroke. Those products bring the islanders approximately a million
FMr. Menary.]
dollars each year. They take home with them supplies and groceries of an equal value, making a fair exchange.
It is true that we have a ferry service. But there is one thing wrong with it, namely, the fact that there are two breaks in that service during the year. When the ice begins to form in the early winter the ferry cannot operate. Then there is a period of time when it is safe after the ice has formed. This is always an indefinite length of time; it might be a month or it might be longer than that when it is not safe to cross the ice. One can well imagine, however, that during the break-up in the spring of the year the people are practically isolated. If people want to get to the mainland two or three miles away they have to drive ninety miles to the nearest bridge, which is pretty nearly isolation. In the wintertime the roads fill up with snow. Their roads are not very good for plowing. They are narrow, and, if you cannot drive a car over them, ninety miles with a team of horses is a very long distance. The same thing happens again in the spring. Once the ice begins to rot and is not safe to cross there is another period of perhaps a month without any connection between the island and the mainland.
That might not appear to be so serious if you think only of the inconvenience of not ' being able to get to market. However, it is necessary to keep in mind the fact that the people of Allumette island sometimes need a doctor. If he is afraid to cross the rotting ice he has to go all the way around for a distance of ninety miles whereas if there were a bridge it would only be a distance of two or three miles. For patients who have to go to hospital the nearest hospital is in Pembroke. I have known some very fine persons who narrowly escaped death because they were almost too late in getting to hospital because they had to be taken there by this roundabout way.
Considering the need and the urgency, I do not think the cost would prove at all excessive. I should like the minister to come back over here and listen to my suggestion, because if I misquote him I should like him to correct me. After all, this is a very short speech, and I should like him to listen for a part of the time. I want him to hear my suggestion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is far better for him to
stay over here.


Ralph Melville Warren: As I recall the minister's
statements last year, and in previous years, he suggested that if either of the provinces would approach him as Minister of Public Works with a suggestion that they would be willing to contribute one-third of the cost, and ask him to take some action, he would

then be in a position to go to the cabinet and talk to them about the possibility of a bridge across the Ottawa river by way of Morrison's island. If my memory serves me correctly, that was the attitude of the minister.
Two or three things have happened since then. I am not sure if any person approached the minister directly, but I have been informed on good authority that the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), who was then premier of the province of Ontario, made a speech in Pembroke and, as premier of that province, definitely committed himself to contributing Ontario's share of the cost of building a bridge across the Ottawa river. Recently I have noticed that the present member of the Ontario legislature for Renfrew North made a speech in the legislature in which he definitely advocated a bridge across the Ottawa river. We have those two gentlemen in favour of it. A short time ago I read in one of the local papers an article about the member for Pontiac in the Quebec legislature. As I recall his statement, he was organizing a five-year plan, and among the propositions that he was putting forward was a bridge across the Ottawa river by way of Morrison's island. To me that seems a pretty fair approach by the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. In view of that, I am going to make a suggestion to the minister, and I hope he will pay particular attention to what I have to say in this regard. I suggest to him that he place in the estimates a specific sum, let us say $400,000, and add a proviso "or one-third of the cost." I think that is a reasonable request, and it would be a start. I hope the minister will consider that and give these people a break. While technically it may be the proper thing to wait for the provinces of Ontario and Quebec to come to the minister, considering the urgency of the situation and the need for the bridge I do not think that we should bother about technicalities at all. Let us have the bridge. Give these good people a bridge, for they have had an undeserved delay of at least fifty years.


Mr. A. E. Robinson (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, during the remarks that I am about to make I hope to pass out a few bouquets, and I hope I will not throw any bricks even if I do feel like pitching a few at the government. The people whom I represent are people who do not throw bricks very readily, so I shall try to represent them in such a manner as would be pleasing to them. I may say that we had our centennial last year, and the members of the House of Commons received an invitation to be there. Many were able to attend and many sent their
8, 1949
The Address-Mr. A. E. Robinson regrets. I am sure the ones who attended were made welcome, and had a very good time.
As to the bouquets I should like to pass out, the first will go to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I think he deserves great credit for having attained the position that he occupies today. The second bouquet will go to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), a man whom we are proud to have lead us. I should also like to extend my congratulations to all new members of the house, not forgetting the new member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, and the new member for Nicolet-Yamaska, who have made history, and will help to make history in the coming election. I should also like to extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Brown) and the seconder (Mr. Demers) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They did a very good job considering what they had to work with.
Getting back to Bruce, which is dear to my heart, as you know, Mr. Speaker, it is a rural community and we love it as such. I must say, though, that it is not holding its own in population, in common with many rural communities. The population is going down, which is not a good thing for the country at large. I might quote a few words by the city solicitor of Windsor-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: There is a Windsor man in the house, I believe. This was in connection with the housing situation in urban municipalities.
There is an apparent lack of effective regulation and control of mushroom growth around urban centres, and a "clear inability to enforce elementary building standards." "Far too many of our suburban areas are rapidly becoming congested suburban slums," Mr. Cummings' report said.
When that situation prevails in our urban areas we ask ourselves why this should happen. I believe a great deal of the blame must go to this government because of the way it has been legislating over the years it has been in power.
Both the last speaker and the speaker before him were farmers; I have spent most of my life on a farm. Therefore I have a word or two to say on conditions in agriculture today. I would say the farmer receives less for all the work he and his family do than is received by workers in industry. The wholesale prices of food have never been as high as they should, in relation to the cost of the things the farmer must buy. Owing to government controls the farmers are facing a very uncertain future. This government, which has controlled the farmers out of producing enough butter to supply the people of Canada, deserves the censure not

The Address~Mr. A. E. Robinson only of the producers of that butter but also of the consumers. During the last five months the price of cattle has dropped by twenty per cent, yet in the same space of time the cost of living has gone up. So the cost of living cannot be blamed upon the prices the farmers are getting.
Right here I should like to say that I believe it is time the farmers were given a chance to have something to say about the marketing of their own products. I would be in favour of legislation that would give the farmers a chance to have producer marketing boards and a say on how those boards should be run. It is quite apparent, in Bruce county in any case, that veterans of the last war are not settling on the farms. That is not a good condition, because those boys deserve the best that life can give them, and I am sure they are not getting it in many of the cities where they are located today. I would make a plea that we all keep in mind how important are our rural people and those who live in small towns, and I believe something should be done for those places far distant from the large centres. We should remember those immortal lines of Kipling:
From little towns in a far land they came
To guard their honour in a world aflame.
By little towns in a far land they sleep,
And leave to you to guard those things they died to keep.
We in Bruce county are progressive and, thanks to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), that is now a restricted area and T.B. testing is being carried on, which is a wonderful thing. It is not so good, though, to have such a small staff doing the work, which is proceeding very slowly. About a year and a half ago I made the suggestion that they permit local veterinarians to take part in the program, but apparently there was some reason why that could not be done and it is not being done now to any extent. I should like to read a resolution which was passed by the electors of Saugeen township at their annual meeting:
We the ratepayers of Saugeen township in Bruce county T.B. testing area find compensation on reactor cattle too low to allow for replacement, and ask the dominion Department of Agriculture to make adjustments in line with present prices.
I am quite in agreement with that resolution; and I hope that it, together with the many other resolutions that have been forwarded on the same subject, will bring about some results. I have in my hand an itemized account of one man who had his herd tested, and these figures show that he is the loser by approximately $1,000. That is not an isolated case, either. I suggest to the minister that in considering the compensation for cattle they should try to arrive at something that will help the man who has a

great many of his reactors go to the tank. I am not advocating that there should be higher prices for those who are able to sell their beef cattle on the market after they are turned down in this test, but I do believe something should be done for those who are so unfortunate as to have a large number of animals not fit for beef purposes. A couple of days ago I had a question on the order paper in this connection, and the minister was a bit evasive in answering it. I asked whether, when this compensation was raised he would consider making it retroactive, to cover the heavy losses sustained by some of these people during the last couple of years, but the minister did not answer my question.
Up in Bruce county we have two Indian reserves, and during the period the Indian committee was carrying on its work I had the pleasure of meeting some Indian representatives who were visiting here. They felt quite happy because something was going to be done in connection with a revision of the Indian Act, but right now I am wondering what is the hold-up. They are very disappointed because nothing has been done. The hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Case) is more familiar with this matter than I am because he served on that committee and traveled extensively. He made recommendations here in the house the other evening which I believe should be accepted by the government. Those Indians on our reserves in Bruce are very good citizens; and in his remarks the other evening the hon. member for Grey North said something well worth repeating, at page 970 of Hansard for February 28:
In the second great war, not only did their male members offer their services, the Indian girls came forward and offered themselves. One Indian reserve, Cape Croker, adjacent to my riding, showed an enlistment in relation to population larger than any other community in Canada.
I would be very much in favour of having that revised act brought into operation just as soon as possible.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word on the vital question of social security. We of the Progressive Conservative party have a platform on social security which, when we get into power and put it into effect, will solve many of the difficulties being experienced throughout Canada today.
First, I should like to say that, in my opinion, any social security scheme should be contributory. When I reach the age of sixty-five and I put my hand out to get a cheque, I should like to feel that I had contributed something towards keeping me in my old age. It is unnecessary for me to enumerate the different items in the social security program

advocated by the Progressive Conservative party. You will hear enough about it at a later time, so there is no need lor me to put it on the record. If anyone wants to look at it, I have a copy of it here.
The blind are also very deserving of some consideration, probably more consideration than they are receiving today. I understand they are included in the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act, and I do not think that is proper. I believe the blind people would be happier if they had a special department to administer their aid. I know there are many blind people who are quite capable of administering such a scheme.
I come now to what is known as the health news service, from which I should like to quote one or two extracts. The heading on this pamphlet is, "Alcoholic illness developed by one in twenty drinkers." The first excerpt I wish to quote is as follows-I might say this is given by Dr. Bell, the medical director of the Shadow Brook Health Foundation.
There are few physical or mental ailments causing greater pain or torture than that associated with alcoholism.
At another point, he says:
In spite of this, while most communities accept the causative agent, intoxicating beverages, the majority still fail to provide the means of helping a victim.
Such being the case, I am surprised at the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Gingues), who stated in Hansard on March 2, page 1080:
We could, for example, levy a higher tax on, alcoholic beverages-
For the benefit of those within hearing of my voice, I might say that my views on liquor taxes were given on May 24, 1948, at page 4438 of Hansard. I have had no cause since then to change my opinion.
I am very glad to see the smiling face of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) tonight, as I have a few remarks to direct to him from which I hope he will benefit. In Bruce we have many small industries which are giving employment to many people. These employees enjpy living in the county of Bruce.
I would ask the Minister of Finance to try to treat these industries gently. This double taxation which the present government maintains in effect weighs heavily on the small industries such as we have in Bruce and the other rural communities. More should be done towards helping these industries than is being done at present. There is no doubt about it, the double taxation makes it difficult for the employer and is, therefore, not very good for the employee. It also contributes to the high cost of the product, which in turn contributes to the high cost of living.
I should like to mention, Mr. Speaker, the vicious sales tax about which we hear so
8. 1949
The Address-Mr. A. E. Robinson much today. In my speech in 1948 I stated that such taxes helped to raise the cost of living. I still think that is true. It is not a fair tax. I shall read an excerpt I have which I think will explain it better than I can. Speaking of the eight per cent sales tax, it says:
Because it bears more heavily in proportion on the poor man than on the rich, the sales tax is, in effect, a graduated income tax reversed, for under it the smaller a man's income the larger the percentage of it goes to pay the tax.
A worker or a farmer spends something like half of his total income for consumer goods on which sales tax is levied. A rich man may and often does pay as little for these same goods as five per cent. There is no justice in such an arrangement.
The income tax on farmers has been threshed out in this house, but I should like to add my voice to what has been said. The farmers are worried, but the sad part of the situation is that many of these hard-working farmers mentioned by the member for Wellington North (Mr. Menary) are not eligible to pay income taxes. When I was at home one week end I met a man on the street and congratulated him on his eighty-fifth birthday. I asked him how he was. "Well," he said, "I am not enjoying it very well." I asked him what the trouble was and he said, "I received a registered letter to file my income tax return. I do not know where I am. I reared my son and he lived with us after he got married. He has two grown-up boys and the property is split up in such a way that we do not know whether we are breaking the law in making up our income tax return." I said, "Do not worry over that. You have come through life up to now with a pleasant face, so do the best you can and carry on." That was the only advice I could give, and it is the only advice I can give to the farmers of Canada until we get a new government in office.
The member for Wellington North (Mr. Menary) mentioned the soft-drink tax, and that is another vicious tax which is a nuisance to the youngsters and others who have to pay these two pennies. It is a nuisance to the soft-drink distributors who have to keep the necessary forms in connection with the tax. Finally, may I say that our present tax structure in Canada is driving many of our educated young people over to the United States where they believe they can do better -and possibly they can.
I should like to say a few words about the tourist trade. I want to compliment the member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) on the speech he made in connection with tourists and the recommendation he made to the government. He suggested that a standing committee be set up on the tourist industry because that trade is going to grow. Just

The Address-Mr. A. E. Robinson recently at Niagara Falls Leo Dolan, the director of the Canadian Travel Bureau at Ottawa, said:
Competition Is now so keen that it passes all indications of recent years. Bermuda, the British Isles, Europe, Mexico, Latin America and the West Indies are putting on a tremendous drive for tourists. We must meet that competition.
When I read that article I thought there really should be an inducement to bring United States tourists to Canada. We read about the millions of dollars the United States tourists bring to Canada, but we must not overlook the fact that a great many Canadian dollars are spent in the United States and Mexico. I would offer the suggestion that if ever a tourist bureau is set up in Ottawa it would do well to adopt the slogan, "See Canada First". Many of the people in Canada have not been outside their own province. We visit a good many places close at hand, but we do not do much interprovincial visiting. I would suggest that such a bureau examine the possibility of having special rates on tours from one province to another so that the people would become better acquainted with Canada. This would make for a better understanding between the people of the different provinces.
I have, Mr. Speaker, a copy of a speech made by a school girl in a competition in Bruce county. This is the first-prize speech, and was made in Tobermory, that great fishing and pleasure district, in 1945. As it is a rather lengthy piece I would ask if the house would give me permission to have it included in Hansard in the report of my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Maurice Hartt: Let us hear it.


Mr. Howe:: Read it to us.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: That is what I was hoping to be asked to do. The title of it is "Bruce county, the Tourists' Playground". This is the trophy-winning address as delivered by Lois Edmonstone of Tobermory, at the Bruce county public speaking competition in Paisley, on November 1. It reads as follows:
Mr. chairman, judges, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls: The subject I have chosen to speak on is "Bruce county, the tourists' playground."
Have you ever wondered why thousands of people come from all over the United States and Canada to spend a vacation in Bruce county? It is because Bruce county has so many attractions and such wonderful scenery that it draws people from miles around.
If you prefer plenty of rugged coast line, the sound of waves pounding on rocks, thousands of beautiful flowers, and trees not tampered with by axe or saw, miles of sandy beaches which you can enjoy, nature as nature was meant to be, then Bruce county is the place for you.

Let me tell you of some of these beauty spots. Wiarton is the "gateway to the Bruce peninsula," and is the largest town in the northern half of the county. With its modern hotels, tourist accommodations and its proximity to inland lakes, Wiarton attracts a great number of tourists. Nearby is Colpoy's Bay, a lovely spot to camp and fish. Then, there are Cape Croker, Lion's Head and Dyer's Bay, which are small communities which attract their full quota of summer visitors. At the very tip of the peninsula is Tobermory, a small and picturesque fishing village. Here there are good hotels, cabins and cottages. There are guide boats to take you trolling for fish, which are plentiful. Near Tobermory, or "The Tub," as they call it up there, is Flower Pot Island. This island is named after the two large rock formations which have the shape of huge flower pots. Persons the world over have come to marvel upon these unique formations. Then there is Cove Island lighthouse. Only recently there was a write-up in the Toronto Daily Star regarding the first marriage on Cove Island, and there were pictures of the bride and groom, and of the stone lighthouse, which is 100 feet high.
I may say that I am about halfway through, and I should like to table this material.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is most interesting.


Maurice Hartt: Go ahead.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: Order. Has the hon. member permission to table the document?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: The prize-winning address continues as follows:
The lighthouse was built in 1859, and ever since, through the intervening period of 89 years, this great light has shone to aid sailors and fishermen on Georgian Bay and Lake Huron. This light can be seen by sailors aboard vessels fifty-four miles distant. The beam emanates from a lamp of but 300 candlepower, which is raised to 300,000 candle-power by putting it through six large prisms which revolve about the lamp, and making the light appear as though it were flashing. The lighthouse also has a radio beam, which can be heard as far as Toronto, and a fog horn which is heard for twenty miles. Cove Island marks the boundary between Lake Huron and Georgian Bay.
The Lake Huron shore of the peninsula is indented by many little bays and inlets. One of these is Pike Bay, a very pretty place where many people go to camp and fish. There is a general store in the community, .where you may buy your supplies. Nearby is Red Bay, which is very similar to Pike Bay. Oliphant is a most attractive resort, with many summer cottages and an extensive and pleasant beach. It, too, is served with a general store. [DOT] The Sauble Beach is one of our best-known tourist attractions, and its exceptionally fine, broad beach draws great multitudes of summer visitors to enjoy the bathing, boating and fishing. With its modern accommodations, Sauble Beach has become very popular among summer visitors to Bruce. Nearby are the Sauble Falls, where additional numbers of tourists gather to enjoy a quiet vacation.
Further south along Bruce county's long coast line lie Port Elgin, Southampton, and Kincardine, Inverhuron, Bruce Beach and Point Clark, all of them most attractive resorts with fine sand beaches, and excellent accommodations. The first three named are all thriving manufacturing centres, but

;ater to a tremendously vast tourist trade. Bruce ;ounty is unsurpassed for the number and the Deauty of its inland lakes. These can be found all ;he way from one end of the county to the other, and who hasn't heard of their scenic beauty and ;he excellent angling which they provide for resi-ient and tourist alike.
In conclusion, it is my sincere hope that I have been able to impress upon you the fact that Bruce county is, indeed, a veritable "playground for tourists."
I implore the government to seek means of improving farming conditions, and thus help to decentralize industry and population. I concur in the following views on decentralization:
. . . one comes to the same conclusion as Mr. Lattimer, i.e., that decentralization would be a great help.
On this subject, he makes the following comment: "Analysis of conditions and the cause of the conditions should suggest the remedy. It does. Where yearly earnings are lower it should be easier to carry on business. That is the reason why so many industrialists urge decentralization as a remedy. This should come about naturally and probably would were there no hindrances to overcome. Some of these hurdles to take in securing decentralization may be custom, vested interests and monopoly practices.
"Certainly decentralization of industry would simplify this problem. To the extent that such decentralization may be brought about, this problem may be changed. In this connection it may be pointed out that perhaps some of the centralization has developed as a result of public policy. If this be correct then the way to decentralize may be to reverse some policies that have contributed to centralization."
I think that is sound advice for the future governments to look into.


Mr. A. J. Bradshaw (Perth):: In taking part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I first must join in congratulating the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I extend congratulations to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on his election as leader of the Liberal party and head of the government. To the new members who have taken their seats for the first time in this parliament I bid a warm welcome. I sincerely congratulate the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Drew), who has accepted the leadership of this party. Because of what he has done in the province of Ontario I know that his assumption of that position augurs well for the future of this dominion. I feel that I would be negligent if I did not express to this house, and through you, Mr. Speaker, to the country, some of the ideas that the people of my constituency of Perth have, not only as to government policies but as to those things that we feel would be conducive to a better economic condition in Canada.
I represent a riding which is partly rural and partly urban. The urban districts of our riding are prosperous, industrious centres. One thing which pleases me is that so many of these industries have been bom in the 29087-81
The Address-Mr. Bradshaw county, and by careful management have grown to dominion-wide status. Stratford, a city with a population of some 19,000 people, is situated in the centre of the county of Perth on the banks of the Avon river. It inherits its name from that famous English city, Stratford-on-Avon. It is a business centre of many industries. I can name many of these. There are six furniture factories, three textile factories, one packing plant, besides numerous other plants manufacturing leather goods, articles of brass and many other articles.
We also have the Canadian National railway shops, which in themselves employ some 1,500 employees. Then there are within the county three smaller towns which also have numerous industries. Probably the principal among these is the town of St. Mary's, which has one of the largest cement plants in the Dominion of Canada. Most of the factories are examples of industry, ingenuity and careful planning by many of the older citizens of the city and county. Many of those have passed on. These are things which have made Ontario prosperous. Our people have built up local industries which provide the farmer with a local market, and there is no farmer who will not admit that the local market is the most profitable one for disposing of his products.
In Canada today we are faced with many great and serious problems. I would not be so unkind as to say that all of these problems are of government making, but I have no hesitation in saying, Mr. Speaker, that many of the major problems with which we are faced today are a direct result of the policies of the present government.
The farmers of my constituency, like those of other parts of Canada, are deeply concerned about the markets to be available to them in the future. They viewed with considerable alarm the statement of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), at the last dominion agricultural conference held here in Ottawa, that the government could no longer assure the farmers markets in Britain for what hogs they could produce. Their memory goes back also to the statement of the same Minister of Agriculture when he told this house, as recorded at page 409 of Hansard of September 24, 1943:
If we in Canada can produce 450 million pounds of bacon a year, over and above what we require in this country, for the years that are ahead of us, we shall just about be able to supply that part of the British market which we hope to retain after the war is over.
In that year we shipped to the United Kingdom a little over 675 million pounds of bacon. Our current contract for bacon to the United Kingdom has been reduced to less than 25 per cent of that year, and is down by approximately 950 million pounds from the

The Address-Mr. Bradshaw peak year of our shipments to that market for the past ten years.
This is of vital concern to the farmers of the county of Perth who contributed materially to Canada's bacon production in the years when they were urgently requested to do so. Let me give you some statistics of our own county. According to the hog marketing at inspected slaughter plants, in Perth county we marketed in 1942 127,340 hogs with a percentage of grade A's of 38-3. I shall give these figures down to 1946. In 1943 we marketed 138,360 hogs with grade A's of 40-4 per cent. In 1944 we produced 138,355 hogs. We fell down in the percentage of grade A's to 40-1. In 1945 we produced 135,000, and rose in percentage of grade A's to 41. In 1946 we produced 138,000, and our grade A's were up to 42 per cent. I took these figures for the five years. You will notice that our percentage of grade A's rose from 38-3 to 42. Perth was the highest county in the province of Ontario in each of the above years in bacon production, and also the highest in grade.
During the ten years, 1939 to 1949, Canada negotiated 142 contracts for foodstuffs with the United Kingdom, and had as many as twenty-two in effect in 1946. In 1947 this was reduced to fourteen; then to five in 1948. For 1949 we have three, excluding the wheat contract. We have not lost these markets because of the inability of our farmers to compete with prices of imports to the United Kingdom from other countries. On November 22, 1940, the Minister of Agriculture said, as reported at page 346 of Hansard of that date:
We accepted with no bargaining the prices that Great Britain offered us.
A review of United Kingdom food imports for the past two years indicates clearly that we have carried out that policy. United Kingdom statistics, giving the average value declared for customs purposes, show that in 1947 our wheat was sold to that country for $3.96 a hundredweight, as against an average price of $6.33 a hundredweight for wheat from other sources. In 1948 our wheat was sold for $4.09 a hundredweight as against an average price of $6.25 a hundredweight for wheat from elsewhere. In 1948 we sold our bacon for $40.52 a hundredweight as compared with $45.83 a hundredweight that the United Kingdom paid as the average price for bacon imports from other countries. The same holds true for other exports of foodstuffs with the exception of condensed milk for those years.
Prior to 1944, agreements for the shipment of foodstuffs were for one-year periods. In 1944 agreements for bacon, cheese, eggs and beef covered a two-year period, while other contracts then in force remained on the oneyear basis. Today our contracts in this market have been reduced to four from a high of twenty-two in 1946. It is worthy of note that, on January 20 last, food minister Strachey informed the British House of Commons that on that date Britain held forty long-term contracts for the purchase of foodstuffs, ranging in duration from one to ten years. Mr. Strachey further said that he could have shown that long-term contracts had prevented the United Kingdom from having to pay prices for essential food over the past three years which it would have been quite ruinous to have paid. The Canadian producers can confirm this statement, Mr. Speaker, because no one has sacrificed more to make this possible. A review of the present situation indicates clearly that, when foodstuffs were difficult to secure, Canada had a considerable number of contracts, but as supplies elsewhere became available the demand for Canada's foodstuffs was reduced.
We are told by the Minister of Agriculture that this arises from a shortage of dollars which leaves the United Kingdom unable to purchase from us. To a degree this is true; but our farmers should be told what this government is doing to encourage the United Kingdom to export goods in short supply here to this country, which the British trade figures for 1948 indicate are being sent to Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, Yugoslavia and elsewhere for foodstuffs, at a price in almost every case in excess of the price paid to Canada for similar produce.
Some explanation is due to the farmers of Canada as to why contracts for foodstuffs are now being made by the United Kingdom for periods of from one to ten years, whereas the contracts negotiated by our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) were largely for one year and at best two years.
The United Kingdom has always been a stable market for our farmers. Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) give our farmers an assurance now that representation will be made to the United Kingdom government on their behalf, to the effect that these long-term bilateral contracts, which the British Minister of Food advises run for a period of one to ten years, and which protract this principle of barter far into the period when we all hope trade will return to a normal basis, will not serve to exclude our farmers from the United Kingdom markets which they have supplied so well in the past.
The farmers in my constituency are waiting for some pronouncement from this government as to what they may expect in the way of United Kingdom markets in the future. They are wondering also what will happen to prevent purchases for that market which are

today paid for out of ERP funds, should these products be declared surplus in the United States, as presently indicated, and what the government proposes to do if this should happen.
These are problems of vital concern to our farmers, who feel that, if nineteen foreign nations can get together and work out a formula such as the Marshall plan has done, Canada and the United Kingdom and other parts of the commonwealth can surely sit down and work out a solution to our present difficult trade problems before those markets are lost to us, possibly for years to come.
One other matter I would like to refer to at this time is the present taxation on farmers mutual fire insurance companies. Effective January 1, 1947, there was placed on these mutual companies a tax of 30 per cent of the yearly earned surplus. At that time, I brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) the adverse effect such a tax would have, and pointed out that the McDougall commission, which had gone into this matter, reported as follows, under section 5:
We consider that mutuals in certain specialized fields are rendering a service which is not provided by other organizations, notably in insuring farm and other unprotected rural risks. These mutuals tend to keep their rates as low as is consistent with the risk involved. We consider that it would not be in the public interest to impose income tax upon these insurers whose activities are primarily in these fields.
For the past two years, the government has been taking from the Canadian people in taxation $600 million to $700 million a year more than was required to cover the costs of government, that tax has been applicable on mutual fire insurance companies, and I submit the time has come for the minister to reconsider his position on this matter.
There are in Ontario alone sixty-six of these companies with about 225,000 policyholders, who are unfairly affected by this tax.' I say unfairly affected, because these companies, and their members which compose the companies, are not in the insurance business because they want to be, but because they have banded together to provide the service that stock and other companies do not wish to undertake, namely, to provide insurance coverage to isolated farmhouses, farm buildings, and public buildings such as schools, churches, and community halls, where little or no fire protection or facilities exist.
These companies operate in comparatively small areas, and because of this are always subject to the danger of some major calamity which, although from a national or provincial point of view it would be considered a local-29087-811
The Address-Mr. Bradshaw ized problem, in their case might involve 50 or even 100 per cent of the limited area in which they operate. These companies are able to protect themselves only by reinsurance and accordingly must build up reserves.
When the provisions of the Income War Tax Act were passed in 1946 the minister stated, as reported in Hansard of August 13, 1946 at page 4737:
I think the mutuals will find in practice that there is very little, if any, tax involved to them in this provision.
That statement would be quite factual in cases where reserves are already adequately built up. The tax would not be applicable because the earned surplus not being required would be paid back to members as premium refunds. But that is not the case for many of the smaller mutual fire insurance companies who are rendering service in a specialized field, and one that otherwise might go unserviced by the stock companies.
Under provincial legislation these companies are required by law to retain liquid reserves amounting to 80 cents for every $100 of insurance coverage. Today, with property values increased as they are, these companies find it necessary to increase their reserves, and in doing so they are taxed by the government to the extent of 30 per cent of earned surplus retained as necessary reserves.
I would ask the Minister of Finance, now that he is in the process of preparing his budget for this year, to reconsider this tax.
There is mutual agreement on the principle that no organization in our economy should be exempted from taxation merely for the purpose of building up unwarranted reserves. Nor is any special consideration asked for farmers mutual fire insurance companies for this purpose. But I think in all fairness some amendment to the present act should be provided that would allow these smaller companies to bring their reserves up to an amount considered adequate and necessary under present conditions before they should be subjected to this present tax of 30 per cent.
Last year I presented to the house an amendment which, if I am not out of order, I should like to place on Hansard. It was:
That section 57, subsection H be amended by adding to the present clause (ii) "a mutual insurance corporation in which the excess of assets over liabilities at the end of the taxation year in dollars per thousand dollars of net insurance in force at the same date is less than the amount set out in the following table:
When total net amount at risk exceeds $25,000,000 -$6.00.
When total net amount at risk exceeds $10,000,000 -$7.00.
When total net amount at risk exceeds $5,000 000- $8.00.

The Address-Mr. Hodgson
When total net amount at risk exceeds $2,000,000- $10.00,
When total net amount at risk exceeds $1,000,000- $20.00.
When total net amount at risk is less than $1,000,-000-$30.00.
For example, a company in excess of $25 million risk can have assets of $6 per thousand dollars of net insurance without being subject to tax. Over that they would be subject to the extent of 30 per cent. That would allow the small companies to live, and to carry on at their usual rate. Of course, that amendment was ruled out of order.
After all, these companies are not in the same position as where you pay a premium to an ordinary commercial company, and that is the end of the obligation.
The circumstances of their business which made them necessary in the first place leaves them in a position whereby, should abnormal losses be incurred the members insured may have to put up some part or all of the premium note to which they are a part. Under such circumstance, and in view of the fact this is a specialized field into which commercial companies are not anxious to venture, it seems hardly fair in the essence of democratic taxation that small companies such as these should be subject to a 30 per cent tax when they endeavour to build up an adequate surplus against the risk involved.
In view of the fine record of these small companies in the past, and the very necessary and efficient service they are performing in our economy, I would suggest to the government that in all fairness here is one place where taxation is in effect doing what was never the intention of the act, which is contrary to the recommendation of the McDougall commission report, and accordingly warrants reconsideration at this time.


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Oni.):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate I wish to extend the usual congratulations to the mover (Mr. Brown) and the seconder (Mr. Demers) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I also wish to congratulate the new members who have entered the house for the first time at this session, and I want to congratulate them on their maiden speeches in the house. There have been one or two members, however, who have made speeches over the week end at home and at other places other than the House of Commons, on which I cannot offer them the same congratulations. The member for Ontario (Mr. Williams), as reported in the Globe and Mail of February 28, said in effect to a group of his own home town people that if labour was as delinquent as the members of the House of Commons the factories and plants would have to shut down. I do not think it behooves

any member of the House of Commons to speak of his colleagues in that manner. To me that represents typical socialist or communistic utterances and tactics. I suggest that probably some of the group to whom he was speaking swallowed it holus-bolus, hook, line and sinker, but all I should like to say to him is that those who live in glass houses should undress in the dark.
Since I read the article on Monday morning, February 28,1 have taken the opportunity to watch that member. I can assure you that I have checked and double-checked, and he has put in as few hours in the house as any other member of parliament. I do not want to be giving advice to anybody, because I have only been here since 1945 myself. I am sorry that he is not here now.
I should like to ramble a little and refer to a few remarks that have been made by some other members who have not been too long in the house. I should like to refer first to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey). Speaking in the house he had this to say, as recorded at page 747 of Hansard:
-and it was the action of this government which made it possible to put the member for Cartier in the penitentiary.
He meant the former member; he acknowledged that afterwards. Then again on page 750 he said:
-that the government had taken action that made possible the sending to the penitentiary of the former member for Cartier, and received little support from the opposite side of the house in doing so.
The members on this side of the house do not happen to be the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Do not applaud or laugh too loudly because those who laugh last laugh best.	.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean they are slow in seeing the joke.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I would say that the member for Halifax was born about eighty-two years too late, because it was not this government that made it possible to arrest a spy in this country. It was the government of Sir John A. Macdonald shortly after confederation.


Maurice Hartt: What would you have done without Sir John A. Macdonald?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I guess I would have got along as you have.


Mr. Graydon:: How are you getting along without the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King)? That is the thing.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The member for Halifax never gave any credit to the Royal Canadian

Mounted Police, or to the courts of the land. In his mind the government seemed to do the whole job. I hope he did not leave the inference that the government has a stop-and-go sign on the administration of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The only one I have heard say anything about communism in Canada is the present leader of the official opposition (Mr. Drew), and the leader of the Progressive Conservative party at that time, John Bracken. I never heard anything from any of the members on that side of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was a coalition government he led in Manitoba.


Gordon Graydon: You fellows were in it at one time, too.


An hon. Member:: Don't take Ontario's name in vain.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: If you remember, it was the leader of this party, the hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. Bracken)-


Some hon. Members:: Which one?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: -at that time. You know quite well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Time flies.


Mr. Pinard:: What leader?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: He was the only leader in the house who moved the adjournment of the house to discuss that important issue. That brings me to the point where I wish to refer tb the speech made by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). He arrived at the point where there was about to be a marriage between the socialist party and the Liberal party. If you do not believe me, look it up in Hansard; you will see it there. I should like to say to the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe that I believe the wedding has been consummated, because just a few weeks ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was speaking in a town in my riding, the town of Lindsay. He said there that the C.C.F. party is the party which talks socialism but the Liberal party is the party that puts it into action.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is a new version of his speech.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: As reported by the press, the hon. member went on to say what the government had done in the past and he spoke about great things that the government was going to do in the future.


James Garfield Gardiner: You cannot quote that from Hansard.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I can quote this one. He did not tell them about all the applesauce he had to eat in England, nor did he tell them that
The Address-Mr. Hodgson* he brought more applesauce back to Canada than he did trade agreements. It is the same old political applesauce that makes the grass grow green in Ireland.
That brings me back to my own riding. I should like to say that five or six really good industries have come in there in the last three years.


An hon. Member:: A good government.


Gordon Graydon: The provincial government.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I expected you to say that it was not the federal government. This government did not have anything to do with bringing them in. They were brought in by the industrial commissioner and the town council of Lindsay, with some help from the provincial government under the leadership of the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). Three of them are very large companies. Two in Lindsay and one in Hali-burton are United States companies, which are bringing in American capital, and I believe they are going to be real assets to our country.
I also represent a great farming district, and by the redistribution bill they have added four townships of northern Ontario which are really good farm land and tourist area. We have in Haliburton county the best stand of mixed timber left in Canada, and I believe this constituency is the best tourist district in this country. In Haliburton county alone, the most sparsely settled of all, according to statistics taken last year, we had over forty thousand tourists in two months, a great many of whom were from the United States. And I can tell you something else we have that is even more valuable; that is, the greatest people in Canada. They are of English, Irish and Scottish descent, and I can tell you that they are all sane people. You know, during the last election campaign the genial Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) spoke in my riding, as well as the Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley. I invited them back, but I asked them not to wait until the next election campaign rolled around. I see they are getting the cabinet ministers out a little earlier this time. I want to say to the government, however, that this riding is not for sale to the Liberal party. The people are too wise to be sold or bought with their own money.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We don't need to buy any
ridings.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I am glad to hear from the hon. member from Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). His biggest contributions to the proceedings in this house have been his heckling and his interrupting. Perhaps the heaviest work he did was when he brought

The Address-Mr. Hodgson apples here and put one on the desk of each Liberal member. I believe he even made them think they were Fraser Valley apples.
That brings me to the speech delivered recently by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters). I want to congratulate the minister on his elevation to the cabinet. He spoke about the great package of public works he had on the shelf. Speaking at page 1177 of Hansard for March 4, he said:
You will be interested, Mr. Speaker, in learning some of the details of the federal government's shelf of public works.
If you turn over a couple of pages you will see that I asked the minister if he would just tell us what was in one of those packages. He did not answer my question, nor did he give any details on what the public works packages contained. He must have built the shelf awfully high, and by not telling us any of the details he has surrounded it with a veil of secrecy. As far as the people of Canada are concerned, it might as well be behind the iron curtain.
I suggest one of those packages may be the trans-Canada highway. I heard very little in a concrete way about the trans-Canada highway until last fall when the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), speaking in Ottawa, said that if the time came when he was called upon to form a government the first consideration of that government would be the construction of a trans-Canada highway. So, whoever framed up the speech for the governor general thought it was a good time to get on the bandwagon.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Which leader was that? You change so often.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You had better go back for some more apples; you seem very fond of applesauce.
Now I should like to say a few words on the lumbering industry and timber control, and I hope the former minister of reconstruction will listen; I do not think we will have any argument about it this time.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What about gold mining? Tell us something about that.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Your needle is still good, but get a new record.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I should like to put a few remarks on the record here.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Go ahead.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Are you making this speech, Fraser Valley, or am I?


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is hard to say.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: If your people like you as
little as I do, you will not come back again.


The statistics I want to put on record have to do with the exports of lumber as of December, 1948, compared with those as of December, 1947. If I could get permission to put this table on Hansard I would be glad to do so without reading it.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Read it.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Very well. It is a long
table; I need not read all the figures, but I want to give a few of them. This is from the external trade section, dominion bureau of statistics, and the first items have to do with planks and boards. Our exports of birch flooring for 1948 were 4,609,000 feet, while those for 1947 were 9,510,000 feet. Now I come to the item hardwood, n.o.p. Our exports under this item in 1948 were 3,437,000 feet as compared with 9,357,000 feet in 1947, or only about one-third as much. Then we come to spruce. Our exports in 1948 were 41,426,000 feet; in 1947 they were 117,102,000 feet.


Mr. Grant:: Any yellow birch there?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Oh, you are over there now? I took a little trip down to the island the hon. member comes from. You know, he makes speeches in the house, too, but if you read his speeches you find that about sixty per cent of what he says is taken up in referring to the Tory member for Queens (Mr. McLure). When I was down there I found that a great many people like him. They have a nickname for him; I think it is mumbo-jumbo, or something like that. Anyway, he is a very affable fellow; his greatest fault is that he keeps butting in on people and interrupting, without saying a great deal himself. After all, he is a doctor and I suppose that should help him a little. I have heard that he is a horse doctor; I have heard that he is a medical doctor; I have heard that he is a psychiatrist, and I do not know what he is, except an interrupter.


Mr. Pouliot:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The hon. member who is speaking has the floor, and it is nonsense to permit interruptions during his speech. I have great respect for my colleagues, but I believe that when an hon. gentleman has the floor and is going on with his speech he should be undisturbed unless he permits an interruption.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: In any event, it adds up to this, that there has been a decrease in the export of timber and lumber from Canada in the month of December, 1948, over December, 1947, which amounted to fifty per cent in hardwoods, fifty per cent in spruce and twenty-five per cent in western woods. I

should like to give a little advice to the government, if I can. I prepared a little memorandum touching upon matters of concern to the lumber industry. I believe these matters should be brought to the attention of the House of Commons. The first part of it deals with income taxes, and reads as follows:
Income tax regulations with respect to timber depletion allowance on timber limits and farmers' woodlots amount to virtually a capital levy and are highly prejudicial to good forestry practice, and to the best interests of agriculture. The Canadian Lumbermen's Association and the different lumber and logging associations have separately and jointly petitioned the government for relief without avail. Agricultural associations in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Ontario have done likewise also without result.
Then, we have the export restrictions: Certain wartime export restrictions on lumber continue although the war has been over for several years. In the main they are more of a nuisance value than otherwise. They add to costs of production and distribution, involve a great deal of clerical work and are an unnecessary expense. They have outserved their usefulness in the matter of reserving lumber for Canadian consumption as such is no longer necessary.
The hardwood flooring trade has been particularly hard hit in the matter of export restrictions. It has been completely shut out of its export markets. About two weeks ago it was allowed a token export quota of five per cent only. Since hardwood flooring manufacture is the principal outlet for No. 2 and No. 3 common hardwood, it is to Canada's interest to allow the hardwood flooring trade to develop and export to the fullest extent.
I might tell the minister that practically every flooring plant warehouse in Ontario is full of hardwood flooring ready for shipment, but there is no market available. Behind that again, there is a backlog of No. 2 and No. 3 common hardwood in all the producers' yards. The firm I happen to represent has nearly 200,000 feet of flooring stock on hand which is usually shipped out early in the fall. This year we have not been able to sell it. I offer the suggestion to the minister that he make available a twenty-five per cent export quota.
Priced invoices are demanded by the timber control on all Canadian shipments qualifying for export quotas of softwood. This is a gratuitous interference with private business and can serve no useful purpose so far as government is concerned. If it did, why did they need to have the royal commission on prices investigate the lumber industry?
There is another thing which I think the government ought to consider, and that is that the forest products industry is the foundation of the Canadian economy. If these industries do not continue, our whole industrial life is in danger-railways, mines, agricultural implement and furniture trade, housing construction, and so on. The domin-
The Address-Mr. Hodgson ion government obtains great revenue from forest industries and spends extremely little on such industries.
The dominion government ought to be contributing to the expense of forest fire fighting, to extension of research against insect and tree disease attack, and to intensive research on forest regeneration. White pine is not naturally regenerating satisfactorily. Some time ago we lost our tamarack and our beech through disease. In very recent years the whole birch forest of the maritimes has been destroyed by the so-called "birch dieback", and yellow birch in Ontario and Quebec is now threatened. In fact, some of these grubs were found in my own county last summer.
Generally speaking, the forests of Canada have traditionally been milked for revenue by the dominion government and comparatively little money has been provided them from the public purse.	_ _
I have quite a few more statistics, Mr. Speaker, which I should like to quote, but I think my time is getting short. I have some figures in connection with United Kingdom imports of timber. I do not think anyone in this house can doubt my integrity when it comes to dealing with matters concerning Great Britain. I do think, however, that when we are trading with a nation we ought to deal with it as business people. If we are going to give gifts, we ought to give gifts to Great Britain and not make it a barter arrangement in order to make the people believe they are getting something for their money when they are not.
In scanning the United Kingdom imports,
I see that the soviet union shipped to Great Britain timber to the value of $677,550 in 1947, and in 1948 the soviet union sold Great Britain timber to the value of $1,473,601. Then we come to Poland. In 1947 Poland did not sell Great Britain any timber, but in 1948 she sold Great Britain timber to the value of $1,613,792. I could give you the figures for Yugoslavia, French West Africa and many other countries, but I do not think I will do so. At this same time, however, when Great Britain is buying timber and forest products, I think Canada should receive a fair share of the trade. I think we should deal with Great Britain the same as we would deal with any other country. As I said before, if we want to make presents to the British, then let us make presents.
There are a few statistics here which I should like to deal with in detail and in which the Minister of Finance might be interested, but I do not think I will read them in detail. I have a copy of sessional paper No. 144, tabled in the house. The question was:
What lawyers practising in (a) city of Montreal; (b) city of Toronto, have performed legal services

The Address-Mr. Lennard
or have been retained as solicitors or counsel by any department of government since the 1st of January, 1947?
This return shows that these lawyers were paid amounts ranging from one dollar to very large sums. I believe there is only one who received the one dollar, and most of them run up into the thousands of dollars. There is one lawyer in particular I should like to mention, since in my estimation he received an extraordinary amount. This man is W. C. Thomson of the city of Toronto, who received $172,252.16. The return goes on to say that of this amount $64,000 is for fees, costs and so on. This still leaves him $108,000 for his work which seems to me an extraordinary price to pay.
Someone has said that this government does not think enough of provincial rights, but in this case they have done pretty well because you all know that W. C. Thomson was the man who lost the nomination to Farquhar Oliver in the last Liberal convention. I think he was paid fairly well. Perhaps as the member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) says, that is the payoff. I have come to the end of my time, Mr. Speaker. I still have some things I wanted to say, but I have not the time to put them on the record.


Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I think I heard a groan or two from the government benches as I rose. I want them to distinctly understand that I am not killing time for anybody. I have an address of a few minutes' duration to make during the course of this debate, and it is my privilege to make it. It is just my hard luck that I happen to be called upon to speak near the end of this debate, but I do not want anyone to think that I am just killing time. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I do not take up too much of the time of this house, and when I do have something to say it is my privilege to say it.
I wish to pay my respects to the mover (Mr. Brown) and the seconder (Mr. Demers) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I think they did an excellent job with a very dull document.
I congratulate the Prime Minister on his appointment to that high office. I also compliment and welcome the new members introduced this session, especially my leader, who is certainly doing an excellent job. To the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) I would say that he would be a better politician if he attended strictly to the business of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I also wish to add my congratulations to the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) and to the hon. member

for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Chapdelaine) on great personal victories.
Referring for a moment to the realm of sport, I wish to reiterate what was said a few days ago by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), namely, that the trip east last fall of the Calgary Stampeders did more to create good feeling between the east and west than anything that has happened in many years. Being a past president of the Canadian rugby union I feel that I have some knowledge of the game. I wish to say further that I saw the east-west final last fall and, regardless of any opinion that may be held by the hon. member for Algoma East, in my opinion the best team won.
I represent what in my opinion is one of the best ridings in Canada, the riding of Wentworth. I regret however that, in the redistribution act which was passed last year, the powers that be saw fit to remove from that riding four of the best townships in the county. In my opinion this should never have been done. I do not believe in breaking county boundaries. When the next redistribution takes place, if I have any hand in it, those townships will be returned to Wentworth riding. I feel that the next riding of Wentworth should be more of a truly rural riding; and if I have anything to do with the matter it will be. I think it is only fair to the farmers in that riding that it should be so. Any change that was made this time should have been in that direction.
I wish for a few moments to refer to the serious erosion that has taken place along the shores of the great lakes, and particularly that portion of lake Ontario stretching from Hamilton to Niagara-on-the-Lake; that is along a great deal of the riding which I represent.
At a meeting held in Toronto in March of last year at the lake shore erosion conference the following resolution was passed:
Resolved that this organization ask the provincial and federal governments to instruct their engineers to make a survey of the erosion on the great lakes and report with a recommendation for a remedy; and in this report be included a report on the effects of the Ogoki and Albany river diversions on the level of the great lakes.
While this resolution went forward at that time, I doubt very much if the federal government has done anything about it, but I intend to find out.
A few years ago a former premier of Ontario approached the federal government and persuaded it to legalize diversion of the Ogoki and Albany rivers into the great lakes system, which means that while the present diversion at Chicago of the great lakes system is 3,500 cubic feet per second, there is now pouring in from northern Ontario water to

the extent of 5,200 cubic feet per second from the Albany river watershed. This means that we are getting an additional 1,700 cubic feet per second that should be flowing towards James bay and the Arctic circle.
It is argued by many engineers that this large additional volume which does not belong to the St. Lawrence watershed is one of the causes for the cycle of high levels that we have been experiencing on lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario; and it is easy to see that these lake levels, which are abnormally high when lashed by winds and storms, do most certainly erode the shore line of the lower lakes.
As I have said before, if the federal government does not do something soon, it will not be many years before that great Niagara fruit belt-possibly the greatest stone-fruit belt in Canada-will be wiped out altogether.
Taxes must be reduced. I feel that two of the first to go should be the sales tax and the 25 per cent luxury tax. They are both hampering trade; they are an aggravation; and the sales tax especially is one that is borne by those who are least able to afford it. It does not concern me one bit when this tax was imposed or who imposed it. I consider it is wrong. We should never have had it except, perhaps, as a war measure, and it should be removed. In some cases, of course, the tax has been removed. But one matter that I feel is misleading is this. While the 8 per cent sales tax has been removed from certain foodstuffs, the ingredients of packaged - foods are still subject to it; so that while the 8 per cent tax has been removed from the finished product, as a result of the retention of sales tax on spices, pectins and other commodities that go into the processing of soups, jams, et cetera, there will be no noticeable reduction in the price of these foods.
One tax that I feel should most certainly be removed is that on soft drinks. While I realize that practically 90 per cent of the soft-drink bottling plants in Canada are privately-owned, that by far the greater proportion of them are small plants with small distribution, and that many of these plants which employ a great many people are finding it hard to make ends meet, it is certainly a situation which should be altered immediately. Far more important to my mind, however, is the consideration that the kiddies should get back their five-cent drinks and chocolate bars.
One matter with which I most certainly am not satisfied is the attitude of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) and of the government with respect to a house committee being set up to deal with veterans affairs. The minister was questioned some
The Address-Mr. Lennard days ago in the house and he said quite definitely that, in the opinion of the government, it was not necessary to have a committee on veterans affairs this session. This, in my opinion, is most certainly neglect on the part of the government and a let-down to the veterans of this country. The Red Cross girls, the St. John's ambulance brigade and several other groups who served in the second great war most certainly did not get what was due them. The British Canadians who have lived for twenty continuous years in Canada and are veterans of the first great war are, in my opinion, most certainly entitled to war veterans allowance. I might say that the Minister of Veterans Affairs, during the discussion on the estimates towards the end of last session, said that he was still studying that problem, and was still considering the matter of making some allowance to the British Canadian veterans. But as yet we have heard nothing in that respect. I think the war veterans allowance should be granted to them. I do not know why it was not done years ago.
This war veterans committee of the House of Commons should be a permanent committee. It should be a standing committee which should meet every session and not just every two years when it coincides with the annual meeting of the Canadian Legion and whenever possible manages to wind up its deliberations shortly before the annual meeting when there is generally a great round of back-slapping. The veterans affairs committee of the House of Commons should meet every session if only to consider in detail the estimates of the department. Since I have mentioned that, I think there should be a standing committee for every department of government. These standing committees should consider the estimates in committee. The work would be done more thoroughly, and it would save a great deal of time which is now wasted in the House of Commons.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that I would speak for about fifteen minutes. I think it was Mark Twain who once said that if a man could not say all he knew about any one subject in twenty minutes he should not have the privilege of saying anything; but I have covered a lot of ground and I am still staying within the limit. As a matter of fact, I am just about as much fed up with these long-winded speeches in the House of Commons as anyone else.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I thoroughly agree with thoughts expressed at the recent national Liberal convention
which was held in Ottawa on August 5, 6 and 7, 1948, to the effect that it was about time that this country got back to responsible
1288	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Stanfield government. It is about time, and it is long overdue, that this country returned to parliamentary government, with the people's elected representatives having a say as to what should be done. It is about time the bureaucrats were put in their places. There is a great deal wrong with the present system that cannot be blamed upon any government in particular, but the last two governments have gone a very long way to bring about the present situation.


Mr. Frank T. Stanfield (Colchester-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I hardly know just why I am on my feet. I am not much of a talker anyway, and I am never exactly sure what I should or should not do since I came to this place; therefore my position tonight is nothing very new.
I should like to congratulate the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown). I have a great deal of admiration for that hon. member and I certainly wish him every success in his political career.
I do not know the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Demers); I have not had the pleasure of meeting him, but he made a fine speech and I wish him every success in his political life.
The first matter on which I should like to speak for a few minutes is pensions for blind people, cripples and people who are permanently invalided. I know that today we have pensions for the blind, but these pensions should be a great deal higher than they are. Blindness is a terrible affliction. I believe that a blind person should get a pension even though he has the means of making a living and perhaps owns a little property. Just because he has a little bit of this world's goods in the form of property, and possibly a small income, that does not mean that he should be deprived of a pension. I believe that the pension should be twice as large as it is today.
As for our cripples and invalids, I could never understand why some consideration was not given to these poor unfortunate people. There are hundreds of them in every province of this dominion. Some of them have not a cent that they can call their own. They are dependent on their relatives or on some person who will keep them. These unfortunate people should be given some kind of a pension so that they can have a ltitle money which they can at least call their own. I believe that the only reason why these people have never received any great consideration is that they have no great political influence. Today, regardless of party, anybody who has not much political influence never receives a great deal of attention.


The next matter to which I should like to refer is the conservation of our forests. The forests are by far the greatest form of wealth that this country has. We can all agree that our forests have been depleted far too rapidly. Only the other day I read in the paper that one of the ministers in British Columbia said that the forests of that province were being depleted at a very rapid rate. I know that our forests in Nova Scotia, and in the maritime provinces generally, are going at a rapid rate and not much is being done about it. I do not see why the dominion government should not assume a great deal of responsibility for reforestation, or at least supplement the provinces by giving them grants to help reforestation and to guard against fires and insects. Fires and insects are just as heavy a drain on our forests as cutting operations. I know that in our province the birch is all gone. Many people thought that birch was good only for making furniture or for cutting up into firewood, or something of that kind; but in New Hampshire and Vermont I believe they are using birch and the other hardwood trees for making pulp.
It is pretty hard to place the value on our forests for future generations. The future wealth of this country will greatly depend on the conservation of our forests, and I do believe that the dominion government would be wise to do everything they can to give grants to the provinces, or set up areas themselves for reforestation, and do everything they can to protect our forests.
It may be said that this all takes money, and it might be asked where we are to get it. I have a little suggestion to make. It may not meet with very much favour, but hon. members have read in the papers that the President of the United States formed a commission or a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Hoover. That commission was to look into the consolidating of government departments in the United States with a view to bringing about greater efficiency in government and lessening the cost of administration. Mr. Hoover and his committee brought in a recommendation that would cut the cost of government in that country by about $2 billion. I know politics well enough to know that that whole $2 billion could never be saved. I think perhaps we should set up a committee to inquire into the cost of government with a view to cutting down the cost of doing the business of the country, at the same time doing it more efficiently and making it much easier for the ministers. It could run into a very large figure. It would also be a great help toward getting a cut in income tax.

May I say a word about income tax? Take a married man with two children, and calculate what income tax he has to pay this year and what he has paid back to 1940. It is pretty hard to see how he has been able to get along as well as he has. Take the great middle-class people of this country. Take the people who have incomes of from $5,000 to $25,000. The chap above that can get along all right. If he cannot, it is his own hard luck. The people on incomes of $5,000 to $25,000 are the great middle class who are the very backbone of our country. I can well understand that our socialist friends to the left would very much like to get rid of the middle-class people; it is to their interests not to have too strong a middle class in this country. Our friends on the government benches across the way are doing the best they can to help the socialists along in that, so far as I can see.
I would ask that in his coming budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) give every possible relief to these people in the form of a substantial reduction in their income taxes, because, as I said before, they are the very backbone of any democratic country, no matter where it may be. If one does not find in a country a large and influential middle class, then that country does not amount to much.
I shall not spend much time discussing the tax on soft drinks. I would say however that any government, with a surplus of three-quarters of a billion dollars, which cannot afford to take off that two-cent tax on bottled soft drinks, and soda fountain drinks, has something wrong with it. This is a nuisance tax of the worst possible variety; certainly in my view we would be well rid of it.
The same observations could be applied to the tax on leather goods. First of all let me say that I have no connection whatever with the manufacture and sale of leather goods; but I do know that when a manufacturer has to add 35 per cent to his sale price of luggage and other leather goods he is faced with an unpleasant procedure. No one wishes to stock up at this time with merchandise bearing these heavy taxes. The result is that, with the tax applied, the manufacturer proceeds to cut down volume because he does not know just what is going to happen. In my view this is a most unfair tax applied only to leather goods. One such type of manufactured goods should not be singled out for such heavy tax action.
Much the same could be said with respect to jewelry. Of course the jeweler collects the tax of 25 per cent from the consumer. I
The Address-Mr. Stanfield believe even our socialist friends to the left would agree that today costume jewelry is more or less a necessity. The same would apply to many other articles sold by the jeweler. I should say that as we are getting back to a permanent peacetime basis many of these heavy taxes against certain types of businessmen, such as those engaged in the manufacture and sale of leather goods and in the production and sale of jewelry, might well be reduced or completely eliminated.
Perhaps in passing I might say something which I am sure will receive the support of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). I believe margarine should be given a distinctive colour, and that such colour should not be the same as that of butter. I believe further that margarine should carry a distinctive wrapping so that the product could not be associated with or sold to the public as butter. As the butter manufacturers and dairymen are not protected by any patents or trade-marks, I say the margarine manufacturer should not be permitted to have the advantage of packaging his product to resemble butter. In this I believe we would all agree.
When I resume my remarks, I should like to speak about conditions in the maritime provinces.
On motion of Mr. Stanfield the debate was adjourned.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that when an hon. member is speaking other hon. members ought not to wander around, interfering and interrupting. I would ask to have them named.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Drew:: Before the adjournment would
the Prime Minister indicate the next order of business after the vote has been taken on the debate on the speech from the throne?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: There are several items
which are quite urgent. I should expect that the first of these to be dealt with would be the resumption of the debate on the motion of the Minister of Justice that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into a committee of the whole on a resolution providing for the introduction of a bill to continue certain orders and regulations of the governor in council for a limited period during the national emergency arising out of the war.


George Alexander Drew: Well then, without pressing the point too vigorously, may I take it that, unless

Business of the House there is some special reason, we may assume this will be debated following the completion of the vote on the motion to adopt the speech from the throne?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Unless some further
announcement is made, that is the present
plan-to take up this one immediately after the conclusion of the debate on the speech from the throne.
At 10.30 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on February 22, 1949.

Wednesday, March 9, 1949