1950-02-16

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
.
[Stage Direction]

ouse of Commons, ©etiates
[Stage Direction]
Speaker: The Honourable W. Ross Macdonald
Thursday, February 16, 1950

[Stage Direction]
The parliament which had been prorogued on the tenth day of December, 1949, met this day at Ottawa for the dispatch of business.

Mr. Speaker read a communication from the Governor General's Secretary, announcing that His Excellency the Governor General would proceed to the Senate chamber at three o'clock p.m. on this day, for the purpose of formally opening the session of the dominion parliament.
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And the house being returned to the Commons chamber:

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that during the recess I received communications from several members informing me that the following vacancy had occurred in the representation, viz.:
Of the Hon. Colin William George Gibson, member for the electoral district of Hamilton West, consequent upon his acceptance of an office of emolument under the crown.
I accordingly issued my warrant to the chief electoral officer to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



OATHS OF OFFICE

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the traditional usage, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 1, respecting the administration of oaths of office.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that when the house did attend His Excellency the Governor General this day in the Senate chamber, His Excellency was pleased to make a speech to both houses of parliament. To prevent mistakes, I have obtained a copy, which is as follows: Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
The conference with representatives of the provincial governments forecast in my speech closing your last session was held in January. This conference marked a promising beginning in working out a satisfactory procedure for making within Canada whatever amendments to the constitution may from time to time be required. Agreement was reached on certain general principles and a continuing committee was established to further the work of the conference.
The governments of all the provinces have also been invited to participate in a general conference between the federal and provincial governments early next autumn to consider other matters of mutual concern. The several provincial authorities have been asked to make suggestions as to the principal topics they will wish to have discussed at this conference.
In the meantime negotiations are proceeding with the provincial governments for the implementation of the legislation adopted at your last session respecting housing, a transcontinental highway and forest conservation.
The national health program has been extended to the province of Newfoundland and further satisfactory progress has been made, in co-operation with the provinces generally, in the development of more adequate health facilities and services.
In the international sphere, our country continues to give full support to the charter of the United Nations. A Canadian delegation is now attending a session of the economic and social council to which Canada was elected at the last session of the general assembly.
The recent conference in Ceylon of the foreign ministers of the nations of the commonwealth demonstrated that there is a continuing and substantial community of outlook among the nations of the commonwealth both in the east and the west in their approach to current problems of foreign affairs.
The measures for the preservation of peace and the restoration and maintenance of prosperity contemplated by the North Atlantic treaty are being devised and applied as expeditiously as circumstances permit. The wholehearted co-operation of

Governor General's Speech all the signatories to the treaty is encouraging evidence of their determination to deter aggression by a combination of actual and potential strength calculated to remove the possibility of successful aggression.
The cold war nevertheless still continues and imposes on all the free nations heavy burdens for the provision of defence forces and modern armaments. Preparedness to meet any sudden onslaught is essential and the means must be provided. But the free nations also face a test of endurance, and our staying power could be endangered by attempting to achieve complete preparedness at the expense of our adaptability to new developments in weapons and techniques of warfare or the efficiency of our social and industrial systems.
In the development of Canada's defence forces, constant attention is being given to the best use of our resources, to the encouragement of joint research and experimental development and to the co-ordination of Canadian efforts with those of the other signatories of the North Atlantic treaty.
The measure to consolidate existing legislation respecting our defence forces and to provide for a purely Canadian disciplinary code to be made applicable to all the forces will be re-introduced.
Employment and prosperity remain at a high level in Canada. The prospects are good for continued private investment in construction and capital development throughout the present year. The demand for consumer goods of all kinds continues to be strong. However, seasonal and local factors have given rise to a significant amount of temporary regional unemployment during the past few months and the security provisions established under unemployment insurance legislation have been called upon to meet the first important test since they were brought into effect.
Although a high proportion of persons temporarily unemployed are actually in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits, you will be asked to give consideration to a bill to widen the scope and extend the benefits of unemployment insurance.
Circumstances outside Canada have been responsible for some downward adjustment in the price of farm products. Measures have already been taken to reduce the impact of these adjustments. In order to provide authority for continuing price support to that end for the primary products of our farms and fisheries, you will be asked to amend the Agricultural Products Act, the Agricultural Prices Support Act and the Fisheries Prices Support Act.
Within the past year, the international wheat agreement has been brought into operation. In view of Canada's participation in that agreement and the recent decision to market coarse grains through the Canadian wheat board, you will also be asked to consider a measure to renew the existing powers of the board.
During the past year Canadian exports were maintained at close to record levels, but continued difficulties arising out of the world-wide dollar shortage have resulted recently in reduced purchases of a number of our export products.
Canadian representatives continue to participate actively in co-ordinated international efforts to bring about improvement in the underlying conditions of world trade. The government is also pursuing policies designed to develop new markets for our products and to assist overseas customers to increase Canadian earnings. My ministers will continue their efforts to secure reductions in trade barriers. To this end preparations are actively under way for further multilateral trade negotiations later in the present year.
While prevailing exchange difficulties will require continued readjustments, we have reason to expect that our export trade as a whole will remain at a high level during the present year.

You will be asked to give consideration to the legislation required to implement the policy concerning the control and the orderly decontrol of rents announced by the government during your last session.
A measure will be introduced to amend the Canada Shipping Act to incorporate changes suggested by the Safety of Life at Sea Convention of 1948 and to define duties of Canadian consuls and conditions of registration in Canada of Canadian ships.
You will be asked to consider a bill for the revision of the Indian Act.
A bill will be submitted to substitute a uniform and systematic procedure for existing legislation concerning publication and tabling in parliament of regulations and orders made by the governor in council or ministers or other agents of the crown in the exercise of powers conferred by statute.
Bills will be introduced to implement the policies announced at the last session respecting prize money; the inclusion of veterans of British and allied forces within the scope of the War Veterans Allowance Act; and grants to municipalities in which there is an exceptional concentration of federal property.
Other measures requiring your consideration will include bills to amend the Militia Pension Act; the Criminal Code; the Government Annuities Act; the Post Office Act; the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act; the Currency Act; the Trust Companies Act; the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932; the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, 1932: the Customs Act; the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act; and the Northwest Territories Power Commission Act.
Members of the House of Commons:
You will be asked to make provision for all essential services for the next fiscal year.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
I pray that Divine Providence may bless your deliberations.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner):
That the speech of His Excellency the Governor General to both houses of parliament be taken into consideration on Friday next, and that unless and until otherwise ordered by this house, this order have precedence over all other business except introduction of bills and government notices of motions, on every day of next week, and thereafter on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays until disposed of.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, before this motion is put I should like to say that this is a new procedure which we accepted during the war because of the desire of hon. members of all parties to facilitate the business of the house. Again last session it was accepted because we knew the government had a certain program of legislation, and we were anxious to facilitate its consideration.

I believe, however, that this is a precedent which should not be accepted without some protest on behalf of the private members of the house. What it actually does is to interrupt debate on the address and, in a way, to take interest from it and prolong it. I believe that in the interests of debate it would be better to proceed with the debate on the address, and to conclude it, as the normal procedure of the house requires.
I would point out, too, that if interruptions prolong the debate to any extent, the house loses at least one of the private members' days. The rules of the house indicate that the first four Thursdays shall be allotted to private members. Today is the first of those four, and there are three others. If the debate on the address goes beyond the next three Thursdays, then private members will .lose one of the opportunities they have to discuss private members' motions.
I had thought that at this session, which is not one crowded with legislation, in all probability the government would revert to the normal procedure of the house. I wish, therefore, on behalf not only of my own associates but also of other private members who, I know, share this view, to make protest, and to say that I hope once again the house will not accept this as a precedent to be followed in future.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon.
members of the house were much grieved to hear last week of the death of one of the oldest and most respected, and, I would add, best loved members of the House of Commons, Mr. Thomas Langton Church, member of parliament for the constituency of Broadview, Toronto, since 1935.
Mr. Church's death brought to a close a remarkable career of public service to the city of Toronto and to the nation. I doubt if there are many who enjoyed the confidence of their electors over such a long period of time, because he occupied public office, practically without interruption, from 1898 to the date of his death. He was first elected to public office in 1898 as a member of the high school board in the city of Toronto. In 1905 he became an alderman, and he remained a member of the city council until the end of 1921. In 1910 the electors promoted him to the board of control, and from 1915 to 1921 inclusive he was mayor of that city. That, I understand, is a record which has not been equalled by any other mayor in the history of Toronto.
The late T. L. Church
Mr. Church was also for seventeen years a trustee of the Toronto General hospital, and for fifteen years a director of that great institution, the Canadian national exhibition.
In 1909 and 1910 he brought forward a proposal for the development of a harbour at Toronto worthy of the growing importance of that city, and became a member of the reorganized board of harbour commissioners, and afterwards its chairman. As mayor he was chairman of the Toronto board of police commissioners, and was also for seven years a member of the Toronto Hydro Electric Commission.
Mr. Church was president of the Union of Canadian Municipalities for two terms, and at different times he was president of the Ontario Municipal Electrical Association, the Hydro Radial Union, and the Ontario Municipal Association. He had been called to the bar of Ontario in 1897, and for many years acted as general counsel for the Toronto Electric Commission.
He was first elected to parliament in 1921, and, though he suffered a defeat in the general election of 1930, returned to the House in a by-election in 1934. I am sure all hon. members are agreed that at Ottawa he displayed the splendid qualities which endeared him to the electors of Toronto during all those years. Perhaps his two most outstanding qualities were his capacity for making and keeping friends, and his devotion to the welfare of his native city.
He was always kind, generous, honest, and uncompromising. He held views which perhaps were not widely supported throughout the country, but he was a man of pi'inciples to which he adhered constantly and unswervingly. There never could be any doubt as to where he stood. He knew it himself, and he made it known to his constituents, to the house and to the nation. Perhaps no man in public life ever fought more fiercely for his convictions, but I doubt if any was ever more considerate of his opponents. He always treated his bitterest political antagonists as gentlemen, and I do not believe there was ever a grudge in his whole make-up.
There was a striking contrast between, on the one hand, his progressive outlook as an official of his native city of Toronto and the great achievements and developments which he inspired and promoted in the affairs of that city, and, on the other, his staunch conservatism in respect of everything which had to do with the evolution of Canada from colonial status to nationhood.
Mr. Church was a staunch believer in British imperialism, and seemed to be quite unhappy that Canada should not always
4	HOUSE OF
The late T. L. Church remain a dutiful daughter in her mother's house. His great sincerity, his unswerving consistency, the courtesy and warm-hearted kindness in all his dealings with his fellow men endeared him to us all; and the manner ill which he represented those who elected him will, I believe, for those who follow, stand as an example which will be his best memorial.
I am sure all hon. members of the house will wish to extend to his two sisters, to his countless friends, as well as to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and to his colleagues, sincere condolences on the passing of one who had become affectionately known and will long be remembered by all of us as Tommy Church.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, joining with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in paying tribute to one of the members of this house who had endeared himself to all his fellow members, no matter in what part of the house they sat, I wish to emphasize particularly one aspect of his life which impressed itself not only upon those who knew him intimately but upon the whole country. If there was one word more than any other which will always be associated with the memory of the late T. L. Church- or Tommy Church, as he was known to everyone-that word is friendship. All through his life he followed the injunction of St. Luke: Make to yourself friends.
I doubt if any Canadian ever had more personal friends. It is certain that no Canadian ever knew as many people by their first names. He had an extraordinary memory, but that memory was not a mere device by which he sought recognition from others. It was a part of his interest in other people, in the human beings whom he knew. '
My own friendship for Tommy Church goes back a great many years. I knew him first when I was a boy in Toronto playing games. He was interested in everyone who was on the track team, who played football or hockey, or other games of the kind. He was interested in people.
I well recall the kindly and generous things he used to do for young people who came to the city of Toronto for the first time.
I know that many people who occupy positions of responsibility, in his own home community and in other parts of the country as well, owed to Tommy Church the opportunity to make a good start in life.
Mr. Church knew people of all ages and of every walk in life. It was all a part of that deep affection and concern for all he met. During the first world war, when he


was mayor of Toronto, 1 think he saw every train that left with men who were going overseas. I am sure he met every train coming back that carried servicemen- wounded, on leave, or about to be demobilized. He was in all reality what he was so often described as-the soldier's friend. That friendship was extended particularly to wives and children of the men who did not come back, and to those in difficult circumstances who found not so easy the adjustment to life when they returned.
As has been said by the Prime Minister, Mr. Church loved Toronto. In fact, throughout Canada his name was symbolic of Toronto. If he spoke in this chamber of the city council, of the harbour, of the general hospital, of the Canadian national exhibition, we all knew, and we were intended to know, that he was speaking about the Toronto city council, the Toronto harbour, the Toronto General hospital or the Toronto exhibition. He would have been surprised if anyone suggested that they were not the best in Canada. That did not mean that he was restricted in any way in his views as a Canadian, but his first loyalty was to the city in which he was born and brought up, and to which he had contributed so much.
But he had infinitely wider interests, and I think it is proper at this time to recall that along with Sir Adam Beck he did perhaps more than any other single man in Toronto to bring to reality the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission, which has been of such great advantage to the people of that province.
His friendships-and it is by those that he will be so well remembered here and elsewhere-were built on an unselfish foundation of abiding and real'interest in the welfare of all with whom he came in contact. As has been said already, he was a man of strong beliefs. At a time when it may be helpful that people of strong beliefs do adhere to their principles, he left no doubt as to where he stood on any subject in which he had some interest.
Mr. Church believed in his own city first. He believed in Canada. He believed in the great and continuing purpose of the British commonwealth and the empire. He believed that Canada's full growth as a nation, Canada's greatest opportunities in the years ahead as a sovereign state, lay within that partnership in whose association we had grown to nationhood and in which he saw the greatest future for the years ahead. He certainly did not fail to express that belief on any single occasion when the opportunity presented itself.
Mr. Church did an infinite number of kindly things which meant much to many people. I for one shall never forget the scene in St.

James cathedral in Toronto and at the cemetery where people stood with tears streaming down their faces as they remembered the man they loved, as they remembered perhaps in many cases the things that he had done in an unselfish way to help them along the road to life.
Tommy Church was one of those rare beings to whom these words of Alexander Pope apply in their full meaning:
Who broke no promise, serv'd no private end,
Who gain'd no title, and who lost no friend.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, not only on behalf of those associated with me, but perhaps as one who has had a fairly long membership in the house, I wish to express both regret at the passing of Mr. Church and sympathy for his sisters who have survived him. As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has said, when a young man arrived in the city of Toronto the one person who was almost sure to welcome him was Tommy Church-just as, on the arrival of a new member, Tommy was the one older parliamentarian who was sure to greet him. No matter what his views were, no matter what party he belonged to, no matter under what auspices he came, Mr. Church immediately took an interest in him as a younger member of the house.
I am glad that, although we differed so much in our views, I was able to form a friendship with him, a friendship that was possible because there were some things we had in common.
I think it was obvious to all of us at the last session of parliament that Mr. Church was failing fast. The manner in which he went through the session, the energy which he put into the debates of the house, the way in which he spoke of policies for which he will long toe remembered, was amazing.
The leader of the opposition has spoken of the interest of the late Mr. Church in the Ontario hydroelectric system, that great publicly-owned institution. We shall all remember, because of that interest of his in the public ownership of public utilities, how prominent a part he played last session in the discussion of certain matters which came before the house. I said to some of my friends one evening when Mr. Church was speaking that he was failing, and I thought that what we were witnessing was like the bright flicker of light before the candle goes out. Therefore I was not surprised when I heard with sorrow over the radio that Tommy Church had passed to the great beyond, upon which he had fixed a sure and certain hope.
Mr. Church loved this House of Commons; he loved this parliament. He was old-fashioned, as the Prime Minister (Mr. St.
The late T. L. Church Laurent) has said, in his adherence to the British empire rather than to the commonwealth. He preferred the old term. I am sure my hon. friends of the official opposition will not misunderstand me when I say that Tommy Church was a survivor of an old-fashioned conservatism which served its day and generation well. We shall miss him here because of the views that he invariably expressed, and the forthright manner in which he expressed them.
As has already been said, Mr. Church's life was one of kindnesses. He represented Broadview, a constituency in which there are a good many underprivileged Canadians, and Tommy Church was the friend of all, poor and rich alike. I have heard it said that when he went into his constituency he could meet almost everyone there and call them by their first names. I believe there is little exaggeration in that statement. He was a friendly soul, a man greatly beloved and respected by all who knew him. I recall the words of William Wordsworth:
That best portion of a good man's life,-
His little, nameless, unremembered acts
Of kindness and of love.
I think those words might well serve as an epitaph to Thomas Langton Church.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, we in this corner wish to associate ourselves with others in paying tribute to our late good friend and colleague, Tommy Church. Our very high respect for Mr. Church grew as a result of his warm friendly personality, his integrity and his deep devotion to his public duties. We respected and admired him also for the courage he displayed in remaining true to his strong and deep convictions to the very end. I am glad that I knew Mr. Church and gained inspiration from what I consider to have been a good life.
Mr. Church viewed with some sorrow and considerable alarm the steady and progressive disintegration of the British empire during the past few years. On numerous occasions in this house I heard him express that alarm. Indeed he was among the few to voice his fears about the forces that appeared to be wrecking the British empire. I think his courage and devotion reached their highest peaks on the occasions when, almost alone, he expressed his keen desire to see the empire preserved, with Canada playing a leading role in its regeneration.
In Mr. Church's death the house has lost a good and faithful member, the constituency of Broadview a devoted servant, the Conservative party one of its pillars, and his relatives and associates a warm and true friend.

The late T. L. Church We express our sympathy to his party and to those who are left to mourn the loss of a fine man.


Mr. J. H. Harris (Banforlh):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps there are not many in this house who knew our late departed friend as well as I did. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) mentioned the year 1898. I am unable to go back that far, but I remember well that in 1905 I drove a pony and cart to take voters to vote for the late Mr. Church. I remember so well coming into this house for the first time as the youngest member of that day. Mr. Church was then a member and at that time he represented a western portion of the city of Toronto and I the eastern. With the change in population and other changes brought about by time, it was necessary for him to find another seat. My riding was split into two and he took over a large number of my people. I took the remainder.
I can see the late Mr. Church, during the last election campaign, at the corner of Gerrard and Broadview in Toronto. I can see him entering stores and greeting storekeeper after storekeeper, all of whom knew him well, and many of whom supported him because they loved him. They not only loved him; they also loved the principles for which he stood.
I know these people. I learned to know them when I was quite young, and I know what they thought of our departed friend. I know that they realized, as the Prime Minister said a moment ago, that the late Mr. Church was a champion of all the merits of a worthy daughter of the empire. We appreciate the sentiment of the Prime Minister, but I also know that the valiant sons and daughters who came back from two world wars after serving Canada loved the late Mr. Church more than any other person from that great metropolis of close to a million people. They appreciated the fact that he saw every troop train leave, and met every train that brought them back. These sons and daughters of Canada knew where they stood, and they knew they would have a supporter in this assembly to look after their interests.
I feel it a high privilege to have this opportunity of paying a tribute to the late member for Broadview. It was also my good fortune to know his sisters, one of whom has also passed on. I knew the late member for Broadview for forty-five years. Far too many men of that calibre have been lost to Canada. If any young men or young women within range of my voice this afternoon are still considering their future course, particularly in reference to their leaning toward the empire or otherwise, let them take a leaf out


of the book of Thomas Langton Church, who, whatever you may say, in my opinion was one of Canada's greatest statesmen. He accomplished much, not for himself but for Toronto, for Ontario and for Canada, and much for the empire, which is playing such a vital part in the events of this day and generation.


Mr. Jean Frangois Poulioi (Temiscouala):: Mr. Speaker, may I join the countless friends of the late Mr. Church in conveying to his family, to his native city of Toronto and to his party my deepest sympathy in their great loss. Seldom have we heard such fine tributes as those which have been paid this afternoon to the memory of a great Canadian and a great man who is no longer among us.
I knew Mr. Church for many years; he was exceedingly kind to me. I remember that the first occasion I had to thank him was when I was fighting some private legislation which concerned my constituency. I did not ask for his support, but I received it in most generous measure, and from that time on we were friends. We also had mutual friends in the city of Toronto, and he did me the signal honour of introducing me to the primate of his church.
Reference has been made to his natural congeniality and his ability to make friends, but nothing has been said of the high regard in which he was held by the high clergy of his church. During the last Christmas season he had an invitation from the primate of that church to spend some time with him in Halifax. Unfortunately the invitation could not be accepted, but when I saw the report of the funeral I was not at all surprised to learn that for many hours before the service he lay in state in his church, and that the service was conducted by the primate, the Most Reverend Archbishop Kingston, assisted by the Dean of Toronto.
That did not mean that Mr. Church was at all narrow-minded. He represented a constituency named Broadview, and he deserved to represent it, because he was so broadminded. For the dignitaries of other churches, in particular the Roman Catholic church, he had the same respect he held for his own clergy. Often he told me that he had attended celebrations to honour Monsignor Casey in Toronto, and he was on the most intimate terms with His Eminence Cardinal McGuigan, the present Roman Catholic archbishop of Toronto.
I never heard Tommy Church say anything nasty about anyone in the House of Commons; that is why he enjoyed the respect of all. He held deep convictions; and in that

regard I should like to read a very fine sentence which was uttered by one of our mutual friends, Bishop Renison, speaking of him in St. James cathedral last Friday:
He was one who was touched in youth by the glorious spiritual conception of the British empire.
Personally I did not always agree with him on certain matters, but we could remain friends without sharing the same views. That is the great privilege of members of the House of Commons. We come from all corners of this country; we do not always hold the same views, but we remain friends because we respect each other and understand the point of view of the other man, though that point of view may be entirely different from our own.
The late Mr. Church did a great deal for the city of Toronto. During his lifetime I said of him, without desiring to give offence to anyone else, that no one had done as much as he had done for his native city. In regard to the transportation system, for example, he saved the city twenty-four or twenty-five million dollars; and he was known to be honest. If he had not been, we would not have heard the eulogies that have been uttered today.
Sir, the memory of Tommy Church will live for ever. He did a great deal for our soldiers, as has been said. He did a great deal also for the underdog, for those who seemed to have no friends, who were turned away by all. They found a friend in Tommy Church because they were weak, because they were poor, because they were ill. He wanted them to be well and happy.
I always admired Mr. Church's courage and his deep conviction every time he spoke in the house. During the last session he was more active than any other private member. It seemed to be his swan song. He wanted to accomplish as much for his country, in this House of Commons, as he did during the time he occupied the chair of the first magistrate of the queen city of Toronto.
May I conclude with a personal recollection? A few days before his death eight or nine years ago, Mr. Lapointe was piloting his estimates through the house. He did not seem to be very well, and he was having trouble with some members of the opposition who were repeatedly harping on the same matter. It was very hot, and Mr. Lapointe was tired and ill. Tommy Church was instrumental in putting an end to the questioning, so Mr. Lapointe sent him a note of thanks. It read, "My dear Tommy: You are the prince of them all." I have no doubt that those who have charge of Tommy Church's correspondence will find that note. He kept it and showed it to me and to some of his friends,
The Ministry
because he was quite proud of it. I shall close by paraphrasing that quotation; Tommy Church was the prince of them all.



THE MINISTRY


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I should like to mention the changes that have taken place in the ministry since the last session.
Hon. Colin Gibson resigned as Minister of Mines and Resources on January 18. Hon. J. J. McCann was appointed Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, retaining his present portfolio of national revenue, also on January 18.
Hon. Robert H. Winters resigned as Minister of Reconstruction and Supply and was appointed Minister of Resources and Development on January 18.
Hon. Walter E. Harris was, on the same day, appointed Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Because I was standing I did not applaud that announcement, but I share with other hon. members their pleasure at seeing the member for Grey-Bruce assume additional responsibilities in the conduct of the affairs of the country.
I should like to table the relevant orders in council dealing with those appointments, and to add that Mr. Harris, of course, prior to taking the oath of office as a minister of the crown, resigned as parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister and president of the privy council.



PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANTS


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I should like to announce that Mir. Ralph Maybank resigned as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Mines and Resources on January 18, and on the same day was appointed parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.
Mr. George Prudham was appointed parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Resources and Development on February 1, 1950.
I wish to table the orders in council relating to those appointments.



TRANSFER OF DUTIES


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I wish to table orders in council dealing with the provisions of the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of
8	HOUSE OF
Constitutional Conference Duties Act. The functions of the Minister of Transport under the Government Employees Compensation Act, 1947, were transferred to the Minister of Labour. The control and supervision of the government employees compensation branch of the Department of Transport were transferred to the Department of Labour. It was felt that the functions to be performed in connection with the service were somewhat similar to the functions that were being performed by the Department of Labour in connection with unemployment insurance and like services. It would therefore be more convenient to have those services administered by that department.
The duties and functions of the Minister of Finance under the act respecting the national battlefields at Quebec and amendments thereto were transferred to the Minister of Resources and Development. They are functions similar to those the department has to exercise in connection with national parks in other parts of the country, and it was felt it would be conducive to the expeditious handling of business, as well as more economical administration, to have the minister charged with the administration of other national parks entrusted with the responsibility for the operation of the battlefields commission at Quebec.
I table the orders in council relating to these transfers.



REPORTS AND PAPERS


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I should like to table two copies in English and two copies in French of the proceedings of the constitutional conference between the federal and provincial governments, January 10-12, 1950.
There are also copies in English and in French of the further correspondence between the Prime Minister and the premiers of the provinces respecting the constitutional conference, January 10, 1950, and the proposed general conference to be held in the autumn of this year. The previous letters dealing with these matters were printed as appendices to Hansard. If it be the desire of hon. members to have these letters appear as an appendix to today's Hansard, I might ask Your Honour to make that order.
There are also copies in English and in French of the correspondence which took place last summer with Premier Campbell of Manitoba and Premier Douglas of Saskatchewan on the subject of dominion-provincial relations. Since there have been so many of these letters published, I thought it
(Mr. St. Laurent.]

might be the desire of hon. members to have all the correspondence that has taken place in that connection made available. Perhaps hon. members would wish also to have these letters printed as an appendix to Hansard of today.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that these documents should be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of correspondence, see Appendix, pages 13 to 21.)



ORDERS IN COUNCIL


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I should like to table two copies of the summary of orders in council passed during the period December 1, 1949, to January 31, 1950. A previous summary of these orders in council was tabled on December 9. This is a summary of all the orders in council passed since the previous summary, and up to the end of January.



STANDING COMMITTEES

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That a special committee be appointed to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the standing committees of this house under standing order 63, said committee to be composed of Messrs. Fournier (Hull), Claxton, Casselman, Knowles and Weir.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) presented the following message from His Excellency the Governor General:
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons a certified copy of an approved minute of council appointing the Honourable Alphonse Fournier, Minister of Public Works, the Honourable D. C. Abbott, Minister of Finance, the Honourable J. J. McCann, Minister of National Revenue, and the Honourable F. G. Bradley, Secretary of State of Canada, to act with the Speaker of the House of Commons as commissioners for the purposes and under the provisions of chapter 145 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, intituled: An act respecting the House of Commons.

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That this house will on Friday next resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to His Majesty, notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 57.


George Alexander Drew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate that this motion should be examined and the effect of its presentation at this time carefully considered.
Already this afternoon it has been pointed out that what is done now without objection may become a precedent. Practice becomes established simply by repetition. This same type of motion, in somewhat similar form, was introduced at the beginning of the session which opened last September. When the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) introduced the motion at that time he explained that he was doing so because it was necessary, in order to prevent any disturbance of the public service, to ask then for additional supply. No similar reason exists on this occasion. Because of the fact that supply had run for some time without the ordinary procedure being followed, we did not raise objection to the adoption of such a motion on that occasion. Today there is no reason for the presentation of this motion, and there are many strong reasons against it.
If this were merely a case of dealing with a motion as one which requires consent, then I would not be making the objection I now propose to make. If the question were simply whether we deal with this motion today without notice or deal with it a few days from now with notice, I should not be inclined to press the point strongly, because we all know what the purpose is. No one can suggest that there is any measure of surprise involved in the motion itself. Any point that I now make applies, I submit, with the same force to this motion, as if it were coming forward after due notice had been given.
I think it will be recognized by every member that in any event this motion cannot be dealt with today unless there is unanimous consent. But I think it is appropriate that we should deal now with the principle involved, so that discussion of this same subject on a second occasion may be avoided; the procedure will then be more convenient to the government as well as to members of the house generally.
This motion is made under standing order 57, which reads as follows:
The house shall appoint the committees of supply and ways and means at the commencement of every session, so soon as an address has been agreed to, in answer to His Excellency's speech.
I know it has been contended on other occasions in this house that the words "at the commencement of every session, so soon as an address has been agreed to" are not intended to prevent the appointment of these committees by motion before the address has been agreed to, but that they are a direction that 55946-2
Committee of Supply
the committees must be proceeded with when that address has been agreed to. I submit, however, that this is not the interpretation which should be taken of the wording of that rule. Since it seems desirable that we be in no doubt as to what the meaning of the rule is, I should like to read what I believe to be one of the clearest arguments I have read in the records of this house in support of the proposition that this rule means that the committees must not and cannot be appointed until after the address has been dealt with.
I will quote from an extended speech made by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King in this house on February 6, 1934. I am reading from page 287 of Hansard; I shall cover only a limited part of his remarks. I start to quote from the point at which he was dealing with the interpretation which should be placed on this section:
It is obvious, from the reading of the rule of this house, that it is copied literatim et verbatim from the rule of the House of Commons at Westminster. There are two words which appear in the order at Westminster that do not appear in our order, the words "in future," but they in no way affect its purpose. The order of the British house is standing order No. 14; it reads as follows:
"This house will, in future, appoint the committees of supply and ways and means at the commencement of every session, so soon as an address has been agreed to, in answer to His Majesty's speech."
Then Mr. King's words continue:
The interpretation to be placed upon the order by the British house is best given by the leading constitutional authorities on procedure in the Commons, and on the law and custom of the constitution. I shall therefore quote from three or four of the most eminent authorities. It will be apparent, once the quotations are given, that there is no longer room for doubt as to what the intention of the order is.
May's Parliamentary Practice at page 520 of the thirteenth edition, published in 1924, has the following:
"The action taken by the House of Commons upon the demand of aid and supply for the public service made by the speech from the throne is the appointment, pursuant to standing order No. 14, of those committees of the whole house which are known as the committee of supply and the committee of ways and means. Motions setting up these committees are made immediately after the house agrees to the address in answer to the speech from the throne, and are put forthwith from the chair, no debate being permitted thereon."
Mr. King continued:
Hon. members will observe that the wording is not that they "may be" or "must be" established, but that they "are" established immediately after the house agrees to the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Anson's Law of the Constitution, volume I, fifth edition, 1922, page 286, states:
"The speech from the throne always contains a demand from the crown for supply, and as soon as the House of Commons has agreed upon an address in reply to the speech, it has for many years passed two resolutions-one that on a certain day

Committee of Supply
it will resolve itself into committee of supply; another that on a certain day it will resolve itself into committee of ways and means."
Mr. King then said;
Here we have a positive statement of the customary method of procedure. I submit it is custom that governs in matters of this kind. I refer next to Redlich's Procedure of the House of Commons, 1907, volume 3, page 133:
"In response to the speech from the throne the Commons, as soon as they have voted the address in reply, appoint the two great committees before which the whole finance of the year has to be discussed-the committee of supply and the committee of ways and means."
That is very specific language; as soon as they have voted the address in reply they appoint the committees. It is, I think, conclusive in its wording and meaning.
There are reasons why this practice' should not grow by failure to observe what the precedents have been. It is customary-and I may say that practice will be followed on this occasion by the opposition-to move an amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne which is a motion indicating lack of confidence in the government. That is customary practice, and it will be adhered to. If this procedure were followed, then a similar motion might be made to the motion to go into supply, and you would have two motions of want of confidence before the house at the same time. It is certainly no answer to a question of procedure in this house to say that the government enjoys so large and assured a majority that no question can arise as to the disposition of a motion of that kind. I would hope that no such suggestion will be made. I still have hopes that there may be members who will assert their independence sufficiently to give real meaning to a motion of this kind. But the procedure that we are following may apply to instances in which the numbers in the house are very close, and in which two debates relating to confidence of the house could go on simultaneously.
I would ask any hon. members who are interested in that particular point to examine the words of Mr. King, spoken on that very subject on the occasion to which I have referred. In that same speech Mr. King made a statement which I think is appropriate on this point, and I quote his words;
What I am afraid of is that in this house we may be changing a custom by the exceptions we are making, that the government is not viewing the proposed course so much as an exception as it is seeking to make what has been an exception in the last session or two a custom which will govern in the future.
Then there is a discussion of the importance of the debate on the speech from the throne. There are two great debates each session, namely, the debate on the address in

reply to the speech from the throne, and the debate which follows the presentation of the budget. In the debate on the address in reply it is customary for hon. members who have returned from their constituencies to interpret, at the time the session opens, what they have found there of major public concern. Any argument that can be put forward in favour of the motion which has been already presented by the Prime Minister, that the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne should have precedence over all other business, unless any other motion is made, supports the contention which I am now making, namely, that there should be no interference with the established practice in dealing with the debate on the address in reply.
What we do now may be a precedent for other occasions. There may be occasions-as there have been in the past-on which government will not receive a vote of confidence from the house. If the government does not receive a vote of confidence, and under our procedure is then called upon to go to the people or to have a new government formed, any debate that has taken place on supply will simply have been wiped out and proved useless. That is one of the reasons why the discussions in committee of supply or in committee of ways and means have been intended by the established practice of this house and of Westminster to be deferred until the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne has been dealt with.
Having regard to the precedents, and what might happen in the future, and considering the desire to preserve our parliamentary practice, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this motion should not be proceeded with now. We know it cannot be dealt with now without consent. So that there may be no question of that, for the very reasons I have given I cannot accord consent to this motion today. But I do not believe the motion should be proceeded with in any event, on notice or otherwise, until the debate on the address in reply has been concluded.


Major James William Coldwell: I
agree with what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has said. If anyone looks through the records of the House of Commons over the past fifteen years during, to a very large extent, the prime ministership of Mr. King, he will find that the views which have just been quoted by the leader of the opposition were expressed by Mr. King not only when he was himself in opposition but when he was prime minister and head of the government.
I would also point out in support of the leader of the opposition that, while the two

motions may be made immediately following the adoption of the address, as moved today it would fall within the category of an ordinary motion. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit it would come under standing order 45, which reads:
Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address, for the appointment of any committee, or for placing a question on the order paper; but this rule shall not apply to bills after their introduction, or to private bills, or to the times of meeting or adjournment of the house.
This being a motion for the appointment of two important committees, it would fall under standing order 45, and would therefore require forty-eight hours' notice. I imagine that is what the leader of the opposition had in mind when he said it could not be proceeded with without the unanimous consent of the house.
I support him, not because I wish to obstruct the business of the house or to obstruct anything the Prime Minister has suggested today that might conceivably facilitate the business of the house. With the leader of the opposition, I believe these rules are made to protect minorities in the house, and on every occasion on which a motion is made to vary the normal procedure, as occurred this afternoon in connection with the motion concerning the debate on the address, I say we should be wary and exercise great care. That care must be exercised when there is any attempt to vary these long-established rules for the protection of minorities and private members in the house, or when there is an attempt to set them aside, or a suggestion that they should be set aside.
Therefore I support the leader of the opposition in his contention, and submit that this cannot be proceeded with without the forty-eight hours' notice required by standing order 45, or without the unanimous consent of the house to set it aside.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, it occurs to me that at times the government may require that the rules of the house be streamlined. I imagine that the motions moved this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) might well have been moved for the purpose of streamlining procedure and getting ahead with the business. With that I am in sympathy.
At the same time it is obvious that if we are to streamline the procedure of the house we will have to pay attention to changing the rules and standing orders as they are found in this book. I would suggest that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and the leader of the C.C.F. party are quite in order in protesting against this way of doing 55946-24
Committee of Supply
business. I propose to support them, and to make the further suggestion that, if we want to change procedure with respect to the setting up of these committees, we should first of all pay attention to changing standing order 57, after which we would be perfectly in order.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to know just what hon. members do want. They say they do not want to rely upon the objection that this motion would require notice, and that they want to decide the question on the merits-at least that is what the leader of the opposition said. He wanted to decide on the merits, but then he pointed out that it was one of those motions which require forty-eight hours' notice.
I am not going to take time to debate it and waste a whole lot of time on this first day of a session discussing a matter of procedure. I endeavoured to do something which the government thought was going to meet the desires of hon. members as expressed at the last session of parliament. Statements were made at the last session that it would facilitate the business of the house if the estimates were brought on at an early day, and if an announcement was made that the first item for administration of such and such a department would be called on such and such a day, and that there would be general debate upon that item.
Ever since I have been here I have heard the complaint that the estimates are kept back until the dying days of the session, and then that they are rushed through without very much consideration. We have been working hard and working persistently to get the estimates into shape, and it is the hope of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to table them this week. We thought that immediately after they were tabled it would suit the convenience of hon. members, as well as meet the exigencies of the public interest, to agree as to which department we would call on each one of those days upon which government business can be considered; so that, in order to make a speech hon. members would not have to rely upon prolonging the debate in reply to the speech from the throne.
There have been allusions here to procedure in the parliament at Westminster. It was the hon. member who leads the C.C.F. party who expressed in this house his admiration for what went on in the parliament at Westminster, because he had been there; he had heard the speech from the throne, and then he had attended the debate and within forty-eight hours the address in reply to the speech from the throne had been adopted.

Committee of Supply
Immediately thereafter committees were set up to deal with the concrete business of the house.
At that time the leader of the C.C.F. party expressed admiration- for that procedure. But here in this house, it does not matter how hard the government tries to meet the wishes expressed from time to time by parties on the other side, those parties switch and have other objections to make.
I am not going to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to put this motion today, because there may be something in the contention that under standing order 45 there should be forty-eight hours' notice. But I do give notice here and now, from my seat, that these motions will be put on the order paper, and that we will attempt to get a decision on the merits of them.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to leave one thing clear. If the Prime Minister will take the trouble to read the record of what I said, he will see I left no doubt whatever about the fact that I was not raising objection to having it dealt with today, beyond the merits of the general argument. I pointed out that the Prime Minister could not proceed today, whether he wished to or not, without consent-and he was not getting consent. But I said I was hoping to save time by preventing the argument. Then I might say I think we have precedents from the man whom he succeeds, and whose views I think he still respects.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the motion at the present time is withdrawn?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I take it the motions are not withdrawn but I understand there is objection to their being considered at this time. I submit to the objection; but I do
say that I will give notice on the order paper, so that they may, after forty-eight hours have elapsed, be considered on their merits-and I hope we shall not have to have the discussion again, though I am afraid it is a vain hope.
Motion stands.



LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
Report of the joint librarians of parliament.-Mr. Speaker.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the chief electoral officer on byelections held during the year 1949.-Mr. Speaker.

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: the adjournment of the house.
He said: It is my understanding that, in accordance with the special order, we will proceed tomorrow with consideration of the address in reply to the speech of His Excellency, and, when the mover and the seconder have been heard, it might meet the wish of the leader of the opposition to have the debate adjourned at that time, to be continued on Monday. If that is the wish of the leader of the opposition the government will be prepared to agree to the suggestion that the debate be adjourned after the mover and the seconder have made their addresses.


George Alexander Drew: That arrangement will be satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house adjourned at 5.25 p.m.

Appendix
Correspondence between the Prime Minister and Premiers of the provinces with respect to constitutional conference, January, 1950, and proposed dominion-provincial
relations conference

[Stage Direction]
Canada
Ottawa, January 27, 1950
(The following is the text of a letter sent to all provincial premiers.)
My dear Premier:
I have now received replies from the premiers of all the provinces to my letter of December 7, in which I proposed that a conference should be held early in the autumn of this year to discuss general questions of common concern to the provincial and the federal governments. The replies, as well as the discussion of this matter at the constitutional conference of January 10-12, indicate general agreement on the desirability of having the conference at a convenient date in September or October.
While the precise date for the conference can, I think, be left for determination somewhat later, it might be desirable to endeavour to draw up immediately a tentative agenda in order that the necessary preparations may be carried forward by the respective governments. Several of the premiers indicated in their letters a desire that this should be done in ample time to allow full consideration of all the subjects for discussion. In order that such an agenda may be prepared it will be helpful if I can have your suggestions as to the matters which you think should be placed on it. When suggestions have been received from all the premiers, I shall have the tentative agenda circulated for comment and revision. In this manner I hope it may be possible to get agreement on the principal items for the conference in ample time for adequate preparations.
Yours sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent
PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND Office of the Premier
St. John's, December 28, 1949 Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent, K.C., M.P.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa.
Dear Prime Minister:
Your letter of December 7, with regard to the holding of a dominion-provincial conference in the fall of 1950, reached my office just after I left for Ottawa. I read about the proposed conference while I was in Ottawa.
We think the idea is a splendid one, and we will be very happy to attend and to co-operate.
With best wishes.
Sincerely yours,
J. R. Smallwood
THE PREMIER Nova Scotia
Halifax, January 7, 1950
My dear Prime Minister:
In reply to your letter of December 7, I may say that I doubt if it is possible to prepare any agenda for the conference which is to be held on January
10. As I see it, there is only one matter before the conference, and that is the evolution of a method of amending the constitution. While there well may be different views as to what the method should be, there still remains only one fundamental question before the conference.
In reply to the latter part of your letter, I may say that a conference in September or October, 1950, between the representatives of the dominion and the representatives of the provinces should be useful, and representatives of this province would be prepared to attend. I think definitely that the question of financial arrangements between the dominion and the provinces should be discussed at that time or earlier.
Yours sincerely,
A. L. Macdonald
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
PREMIER'S OFFICE Prince Edward Island
Charlottetown, January 17, 1950
Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. St. Laurent:
With reference to your letter of December 7, which I had not acknowledged, the first two paragraphs do not now require an answer inasmuch as the constitutional conference is concluded.
The third paragraph, however, seems to call for a promise to attend a general conference of the premiers in the early autumn of this year. I cannot determine whether or not you will discuss a new tax agreement at that conference, but in any case our province will be represented as usual.
Yours sincerely,
J. Walter Jones
THE PREMIER New Brunswick
Fredericton, December 13, 1949
Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent Prime Minister of Canada Ottawa, Canada
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I received in due course your letter of December 7. With regard to the coming conference to discuss constitutional matters, now set to open in Ottawa on January 10, the views advanced by you with respect to the procedure to be adopted thereat are fully noted. For the reasons given one can readily see the difficulty that would arise in attempting to define an agenda, there being only one subject for discussion at the conference, namely, a possible method or plan of making amendments in Canada to the constitution in respect to matters of concern both to federal and provincial authorities.
[Stage Direction]
Appendix
The suggestion advanced by you that the procedure for bringing about a full discussion of this subject be left for settlement by the conference itself is satisfactory to the government of this province.
The other question arising from your letter has reference to the proposal that a general conference be held early in the autumn of 1950 to discuss other questions of common concern to the dominion and the provinces. I have discussed this suggestion with my colleagues and am in a position to advise you of our willingness and desire to attend such a conference.
It is generally recognized that there are various subjects of common interest which could be discussed to advantage at a general conference between the federal and provincial governments. One could readily instance several of them.
If the provinces generally will undertake to participate in discussions of this nature we shall welcome the opportunity to take part in such a conference. It is obvious that much good may come from such studies if all parties approach them in a cooperative attitude and with a desire to find solutions to problems of real concern to the people of Canada.
I assume that it will be known shortly whether or not the proposal for holding this conference has the support of the provinces generally. Should arrangements for it be proceeded with, we will gladly give consideration to the questions and subjects which might constitute the agenda.
Yours sincerely,
John B. McNair
THE PREMIER New Brunswick
Fredericton, November 12, 1949
Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I wish to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of November 7, advising that January 10 next has been definitely set for the opening of the conference on constitutional matters.
I wish to assure you again that this province will be represented at that time.
Yours sincerely,
John B. McNair
PROVINCE OF MANITOBA Office of the Premier
Winnipeg, December 23, 1949
Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent, P.C., K.C.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
This will acknowledge your letter of December 7 last.
In our letter of October 6 last, accepting your invitation to attend the federal-provincial constitutional conference I made it clear that the government of Manitoba realizes that a conference such as this will be dealing with difficult and complex constitutional problems, and that progress towards a solution of them can be made by representatives of Canada and the provinces meeting together. Because of this our government was of the opinion that a preliminary conference comprising constitutional experts, though not necessarily limited to them, would
be useful in clarifying many of the issues involved, and we therefore supported the calling of such a preparatory conference.
It seemed to our government that such a conference could have made progress in discussing some of the constitutional and procedural issues that are certain to arise, and in this way would have been of value to the plenary conference when held-one of its accomplishments perhaps being a suggested agenda for that full conference. Inasmuch, however, as many of the premiers did not feel that such a preliminary meeting would serve any useful purpose, it is probably advisable to leave the matter of an agenda and general procedure to the full conference for final decision. I would assume, however, that your government will prepare a tentative agenda so that the greatest progress possible can be made when the conference assembles. This basis will be satisfactory to the Manitoba government.
The other matter referred to in your letter is the proposal of a general conference to discuss various questions of interest to the federal and provincial governments, including tax agreements. The government of Manitoba will welcome such a conference and will be glad to take part in it, either in September or October, whichever is found to best suit the majority of the participating governments.
Yours sincerely,
Douglas Campbell
PREMIER'S OFFICE Saskatchewan
Regina, December 10, 1949
Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent, K.C.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Prime Minister:
Thank you for your letter of December 7 in reply to my letter of November 29 regarding an agenda for the conference which is to consider the procedure of amending the constitution of Canada.
Since your government is convening the conference which is to open on January 10, the decision as to whether or not there shall be an agenda lies entirely within your jurisdiction. However, in view of the fact that most of the provincial representatives will be anxious to get back to their respective provinces in order to prepare for the meeting of their legislatures, the Saskatchewan government is of the opinion that a good deal of time could be saved and some useful conclusions more speedily arrived at, if an agenda were drafted setting forth the specific items to be discussed. As an alternative, it may be that the federal government would be prepared to put before the provinces a series of specific proposals for the purpose of discussion on how the constitution of Canada could be amended in respect of dominion-provincial matters.
Your proposal that a general dominion-provincial conference be held early in the autumn of 1950 meets with the complete concurrence of the Saskatchewan government. This is something we have been advocating ever since the previous dominion-provincial conference was adjourned sine die on May 3, 1946. When I wrote to you on July 15 last, it was in the hope that your government would see fit to call a general conference this fall. Your reply of August 18 caused us considerable disappointment. You will remember that at that time you said:
"I am not convinced, however, that the best way for us to attempt to discharge that duty is to come together at once in a full-dress dominion-provincial conference."

Appendix
The fact that you have reconsidered your decision and are prepared to call a conference in the autumn of 1950 meets with our approval, although we are naturally disturbed that the calling of the conference is to be so long delayed. A meeting in the fall of 1950 will mean that over four years will have elapsed since the adjournment of the previous conference. This is a long and, in our opinion, unwarranted delay in coming together as governments to discuss the many perplexing problems that were left unsolved when the last conference was adjourned. When seven of the provincial governments entered into taxation agreements with the dominion, they did so in the belief that some of the social security proposals made at the reconstruction conference in 1945 would be implemented in whole or in part. The fact that a discussion of these important matters is to be further delayed for another ten months or a year gives us serious cause for concern.
The government of Saskatchewan will be pleased to forward to you in the course of the next few months our recommendations regarding subjects for discussion in the general conference which you propose convening in the fall of 1950. I trust we can take it for granted that the basis of these discussions will be the recommendations of the Rowell-Sirois commission which was appointed by the dominion government and whose proposals have not yet been implemented. Furthermore, I trust we can be assured that the dominion proposals of August, 1945, which would have implemented only in part the Rowell-Sirois report, will also be on the agenda as a basis for discussion.
While the government of this province is prepared to co-operate in every way possible, both in the conference called for January 10 and the one you are proposing for autumn, 1950, I think I should state quite frankly that in our opinion the calling of these conferences should have been reversed. Certainly if we are to discuss procedures for amending the constitution of Canada and re-allocating responsibilities between the dominion and the provinces, we ought first to have a clear understanding as to the financial responsibilities which our respective jurisdictions are to assume. It is difficult for me to see how we can discuss what constitutional responsibilities we are able to assume until we know what financial resources will be at our disposal. However, since your government has seen fit to call the constitutional conference first and the general conference later, we will do our best to make both of these conferences a success, although we are convinced that the problems to be discussed are inseparable and that there will have to be a good deal of latitude when these matters are under consideration.
Yours sincerely,
T. C. Douglas
OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER Canada
Ottawa, December 19, 1949
Hon. T. C. Douglas, M.L.A.,
Premier of Saskatchewan,
Parliament Buildings,
Regina, Saskatchewan.
My dear Premier:
Your letter of December 10 was placed before me today on my return after a brief absence from Ottawa.
I am pleased to know that my proposal for a general conference to be held early in the autumn of 1950 meets with the concurrence of the government of Saskatchewan. The matters for discussion at that conference will, as I indicated in my letter of December 7, depend upon the views of the respective governments as to what should constitute the agenda. I shall be very glad to receive the recommendations as to subjects for discussion which the government of Saskatchewan plans to forward in the course of the next few months. Meanwhile I shall not attempt to set out the views of the federal government nor shall I make any comment on the various observations in the third paragraph of your letter concerning the appropriateness of the time suggested for the general conference or the implementation of earlier proposals.
With regard to an agenda or specific proposals for the conference on constitutional amendment which is to open on January 10, my colleagues and I have noted your comments and shall see that they are carefully considered in the light of views expressed by the premiers of the other provinces.
We have been somewhat surprised at the suggestion that the order of the two conferences proposed should have been reversed. It seems to us that this view rests on a misapprehension as to the scope of the January meeting. As I mentioned in my letters of September 14 and November 7, and again in my letter of December 7, our object in proposing the conference is to have consideration given to devising a satisfactory procedure for amending the constitution of Canada. We did not suggest that the conference should consider "reallocating responsibilities between the dominion and the provinces". And the federal government does not intend to suggest any such amendments at the conference.
We would like to see established in Canada a procedure for making amendments which may be required in the future. The general conference proposed for the autumn of 1950 may result in agreement that certain amendments are desirable. If so, it is our hope that the constitutional conference of January 1950 will have prepared the way by deciding the procedure by which such amendments can be made.
Yours sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent
OFFICE OF THE PREMIER Province of British Columbia
Victoria, December 12, 1949 Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Canada.
My dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I have for acknowledgment your letter of December 7, and may say that I heartily concur in the suggestion contained in paragraph two of your communication. I think that no purpose would be served at this time in setting a fixed agenda.
With reference to a proposed dominion conference in the fall of 1950, please be advised that the government of this province will be only too happy to be represented at that meeting.
With kindest personal regards.
Yours faithfully,
Byron I. Johnson
Premier
[Stage Direction]
Appendix
OFFICE OF THE PREMIER Alberta
Edmonton, December 15, 1949
Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Prime Minister:
My colleagues and I have given careful consideration to the matters outlined in your letter of December 7.
We concur in your views that it is not desirable to attempt to prepare in advance of the forthcoming conference an agenda which might be interpreted as restricting the discussion on constitutional amendments to certain specific subdivisions of the question with which the conference will be concerned. Our view rather is that there should be the widest latitude for full and frank discussion not only of procedure in the matter of constitutional amendments but of the whole question of constitutional authority as it concerns the respective governments of Canada and the Canadian people as a whole.
With reference to your proposal that a general dominion-provincial conference should be held next fall to discuss questions of common concern to the federal and the provincial governments, we are in full accord with this suggestion and feel that such a conference at the earliest convenient date is desirable and necessary.
Yours very truly,
Ernest C. Manning Premier
Translation:
OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER Quebec
Quebec, December 12, 1949
Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent, K.C., P.C.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa.	*
Mr. Prime  Minister@: I acknowledge receipt, on the 9th of December, of your letter dated the 7th concerning the dominion-provincial conferences.
I shall submit your letter to my colleagues on Wednesday, at the first session of the executive council of the province, and I shall thereafter communicate with you about this matter.
Yours very sincerely,


M. L. DuplessisTranslation: : OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER Province of Quebec
Quebec, December 14, 1949
Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent, K.C., P.C.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa.


Mr. Prime  Minister@: With reference to my letter of the 12th of December, my colleagues of the executive council of the province have today been informed of the content of your letter, dated the 7th and received on the 9th December, concerning both the forthcoming intergovernmental conference and the one which you suggest for the fall of 1950, to be held in either September or October.
The government of the province of Quebec is always pleased to co-operate in the pursuit of the
provinces' and the country's welfare and prosperity, on a basis of fairness and within the framework of constitutionality.
The Ottawa conferences obviously involve a considerable amount of trouble and inconvenience for provincial authorities. Nevertheless we accept that with pleasure when it results in greater prosperity and progress for the Canadian confederation and for the provinces of which it consists and which have given it birth.
It is our opinion that at the January meeting in Ottawa the provincial and federal delegates should discuss the opportunity of holding conferences upon set dates, as well as the places where such conferences might be held and the items which might be studied and settled.
We therefore believe, my dear Mr. Prime Minister, that the matter raised in your letter should be submitted for the consideration and decision of the delegates attending the forthcoming conference in January.
Yours sincerely,
M. L. Duplessis
OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER Canada
*	Ottawa, December 21, 1949
Hon. Maurice L. Duplessis, M.L.A.,
Premier of Quebec,
Quebec, Que.
My dear Premier:
I duly received your letters of the 12th and l4*h of December in which you express the view that the question of holding a general conference of representatives of the federal and provincial governments in the autumn of 1950 should be considered and decided by the conference to be held in January next.
I feel, in this connection, that I should advise you that the premiers of five of the provinces have already indicated their acquiescence in the suggestion for such a conference and that, up to the present, replies have not been received from the other four premiers.
Yours sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent
Translation:
OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER Province of Quebec
Quebec, February 1, 1950
Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent, K.C., P.C.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa.


Mr. Prime  Minister@: On Monday of this week I received your letter of the 27th of January, concerning a proposed intergovernmental conference in Ottawa next fall. At the first session of the council of ministers following the above-mentioned date, I brought it to the attention of my colleagues on the executive council of the province.
You write about "a unanimous approval of the proposal to hold a conference on a suitable date in September or October." On this point there is certainly a misunderstanding.
As it was noted by everyone, it is the desire of the government of the province of Quebec loyally to co-operate toward a just, fair and constitutional settlement of every problem that may arise in the field of federal-provincial relations. As a matter

of fact, agreeable and durable memories linger in the minds of those of my colleagues who attended, as well as in my mind.
To my mind, the attitude and opinion of the government of the province of Quebec have been clearly stated, especially during the sessions of the recent conference in Ottawa. I am sure it will not be necessary to repeat the statements I then made on behalf of the province of Quebec.
You will undoubtedly admit that the drafting of an essentially Canadian constitution, studied and decided upon in Canada, by Canadians and for Canadians, is a task of capital importance.
In so far as the province of Quebec is concerned,
I believe that the stand we took cannot possibly be ambiguous for anyone.
During the recent conference in Ottawa, all provinces have brought suggestions, taken a stand, expressed opinions. The federal authorities alone neither presented suggestions nor expressed any opinion.
To us, at such conferences, it would appear useful, just and necessary that all participants share their views and suggestions so that the best possible achievements may come from the body of this work. The old proverb is always true which says that light springs from the impact of ideas.
Undeniably the federal authorities have a right to opinions, and even convictions, and we are led to add, most respectfully, that an exchange of opinions and suggestions is not only a federal and a provincial right, but it is a duty arising from the spirit of frank and loyal co-operation that is desired and desirable among the different governments in Canadian confederation.
That is why we would like to know, in order to study them, the opinions and point of view of the federal government.
In the circumstances, you will agree that it is not a question of anyone imposing his views, and that if the federal authorities omitted to voice their opinions and suggestions, they would unfortunately be giving the impression of a lack of co-operation in the working out of a Canadian constitution and of a confederation strongly united in the integral respect of the rights of everyone.
There is no doubt that money is far from holding first place in the scale of values; nevertheless it should not be forgotten that we are living on earth and that financial means are essential to life.
One of the important problems which, in our minds, has to be settled in a precise way so as to prevent any serious dispute, is the problem of the fiscal powers which are indispensable to the various governments. To govern is to foresee, and thus it is necessary to have sources of income with which present as well as future needs may be met.
On many occasions we have suggested what seems to us to be an excellent method of obtaining perfect co-operation.
We are convinced that in spirit and letter the Canadian constitution grants to the provinces a priority at least in matters of direct taxation. However, since there are contrary opinions, which we respect without sharing, there would be an occasion to define clearly, the taxation powers of each and all the authorities of Canadian government.
We believe further that a delimitation beyond question of federal powers and provincial powers is needed even if we are convinced that certain contestation of provincial powers is ill-founded. Also, we believe it advisable to find and establish an appropriate and fair system that would take into account the rights of the ever-ignored taxpayer while maintaining for each government authority the powers essential to a responsible government.
Would you be good enough, Mr. Prime Minister, to let us know the opinions and attitude of the federal authorities oil these subjects?
Appendix
You may be assured that we wish wholeheartedly to co-operate toward the progress and prosperity of the country as well as to the progress and prosperity of the provinces, our province in particular; such a co-operation could only take place, in our minds, on federative bases, with due regard to the elements which are indispensable to responsible government.
As we have stated on several occasions, the delegates of the province of Quebec take part in these Canadian intergovernmental conferences not as leaders of a political party but as representatives of a province; we likewise consider the delegates of Ottawa not as leaders of a political party but as representatives of the federal authority. It is our very sincere desire always to be guided by these principles which seem suitable and appropriate for everyone.
On behalf of the province of Quebec, I take pleasure in renewing the cordial invitation, which I extended, to hold these conferences, or at least some of them, in the old capital which was the cradle of Christian civilization in this land of America and even also the cradle of the Canadian confederation.
Please accept, Mr. Prime Minister, with my salutations, the assurances of my complete devotedness to the highest interests of our country in general and of the province of Quebec in particular.


M. L. DuplessisTranslation: : OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER Canada
Ottawa, February 6, 1950
Hon. Maurice L. Duplessis,
Premier of the Province of Quebec,
Parliament Buildings,
Quebec, Que.
My dear Premier:
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of the first of February, concerning the general conference of the federal and provincial governments proposed for early autumn; if there is any misunderstanding as to what I interpreted as being "a unanimous approval of the opportunity of holding a conference on a suitable day of September or October", I hope that such a misunderstanding can be cleared up.
The January conference had a special purpose which was to try to reach an agreement on a procedure for studying and deciding in Canada, in the future, every question concerning amendments to the Canadian constitution. I share your view that this is ''a task of capital importance which deserves to be carried out with great care and without ever sacrificing the desired and desirable objective to the temporary and more than dubious advantage of hasty and insufficiently mature decisions".
Apparently, our colleagues of the other provinces also share the same view; I believe this is why we agreed to establish a committee to which every government will impart its views in writing on the best and most practical way of solving the problem. It is the federal government's intention to conform to this.
But there are other problems of interest to both the federal and the provincial authorities. It is with a view to discussing these problems that I made my proposal of a general conference next fall.
The premiers of all the other provinces have expressed their desire to take part in it, and the general tenor of our discussions in January led me to believe that everyone was taking the fall conference for granted, regardless of what progress took place in the constitutional conference. It was

Appendix
my understanding also that your invitation to meet in Quebec was for the resumption of the constitutional conference discussions. As for me, I should be delighted to accept it if it were also agreeable to the representatives of the other governments.
With regard to the general conference which the governments of all the other provinces desire, and which would undoubtedly deal with problems such as those you mention in the last part of your letter, I should like as soon as possible to tell the other premiers whether the government of Quebec will attend and, if such is the case, what questions you would want to have on the agenda.
I am hoping for your favourable reply, and I express the same wish as you that, during all these conferences, we keep on co-operating as we have done during the constitutional conference "not as leaders of political parties but as representatives of the province" on the one hand, and "of the federal authorities" on the other.
With my salutations please accept, my dear Premier, the assurances of my very distinguished consideration.
Louis S. St. Laurent



ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
Office of
The Prime Minister and President of the Council Toronto, February 3, 1950
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I have your letter of January 27 relative to agenda for the forthcoming dominion-provincial conference which it is contemplated will be held in September or October next. I shall give this consideration and advise you within a short time.
The fact that there is a dominion-provincial conference called for this fall need not stand in the way of discussions between the federal government and the government of Ontario relative to a wide variety of subjects. I have such things in mind as the following:
1.	The integration of dominion and provincial plans relative to public investment. The province of Ontario, with its municipalities and commissions, at the present time has a very large public investment program in operation which is necessary because of the expansion of the province. We have a great many other plans which can be gone ahead with if economic conditions are such that this is required. If the unemployment situation is such as to justify a program of public works, we are quite prepared to discuss this matter with you at any time. Our present public investment program is involving expenditures of approximately $25 million a month. We are most anxious to be co-operative in this matter and if the present unemployment situation justifies concerted federal and provincial action, I am prepared to discuss the matter at once.
2.	Ontario is one of the provinces retaining the right to impose corporation and personal income tax and succession duties. There are many matters which might presently be considered to simplify this situation in so far as the taxpayer is concerned. I believe that this can be quite easily worked out and again I may say we are prepared to discuss the simplification of our present systems without waiting for the conference this fall.
3.	There are many other matters upon which discussions might be held, such as any overlapping in old age pension administration, division of responsibility in the matter of relief, and things of this sort. My own view is that many of the problems which we have can readily be solved by direct
approach and consideration. As far as the government of Ontario is concerned, we are prepared to start now if you so desire.
Relative to the conference this fall, I shall give consideration to the agenda at once.
Yours sincerely,
Leslie M. Frost
Right Hen. Louis S. St. Laurent, K.C.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER Canada
Ottawa, February 8, 1950
Hon. Leslie M. Frost, M.L.A.,
Premier of Ontario,
Toronto, Ontario.
My dear Premier:
I wish to acknowledge your letter of the 3rd instant regarding the dominion-provincial conference which it is contemplated will be held next autumn.
I understand you have already been in touch with the Minister of Finance with a view to arranging, at an early date, informal conversations on some of the subjects mentioned in your letter.
I shall look forward to receiving your views as to the agenda for the conference in due course.
Yours sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent
PROVINCE OF MANITOBA Office of the Premier
Winnipeg, August 6, 1949
Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent, K.C.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
Dominion-provincial relations continue to be of great concern to the people of Manitoba. This concern has prompted the Manitoba government to give careful attention to methods by which the two levels of government can work together to improve the general welfare of Canada. Our citizens would be greatly encouraged by evidence that some progress was being made towards achieving a more complete working relationship between Canada and the provinces, particularly in the major fields of public services. To the members of the Manitoba government it appears that the present would be an opportune time to make a careful appraisal of these matters in the light of experience and in the light of present circumstances and prospects. Attention might be directed toward what has been accomplished in this direction through the presently operating seven-provinces agreements and toward such extensions or modifications of present dominion-provincial agreements as might yield mutually beneficial results.
Such discussions would undoubtedly involve the consideration of suggestions which have been made at other conferences and such variations of these suggestions as may seem desirable in the light of present circumstances and of new suggestions which the dominion or one or more of the provinces may wish to make. In view of the extreme complexity and the wide variation in the nature of the issues involved, it does not seem to us advisable to attempt to list specifically, the items which should form the core of the discussions at such a conference. Our first concern in Manitoba would be in regard

Appendix
to the development of plans designed to insure the financial stability of the provinces and to develop sound productive policies on public investment, on development and conservation of natural resources, on social security measures of various sorts, and on measures designed to encourage industrial and agricultural development generally.
The government of Manitoba is prepared to make its recommendations and suggestions and believes that there is an urgent necessity for bringing under review these and such other recommendations and suggestions as may be made by the dominion or other provinces.
The government of Manitoba, therefore, urges that plans should be made for the calling of a dominion-provincial conference at as early a date as is practicable.
Yours very truly,
Douglas Campbell
OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER Canada
Ottawa, August 18, 1949 Hon. Douglas L. Campbell, M.L.A.,
Premier of Manitoba,
Parliament Buildings,
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
My dear Premier:
I have discussed with my colleagues the matters dealt with in your letter to me of the sixth instant and particularly your suggestion that plans should be made for the calling of a dominion-provincial conference at as early a date as is practicable.
We of course feel that it is the duty of all those who have responsibility for government in Canada to co-operate with each other to advance the welfare of the people whom we represent.
I am not convinced, however, that the best way for us to attempt to discharge that duty is to come together at once in a full-dress dominion-provincial conference.
In such a conference it would no doubt be felt by some that fiscal matters should be those to be considered first, and even quite recent press dispatches have shown that there are still some who insist that before attempting to go into details "there should be clear recognition of the priority of the provinces as regards direct taxation".
Now, it is quite out of the question, for those who have the responsibility for all matters coming within the classes of subjects enumerated in section 91 of the British North America Act (including national defence), to even consider restricting in any way the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada for "the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation".
That, of course, does not mean that there are not many matters about which there can be and should be wholehearted co-operation between the federal government and the provincial governments.
It has seemed to us that, in view of our past experience, more progress can be made towards bringing about that co-operation by preparatory work consisting of frank discussions with individual provincial administrations about separate concrete questions; and such discussions which, I hope, will be fruitful and prepare the way for a general conference that would not again become abortive, have already been initiated.
As you know, the existing tax arrangements with the seven provincial governments who have entered into agreements with us extend only to the 31st of
March, 1952, and we are committed to the calling of a conference not later than one year before the expiry of those arrangements.
It may be that as a result of the separate discussions that have been initiated it will be found desirable to call this conference considerably earlier than one year before the date of expiry of the arrangements, and it may be also that it will be found desirable to have at an earlier date some general conference, with a more restricted agenda, to deal with specific problems about which general agreement might be expected.
That, however, is something about which one cannot be specific until the prospects of being able to accomplish something really useful have been further explored.
Thanking you again for your promise of co-operation, I remain,
Yours sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent
PREMIER'S OFFICE Saskatchewan
Regina, July 15, 1949
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent, K.C.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Prime Minister:
Please accept my sincere congratulations on the overwhelming vote of confidence which the Canadian people gave to you and your government on June 27. It is now the duty of all of us who believe in democracy and who desire to see our nation progress to co-operate with you and the members of your government to advance the welfare of the people whom we represent.
You will recall that the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction was adjourned sine die on May 3, 1946. At that time the federal government felt that no good purpose could be served by continuing the conference because of certain fundamental differences of opinion that had arisen. While it is true that subsequently dominion-provincial taxation agreements were signed by seven provinces, many of the important questions which the conference was convened to discuss still remain untouched.
Although the federal government may have had reason to feel during the past four years that there was some doubt as to the attitude of the people of Canada with reference to the differences of opinion that occasioned the adjournment of the conference, certainly there can no longer be any question as to the attitude of the Canadian people. On June 27 the electorate gave very emphatic approval to the underlying principles contained in the dominion-provincial proposals of August, 1945, and this was especially true in those provinces where the federal government had some reason to entertain doubt in respect of the public mind on these matters. It is for this reason that the government of Saskatchewan feels that the dominion-provincial conference should be reconvened at the earliest possible date in order to discuss some of the more pressing matters that have been left in abeyance since the first conference nearly four years ago. The problems which the federal government recognized as crying for attention then are even more pressing now.
We would like to see the matter of health insurance tackled without further delay. Saskatchewan, and later the province of British Columbia, have instituted province-wide hospitalization schemes
[Stage Direction]
Appendix
which are placing a very heavy financial burden upon the individual taxpayer and upon the provincial treasury. The widespread acceptance of these hospitalization plans is ample proof, if proof were needed, of the keen desire on the part of the Canadian people to have some system of prepaid health services established in some of the provinces at least. I believe most of the provinces would welcome an opportunity to discuss a health insurance program and the immediate steps that might be taken toward its implementation.
At the 1945 conference the federal government offered to relieve the provinces of all responsibility for old age pensioners, seventy years of age and over, and in addition the federal government would pay 50 per cent of the cost of providing a pension with a means test to those from sixty-five to sixty-nine inclusive. While we are opposed to the means test feature of this proposal, we are convinced of the necessity of providing a pension for the people in this age group. The plight of those between sixty-five and seventy is more serious now than it was four years ago. As jobs become more scarce, the plight of this particular age group will grow more serious. I am sure that most of the provinces would welcome an opportunity of discussing with you and your ministers the steps that might be taken during the next few years to care for a group, who, I am sure, are giving all of us a good deal of concern.
One of the reasons why the government of Saskatchewan looked favourably upon the federal government's proposals in 1945 was that they made provision for maintaining "full employment and a high level of national income" during times when an economic recession might restrict purchasing power and precipitate unemployment. The danger of such a state of affairs is just as imminent now as it was four years ago and there are signs that would indicate that it is even a greater potential menace than it was in 1945. The government of Saskatchewan believes that nothing but good can come of discussing and preparing plans that would be available to provide large-scale public works projects of socially useful undertakings. We have every reason to believe that the municipalities of our province, both rural and urban, would cooperate wholeheartedly in the preparation of such plans, and, if it becomes necessary, in their implementation.
The matters referred to above are of vital concern, not only to the people of Saskatchewan but to the other provinces of Canada as well. I am sure that the other provincial governments must feel as we do that the time is long overdue when the federal and provincial authorities should seek to find a solution to these and related social and economic problems. Since the dominion government convened the conference in 1945 and the matter of reconvening it was left to their discretion, I think I am not putting it too strongly when I say that the responsibility for immediate and effective action now lies with you and the members of your cabinet.
I trust that you will not think that I am pressing you unduly so soon after a federal election, but I know that you will agree that these and other related problems are of an urgent nature. We are hopeful that the federal government will now be prepared to give the necessary leadership to tackle these problems with vigour and sincerity.
Assuring you of our willingness to attend such a conference, should it be called, and promising you our co-operation in anything that will prove beneficial to the welfare of the people of Saskatchewan,
I remain,
Sincerely yours,
T. C. Douglas
OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER Canada
Ottawa, August 18, 1949
Hon. T. C. Douglas, M.L.A.,
Premier of Saskatchewan,
Parliament Buildings,
Regina, Saskatchewan.
My dear Premier:
When I returned to Ottawa after a much appreciated holiday, your letter of July 15 was brought to my attention.
I thank you for your congratulations, and I assure you that I agree it is the duty of all of us who believe in democracy, and who desire to see our nation progress, to co-operate with each other to advance the welfare of the people whom we represent.
I am not convinced, however, that the best way for us to attempt to discharge that duty is to come together at once in a full-dress dominion-provincial conference.
In such a conference it would no doubt be felt by some that fiscal matters should be those to be considered first, and even quite recent press dispatches have shown that there are still some who insist that before attempting to go into details "there should be clear recognition of the priority of the provinces as regards direct taxation."
Now, it is quite out of the question, for those who have the responsibility for all matters coming within the classes of subjects enumerated in section 91 of the British North America Act (including national defence), even to consider restricting in any way the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada for "the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation".
That, of course, does not mean that there are not many matters about which there can be and should be wholehearted co-operation between the federal government and the provincial governments.
It has seemed to us that, in view of our past experience, more progress can be made towards bringing about that co-operation by preparatory work consisting of frank discussions with individual provincial administrations about separate concrete questions, and such discussions, which, I hope, will be fruitful and prepare the way for a general conference that would not again become abortive, have already been initiated.
As you know, the existing tax arrangements with the seven provincial governments who have entered into agreements with us extend only to the 31st of March, 1952, and we are committed to the calling of a conference not later than one year before the expiry of those arrangements.
It may be that as a result of the separate discussions that have been initiated, it will be found desirable to call this conference considerably earlier than one year before the date of expiry of the arrangements, and it may be also that it will be found desirable to have, at an earlier date, some general conference with a more restricted agenda, to deal with specific problems about which general agreement might be expected.
That, however, is something about which one cannot be specific until the prospects of being able to accomplish something really useful have been further explored.
Thanking you again for your promise of co-operation, I remain
Yours sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent

PREMIER'S OFFICE Saskatchewan
Regina, September 22, 1949
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Prime Minister:
Thank you for your letter of August 18, which contains your reply to my request for the reconvening of the dominion-provincial conference.
The Saskatchewan government learned with a great deal of regret that you felt that no good purpose could be served by holding a full-dress dominion-provincial conference. I have reason to believe that our regret is shared by many of the other provinces, and indeed by large numbers of people across Canada. May I respectfully suggest that the main reason given in your letter for not holding such a conference is hardly germane to the question under discussion. After all, the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction was convened by your government and the agenda was drafted by the members of your cabinet. I would take it for granted that if you chose to reconvene the conference you would again accept responsibility for preparing the agenda. It is true that in my letter I suggested that such matters as health insurance, old age pensions and responsibility for able-bodied unemployed should be subjects for discussion, but only because these were placed on the agenda by your government in the first place. At no time did I suggest that we should "consider restricting in any way the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada for 'raising of money by any mode or system of taxation' I can quite appreciate the fact that the dominion government would not look with favour upon restricting its fields of taxation, but I made no such suggestion and I doubt that anyone would expect your government to place such an item on the agenda in preparation for such a conference.
Your suggestion that more progress can be made by frank discussions with individual provinces about separate concrete problems is open to question. It is true that there are specific problems regarding difficulties which are peculiar to certain geographical areas which can be handled better by individual discussions. However, this is not true
Appendix
when we come to deal with matters which affect the whole Canadian economy more or less uniformly. I am sure that there is hardly a province in Canada which is not already wrestling with the problem of responsibility for the able-bodied unemployed. This is a responsibility which the Rowell-Sirois commission recommended should be assumed by the federal government, and in August 1945, this was one of the proposals advanced by your government on their own initiative. Already our urban municipalities are confronted with the problem of caring for the employable unemployed, and I am sure that their experience can be duplicated in almost every urban centre of Canada. The Saskatchewan government contends that this is a state of affairs which ought not to be dealt with on a piecemeal basis, but ought to be the subject of general discussion of all the governments concerned and some uniform policy adopted across the Dominion of Canada.
I am pleased to note that you hold out the hope that it may be found desirable to convene a conference with a limited agenda. As I have already stated, the matter of the agenda lies largely with your government and you will have to accept the responsibility as to how limited the agenda will be. If it is so limited as to exclude matters which vitally affect the welfare of the people of Canada, then your government must accept the responsibility for the limited results which the conference can achieve. Certainly it seems to me that the items which are listed in my previous letter are the irreducible minimum which ought to be on the agenda of such a conference, but whether extensive or limited it is the firm conviction of the Saskatchewan government that the dominion-provincial conference should be reconvened before some of the difficulties confronting the provincial and municipal governments reach alarming proportions.
May I urge upon you and your colleagues the reconsideration of this whole question. Indications from other provincial governments would lead me to believe that some of them are also vitally concerned lest there be further delays in tackling some of the pressing problems that are the concern of all who are charged with governmental responsibility.
Yours sincerely,
T. C. Douglas
[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 17, 1950