1952-05-01

Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege again in connection with the return that was passed on March 12, and which reads:
For a copy of all communications that passed between veterinary officials either provincial or federal and the federal Department of Agriculture, together with all records since the 17th day of November, 1951, relative to the cattle epidemic of vesicular stomatitis or foot-and-mouth disease in Saskatchewan, also all certificates or statements of analysis showing the results of the chemical examination of suspected specimens of either of said cattle diseases.
I would ask the minister to produce further documents that today were brought before the committee on agriculture, and that should have been included in this return; also the certificates or statements of analysis, none of which appear in the documents that were tabled here.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I understand that the matter referred to by the hon. member was discussed in the committee this morning, and my hon. friend wishes to have the documents which were tabled in the committee tabled here as well. That will be done.


John George Diefenbaker: There are still some, other than those tabled in the committee. There are still the certificates of analyses that were ordered to be tabled here, and they have not been tabled in the committee as yet, nor have they been tabled here. The place where those documents were to be tabled was the House of Commons, and I am asking now particularly for these certificates of analyses, none of which was included in the return tabled.


James Garfield Gardiner: So far as I know there is one table of analyses which should be in the documents. I indicated that this morning, and it was to have been produced this afternoon in the committee. I am not sure that it is ready for production. If it is, it will be there, but in any case it will be brought in.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	What light engine pleasure aircraft suitable for flying club use are manufactured in Canada?
2.	What is the price of these aircraft respectively?
3.	What light single engine aircraft of types similar to the above are imported from the United States?
4.	What is the price of these aircraft respectively, in the United States and Canada?
5.	What is the tariff imposed on these aircraft imported from the United States?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	There are no light engine pleasure aircraft suitable for flying club use manufactured in Canada at the present time.
2,	3, 4 and 5. Answered by No. 1.



WARTIME HOUSING


Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	Does Wartime Housing Limited expect to put up for sale its houses with basements located in the 600 block on 22nd street in Brandon?
2.	If so, when will these houses be put up for sale?
3.	What would the approximate price be?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	No decision has been taken regarding the sale of these houses which are administered by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It is not expected they will be offered for sale in the immediate future.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	See answer to No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Balcom:: Have the purchasing facilities and the medical stores of all departments of the government been consolidated into one procurement and one distribution centre under one branch of the government or one branch of the armed services?



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


Mr. Viau:: 1.	Is there a family allowances regional office In the city of Winnipeg?
2.	If so, on what date was it organized?
1756	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
3.	What were the names and grades of the personnel who organized it?
4.	Of the present personnel of this office, what are (a) the names; (b) date of appointment; (c) grade on appointment; (d) present grade; (e) permanent and date made permanent; (f) temporary?
5.	How many vacancies exist, and in what grades?



OLD AGE ASSISTANCE-WINNIPEG REGIONAL OFFICE

Mr. Viau:: 1.	Is there an old age assistance regional office in the city of Winnipeg?
2.	If so, on what date was it organized?
3.	What were the names and grades of the personnel who organized it?
4.	Of the present personnel of this office, what are (a) the names; (b) date of appointment; (c) grade on appointment; (d) present grade; (e) permanent and date made permanent; (f) temporary?
5.	How many vacancies exist, and in what grades?



NOLAN V. HALLET AND CAREY

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What was the total expenditure, paid or incurred, for (a) legal fees and disbursements; (b) travelling expenses; (c) other costs and expenses not included as legal fees and disbursements, in connection with the Nolan v. Hallet and Carey case?
2.	Are there any outstanding accounts for solicitors' or counsel fees that have not been submitted?
3.	Who were the counsel for the prosecution, and how much did each receive?



GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Is the five-day week in effect in any department of government, or in a crown corporation or government agency?
2.	If so, in what departments, corporations or agencies?



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he has anything further to disclose on the building of a catwalk on the railway bridge at Burlington for the use of pedestrians?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I should like to deal first with the question which the hon. member asked me yesterday, which I think is somewhat different from the one he asks now. The question reads in part:
. . . will the minister consider allowing the use of the Canadian National railway bridge for pedestrian traffic?
The management of the Canadian National Railways advise that the railway bridge is a swing bridge and that it is normally left open to allow the passage of vessels and
(Mr. Viau.]

closed only when trains have to cross. There is no walk of any kind for pedestrians, and persons crossing would therefore be required to walk on the track ties. This is obviously hazardous, and the Canadian National feel that before the bridge is used by pedestrians the company should be indemnified against any claims for damages or injuries which might arise as a result of such use. If the municipal authorities concerned are prepared to give a bond satisfactory to the railway relieving the company of any responsibility for possible accidents occurring from the use of the bridge by pedestrians, and will then communicate with the vice-president of the Canadian National Railways, Toronto, consideration will be given to allowing pedestrians to cross the bridge under the conditions mentioned.


Frank Exton Lennard: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe on one occasion, and that was during the construction of the present highway bridge, the railway bridge was used for that purpose.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: A question on the order paper in my name was passed by the house as an order for return on March 20. The question related to certain statistical items concerning federal aid to education. I have had no answer as yet to that particular question.
While I am on my feet, I might mention that on Monday, April 7, the house passed an order for the production of certain papers for which I had asked, and as yet I have received no information. I trust that the Secretary of State will expedite these answers.


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):: shall be glad to look into the matter.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Is the
Prime Minister in a position to advise regarding the commencement of the sittings of the commission on the South Saskatchewan river project, and also whether sittings will be held in Saskatchewan as it has been determined will take place in Manitoba and Alberta? Will the government ask the commission to endeavour to arrive at an early conclusion?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The only answer I can give is that the government has asked the commission to expedite its proceedings, and has indicated to the commission it was very anxious to get its report at the earliest possible date. With respect to the other matters about which the hon. member is inquiring, I shall have to get the information from the commission and I shall endeavour to do so as soon as possible.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Could he inform the house under what statutory authority Mr. George S. Currie was appointed to carry out certain investigations which the minister described in this house a few days ago?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: I would have to look it up. I believe there is authority under the National Defence Act.


George Alexander Drew: Will the minister take that question as notice and give the information, in view of the other discussions which are taking place which might refer to that subject?


Brooke Claxton: Right.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: On Tuesday, April 29, when the orders of the day were called, I directed a question to the Minister of Agriculture, who was not in the house at that time. The question had to do with the steps the department proposes to take to assure that producers of cattle and hogs, especially cattle, will receive the floor price for their cattle which the government announced. There is great dissatisfaction in the Winnipeg yards this week.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the position in Manitoba is a little difficult, in view of the fact that we have not yet reached an understanding with the government of Manitoba as to when the embargo which has been placed on the slaughtering of cattle at Winnipeg will be removed. It is a little difficult to operate on that market from our point of view until that situation is cleared up. I must say that the last time that I looked at the
Inquiries of the Ministry market, which was either yesterday or the day before yesterday, the Manitoba market was above the floor price.


James Arthur Ross: Does the minister's statement apply to other provinces as well?- because I understand there has been difficulty outside the province of Manitoba. Some days the floor price has not been paid in Winnipeg, and I understand the same condition has prevailed in certain other provinces as well.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are some difficulties in dealing with the establishment of floor prices until such time as we get cattle moving. It is quite true that there are difficulties in Saskatchewan, since there is no place to slaughter cattle from eastern Saskatchewan until Manitoba does permit them to be slaughtered in Winnipeg.


James Arthur Ross: Would the minister say what action is proposed to assure that the producer does receive these prices when the other technicalities have been removed?


James Garfield Gardiner: Action in that connection has been taken and a system to put it in effect is established right across the country now. The whole question has been discussed with the board and everyone concerned and a set-up is there in order to deal with it. But there are some features of the actions of some provinces up to the moment which make it impossible to deal with it effectively in certain areas. We must reach understandings there before we can give any further guarantees. The provinces may be within their legal right, but we think there must be more co-operation before we can carry out some things for which we have no legal responsibility and therefore no mode of enforcement. We must reach our conclusions by arrangement and by agreement if we are going to do things which a province has a right to enforce and which they do not want us to enforce.


Mr. Harkness:: I wish to address to the Minister of Agriculture a question supplementary to those put by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). The question is this. Have the floor price difficulties at Calgary, which the parliamentary assistant was out there two days ago to discuss, now been resolved? If so, what settlement was made of them?


James Garfield Gardiner: The parliamentary assistant returned from Calgary only this morning. I have not yet had an opportunity to discuss the question with him, since I was in the committee all morning, and so was he. Just as soon as we have discussed the question, 1 will report further on it.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Douglas Scott Harkness: Can the parliamentary
assistant not tell us?


Mr. Robert McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: I am
certainly not going to make any report to the house until I first report to my minister.


Mr. Rowe:: The minister certainly has him well trained.



INQUIRY AS TO OPERATION OF BEEF SUPPORT PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will he indicate to the house in what provinces the announced beef support price is now actually in operation?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, Mr. Speaker, where they follow our directions, they are in operation everywhere.


Harry Oliver White: Are they in operation in the province of Ontario?


James Garfield Gardiner: They have been functioning fairly well in the province of Ontario.


William Earl Rowe: Within about three cents.



ASSURANCE TO PRODUCERS OF FLOOR PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister aware of the fact that producers in Saskatchewan are getting as low as 10 cents a dozen for eggs? What steps is the minister taking to see that the floor price for eggs is enforced?


James Garfield Gardiner: The arrangement with regard to eggs is that at any storage across Canada where there are eggs in surplus around about December 1-it is toward the end of the year, the date not being established exactly- those eggs will be taken by the federal government or by the department.
As is known, for the last two years there have not been any such eggs and none have been taken. We have notified some of those who are dealing in eggs that if they continue to pay or if they are paying a price which is below the floor, we are not obligated to meet the condition set out. That is, if buyers of eggs who are putting eggs in storage are, over a period of time, buying eggs at, say 10 cents a dozen, when the price at which we agree to take them over is 38 cents, they have


been notified that it will make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to collect from the government.


John George Diefenbaker: What check have you on that sort of thing?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have pretty fair checks on it.



INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT-PROGRESS OF LONDON DISCUSSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister make any statement to the house with regard to the progress, in London, of the discussions on the international wheat agreement? I believe they opened there on April 17.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I cannot make any statement. The discussions are being held in camera. No official statement is being issued by the negotiating group, and probably no statement will be made until the conference ends.



HANDLING OF 1951 PRAIRIE CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: 

THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, April 30, consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Courtemanche Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
(Translation):
Mr. Henri Courtemanche (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, April the 8th of this year, thousands of Canadians were hoping that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) would at last bring them good news, would at last inform them of substantial tax reductions. We all know, however, what has happened. In this budget brought down by the Minister of Finance, one would search in vain for anything that would encourage the unemployed in Canada, give hope to the victims of the housing shortage, give the heads of families cause to expect any substantial decrease in the cost of living. Our great treasurer has, in brief, decided to maintain taxation at a very high level, the effect of which is to promote unemployment, aggravate the housing shortage and contribute substantially to the increase in the cost of living.
The Minister of Finance should therefore not be surprised if no one has offered him congratulations nor thanks except, of course, those who are duty bound to kowtow to him and especially to approve by their vote the budget he has brought down, however dissatisfied their electors may be with these apparent and hidden taxes the government of this country is constantly levying.
In keeping with the mandate given me by the taxpayers of Labelle county, I shall certainly not approve the budget which the Minister of Finance has brought down. However, I shall take the liberty of paying him a compliment. I can tell him that on the evening of Tuesday, April 8, he made a speech which was marvellously and tragically consistent with the best and the worst traditions of the Liberal party. Having heard that speech and read the newspaper comments on the next day, I was reminded of the speeches of the present Prime Minister's predecessor, which all at once confounded, mystified, intrigued and embarrassed the whole of this country's press.
Moreover, nobody has forgotten that memorable banquet, at the end of which all those present were wondering whether the then head of the Liberal party had resigned or not.
Today, I admit that the Liberals are past masters in the art of saying "yes", while suggesting that they mean "no". A despicable art, if there is one, but an art which

remains, I believe, the main cause of the often lengthy period of office enjoyed by Liberal governments.
The Minister of Finance, following in that respect the example set by some members of the Liberal party who now belong to history, has announced that taxes would be reduced while demonstrating at the same time that they were going to increase. He succeeded so well in this task that, the next day, the learned members of the press, all over Canada, were at a loss to express an opinion, and to give an interpretation of this verbal avalanche which served to camouflage a real and truly existing increase of the income tax. It did not take long, though, to see through this most involved situation and L'Action Catholique of Quebec, in its Wednesday, April 9, 1952 issue, headlined in the following manner its report on the changes in income tax:
Income tax is lowered but everybody pays more than in 1951.
This Quebec city newspaper had succeeded in condensing hours and hours of speeches into a mere dozen words. I told myself that the Minister of Finance would have done well to follow a course in journalism or to become a newspaperman in order to learn how to think in a more compact manner, how to clarify his thoughts, how to give them preciseness so that after hours and hours of words, sentences and figures nobody would have to say: "What is really happening to us?"
It is obvious that the minister is likely to lose his post the day he will be able to act in such a way because the Liberal party, as has been made clear by experience, does not like its members to make themselves too well understood. That is a luxury that the Liberals can afford only when they have reached the Senate. Indeed, some hon. senators, members of the Liberal party, do not hesitate when opportunity affords to state fully what is on their minds, what they used to think but could not reveal heretofore.
Shortly after his speech in the house, the hon. the Minister of Finance addressed the nation over the radio in an effort to explain the confusion. If my interpretation is correct -but I would not be too sure about it-he stated that in announcing a tax reduction, he had meant that taxation was going to be reduced on the basis of what we were supposed to pay for this year, but that it would obviously be higher than in 1951.
That statement was a little clearer but we may ask the minister what prevented him from being equally explicit before the house.
I know that the hon. minister has in
his department a lot of experts who exercise

their wits in order to complicate everything. But the public is fed up with such complications. Our people want things to be clear and clearness can always be easily attained when there is nothing one wants to hide, when there is nothing one wants to cover up, when one does not want to make the taxpayers believe that the moon is made of green cheese.
Therefore the budget speech conforms to the best traditions of Liberal policy as far as ambiguity and apparent contradictions are concerned.
However those gentlemen to the right will answer that the income tax has been decreased although there will be no decrease in fact because of the addition of a social security surtax but they will say we have lowered many taxes, for instance, on washing machines, stoves, appliances, soft drinks, furs, cars, travelling bags, etc. Obviously there has been some relief, but now, if ever, is the time to say too little and too late.
Let us take for example the tax on cigarettes. The minister has lowered that excise tax by three big cents.
But up to now there has been no indication of an increase in the sales of Canadian cigarettes. There is no indication, on the other hand, that smuggling of American cigarettes has slowed down. This means that because of excessive taxation our people are getting used gradually to breaking the law the same as in the United States the corruption there in certain taxation departments of Washington is blamed on excessive taxes.
Because of the fact that taxes on cigarettes are still too high, unemployment will continue in the tobacco industry, producers will remain in a difficult financial situation, and the revenue from taxes on cigarettes will decline.
Why does the Minister of Finance persist in imposing excessive taxes on any commodity at all? Has he not been forced to recognize the fact that he made a serious mistake when he last increased the excise tax on cigarettes and that his estimates of revenue from this source were as wrong as his other estimates?


Mr. Lesage:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Henri Courtemanche: I have no objection.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I read on page 13 of yesterday's-that is Wednesday, April 30- edition of Le Droit, the following news item:
The hon. member for the histone county of Labelle, Mr. Henri Courtemanche, created some sensation yesterday at the House of Commons by condemning the budget presented on April 8, by the Hon. Douglas C. Abbott.
The Budget-Mr. Courtemanche
And if I go on reading that article, I find, word for word, the remarks which the hon. member has just made. Did the hon. member make the very same speech in this house yesterday?


Henri Courtemanche: I am grateful to the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) for having pointed this out to me. I had not read the paper. I shall explain to him that I had been asked for my text. I am not responsible for its having been published before I actually made my speech.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Who wrote it first?


Henri Courtemanche: I do not need the hon. member's help to write my speeches.
Taxes are indispensable to public administration and, when they are levied fairly and logically, they can become a great factor of progress. On the other hand, when they are not levied discerningly they can be a source of destruction, of surprisingly rapid destruction. What is true of the cigarette tobacco industry is also true of other industries, as well as of individuals and the community.


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: That's right!


Pierre Gauthier: It is in the paper.


Henri Courtemanche: Le Droit knew that I was going to make a speech. It said so in advance to warn my opponents.
The surplus of revenues over expenditures announced by the Minister of Finance could have been used to bring about a reduction in income tax so as to help the taxpayer. I mean a true and real decrease, not a lower tax on what we could have paid but a large reduction on what we have been compelled to pay up to now.
Income tax discourages and depresses. Every Friday or Saturday, when his pay envelope is handed to him, the first thing the worker does is to look for all the deductions. And he discovers that the sum which actually remains in his envelope is very much smaller than the salary that his employer actually hands out to him. If he happens to obtain an increase he feels frustrated again, for he soon realizes that he benefits very little, very little indeed, by that increase, since the income tax has claimed its share, that is, generally speaking, the lion's share. I feel that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) will be bound to admit that these deductions from the source do not help to improve the relationship between capital and labour. What workers really want-and one cannot blame them for it-is
1762	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Courtemanche a net salary which would be big enough to enable them to look after the needs of their families. Often, one is flabbergasted by the nominal salary. But once the compulsory deductions have been subtracted it is quite another story. Our southern neighbours have long spoken of the "take-home pay" when discussing the labour problem.
How can we expect householders to save for the future when they cannot even balance their budget because the Minister of Finance is not the least interested in balancing his?
Of course, government members try to find excuses to justify overtaxation. There is national defence! There is social security!
Let us deal first with national defence. I am all for it and I recognize everything possible should be done when the country is in danger. However, the term national defence is apt to become the perfect pass-key with which the people on the right will elude their responsibilities and duties. Are we to forget that countries have been ruined through ensuring their national defence? Today, one wonders what would have happened, had it not been for assistance from America. And later, when we also shall be bankrupt, who will help us?
If truly national defence were involved, no one would object. We should call it "international defence", defence of South Korea, defence of Germany. It would be surprising to know what percentage of the appropriations for so-called national defence will be spent in Canada for Canada. Is it not true that some people have expressed dissatisfaction because there were insufficient funds for civil defence? Yet, if there be an important feature of national defence it surely is the budget that could be voted for civil defence.
I know that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) does not like anyone to criticize the way in which that national defence is organized. I believe, however, that enough things have happened these last few years to allow us to state that, if care is not taken, national defence will really become national wasting of money.
The Minister of National Defence does not like criticisms. But he should hardly expect any congratulations from us for the manner in which those military camps which are not in use at present are being watched and protected.
Social security is also beginning to be a pass-key. Should anyone venture to criticize certain items of the budget he is accused of


being opposed to social security. No, I am not opposed to social security. On the contrary, I would like to see it granted in the greatest spirit of charity, generosity and kindness. Should social security, however, be used as a pretext to ruin the taxpayer? Have the experts of the Department of Finance considered what kind of social security we will have, in spite of all possible allowances and pensions, the day this country goes bankrupt?
National defence, social security, these are, in our mind, two arguments but too frequently used by members on the government side to hide their poor administration, their excesses of all kinds, their errors. The real champions of national defence and of social security are not those who think that both these fields call for unrestricted expense but those who demand a closer control for one and the other with regard to the employment of sums levied from taxpayers, i.e. those who oppose attempts to justify all these abuses by putting forward both these arguments as a shield, or as an armour.
If individuals have scarcely benefited from any friendliness on the part of the Minister of Finance, corporations have not been much more fortunate. I believe that the fate of heads of families, in town or country, ought to worry us more than that of large or small corporations. I am sorry to say that it but too often slips the mind that excessive taxation with regard to these companies only falls back on the small man, who in most cases suffers from it to a greater extent. Let me explain. An overtaxed corporation cannot be developed nor expand as it would want to do.
It is thus prevented from establishing a great number of new jobs which our 370,000 or so unemployed would certainly not fail to welcome. Besides, and that is the most important point, a corporation or company is made up of hundreds and thousands of small shareholders, such shareholders being, very often, widows, orphans, workers saving for the future, far-sighted farmers and numerous small wage earners.
Any attack launched against the big companies is also directed against those very people. Banks and insurance companies are called upon, in many cases, to provide the funds needed by a good many concerns. Whenever corporations are overtaxed, banks and insurance companies are hard hit as also are, indirectly, those with small savings or insurance policies.

Whenever a tax is imposed, whatever that tax may toe, it is like a stone cast into the water. Upon hitting the water, the stone starts a constantly widening circle. The consequential effects of a tax are a bit similar to those ever widening circles. They never reach but a small group; yet as a consequence the whole nation is made to suffer. No matter how we tax, tax again and overtax the big interest, the small wage earner will always be the one to suffer most, and a day will come when only those of extremely moderate means will be left to bear the whole burden of taxation.
I would like to say a few words about the taxes levied on crown companies in the new budget. In my opinion, crown companies should not be exempt from any municipal or provincial taxes. But I am wondering what difference it can make to the federal treasury whether these companies pay federal taxes or not. Is it not true that whatever deficit they have will be made up by Ottawa and is it not true that if they register a profit, it will go into Ottawa's coffers?-at least we hope so. This will undoubtedly require more red tape, more bureaucrats and more civil servants; it will increase the cost of administration. In a word, it will increase the taxpayers' burden and nothing more.
In fact, would it not be a means of sheltering those companies from criticism on the part of members of parliament, of sheltering them from the indiscreet and inquisitive investigation of the people's representatives, at least of those in the opposition? Could these taxes paid into the federal coffers not be used as an excuse to strengthen the immutability of the bureaucrats who administer those government enterprises? I must say that it looks pretty fishy to me.
The Minister of Finance abolished the 15 per cent tax on washing machines, stoves and refrigerators. In so doing he merely put an end to an injustice but he cannot make up for all the wrong done through a tax that was both so unfair and so ridiculous. Who could ever conceive that a washing machine, a stove or a refrigerator could be considered as luxuries and taxed accordingly? We do not know a single housewife who considers her stove as a luxury any more than she believes she is using an article of luxury on Monday mornings when she starts to do her weekly washing. As far as the refrigerator is concerned, under modern living conditions, due to our small accommodation and to the
The Budget-Mr. Courtemanche necessity of making use of all that is bought, because everything is so dear, it has become indispensable in most cases. We heartily approve the abolishing of the 15 per cent tax on those articles but abolishing that tax does in no way make up for the wrong that has been done these last few years.
(Text):
In conclusion may I say that the people of Canada are too heavily taxed. Our taxation has reached a point where it is nothing less than a tragedy, because it has brought about a crisis in unemployment and a shortage of living accommodation. About a year ago, on April 14, 1951, the day after the budget speech of that year, which was not any better or more promising than this budget, a Liberal newspaper of Montreal, Le Canada, tried to cheer up its readers by stating that there were other people much more heavily taxed than we were, the people of Great Britain. That was a poor consolation, if you ask me, but it perhaps was a very good illustration.
If today the people of England are more heavily taxed than we are, if they are facing a national economic crisis, it must be attributed to the heavy taxation which has been imposed for the purpose of national defence and social security. There was a time when the people of Great Britain had to undergo all kinds of sacrifices in order to ensure the national defence of their country, but afterwards the expenditures on social security were certainly exaggerated.
Soane time ago the main object in Great Britain, as it is in Canada today, was national defence and social security. Now they find their national defence is in danger and social security cannot be ensured any more. To avoid bankruptcy they have had to go backward. It may be found in the near future that we in Canada will have to do the same because our system of taxation may become an instrument of ruin instead of progress.
Two thousand years ago Isocrates, the Athenian, said that those who were making money should be considered as criminals and punished more severely than criminals themselves. If that man came back to earth today and saw the new budget of the Minister of Finance, he would have to say, as I say myself, that today it is not only those who make money who are punished as criminals; it is also those who earn a simple and modest living.


Mr. G. T. Fulford (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker,
during the first two months of this year I

The Budget-Mr. Fulford came to the conclusion that Canada was Utopia, and it was not until my return from South America to Canada and to this chamber that I realized, from the speeches of hon. members across the way, that perhaps all was not well here. My wife and I travelled to South America by sea. It took us nineteen days to go from New York to Buenos Aires. During those nineteen days I had many conversations with citizens of the United States prominent in business,' governmental and military circles in their country. Without exception these men spoke of the envy they felt of this country. One of the chief points they emphasized was the fact that Canada had a large surplus, and that since the war we had written off over $2 billion of our national debt. These are matters which seem to be the source of great complaint in Canada, according to hon. gentlemen opposite and a certain section of the press of the country. But I can imagine the howl that would go up in that same section of the press if Canada should have deficit budgeting year after year and pile up our national debt to unheard of heights.
High taxes are not pleasant for anyone.
I am sure everyone in this chamber will agree that I should have no love for high taxes. Like many others, I think of yesterday, April 30, as probably the blackest day of the year. But the fact remains that the rest of the world knows of our financial set-up, of our great industrial development and of the progress this country is making. It is not easy for the government to maintain high taxes. It would be much easier to lower them and get in right with everyone and it is not easy to introduce credit restrictions. But one has to leave our own shores to appreciate just what the policies of this government have done for this country and how much better off we are than any other nation on earth.
Speakers on the opposition side have made much of the fact that the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar today is roughly 50 per cent of what it was before the second world war. I wonder how these critics would feel if they lived in a country whose currency had depreciated by one-sixth or one-tenth or even one-fiftieth, and where the cost of living had risen sixfold while wages had only doubled. These are manifestations one sees outside Canada, which drive home how beneficial have been the policies adopted by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in particular and the government as a whole.
I wonder how they would feel if our credit had shrunk to such a low level that we were unable to make purchases from foreign countries. Yet that is exactly the predicament


in which many other countries find themselves today; and that is not restricted to South America by any means.
I happened to be in Brazil the day the Canadian dollar reached parity in relation to the United States dollar, and I was astounded to see that the newspapers in Rio de Janeiro headlined that fact. To Brazilians it was a great achievement, an almost unbelievable fait accompli. In Brazil much is known about Canada because of the development of hydroelectric power in that country by the Brazilian Traction Company, and the extraordinary personality of our former ambassador there, Mr. Jean Desy. Wherever you go, when it is discovered that you are a Canadian you are immediately told, "What a wonderful job your ambassador, Jean Desy, did for you in our country." I might add that the visit of Lord Alexander did much to cement the friendship between the Republic of Brazil and the Dominion of Canada. The film board has also done a great deal, not only in Brazil but throughout South America, to help our neighbours of the Americas become Canada conscious. Wherever I visited our trade commissions and embassies I was told there was a constant demand for more and more pictures produced by the Canadian film board.
I was very interested in a line-up I saw in front of one of our embassies in South America. It was made up of newly arrived Italian immigrants who were trying to obtain entry visas to Canada. In some way a false rumour had started that the Canadian embassy was granting Italian immigrants visas to go to Canada. In spite of repeated denials by our charge d'affaires a new line-up formed each morning in front of the embassy doors, waiting to see the proper officer, hoping to obtain visas. To me that showed in no uncertain manner how anxious the people of other countries are to come to our shores, which hold out so much promise to them.
In Chile I discovered a large potential market for Canadian products. Unfortunately we do not buy enough from Chile to give that country the credits to enable it to make purchases here. In many respects our economies are parallel, and there is very little that we can exchange. I would suggest, however, that if Canada needs more nitrates during this period of national defence construction, or more copper, those products be obtained from the Republic of Chile. I believe that Canada could buy certain fresh fruits and wine from Chile. Our seasons are exactly opposite. When it is midwinter in Canada, it is midsummer in Chile. The fruits of that country are of a superior quality, and by

importing those fruits it would be possible to furnish Chile with some Canadian foreign exchange.
Last week while in Montreal I was surprised and gratified, on going into a fruit store, to be able to buy Chilean grapes. I only hope that this is the beginning of a large trade in that particular line. I am quite certain that were we to purchase more from Chile, she would come to Canada and buy large quantities of wheat, dairy products and manufactured goods.
In passing, I should like to note that I flew from Santiago, Chile to Buenos Aires on an airplane operated by British Overseas Air Corporation. I am particularly happy to say that this plane, although termed an Argonaut by the British, is in fact a Canadian-made North Star. At 19,000 feet we flew safely and comfortably, and I might add proudly, through the various passes in the Andes mountains, with the mighty peaks towering above us in some instances 3,000 to 4,000 feet. In speaking to a member of the crew of that airplane I was told that B.O.A.C. consider their Argonauts or North Stars one of the safest and most rugged of any aircraft flown by that company. I may tell the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that while in South America I travelled on no less than four air lines, and on each one of those air lines both wines and cocktails were served. You know, the drinking habits in South America are considerably different from those in Canada. In order to meet competition the air lines are forced to serve wine and cocktails, just as they are to serve meals. No one is required to take the wine or cocktails and I know that my hon. friend would be like me and refuse them. The fact remains that throughout all these southern latitudes it is the accepted thing that air lines serve wine and cocktails.
The one great tragedy I noted when visiting the great South American ports like Rio de Janeiro, Santos-the greatest coffee exporting ports in the world-Montevideo and Buenos Aires, was the almost total lack of ships flying the British flag. In fact, in the four ports I only spotted one British flag, and that was on a royal mail steamer in regular service between South America and England. I mention this, and I repeat that I consider it a great tragedy, because it shows how much British trade has been diverted from world markets to the dominions and colonies within the sterling zone.
While in Port of Spain, Trinidad, I made it a point to enter quite a few of the smaller shops, chiefly grocery stores. I found that virtually all the goods displayed were of British origin or perhaps I should say British commonwealth origin. Unfortunately, the
The Budget-Mr. Fulford display of Canadian goods was conspicuous by its absence. For instance, one could find quantities of cheese and butter from New Zealand and Australia. In exchange Trinidad sends tinned citrus fruit to New Zealand.
I discovered also that virtually all of the dried and smoked fish on display came from the Scandinavian countries. Formerly, this type of goods was supplied by the great maritime provinces of Canada. It does not seem right or economically sound that all this trade has to be diverted away from Canada. Certainly, it is an economy that is built on false premises. We could use all the tinned citrus fruit that Trinidad could produce. We could use much of their fresh fruit and yet, under the present system, this fruit is being sent halfway around the world.
I was asked, while in Port of Spain, why it was that Canada was no longer buying all its cane sugar requirements from the British West Indies. My answer was that we were buying some of our sugar from Cuba for the simple reason that Cuba would trade with us. In order to sell, one must buy and the man to whom I was speaking agreed. The next question he asked me was, "Would you consider bringing the British West Indies into confederation as the eleventh province"? I said that frankly I had not given the matter any consideration and I did not think anyone else up here had considered it sincerely. He said, "Take this message home with you: a lot of consideration has been given to that in the British West Indies." Actually in developing new or old markets for our dairy products, agricultural products and our fisheries, it would go a long way in solving a very knotty problem. I have particular reference to the cheese problem that is so evident in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, at this time to go into all the ramifications of the cheese problem, because I have had many talks with both the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and his parliamentary assistant. They well know my stand on this important matter.
Just a week ago today I had the opportunity of accompanying delegations of cheese producers and milk producers from the counties of Leeds, Prescott and Glengarry to an interview granted us by our Minister of Agriculture. It was one of the longest and one of the most understanding interviews, I believe, that I have ever had with a cabinet minister. I believe that the minister explained his position clearly. However, I should like to say that if the cheese producers are unable to make satisfactory arrangements through their own association in conjunction with the marketing board of Ontario, the marketing board of Ontario and the federal Department

The Budget-Mr. Fulford of Agriculture should get together in a spirit of co-operation to devise a method of keeping the cheese market at a reasonable level.
Cheese is a vital agricultural industry throughout the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and especially in eastern Ontario. It would indeed be a tragedy for our dairy agriculture as a whole if the price of cheese should break or if the bottom should drop out of the market. I should therefore like to suggest that when a floor price is set for cheese, it should be high enough to reimburse the producers for the capital they have invested and for the wages that are paid. There is, of course, such a thing-and we saw it work last year-as overpricing an article, when it becomes profitable for other countries to export their products to this country in competition. But there must be some point in between where the milk producers and the cheese producers of this country will be adequately reimbursed for their labour and for their capital invested and at the same time there will be produced a market where competition from outside sources will not be too heavy.
I am firmly convinced that there is a market for our cheese right in our own country, and that every effort should be made by all concerned-by the Ontario marketing board, by the Ontario cheese producers' association and by the federal Department of Agriculture-to get our cheese right across Canada, and to get the people of Canada cheese-conscious so that our people eat at least as much cheese as the people of Britain ate before the war. If we did that, we would absorb all the cheese that is made in this country and there would still be room for imports. In the meantime let us do all that we can to fill our needs from our own market, along with an attempt to get rid of any surplus stocks that are on hand in the markets of the world.
To return to the budget for a moment, I cannot agree with my hon. friends opposite when they say that the general public is displeased or even agitated. In fact, most people were prepared for the type of budget that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) presented. We know that taxes are high; but to avoid a third world war we must do our share as a member of the United Nations and of NATO. At this point I should like to compliment the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell)-and I wish he were in his seat-for his patience and perseverance in finding in a United States publication adverse criticism of the Canadian financial structure.
I have always had a high regard for the Atlantic Monthly; but after all, it is not the type of magazine that has a wide circulation.

However, we see in the great national weeklies such as Time, Newsweek, U.S. News and World Report, in magazines such as the Reader's Digest, and in the great dailies such as the New York Times and the New York Herald Tribune references to Canada's fiscal policy, all of which are in the most glowing terms; and in the great financial papers such as the Wall Street Journal we see great recommendations for investment in Canadian stocks. I would ask this question, Mr. Speaker. Could it be that the Atlantic Monthly is like the person referred to in the old song: "They were all out of step but Jim."
The budget is really straightforward enough when one considers what the taxpayers would have paid under the terms of the old budget. By the wildest stretch of the imagination no one could accuse the Minister of Finance of trying to deceive the public. The Minister of Finance gave what would have been collected in taxes, and what we would have had to pay had the terms of the 1951 budget continued throughout 1952, and he compared the difference in taxes we would be paying under the new tax scheme.
For a moment, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal briefly with a subject that has been discussed both in the Ontario press and in the Ontario legislature. It is a subject about which, strangely enough, little has been said until recently, although it was six years ago when the then minister of finance allowed the provinces not coming under the dominion-provincial tax agreement to collect 5 per cent of the dominion income tax levy, which amount was deductible from the gross income tax payable by the individual taxpayer to the federal treasury. It would appear that the provincial government found income tax so distasteful that it was unwilling to set up the necessary machinery to collect this income tax. As we know, Ontario along with Quebec did not choose to enter the dominion-provincial tax agreement. There may have been good grounds for not accepting the formula proposed at the last dominion-provincial conference. Certainly Ontario has not fared badly during the last five years. This has resulted, no doubt, from the gross national product being much higher than could have been contemplated. The 1947 agreement provided for payments based on the gross national product and population data for three years preceding the year of payment. Ontario's collection from corporation income taxes and succession duties reflected this rise more quickly than the payments provided for under the three-year formula tax agreements.

17G7
In his most recent budget speech on February 21, 1952, the treasurer and premier of the province of Ontario produced a table to show the total collection from corporations, succession duties, statutory subsidies and excess mining and logging royalties. Over the five-year period the taxes I have just mentioned amounted to $456,300,000, which is about $7 million more than the total rental payments of $449,500,000 which the province would have received under the tax agreements. The total of $456,300,000 shown in the table also includes $10 million for uncollected corporation taxes, succession duties and mining and logging taxes. The province will have to wait a number of years to collect all these arrears. On the other hand, the total of $449,500,000 which Ontario would have received during the five years of the tax agreement would have been fully paid up as of June 30, 1952.
The Department of Finance has informed me that under the new tax agreements, to start in 1952, payments will be adjusted on the basis of the G.N.P. for one year immediately preceding the year of payment instead of three years. This results in the rentals payment reflecting more quickly any change in the economic position. It is interesting to note that the estimated payment to Ontario in 1952-53 under this proposed new agreement is considerably in excess of the amount Ontario estimates it will receive from using the tax fields in question. I would like to place this short table on the record:
Estimated payment to Ontario under new agreements in 1952-53-$137'5 million.
Amounts Ontario expects to collect in 1952-53: (as shown in forecast of revenues for 1952-53 in Ontario budget speech February 21, 1952).
million
Succession duty	 $16
Corporations tax	
89	millionStatutory subsidy	
3-6	$108-6Excess under a tax agreement	28-9
It is estimated that the payment to Ontario under the new 1952-53 agreements will be $137,500,000. These are the amounts reported by the premier and treasurer on February 21, 1952, which Ontario will collect should it again decide not to come into a dominion-provincial tax agreement. This amount shows succession duty, $16 million; corporation taxes, $89 million; statutory subsidy, $3,600,000; or a total of $108,600,000. Subtracting $108,600,000 from $137,500,000 you get $28,900,000 to the good should Ontario enter the new dominion-provincial tax agreement.
I would not presume to advise the premier and treasurer of Ontario whether the province should or should not come under the new agreement. But if it should decide not
The Budget-Mr. Johnston to, I would respectfully suggest that if the province is unwilling to collect the 5 per cent allowable income tax, the provincial government permit the municipalities within the province to do so. This would not set a precedent, because municipal income taxes were permitted in the province of Ontario prior to 1936. Probably this would require authorization from the federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), but I can see no reason why this should not be allowed under the offer already made to the two provinces of Canada not signing formal tax agreements. It would not cost the income tax payers of Ontario any more than they are already paying, and it would help the hard-pressed municipalities where real estate taxes have more than doubled since the war. I might say that the tax rate in the two larger municipalities in my county, the towns of Brock-ville and Gananoque, are, by a strange coincidence, both set at 86 mills, making it unbearable for the property owners.
By allowing the municipalities to collect income tax it would assure them of a steady income, and it would more than supplement the uncertain subsidies now granted the municipalities in the province.
In conclusion, I should like to say that to appreciate this country one must investigate conditions in other parts of the world. It is true that we are not satisfied with all that is going on here. If we were satisfied, we would cease to make the progress that is so vital to our future. We have advanced more than any country in the world since the war, and, I might add, we are the envy of all, but the fact remains we must seek to move forever forward and forever upward.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for a while today about two things. I want to refer somewhat briefly to the budget, and then I wish to spend some time on national housing. Before I do either of these things I should like to make a few comments about the remarks made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat.
At the opening, and again at the closing, of his remarks, he laid particular emphasis on the fact that Canada had had such a wonderful period of prosperity. Of course, that is true; it is very true indeed. But he took great satisfaction in saying that the federal government was largely responsible for that. Of course, that is not true. The first remark was true; the second one was not.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Oh, yes, it was.


Charles Edward Johnston: Oh, no, it was not.

The Budget-Mr. Johnston


George James McIlraith: Yes, it was. Good fiscal policies are great factors in the economic position of the country.


Charles Edward Johnston: The only federal influence on prosperity is the preparation for war. If that preparation for war were taken away today, we would find ourselves right in a depression again:
Let us look at the prosperity that we have had across this country. Let us take one good example. Let us take Alberta. What has the federal government done for Alberta?


George James McIlraith: Marketed the wheat crop.


Charles Edward Johnston: And they beat us out of $504 million coming to us.


George James McIlraith: Do you remember the
time-


Charles Edward Johnston: They tried to satisfy that $504 million claim with a measly gift of $65 million. That is what they did for us. I will tell you something more that the federal government did for Alberta. In Alberta there has been a great industrial expansion in the field of oil. But let us look at the position of the Canadian prospectors in the province of Alberta when it comes to comparing the tax relationship between Canadian investors and United States investors. In the field of drilling in the province of Alberta the United States investor gets a much better deal from the United States government than the Canadian investor gets from our federal government. That is an operation suffering a great handicap for Canadian capital investment in oil production in Alberta. But, despite that fact, and owing largely to American capital investment, that business is progressing very rapidly in western Canada.
We remember that during the war the federal government spent around $5 million by way of investments in the tar sands of Alberta. The work done by the federal government was absolutely of no use. Then for some reason or another, mysterious or otherwise, at the close of operations the plant at Fort McMurray burned up.
On the other hand the provincial government had gone ahead and carried on development of the tar sands to the point where, when the last report was put out, it is now feasible, both economically and commercially, to extract the oil products from the tar sands, and to compete in the commercial field with the wells being drilled.


Mr. Prudham:: But they had all the
advantage of all the experimental work and research work of the federal government.


Charles Edward Johnston: The federal government
never did a thing, even though there was

a war on. They never came to the point where they could successfully separate the oil from the sand.


George Prudham: They went a long way toward it.


Charles Edward Johnston: They started back before 1914, and what developments did they make? The development carried out by the federal government in connection with the tar sands, from away back in 1914 up to the present time, is very little, compared with what has been done by the province, and when compared with the progress the province has made since the federal government burned up that plant at Fort McMurray.


George Prudham: That's a lie. They did not burn up their plant.


Charles Edward Johnston: I should not say deliberately, but it burned up.


George Prudham: They have not solved the problem yet.


Charles Edward Johnston: According to the last Blair report, they have solved it. But perhaps you are a better authority than Mr. Blair, who is an engineer and took pains to prepare a report upon it.
Let us see what the federal government has done for western Canada in the field of freight rates. I am going to give them a good deal of credit because, after about a hundred years, there had been some equalization of the transcontinental rate. But the action now being taken by the railway companies will greatly nullify any benefits those of us in western Canada received from the transcontinental rate.
I suggest that throughout the history of this country the rate structure has been such as to impede, to a great degree, the industrial development of western Canada. Yet the western provinces are advancing, despite the federal government.
When the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Ful-ford) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) say that our national product has reached an all-time record of $22-5 billion, they do not need to be so cock-eyed sure of themselves. They do not need to throw their chests out and say, "See what we have done."


Mr. Knowles:: Just cock-eyed.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is the private industries
and the provincial government that have been responsible for the industrial development of Canada-and that, despite the handicap put on through taxation and otherwise by the federal government.


George James McIlraith: You are talking as though there was a provincial election out there.


Charles Edward Johnston: We do not have to worry about that. We can look after that quite well.


George Prudham: They are worried this time.


Charles Edward Johnston: And, incidentally, they are going farther afield, so that some of the others had better watch their step, too.
For a moment let me refer to the national debt. But before 1 come to that may I say a word about the budget, because a discussion of the budget will lead to a discussion of the national debt. According to the Minister of Finance, the estimated expenditures for this year will be $4,270 million, but he has budgeted for $4,279 million, leaving a surplus of $9 million. The hon. member has just referred to a provincial election, and he may have had in mind the fact that it looks much better to estimate a surplus of $9 million than to estimate a surplus of $722 million, which was the surplus in the first nine months of last year.
Of course everyone knows that that is not going to be the surplus. So why make it the estimated surplus? Even the Minister of Finance and his parliamentary assistant know quite well that the surplus will be much greater than that. Why, last year-


Mr. Sinclair:: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member has tried to put words in my mouth, in company with the Minister of Finance I do believe that the surplus will be as he has indicated. If however Canada continues to expand under a Liberal government, as it has done in the past, we might have more revenue -and we hope we will have.


Mr. Hees:: Despite the Liberal government.


Charles Edward Johnston: I will accept the statement of the parliamentary assistant, that in his judgment, and the best judgment he can get from departmental officials, the surplus in the next year will be $9 million, if conditions stay the same. If conditions stay the same as they are we are positive that the surplus will be somewhat close to what it was last year- and that is a long way from $9 million. So the only thing I can say to the parliamentary assistant is that his judgment is going to be exceedingly poor. It may be the best he has, I will grant that; but I do not think one has to be a prophet to estimate that, if things go along as they have been, the budget surplus will be around $300 million or $400 million- and that is a long way from $9 million. It may be that my estimate is a long way out; probably it will be. But I do not have around me an array of experts to make estimates. But I will bet the parliamentary assistant anything he likes it will be closer to the sums I have mentioned than to $9 million.
The Budget-Mr. Johnston
The Minister of Finance has told us that in the year 1951-52 the national debt was $11,473,300,000, and he pointed with pride and satisfaction to the fact that they were able to reduce the national debt by $355,700,000. Of course he did not say that the people had been overtaxed, that there had been an unnecessary increase in taxation.
He says that this is a proper procedure and, when he was speaking, I think the parliamentary assistant said the same thing.


James Sinclair: Quite right.


Charles Edward Johnston: They agreed that during a time of prosperity it was good practice to put on a little more taxation, and to reduce the national debt. Well, we have had a Liberal government since 1935. The war started in 1939, at which time the national debt was $3,152 million. A Liberal government has been in power since 1935, and during its term of office the national debt has risen from approximately $3 billion to over $11 billion, including deductions.


An hon. Member:: Why?


An hon. Member:: What was responsible for it?


Charles Edward Johnston: The federal government was responsible for it, and nothing else.


An hon. Member:: Ever hear about the war?


Charles Edward Johnston: There was a war on, but-


James Sinclair: He took good care not to hear about the war.


Charles Edward Johnston: What is that?


James Sinclair: When the hon. member made that statement I said that there had been a war, and then I said that since he ignored the fact there was a war between 1939 and 1945, and took good care to ignore it-


Charles Edward Johnston: I did not ignore the fact that there was a war. You should wait until I finish my sentence. When I said they did make an increase you said there was a war on. But who was responsible for raising the debt up to $3-5 billion, if it was not the federal government? There was no war on then. But even though there was a war from 1939 until 1945, the financial policy followed by this government was to borrow unnecessarily from financial institutions and chartered banks, thus creating a tremendous amount of debt.


James Sinclair: And borrowing from the people of Canada. We paid for over half of war financing out of current taxation.
1770	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Johnston


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) wants to know what happened between 1935 and 1939 when there was no war and yet our national debt kept climbing and climbing.


James Sinclair: How much?


Charles Edward Johnston: From about $2,000 million to over $3,000 million. Of course you do not call that much. I am speaking only from memory. The parliamentary assistant probably has some financial assistants behind him and he will be able to put the figures on the record. I turn now to page 1249 of Hansard where the minister is reported as having said this:
This is the sixth successive year in which we have had a surplus-
He should have called it overtaxation, incidentally.
-and it brings to the very large and gratifying total of $2,344 million the amount by which we have been able to reduce the net debt of Canada since April 1, 1947. Applying the current average interest rate of 2 65 per cent on our outstanding debt, this represents interest savings of more than $62 million a year.
It is said a total of $62 million has been saved the taxpayer by that reduction of $2,344 million, but how much has this government unnecessarily taxed the people because they have increased the national debt from around $3,000 million to over $11,000 million? That is the question. No wonder interest payments on our national debt are now over $441 million. Subtract the saving of $62 million from that and you find that because of the improper and inadequate financial policy of this government the Canadian people are being forced to pay that amount.
I want to turn to page 1252 of Hansard where there is another gem that I want to read. Before I do that I should like to refer to something the minister has said on a number of occasions. In order to avoid being accused of improperly quoting the minister I will quote his words as reported on page 1254 of Hansard:
In other words, the average taxpayer will pay six per cent less than he would otherwise have done under the income tax law as it now stands.
The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford) referred to that a moment ago and that is why I am putting it on the record. I contend that any person reading that statement would come to the conclusion that he was going to have his taxes reduced this year by six per cent. I say that because nearly all the newspapers, the worth-while ones anyway, interpreted that statement as indicating that there was going to be a reduction. They pointed out that the people of Canada naturally expected a reduction, but of course
IMr. Sinclair.]

such was not the case. Without repeating all the figures that have been placed on Hansard regarding this, let me mention just a few. A taxable income of $1,000 will face an increased tax of 12-1 per cent. A taxpayer with a taxable income of $3,000 will pay as much as 11-6 per cent more. The fortunate person with an income of $398,000 will pay only 5 [DOT] 1 per cent more. I do not intend to quote many more figures in that regard although many more could be put on the record.
It will be seen from that that the ones who are being penalized, the ones who must pay the greatest increase, are those with low incomes. That is exactly the place where increases should not have been applied. I was somewhat amused in reading the speech of the Minister of Finance to read the following as reported on page 1252 of Hansard:
There will be no net increases in the taxes paid by corporations-
And then further down:
In considering the over-all tax position of corporations under this new structure it should be remembered that there is an additional two per cent tax on all corporate income imposed under the old age security act. To sum up, then, the top corporate tax rate in Canada will be 52 per cent in eight provinces and 54 per cent in Ontario and Quebec.
This is the pathetic part:
Quite frankly, I am concerned that conditions make it necessary to maintain in our tax structure rates as high as this on business profits. My main concern is not with the current year or even possibly with next year. The ill effects of too high taxes can perhaps be endured for a year or two. But as I said last year, excessive rates of tax on corporate incomes if long maintained can do grave damage to the economy as a whole, and I say quite candidly that if I had more leeway for tax abatement it is to income taxes, both corporate and personal, that I would give first consideration.
You can see from the figures I have just placed on Hansard that the consideration increased taxation was not with the poor of the Minister of Finance with regard to man, was not with the man with the low income. I agree that corporate taxation is high when it comes to 52 or 54 per cent; but, if consideration must be given, in my judgment it should be given to those in the low income brackets. When you look at the balance sheets of the large corporations you find that they all indicate increased profits. While taxes were reduced on certain commodities, I venture to say that in no case could you find that reduction reflected to the full extent of the tax reduction. Nearly all of them showed increased1 profits because of the reduced taxes.


Mr. Martin:: Was the tax reduced on automobiles?


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, the tax was reduced on automobiles but the prices of automobiles were not reduced by the full amount of the tax.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Were they not?


Charles Edward Johnston: No, they were not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, they were, I am sorry.


Charles Edward Johnston: They were not in western Canada because I have the prices right here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would be glad to have them.


Charles Edward Johnston: I said that I wanted to divide my time up between two subjects, the first being the public debt and the other national housing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. member send me those figures privately or put them on the record?


Charles Edward Johnston: I will.


Frank Exton Lennard: The hon. member is right because that is what happened in eastern Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They say not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whose speech is this?


Charles Edward Johnston: I may say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that I have a clipping in my desk. I will get it and send it to him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank my hon. friend very much. He is always most kind.


Charles Edward Johnston: I hope I shall always be. I always give credit where credit is due. I want to speak now about our housing problem. I do not think there is an investment in Canada or anywhere that can bring a greater return in happiness and contentment than the owning of homes. The National Housing Act was put into force because the government hoped that it would bring about increased and better housing. When the Canadian Congress of Labour appeared before the government on March 27, 1952, they made the following submission, and I quote from the Canadian Unionist of April:
The Curtis committee estimated the accumulated housing backlog at the end of 1945 at 648,000 units. For the four years 1946-1950, and the first three-quarters of 1951, net family formation is officially estimated at 484,500. Housing wastage by fire, demolition, etc., was probably around 48,500. Total current housing needs for the period were therefore about 533,000 units, while total housing completions in the period were about 472,000. We built more housing than ever before in our history, but we did not even keep pace with the current need, let alone cut into the backlog. On the contrary we fell further behind. The total backlog is now probably over 710,000 units.
Taking an average family of three people, a backlog of 710,000 units would mean that
55704-112J
The Budget-Mr. Johnston over two million people are without proper housing. That is not a very good thing for Canada. Housing conditions in this country should be improved, and in my judgment two things should be done. Building regulations under the National Housing Act should be so revised that more houses would be built, and more important, so that better houses would be built. I have here a booklet recently issued by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation setting out the building standards under the housing act. On the title page it says:
Minimum requirements for planning, construction and materials for buildings upon which loans are made under the National Housing Act, 1944.
Then in a little box on the front page it says:
It is imperative that every borrower examine these standards.
I wonder why that should be so. I am going to say that the reason every person should examine these standards very carefully is to give the borrower the assurance that his house will be built according to the plans and specifications set out in this government pamphlet. You may say that the plans and specifications as such are not set out here. That is true, but the standards upon which those plans and specifications are based are carefully and minutely outlined in this booklet. Let us turn to the first page, where the heading is, "The National Housing Act, 1944. Central Mortage and Housing Corporation building standards for urban, suburban and farm housing." The first paragraph reads:
The standards for housing in respect of which joint loans may be made are prescribed under section 5, 2(a) and (b), section 10, 2(a) and (b) of part I and part II and under section 14, 2(b) of part III.
These standards shall apply to detached, semidetached, duplex, semi-detached duplex and row housing. They are not intended to apply to apartment houses.
It says these standards have the force of law, and it gives the chapters and sections of the statute. There should be no question but that when a borrower takes the advice of the government and carefully examines these standards he is justified in coming to the conclusion that they should have the backing of law. Down a little on page 5 under the heading "general conditions" I find these paragraphs:
(e)	Changes from the approved plans and specifications of the project on which a loan commitment has been made will not be permitted without first obtaining written approval.
(f)	The prospective borrower is advised that construction shall not be started until plans and specifications have been approved by C.M.H.C.
(g)	The applicant or his contractor shall inform the office where the application was made of the proposed date of construction in order that inspections may be made at the proper times. These
1772	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Johnston inspections are for the purpose of ensuring that proceeds of the loan are being used to construct the house in accordance with plans and specifications submitted, and upon which the cost of constructing the house is estimated.
Notice that it says "in order that inspections may be made at proper times" and that these inspections are "for the purpose of ensuring that proceeds of the loan are being used to construct the house" in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted. I do not know what greater assurance could be given those who want to build houses, and more particularly those who have built houses under this act, than this booklet which clearly outlines the standard of approved government construction. But I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that not one house in a hundred is constructed according to the standards outlined in this booklet.


George Prudham: You are wrong.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am not wrong; I have had a good deal of experience along this line. This thing is one of the most criminal pieces of propaganda ever put out. A great many people are losing money, buying poorly built houses, because of the false information given here. There is nothing in the law that will cause Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or the lending institutions to see that these standards are lived up to. I have raised this question many times in this House of Commons. Just the other day I received a letter from Ville St. Michel, Quebec, dated March 10 and addressed to the government and members of parliament. I have not time to read it all, but I want to read part of it:
We wish to bring to your attention as a member <of the house and a representative of the people that in building our homes the contractors failed to comply with certain of the minimum building standards as provided for in the booklet put out by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
And further:
Surely one would conclude, as we did, that in laying down the conditions under which loans would be made, that the machinery would also be provided by which these conditions would be enforced, but on making inquiries of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation the reply is as follows:
"The Prudential Insurance Company of America carry out inspections on your property to ascertain whether this unit was built in accordance with N.H.A. standards, and they would be in a better position to ascertain or take action against the builder towards rectification of items as listed by you."
You will notice they did not say the Prudential Insurance Company would take action, but merely that the insurance company carry out Inspections. The manager of the insurance company in Calgary which was financing these veterans houses there told me they did not put inspectors on the job to see that these standards were lived


up to. The only reason they put inspectors there, if they ever did, was to see that their loan was guaranteed, that it was used for that purpose. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation does not have inspectors to see that these building standards are lived up to; that is what they told me in Calgary, and now we have the very same thing in Quebec. This letter goes on to point out that they have taken up this question with their member, who has made certain efforts to have their position alleviated but apparently with no results. I have taken up the matter on many occasions, but I have never heard that hon. member discuss the question in this house. I hope he does; he will certainly get my support.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my time is fast going. I am not the only one who is complaining about this. One of the considerations controlling the policy of the department with respect to housing is the lending institutions; make no mistake about that. The other day a fellow living in Calgary wrote me saying he wanted to get a loan under the National Housing Act and visited the lending companies in Calgary, but they refused. It is within the city limits and there are other houses in the vicinity, but because the mortgage company did not like putting money out in the suburbs this man could not build the house. I wrote to the minister and asked him for some explanation of this condition. His reply is dated March 27, 1952, and reads as follows:
As you know, early in 1951 the lending institutions began to tighten their operations under the National Housing Act, and restricted their activities in the larger urban areas. In an attempt to offset this trend, the government raised the interest rates under the National Housing Act in June, 1951, and again in October gave the lending institutions higher guarantees against the higher lending values which were introduced at that time.
These steps have been taken in an attempt to encourage lending institutions to widen their present restrictive policy. However, you will appreciate they are free agents in the matter of lending under the National Housing Act, and the government cannot force them to lend at levels or in areas where they do not wish to.
It seems to me that is very good evidence *that it is the lending institutions who are making the policies of this country and not the government.
Then in the Ottawa Journal of April 8, 1952, there is an article bearing the heading "Says life insurance companies trying to control housing." The article reads as follows:
F. A. Mager of Winnipeg, president of the National Housebuilders' Association, said the life insurance companies are attempting to regulate the amount of housing to be built in any one area of Canada.
"They even tell us what materials we can use, despite what is laid down in the national building

code," he said. Their attitude amounted to contempt for the government and the building industry generally, he added.
Then he goes on with further remarks about it. Surely that is evidence enough to indicate that the people of Canada are not getting what they are paying for. In almost every instance these building standards are being flouted right under the people's noses. This building standards book calls for three sets of plans and specifications. For whom are they prepared? The book does not say anything about that. The three sets of plans are for the lending companies, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the contractor. There is no provision for the builder or owner having a set of plans in his possession.
Is there any provision whereby the owner can get access to these plans? We went to the local offices of Central Mortgage and to the contractor to try to see these plans and specifications. They brushed us off just the same as the others. The poor devils in the province of Quebec are getting the same brush-off. It seems to me that this government should introduce some legislation that would afford some protection of the money which the home builder has invested, and which would ensure that the money was properly spent. Then, the buyer would be sure he was getting the house the government tells him he will get if he builds according to these standards. At the moment, all the crimes are not committed in the comic books, and this booklet could be classed as the No. 1 crime comic.


Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: It was
rather amusing to hear the oft repeated remark by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sinclair) "under the Liberal government." I believe he was referring, at the time he made that remark, to the prosperity we find in Canada due to the efforts of labour, private enterprise, the farmers, United States investments and the great fertility of the Canadian soil. I feel confident that the people of Canada are beginning to realize that from now on, whenever they hear such remarks, they really mean "Canada under the thumb of the Liberal government." It is in that position Canada finds herself today, under the thumb of the Liberal government. The Liberals are willing to take credit for all the prosperity that Canada and Canadians are enjoying, and for the discovery of oil, primarily by the Imperial Oil Company and the other big oil companies which are controlled from the United States just as Imperial is controlled and operated primarily by Standard of New Jersey. To hear the Liberals in this house talk about
The Budget-Mr. Ferguson prosperity during the last six or seven years you would think that none of it was due to the preparations for defence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I hear some hon. members saying "hear, hear". They are still shouting "hear, hear", but the public does not need any reminding that Canada is definitely under the thumb of the Liberal government. If we were not under the thumb of that government and feeling the suffering and pangs of the government, Canada, with all its natural resources, the energy of its people and the working capital flowing into it which has never flowed before, would be progressive to a far greater extent than it has been under the thumb of the Liberal government. In spite of the natural resources, in spite of the efforts of private enterprise, labour and farmers, we find we are facing an increasing shortage of houses. Canada has a chance that it has never had before. The eyes of the world are on this great and prosperous country. What planning has this Liberal government done in the length of time it has been in office, both prior to and since the war.
Let us actually analyse the efforts of this government. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, at a time when he was an ordinary member, severely criticized this government for its lack of accommodation for the members of parliament who were sent here to put forth their best efforts on behalf of their constituents. I do not suppose he would care to repeat that address today, but it was quite true. It certainly was a correct and severe criticism of his colleagues for the unbusinesslike manner in which the accommodation for members of parliament is handled. No industrial concern in the world would pay an executive $4,000 a year with $2,000 expenses, then cloister him in a room about ten feet by ten feet with another executive earning a like salary. This is true not only of this government but past governments, but I believe it applies more particularly to this government. It is utterly impossible for the members who are overcrowded with two in a room to carry out their work and properly represent their constituents.
People are inclined to look upon members of parliament and members of the Senate as statesmen or would-be statesmen. Let us remind the people of Canada that in my opinion every man and woman who votes should be a statesman in selecting representatives capable of carrying on the business of Canada. When these representatives are sent here by the people of Canada, they

The Budget-Mr. Ferguson deserve far better treatment than they are receiving from this government. What can the people of Canada expect when their representatives, who are supposed to hold one of the highest offices in Canada, are shown the lack of consideration which they are receiving from this government. Forgetting the duties of the rubber stamp, I am sure that most Liberals in this parliament today, if permitted to vote without threat of the loss of a judgeship or of the position of parliamentary assistant, would get to their feet and vote that immediate steps be taken to improve the position of members of the House of Commons with regard to their facilities.


Mr. Croll:: We would all vote for that. We are all for it.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You say you are all for it. So are the people of Canada. But you members of this House of Commons cannot get any better action with regard to your complaints than can the rest of the people of Canada. That is the result of being under the thumb of the Liberal party, as I have already mentioned. The members of parliament are under the thumbs of the Liberal party-not only the Liberals but the C.C.F., the Social Credit and the Conservatives-with regard to proper accommodation in which to carry out their duties to their people.
I have here a clipping from an outstanding and reputable paper. I refer to the Toronto Telegram. I believe this clipping has a great deal of truth in it. It reads in part as follows:
Prime Minister St. Laurent has laid down the law to Liberal members that there is to be only one session ol parliament this year. He is said to have told a party caucus a few days ago that the business of the House of Commons must be cleaned up by July 15.


David Arnold Croll: Hear, hear.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Someone says "hear, hear". Rubber stamps! The clipping continues:
If it isn't, he will adjourn parliament and continue the same session in the fall. That meant M.P.'s and senators would be paid only one $4,000 sessional indemnity in 1952, even though they may have to sit again later in the year.
Mr. St. Laurent plans shortly to serve similar notice to the other parties.
He plans to do that. Imagine that. I just cannot credit the idea that the Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada actually has those plans in mind.


An hon. Member:: That is the Telegram.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am sure the Telegram's source of information was reliable.


An hon. Member:: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) laid down that condition the other day.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The hon. member will have an opportunity, in a few minutes, to answer intelligently. There will be plenty of opportunity for him to defend his government, if he wishes to do so. I do not think he will wish to do so very wholeheartedly.
If there is legislation to be attended to at this parliament by the representatives of the people, just imagine such a threat being made that hon. members will have to sit here until the hot days of July or else they will have to go into the fall, following an adjournment of parliament, and that they will have to do it for $4,000 a year. Let me say this to the members of the House of Commons. If the people of Canada want in parliament the men they need, $4,000 a year or a session is far too little to attract such men. It is far too little to bring into parliament the type of men the people of Canada need.
If we cannot finish the business of the people which we are sent here to transact in a businesslike manner, parliament should go into a second session and the people of Canada should be glad to pay an additional $4,000 for the services of men who are handling the job properly. If those men are not handling the job properly, the democratic form of government gives the public the privilege to say so. The labour unions of this country would consider it an insult to offer their leaders the stipend which is offered to the makers of the laws of this country, the men who appoint the judiciary of this country, namely $4,000 a year with $2,000 expenses.
I do not know of a member of parliament who does not know, when he comes here at that remuneration, that he is compelled to live in a room on the third floor of a rooming house in Ottawa. He cannot afford to live in proper quarters such as the Chateau Laurier unless he takes the money from his own pocket. A member of parliament is called on by his constituents to answer his door and to attend to their affairs long after the butcher and the baker have turned the keys in their stores at 6 o'clock at night. He is at the beck and call-and rightly so -of his constituents who are worried about one matter or another. If he is the right kind of man he knows of these responsibilities when he offers himself for election. But the members of this government, which has the people of Canada under its thumb, in the length of time they have sat in office have not been men enough to come forward and raise the salaries of the representatives of the people to an amount which is somewhere near what it ought to be.
It is a disgraceful situation. How can we conscientiously feel that we, as a body, are

responsible for appointing judges at $8,000 a year, how can we feel responsible for the making of the laws to be administered by those judges, at this disgraceful and insulting remuneration of $4,000 a year? Surely you are not afraid to stand on your feet and tell your constituents that you believe you are worth greater compensation for your efforts. If the people do not think so, at election time they will tell you so, me included. Most of the members feel as I do, but they sit back and say, "I don't think it is good politics to mention that." I am not built that way. I am sent here to mention matters which I believe are of vital importance to the people of Canada, whether it means my defeat or my re-election. At the end of my term the voters will decide. I hope I shall always remain that way.
There is confronting the people of Canada at the present time a problem of the most serious nature; I refer to the foot-and-mouth disease. Some people are blaming the civil servants, the departmental officials, for lack of knowledge, lack of attention and carelessness. It is almost time that all cabinet ministers, without any hesitation, assumed all responsibility for the people working under them in their various departments. The cabinet ministers of any government should say to the civil servants under their jurisdiction something to this effect: Irrespective of how you received your appointment or under what government you received it, and irrespective of the length of time you have served this country, I will take into serious consideration your contribution towards the administration of this department but I am also going to mete out a punishment that is just and fair for any lack of proper attention to your duties, because I am responsible. The cabinet minister is responsible. We find this shifting of responsibility to department heads, shifting it to civil servants, through lack of guidance by the cabinet ministers at the head of these departments, through lack of taking into serious consideration the importance of their position as cabinet ministers.
The previous speaker asked: If the war in Korea ceased, what kind of depression would we have? Hard-headed, sane, worried finam-cial experts, industrialists, and representatives of labour are saying: What is going to happen next? Where are we headed, in spite of the natural resources that God gave to Canadians, in the year 1952? You all know that that is true. People are all following the middle of the road course. They are afraid to invest capital in industry. They are afraid to pick the plums we have. We know that. The harvest is ripe in Canada. We are afraid to bring in more immigrants. We are afraid
The Budget-Mr, Ferguson to develop this great country. We are afraid of unemployment. This is not the Sahara desert. This is the Dominion of Canada, one of the richest and greatest countries in the world. It is prosperous in spite of the Liberal government and in spite of the failures of past Conservative governments.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: We have all made mistakes; all governments do, except the Liberal government. They are never willing to admit their mistakes. They are afraid. They take all the credit for the prosperity of Canada- prosperity in spite of the Liberal government. It is time that some of the cabinet ministers, particularly the lawyers, got out of there and they put a few more industrialists in there. If that were done the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) would not stand out so much like a sore finger with his great business training. Things would be better if there were a few more industrialists in the cabinet. With all due respect to the members of the legal fraternity, of which the cabinet of the Liberal government is principally composed, when they need a lot of valuable advice I am sure they will agree with me when I say that they must have to turn to the Minister of Defence Production and say: "What do you say, C.D.? We are lawyers, we do not know."


Mr. Robertson:: And they get a real answer.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: They get a real answer as far as they are concerned, because they would not know whether it was right or wrong.
The training of a lawyer is long, and I am sure that all members of the cabinet who are lawyers are good lawyers, but they say: "you may go so far and no farther; that is the law." There is very little vision for the future about that. The Minister of Defence Production is the sore finger in this cabinet, and when he makes a suggestion the multitude of lawyers in the cabinet say: "I guess you are right; you take over that portfolio." What a great fellow he is.


Mr. Riley:: That is pretty tough on lawyers.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That is pretty tough on lawyers, but it is quite true. There are 180 odd Liberals in this house. Probably they will be glad when I have finished speaking. I am quite sure they will, because I am going to say this to them. When they vote in this house on national issues and on conditions which they know confront them, such as office accommodation and lack of housing in Canada, and the great industrial falling down in the middle of the road, they vote as a body. Can you imagine 180 odd members

The Budget-Mr. Ferguson voting 100 per cent on an issue in this house? What a pang it must be to the conscience of some representatives whom I know when the whip speaks to them and they vote as one. We should have a few more Churchills in the Liberal party. There was a man who changed from the Conservatives to the Liberals and back to the Conservatives again. It is time we had more men like him.
I hope the day will never come when I sit in parliament and demonstrate, as I have seen it demonstrated here, the unanimous vote of this party on practically every issue.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: When you say "this party" do you mean your own?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: No, the Liberal party.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: What about your own?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Ferguson has not always voted with his party, and I intend to continue in that way. The people of Simcoe North are the people who sent me here. Let me say this: I will always remember that fact, because my duty is to those people as well as to the people across Canada.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: All unanimous on combines.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I voted on the combines because I believe the way I voted was the correct way to vote, and for no other reason.


Mr. Cavers:: What about the St. Lawrence waterway?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Some hon. members would have liked to vote with me, but that parliamentary assistant fish was dangling under their noses, and a judgeship in the future was dangling under their noses; certainly senatorships were. There are quite a few vacancies that have not yet been filled. They are lovely things to hold up to the boys and say: Now, you have to keep in line or you will not get a senatorship; there are two or three coming for your province. You are getting a little older.


David Arnold Croll: Envy will get you no place.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: They certainly hold the vacancies open long enough for you to get a chance, because they will always be there.
In closing I should like to impress upon the few cabinet ministers sitting here today the necessity of doing everything in their power to try to eliminate the scandalous office conditions that the people's representatives are asked to put up with in the House of Commons today. Immediate steps should be taken to remedy the situation in the most economical and businesslike way. I impress upon the cabinet of this country and the members supporting that cabinet the necessity of putting forth every effort. Let us

have less red tape and less procrastination in order to build houses that are needed by thousands of people across Canada. Let them stop patting themselves on the back and get down to earth. Bring more immigrants to this country who will work along with the people already here and continue to spread and enlarge the prosperity brought about by the ingenuity of the Canadian people who are here now, and the great neighbour we have to the south, coupled with the natural resources of Canada that should be developed in order to support a population five times the size of that which we have today and still be prosperous.


Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) for relinquishing part of the time allotted to him so that I may have a few words to say before six o'clock. With what he has had to say I am to a large extent in agreement. Knowing that he comes from a family of distinguished and eminent lawyers, I think that we can probably take his remarks with respect to the legal profession with a little bit of salt. However, I agree with him as to members' salaries, and what member in this house does not agree with him? With respect to other things, of course, we should like to have co-operation.
We should like to limit speeches in this house to thirty minutes so that we may be permitted to leave this chamber by ten o'clock in the evening and not have to stay until eleven o'clock every night. If he will use the same forensic ability with his party on that matter we shall achieve that goal. I know the government is not desirous of throwing any weight behind this, because they are not anxious to put any pressure of their majority on the opposition. They want to give them every opportunity, but I am sure that if he will use his ability, which I envy, we shall accomplish that.
I should like to say a word on behalf of my constituency, which has probably the unique distinction of being the only constituency in Canada which is wholly south of the United States. A constituency is only about as good as the people that live in it. The people in our constituencies-and when I say "our constituencies" I mean the constituencies of Essex East, Essex South and Essex West- are showing their ability, their kindness, their large-heartedness at this present time. Because of our geographical situation we, like other constituencies bordering on the great lakes, are having considerable difficulty at the present time. As soon as the floods became manifest in our area an engineer was sent immediately to the area, by air, to make a survey. He has reported back. Subsequently the Minister of National Health and Welfare

(Mr. Martin), the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Clark) and I have interested ourselves daily in that subject, and have attended meetings of the citizens group formed in the constituency of Essex East, and which is doing such a remarkable job.
I would say, in fact, that they are doing a heroic job, working day and night under great hardships to keep the flood waters back. They are not always successful, because there have been occasions when the flood waters have poured in over the dikes and over the waterfront of lake St. Clair, covering the main highway to a depth of about two feet. However the provincial government has seen its responsibility, and it, too, is doing a good job. There is an engineer in attendance to give advice, and he has been working closely with the local committee.
In my own constituency of Essex West, along the Detroit river I was instrumental in getting the towns of La Salle and Sandwich West to start an organization. The organization has been continuing and has done a good job in laying plans which would become effective in the event of an emergency. I am sure that if the provincial government finds that the problem becomes so great it cannot cope with it, it need only make application and it will be given every consideration by the House of Commons, as was done in connection with the Fraser valley and Winnipeg floods, and the fire at Rimouski.
Because of our geographical location we have things of great value. I am not particularly interested in discovering what is wrong with the area; my chief wish is to point out any error there may be and then to take every step possible to see that the error is corrected. I wish, further, to emphasize that which is good in the area-and there are many things. I thought this was best expressed by an hon. member of this House of Commons who visited the area, in company with fifty other members. On a bright Sunday morning they went down along the Detroit river to Amherstburg, and up through Harrow and Leamington. Passing through a sunny and rich farming area they saw mile upon mile of fruit trees in blossom, acres upon acres of hothouses in which cucumbers and tomatoes as well as other vegetables were being propagated under glass.
Upon his return to this city I asked him what he thought of what he had seen. With vigorous gesticulations he said, "No, no, no; what I saw I don't believe!" That, I think, best expresses the feelings of those who have seen the rich agricultural district in that area, as well as the great industrial plants.
The Budget-Mr. D. F. Brown Most of all however we pride ourselves on the friendliness of our people, a condition being commented upon each day. Only yesterday it was expressed to me in this building by a person of high rank who only recently in his official capacity had visited Windsor. He told me that of all the places in Canada he had visited, he found the people of that area the most hospitable and the most friendly that he had encountered anywhere.
I do not say that in a boastful fashion, but state it merely as a fact, because I believe to a large extent we have acquired some American traits of character, of which that is one.
I pointed out some time ago that in the area we have large industries, and I should like to refer to that fact for a moment. We have large automobile industries, large pharmaceutical plants and large chemical plants. Then, in association with the automobile industry there are sixty or seventy large and small feeder plants producing parts and equipment being fed to the automobile industry. Those industries have been operating in the area for many years. I believe it is safe to say that in that part of Canada there are more mechanical and chemical engineers per capita than in most other parts. They have acquired the knowhow of the industry. They are familiar with the technique. They are easily accessible to the United States which, either through our tunnel or across our suspension bridge, is only about five minutes away. In that length of time one can go from the heart of the city of Windsor to the heart of the city of Detroit, and he is at once accessible to the large technical ability of not only Detroit but the whole of the United States, because the automobile industry is concentrated in that American city.
Labour in the Windsor area is the same as in any other part of Canada. For the most part the workmen are hard-working, sincere and home-loving. They want nothing more than comfortable accommodation, enough to eat, and the hospitality and warmth of their homes. They have been trained not only in the universities of the area, but in those of the rest of Canada. They have had the advantage of one of the best technical schools in Canada, the W. D. Lowe school, formerly known as the Windsor-Walkerville technical school. This is a large educational establishment with competent instructors who are capable of training students for the automobile and other industries, including those connected with building trades in the area.
Then, we have available to us the University of Michigan located at Ann Arbor Wayne University and L'Assomption College So that labour is well trained; there is nt
1778	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. D. F. Brown reason why they cannot obtain the training they want to have. For the type of production on which Canadian prosperity and security is founded, there must be the utmost co-operation between labour and management. If we'are going to meet our production goals and maintain our present standard of living we must utilize all our productive resources. These cannot be used to the utmost in an atmosphere of suspicion and prejudice. We have had our difficulties in the past and we will probably have them in the future. It may be that because of our proximity to the United States our difficulties in my area are greater, but I think the rest of Canada can be most grateful that we have shown the ingenuity and stability to weather thest storms. I know that we will eventually come out on top.
If we are to overcome our difficulties there must be absolute co-operation. There must be a complete absence of fear, of suspicion and of prejudice. The Department of Labour has done a great deal in the way of providing machinery by which these things may be overcome, and I should like to speak on this for a few moments.
In February, 1943, the then minister of labour and the minister of munitions and supply set up an interdepartmental committee on labour-management committees. It is interesting to note that that good friend of labour, Mr. M. M. Maclean, a valued employee af the Department of Labour, was a member 3f that committee. The people of Canada Dwe a great deal to his efforts.
An advisory committee composed of representatives of trade union and employer groups was constituted to assist the interdepartmental committee. In March, 1943, the government jfficially decided to encourage and sponsor ;he formation of labour-management produc-;ion committees. Of course, that was for war purposes. It might be interesting to put on he record the principles underlying these :ommittees, and I quote from the report of he Department of Labour for the fiscal year inding March 31, 1944, page 44, as follows:
1.	The purpose of labour-management production ommittees should be to examine and consider neans to improve and increase production;
2.	The committee should be composed of repre-entatives from labour and management directly ngaged in production in the particular units or lants in which each committee functions. The umber of representatives of labour should be at ?ast equal to the number of representatives of lanagement. The representatives of labour should e chosen in a democratic manner, preferably from ae various departments or natural divisions of a nit or plant, rather than from the entire working Dree;
3.	The committee should be advisory and consul-itive. Management should examine carefully all ^commendations of labour representatives and, in ases where recommendations are not acceptable,


should provide adequate explanations. Similarly, the representatives of labour should examine carefully all recommendations of management and cooperate in making effective all recommendations endorsed by the committee and adopted by management;
4. The committees should concern themselves exclusively with problems of production, and should leave problems relating to wages, working conditions and similar matters, including grievances, to the appropriate collective bargaining procedure.
A labour-management co-operation service was established in May, 1947, as a section of the industrial relations branch of the Department of Labour to continue the work of the labour-management production committees. This committee was precisely what its name implies, a committee composed of representatives of labour and management to increase production and improve efficiency through greater co-operation between both groups. It is a joint enterprise. It is a two-way communication channel for the exchange of ideas and information on production problems. It is an agency making possible effective plant action on production, conservation, recreation, welfare, morale, absenteeism, safety, and a large number of other important problems. It in no way affects the right of a union to enter into bargaining agreements.
It is not a management plan for the promotion of company unions. It is not a labour plan for taking over the job of management. It is not a bargaining agency or a grievance committee. Wages, hours, working conditions and related matters are subjects for determination by collective bargaining procedures. If time permitted I could go on at some length to deal with the functions of this service.
I would certainly recommend this to industry which must take the lead in the city of Windsor in setting up as many labour-management production committees as is possible. The report issued this year indicates that 789 labour-management committees are operating in Canada affecting 306,427 workers. There is a total of 441 committees in the manufacturing section affecting a total of 164,154 workers. I am glad to be able to say that many labour-management committees are in operation in the automobile feeder plants in Windsor, but I am sorry to say that there does not seem to be the same co-operation in the plants of the big three which is necessary if we are to produce successfully for the betterment of Canada and create the utmost labour harmony.
I urge that industry take the lead in co-operation with the Department of Labour and see that such committees are set up at an early date. I should like to indicate what has been said by a worker in a plant, not in

the city of Windsor, about the work of these labour-management production committees, and I quote:
Things are done with a real team spirit around the place because we all know what's going on and why. Management tells us what's the trouble and we try to show them what's wrong. None of us are perfect. Any of us can be off the beam-but we can tell each other what's on our minds and there's no hard feelings. Sometimes we tell each other plenty. We make a better team when we all know the score.
Some companies throughout Canada in the operation of these labour-management production committees give certain incentives to the workers. I have in mind one company which in order to stimulate production started a competition between four teams of workers operating certain machines in the mills. The winners of this production competition were given a trip to interview the customers of that mill. They visited with the customers and saw what they wanted, and came back full of enthusiasm for the business in which they were engaged and in which they were partners. I think, too, these labour-management committees create confidence as between labour and management as nothing else can. When they get together they can do as we do in caucus, and explain matters frankly and honestly. I think if we are honest and sincere with each other-and this applies to management and labour-we will have greater industrial harmony.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
(Translation):
Mr. Auguste Maltais (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, while addressing my humble remarks to the house today, I do not so much propose to comment on the budget as such, as to submit certain statements on our immigration policy.
Nevertheless, after listening the the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) on April 24 last, I thought it might perhaps be appropriate to put a few suggestions to him.
In a speech which will go down in the history of his party, he indicated to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) how to economize something like $315 million. On page 1569 of Hansard, the member for Moose Jaw suggests that the members of the house should begin by setting an example and reducing the length of the sessions so as to have one session a year, without regard to existing conditions.
55704-113J
The Budget-Mr. Maltais
Since the hon. member has raised this matter without indicating the steps that should be taken to shorten the long sessions of parliament, I wonder why, in his campaign to curtail expenditures, the hon. member did not suggest that the redistribution committee, set up to inquire into the distribution of seats in the house allotted to each province, stick to the letter of the Canadian constitution. Since according to the constitution, the matter of distribution must again be examined in the light of the last census and since according to that same constitution my hon. friend's province is liable to lose five seats as a result of the same census, I would have thought that my hon. friend from Moose Jaw would have asked the house to stick to the constitutional formula and thus save approximately $300,000 in the next two parliaments.
As the hon. member for Moose Jaw stated, it is fitting that members of the house should themselves set the example in curtailing expenditures. I hope that he will be the first to practise what he preaches when the opportunity arises.
In the same speech, he urged the Minister of Finance to delete from the estimates item No. 42, where an amount of $500,000 was voted in order to help the maple syrup producers in the province of Quebec. This aid is granted by the government to help our producers replace the equipment used in the manufacturing of maple products and allow them to export their wares. This industry brings every year into Canada several million dollars, and I do hope that the government will continue to advise parliament to adopt a measure which is so beneficial to our farmers.
While studying the estimates of the same department, the hon. member might have come across the fact that not one among the Ontario or Quebec members tried to suggest that items 46 and 47 of these estimates should be reduced or suppressed altogether because they applied to the western provinces. As far as I am concerned, I have only the most superficial knowledge of the difficulties encountered by our fellow Canadians living in the prairies; I would be loath to see them deprived of the improvements which might be brought to them, thanks to the aid of the federal government. In return, I am sure the hon. member would not wish to adopt, towards my province, an attitude I would be reluctant to take towards any other province.
So much for that. I will not deal any further with the other suggestions made in that same speech since I feel no other mem-
1780	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Maltais ber in this house would want a reduction in the rates of family allowances, old age pensions or in any other social legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I consider the financial administration of the government to be highly important and I am one of those who have confidence and who believe that no country in the world has a better reputation than Canada, from a financial point of view.
The present government has, for a very large part, presided over the destinies of the nation since the dark days of the years 1931-1935 to the present period. During these 17 years that separate us from the "great darkness," Canada has taken an active part in a world war. We were victorious in that war and, if peace is not yet ours, at least we did not have to undergo the tragic crises which were the lot of the other nations with which we shared that victory.
This government, which longed then, like every other free nation, for an era of peace, was soon faced with the threat of new communist aggression and compelled to look, with the co-operation of friendly countries, for a new way of once again preserving world peace, which was threatened by an enemy more terrible than the one we had just defeated.
In seeking this new protection in alliances with other nations, it was imperative that we should assume certain obligations and new responsibilities which, during these last few years, have obliged the government to ask parliament for those appropriations as the price of our security.
Of course such expenses bear heavily upon the Canadian people. But we all hope that our collective effort will show any potential enemy that aggression would be a bad risk and that it would be preferable to settle our differences at a round table.
Many of us are asking ourselves just how far our defence preparations should go in view of the huge sums contained in the estimates. Such a question, Mr. Speaker, deserves an answer because the taxpayers want to know at times where their money goes. We would be on the wrong course if an arms race was our only aim. It is therefore important that the different countries coordinate their efforts so that each dollar spent for common defence be used where it is required and so that no country be called upon to contribute more than is necessary to pay this insurance premium for our common protection.
[Mr. Maltais.J

Canada.today is doing its heavy share and the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance inevitably reflects that fact. And in spite of this international situation which continually requires that ransoms be paid as protection against the forces of war, our government has passed social legislation which, in certain respects, goes further than any legislation existing elsewhere.
There again, tremendous amounts must be provided in order to maintain these social services, such as family allowances, unemployment insurance, pensions for the blind, old age pensions and our national health program. These are dangerous and fascinating times. Our prosperity, fashioned with hope and anxiety, has reached a peak we had never dreamed to attain during the present generation.
The various provincial governments each claim the glory of governing the most prosperous province. The future looks so bright that some of them become dazzled like the Duplessis government in Quebec, for instance, who are led to believe they have discovered the province of Quebec.
In all this atmosphere where prospects of a golden age join with uncertainty, where the forces of peace are locked in a constant struggle with the forces of war, the present government is able to bring down a balanced budget, to pay the cost of our defence and our national welfare and at the same time, which is quite surprising, to reduce our public debt. This wise government which has succeeded in stabilizing the cost of living, in spite of what our Progressive Conservative friends may say, has surprised them to such an extent that the surplus of the Minister of Finance is a riddle to them they are unable to explain.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the wise administration of our present government in this dangerous prosperity.
Let us consider the immigration problem. The speech made in this house on March 10 last by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) prompts me to do so. Needless to say, I do not share all the views he expressed on this occasion, nor am I able to find any reasons which might justify the request submitted by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce on page 13 of its last brief to the effect that many more immigrants be admitted into this country than we are now receiving.
I certainly do not hesitate to state with Philippe Roy of L'Action Catholique that, in our day, immigration is spoken of in the name of justice and human kindness, or of a more rational distribution of the world's population, and that as Christians we must support the principle of immigration.

I am therefore speaking of the manner in which that principle should be applied in our country, rather than of the principle of immigration itself.
At page 290 of Hansard, the hon. member for Spadina stated as follows:
Today a nation more than twice as large in population as it was in 1913, and many times as strong, is taking in only half the number of immigrants we took in at that time. I merely point out to the house that it is time we burst these bonds of caution. We have to take a firm stand in this country on immigration because we can produce more homes, more suits of clothing, more pairs of shoes and more loaves of bread.
And a little further down:
I am convinced that the country wants more of the right kind of immigration, the kind that we have been getting particularly this year.
Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member's opinion, but I believe that our immigration policy not only should be carefully selective, but it should also adapt itself to economic, social and political conditions in Canada.
Confronted with the huge geographical spaces of our country, people have often expressed various opinions concerning the best possible solution to the problem of Canadian population. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), speaking in British Columbia, expressed the hope that our population will one day reach 125 million. I feel that this is a rather high figure and I am inclined to believe that this represents more people than Canada could support.
For, in spite of the vastness of our country, one should not fail to take into account the following facts: vast regions are unable to support a large population. All the northern districts, from Hudson bay to Georgian bay, the north side of lake Superior, Great Slave lake, and including the whole Arctic region, which represents two-thirds of the whole surface of Canada, can hardly, except here and there, support a population. According to the dominion bureau ef statistics, after the 1931 census, the arable land in this country comprises no more than 352 million acres-i.e. scarcely 27-5 per cent of its total area.
Of this total, 163 million acres are already settled. The rest of the area as yet not settled represents land where the farmer who will settle there will undergo a great many difficulties, because of the climate, the nature of the soil or the very limited production he will be able to obtain.
Naturally, the greater part of this farm land is located in the western provinces but even there agriculture seems confined to
The Budget-Mr. Maltais wheat growing and part of these lands are already marginal. The serious drop in Saskatchewan's population, during the last decade, seems to indicate that special crops in the prairies are unable to support a heavy population.
That is to say that Canada's population cannot be determined on the basis of land area alone. Other factors must be considered, such as the development of our natural resources, our productive capacity, our industrialization and our economic conditions. Therefore, in the preparation of a long-term immigration plan, it would be important to inquire into all these conditions.
If we look up statistics, we find that we have had waves of immigration which went up and down according to the times. The years before the war of 1914 were characterized by a heavy flow of immigrants. From 1916 to 1923 there was a large drop in the number of immigrants, but immigration was again on the increase from 1924 to 1931, when it was practically shut off up to 1945.
It is interesting to note that from 1901 to 1931 Canada received more than 5 million immigrants, but that, during the same period of time, nearly 3,500,000 people left the country. There is no doubt that a great number of these immigrants went back to their own country or that they simply passed through Canada before going to the United States. However these figures show that our immigration policy did not have the results that we hoped it would have. It is therefore important that our immigration policy be adapted to economic conditions in this country.
The present industrial expansion should not be overestimated. Although the development of our natural resources allows us to foresee a bright future we must always keep in mind that our Canadian economy is strongly influenced by international market conditions and conditions in other countries. Furthermore that development of our resources might be misleading if our role consists merely in extracting the raw materials and selling them to other countries without establishing manufacturing industries.
Even today, despite the activity resulting from our defence effort and our economic expansion, each year we go through a critical period of unemployment about which we certainly cannot feel unconcerned. And our

The Budget-Mr. Maltais great labour unions have requested that there be no immigration whatever during those periods of unemployment.
On the other hand, the housing problem is very serious in Canada and I take advantage of this opportunity to ask the government to amend the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and the National Housing Act, 1944, in order to allow more people in the middle classes and from rural areas to avail themselves of the benefits of these acts. Conditions and restrictions imposed, in certain rural areas, under this act make it very difficult to operate, at least in the constituency of Charlevoix, which I have the honour to represent. A great many Canadian families are looking for houses. The manpower necessary for the construction of these houses is available since at the end of February of this year there were more than 13,000 unemployed in the building trades alone. In a report published recently by the Department of Trade and Commerce, no serious shortages of building materials were anticipated for this year.
I believe the time has come to extend the compass of the present National Housing Act in order to deal with the present housing shortage.
And this housing situation is closely related to our immigration policy since we have a right to ask where these immigrants are expected to find a house.
Briefly, Mr. Speaker, while I congratulate the government on their careful and judicious selection of immigrants, I am unable to share the views of the member for Spadina and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce who are calling for a greater number of immigrants.
I repeat once again, our immigration policy should not only aim at a proper selection of immigrants but it should be consistent with economic conditions in this country having regard to our absorptive capacity, to the yearly recurrent periods of unemployment and to the housing problems we face at the moment.
As immigration is also under provincial jurisdiction, I think it would be important to establish an advisory committee, consisting of the various provincial governments, of the representatives of labour unions, of employers and of the different universities, with a view to helping the department to work out an immigration policy consistent with this country's political, social and economic conditions.

In this way in order to increase the population of Canada we should be able to lead immigrants into this country towards adopting the ideals we all share, that is, a great, happy Canada respectful of the rights of all its sections, such as the two main races of this country have undertaken to build up when history placed them side by side to form the Canadian people.
(Text):


Frederick Greystock Robertson: The nature of the 1952 budget, as presented by our very able Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), is significant of our expanding economy and of our important place in national affairs. It underlines what must be apparent to all of us, namely, that Canada is one of the great nations of the free world, and that the entire world is looking to us for more and more of that stability which is necessary if free institutions and our way of life are to survive.
The opposition members have attacked the budget as imposing excessive taxation. I think we must be realistic, and if we remember our national prosperity and our domestic and international commitments, then I think we must conclude that the rate of taxation as imposed by this budget is quite in keeping with Canada's ability to pay. If we wish to continue our social security program, furnish sufficient money for the orderly administration of government, have sufficient funds to develop our natural resources, and still maintain our defence expenditures, then it seems to me we must be prepared to make some sacrifices during this important period of world affairs.
The Minister of Finance has indicated that there will be this year an estimated expenditure of $4,270 million. I should like briefly to review what these expenditures are as they were outlined by the Minister of Finance. We are spending on national defence slightly over $2 billion; on our social security program and other pensions, nearly $1 billion. Interest on the national debt and payment to provinces amount to $650 million, and the general administration and other activities of government amount to approximately $650 million. I should like briefly to review these expenditures. We are spending on national defence slightly over $2 billion. I believe that all hon. members agree that Canada must play her full part in the defence of freedom in the world today.
IMr. Maltais.l

The Minister of Finance has very wisely pointed out that the scale of the defence budget is determined by policies approved by this parliament. It is true that the administration of the defence department is most important; but after all, what we members of parliament decide is in the best interests of Canada must underlie the expenditures of national defence.
I am sure that all hon. members support the part Canada is playing in the United Nations. The vast majority of the members in this house approve of what Canada is doing in support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I was very disappointed in the attitude of the C.C.F. party some time ago when they criticized the government for the support we are giving to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I for one am prepared to accept the advice of the statesmen and military experts of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as to what is necessary in order to preserve our freedom. I cannot believe that in the C.C.F. party there are many international experts whose advice we can trust implicitly. Let us not make the mistake of too little too late. One thing we must be sure of is that we have the strength to deter Stalin and the Russians from taking any chances or provoking another great war.
The financial critic of the official opposition made a statement in this house which is to be found on page 1481 of Hansard. He said:
We should not expect men in the services to be interested in expenses, Mr. Speaker. I think we would be naive to expect that. It is not their job, but the job of parliament.
I cannot agree with that statement. I think there is great responsibility on men in the services to see that our dollars are wisely spent. We can vote money in this house, but after we have given careful consideration to it, and are sure that it is in the national interest, then I think we have the right to expect the men in the services to do their part. There is a responsibility on the part of the deputy minister of national defence, the assistant deputy ministers and on all other officers of the armed forces. I remember that the financial critic told us of the time when he was in the army, and how careful he was to see that no public money was wasted. I would say that it is rather presumptuous on his part to suggest that he was the only man of that type to be found in the armed services. I am sure that there are many other men of that type who are anxious to see that money which we vote for national defence is wisely spent. I sincerely believe that is the case in the Department of National Defence in Canada.
We have had long discussions in this house on national defence; we have had a defence expenditures committee; we have made a
The Budget-Mr. Robertson close study of the estimates of the Department of National Defence. I suggest to you that every opportunity is given to members of the opposition party to show what money is not being wisely spent.
I should like to congratulate the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and his department on their good judgment in picking Cobourg, Ontario, my home town, as the site of the new central ordnance depot. There can be no doubt that the department showed excellent judgment in this decision, because Cobourg has many advantages which make it the logical place for the establishment of such a project. We have ample room for expansion of this depot, should it be necessary; we have excellent rail, water and road facilities; we have an adequate supply of labour; we have excellent recreational facilities. In fact, I think that we have everything which will make this central ordnance depot a real success.
I should like briefly to review our expenditures on social security which amount to nearly $1 billion. I am sure that these expenditures are approved by the vast majority of Canadians. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) wisely said the other night that we must consider very carefully the amount of money we spend on social security. We must be very sure that we shall never have to regress in the payment of social security. It is true that the C.C.F. party demand even greater and greater expenditures on social security.
The leader of the C.C.F. party, speaking in the house not long ago, assailed the government because we are not spending as large a percentage of our national income on social security as we did some four or five years ago. It seems ridiculous to me, when we are in the midst of a vast rearmament program costing over two billions of dollars, that the leader of the C.C.F. would expect us to spend as large a percentage on social security as we did before. I believe the social security program is the greatest single contribution the Liberal party has made to good government in this country. I am sure that as soon as the country can afford greater social security benefits the Liberal party will see that these are brought into being.
There can be little discussion of the third item in the budget, that of the payment of the interest on the national debt, and payments to the provinces. We would be failing to fulfil our obligations if we failed to make these payments.
Coming to the fourth division of the expenditures as outlined in the budget, we find that $650 million is being spent on the general administration of government. I
1784	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Robertson submit that real economies have been instituted by this government. I have in my hand the estimates tor this fiscal year, and when we look at the different columns, we see that there has been a decrease in the various departments of government amounting to $62,787,593. There have been increases in other departments, so that we find there has been an over-all increase in all departments of government of $605,208,972. But when we look closely into these estimates we find that the increase in the Department of National Defence is $392,410,629, and that the increase in the Department of National Health and Welfare is $252,464,877. These two departments show a total increase of $645 million.
So, reviewing the whole situation as it is set out in the estimates, we find there has been an actual decrease of $45 million in all other estimates. This has been accomplished, in spite of a 10 per cent increase in salaries, and other costs. In spite of these economy measures on the part of the government we know that many services have been greatly expanded in the past year. I need only remind the house of the increased postal services, our stepped up immigration program, our improved service for Indians, and the expansion of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Our country is an ever-growing country, and it requires an increasing amount of money in order to run the government of the country in an efficient way. The government can be congratulated upon the real economies it has put into effect in the last year. While members of the opposition are always asking for decreased taxation, they ask continuously for greater and greater expenditures. They have asked for extensive federal aid to education; for certain gifts to Great Britain; for more economic aid to other countries; for the payment of subsidies and the like. All these things are very desirable, and many of us would like to support them; but we must remember that they cost money, and represent an increased burden on the taxpayers of this country.


William Earl Rowe: And advertising over the C.B.C.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: I am pleased to see that the Minister of Finance has either eliminated or reduced many of the excise taxes on household goods. When I spoke in the budget debate a year ago I expressed the hope that these excise taxes could be reduced, once the danger of inflation was over. We all know there has been some easing of the inflationary pressure, and I am pleased indeed to see that the minister has seen fit to reduce these taxes.


He has also indicated that credit restrictions are under constant review; and I know that when conditions are suitable a gradual removal of these credit restrictions will be undertaken. We have a budgetary surplus of $356 million. I know how disappointed are members of the opposition that the budgetary surplus is not greater. They have been telling us for many months about the great surplus that would exist at the end of this y ar, despite the constant warnings of the Minister of Finance that there would be huge expenditures at the end of the year which would reduce this surplus by a great amount. I say there is no need to apologize for the present surplus which the budget produces.


Mr. Fraser:: They robbed the people to get it.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: As I have already pointed out, the opposition has suggested many times expenditures which would mean even higher taxation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Who did?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: This surplus has produced many beneficial results. It has helped to bring inflation under control; it has strengthened Canada's economy; it has reduced the burden of our national debt; it has attracted capital from abroad.
Opposition members cannot agree as to what the budgetary surplus will be for the coming year. Some say that it will be as large as last year's. We have only to check the speeches of the hon. member for Eglin-ton (Mr. Fleming) and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) to see that those gentlemen think our surplus will be very great. Then, today in the house the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) expressed the opinion that the surplus would be between $300 million and $400 million. He was very honest about it, however, and admitted he did not know how much it might be. Yet he hazarded this wild guess.
Other members have expressed a quite different view, and I should like to read some of their opinions as they are set forth in Hansard.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He cannot read from this debate.


James Sinclair: The present debate? Why not?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: We see that the financial critic of the official opposition has this to say:
I would state without hesitation that we do have in this country, despite our glowing figures, those grandiose figures, uneasiness, and the feeling that we have been on the crest of a boom year after year, and there is the fear that one day the boom will end and the reckoning come.

How often have we heard that prophecy over the last few years? Here is what the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) had to say, as it is set out at page 1503 of Hansard:
Now that we have lost the markets for our agricultural products and prices are decreasing, I am wondering where the government is going to get all the money it needs.
And quoting the leader of the Social Credit party, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), we find that he said this, as it is set out at page 1494 of Hansard:
Fear of overproduction is beginning to manifest itself not only in the farming industry but also in many fields, in spite of the world's need for food, and other necessities of life, and in spite of hunger and suffering in many lands.
He goes on to say, as reported on page 1495:
Today farm prices, it is true, are relatively more fair in relation to taxes and interest rates; but the general price level is so high that there is widespread fear that the present abundant situation will come to a sudden collapse.
Just what advice should the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) take from the members of the opposition? Some are predicting a huge surplus while others are saying that our national production is falling away. If these latter people are right, then under our present taxation we will be budgeting for a deficit and even the financial critic of the official opposition says that that is not a good thing.
Our Minister of Finance has a wonderful and proud record to present to this house in the matter of debt reduction. Since 1947 he has reduced the national debt by $2,344 million, with an interest saving to the taxpayers of Canada of $62 million. I ask hon. members of the opposition what good businessman, under similar circumstances, would not do exactly as the Minister of Finance has done. Is it not true that the generally accepted business principle is to pay your debts during periods of prosperity? I have never heard anyone speak to the contrary.
The position taken by others is that we should have a planned debt reduction. What does that mean? It means that if the advice of those members of the opposition who are crying hard times is taken we will have to tax the people of Canada even more. Why is it not reasonable to adopt a pay-as-you-go budget and plan for a balanced budget? If our prosperity exceeds our expectations then I submit that that is the time to make payments on our national debt. Why should we saddle posterity with the debts of our generation?
I have noticed that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) is becoming the official spokesman for the Conservative party
The Budget-Mr. Robertson at political meetings throughout the country. I congratulate the hon. member upon his rapid promotion within the party, but after reading some of his speeches I feel that I cannot congratulate the Conservative party upon their selection.


Frank Exton Lennard: You might do better than your man Thomson at that.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: Did I hear the hon. member say the leader of the opposition?


William Earl Rowe: You did not understand that at all.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: The hon. member for
Broadview has been speaking at many political meetings. A report in the Telegram, the accuracy of which I am sure my hon. friends will not challenge, quotes him as saying in London, Ontario, that the present budget was a fraud on the Canadian people. The real fraud is the double talk of the Conservative party.
Let me give a few examples. I think the most glaring is the position taken by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) on family allowances. We know that when he was premier of Ontario he said that he would do everything to prevent this iniquitous act becoming legislation. I listened to that speech on the radio and I have no doubt that he made that statement. He comes into the house now and tells us that he was opposing it on constitutional grounds. What sins are committed in the name of the constitution!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Liberal party ought to know.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: I should like to give another example of the double talk of the Conservative party. I have in my hand a report of a press conference which took place on Monday, March 12, 1951, at which time the president of the National Progressive Conservative Association was questioned by members of the parliamentary press gallery. He was asked this question by Mr. Baldwin:
I believe the Progressive Conservative party voted with the C.C.F. for price control. Can you tell me why?
The answer of the hon. member was as follows:
We did-
And then he continues:
We supported the C.C.F. amendment because we wanted to register protest against the "do-nothing" policy of this government, and this was the only vehicle open to us. We might say that we were not subscribing to any particular form of control, and certainly not the old control.
Their advice-flexible controls selectively applied. That is the way the Conservative party would have handled the inflationary
1786	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Robertson pressure which we had some time ago. Could you imagine any greater disruption of our national economy had the government accepted their advice?


William Earl Rowe: It might have been better for business.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: It might have been better for the pulp and paper business at the present time.


William Earl Rowe: That is not helping either you or your party.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: We have heard many
members of the Conservative party speaking in the house and attacking the government for removing the name "dominion" from certain statutes of Canada. They almost suggested that they were the only people who were proud of their British ancestry and of British traditions. Let me tell them that there are many members of all parties who are proud of that heritage. When we review the situation we find that not long ago their great party was known as the dominion Conservative party, but today we find that they are glad to call themselves the national Conservative party. Could we have a better example of double talk than that?	'


William Earl Rowe: When was it called dominion?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: You must have known because you had something to do with changing the name of your party. The members of the Conservative party are always preaching economy, and then they ask for larger and larger expenditures. I have already outlined some of the demands on the government which they have made. The Minister of Finance pointed out in his review that had the people of Canada accepted them in the last election our taxes would have been $1 billion more than they are under a Liberal government.
Finally they suggest to the people of Canada that we could have our national security program, that we could have ample money for national defence, that we could have all the money necessary for the orderly discharge of the business of this country and still offer the people of Canada a substantial reduction in the rate of taxation. Can you imagine a greater fraud being perpetrated on the Canadian people than the present policy of the Conservative party? I should like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, what other people think of the government of Canada and its accomplishments. I quote the Monetary Times of March, 1952, commenting on the return to parity of the Canadian dollar:
Nearly everybody's happy that the Canadian dollar is back to parity with its American cousin.


It's more than a matter of national pride. A par dollar will help reduce the cost of what we Canadians import from the United States. In this way parity is a contribution to a reduction in the cost of living in this country.
And the London Times under date of April 15, speaking of Canada's position, says:
Clearly Canada is exceptionally favoured by fortune: but prosperity as well as adversity is a test of statesmanship, and much credit is due to Mr. St. Laurent's government for the happy condition of the nation's affairs. Canada may be congratulated the more wholeheartedly by her friends because her financial strength helps to buttress the entire free world.
Those of us who were privileged last evening to hear our distinguished visitors from the United States, Senator Gillette and Mr. Justice Roberts, will remember the tribute they paid to the economy of our country. I for one prefer to accept their opinion and that of such newspapers as I have quoted rather than the opinion of the official opposition or any other party in this house.
The financial critic of the official opposition accused the government of debauching our currency. He reminds me of the juryman who was unable to agree with the other eleven jurors. In exasperation he said, "I have never seen eleven such stubborn men." I submit that the financial critic of the opposition is in exactly the same category and that everyone is not out of step but the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). I do not wish to suggest for one moment that we have no problems in this country. We have had many problems; we are facing grave problems today and we will have great problems in the future. But I do suggest that the government has met those problems of the past effectively and, may I add, courageously.
We have certain problems in my own county of Northumberland which are causing some concern today, and I should like to mention them briefly. One is the fact that in Cobourg and the next largest town in the county, Campbellford, we have some unemployment. We know the development of the ordnance project at Cobourg will do much to relieve the unemployment situation in that town. In Campbellford the main difficulty is unemployment in the textile industry, which is general throughout the world. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) very ably pointed out that the depression in the textile industry was world-wide, but I was happy to note that he predicted some improvement in the near future. I am sure the government will give every consideration to the needs of the textile industry and will do what can be done to help it.
We have noted some decline in agricultural prices. That is causing some concern in my

riding, which is partly rural. The reasons for this decline are many and varied. Some are seasonal; some arise from overproduction and some from the loss of the British market. Some result from the foot-and-mouth disease, and some are a combination of all these. No one could expect the top prices we have been receiving for agricultural products to continue indefinitely, but I would like to impress upon this house my belief that it is most important that we see the returns from farm products do not fall below a reasonable level. I am convinced that we cannot enjoy real prosperity in this country unless our agriculturists are enjoying a decent scale of living. I endorse the farm price support policy of the government, which I believe is doing much to stabilize conditions in the country today.
The chief worry in connection with agriculture at the present time has to do with the dairy industry, and I want to speak particularly of the cheese situation. I listened with great interest a few evenings ago to the very interesting speech on cheese by the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart). We have long recognized him as one of the leading authorities in this house on the fishing industry and I am pleased to see that he is so versatile. I could not agree with everything the hon. member said regarding cheese, but I do believe it is not the sole responsibility of the federal government to look after the cheese situation in Canada today. The difficulty developing in connection with cheese is a cause of great concern to all connected with the dairy industry, but we know that the Ontario cheese marketing board has asked the government of Ontario for authority to look after the marketing of cheese in this country. It is regrettable that at the present time there is a very poor market; but I am sure if the provincial government, after considering the situation that is developing, would come to the federal government and say, "The condition is serious. Can we not work out some co-operative effort to aid the cheese men," this government as usual would lend a sympathetic ear to such an appeal.
I would like to see a greater advertising campaign undertaken by the makers of Ontario cheese, in an effort to sell more cheese in Canada. I think we have the finest cheese produced anywhere in the world, but it is rather disheartening to learn that Canadians eat less cheese per capita than almost any other people in the world. If the Ontario cheese marketing board would undertake an extensive selling campaign I believe that could do much to relieve that situation. I do bespeak on behalf of the cheese makers of
The Budget-Mr. Robertson Ontario every consideration and assistance on the part of the government, should that assistance become necessary.
There is another matter I would like to discuss at this time. The hon. member for Kent, Ont. (Mr. Huffman) made a plea in this house not long ago for the rural mail carriers of Canada, and I would like to support that plea wholeheartedly. I feel that this government might well set up a special committee to study this problem. Under our present system, in order to obtain a contract it is necessary to put in a tender at such a low rate that there is actually no profit for the contractor. In effect these men must cut each other's throats. I do not think that is a good method by which to award rural mail contracts. Surely some alternative could be worked out to give a new deal to these people. The cost of automobiles has greatly increased. In the spring and winter months the roads are often in bad condition, and it is impossible for the rural mail carriers to maintain their vehicles in good condition at the present rates. I would respectfully suggest to the government that this committee be set up as soon as possible to see if some alternative satisfactory method of awarding contracts cannot be worked out.
There is one other matter which I should like to bring to the attention of this house, and it concerns the Canadian Farm Loan Board. In my opinion the present policy of this board is most inadequate to meet present needs. I know of numerous instances in my county where farmers with valuable farms have been unable to raise $3,000 or $4,000 mortgages. We know that the government is lending up to 90 per cent on urban dwellings. Why should we discriminate against the farmer, which in effect is what we are doing if we do not change the Canadian Farm Loan Board regulations as they exist today. I do not believe that those regulations have been revised for many years, and we all know of the difference in value which exists now as compared with the time when these regulations were put into effect.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that when I spoke in this budget debate a year ago I said that the future of Canada was bright, and that the affairs of this country were in good hands. Everything which has happened since that time only serves to make that conviction stronger. In fact, we must admit that our vision could not perceive of the great developments and expansion that was to take place in Canada. I believe that if the Canadian people prepare to work hard and to work together they can produce in Canada an unsurpassed heritage. I am convinced that our government has played a notable part in the progress which

The Budget-Mr. Drew Canada has made. I believe that the government merits the confidence it enjoys amongst the majority of the people of this country. From my experience and my association in this house I am prepared to say that the actions of the government are motivated by one simple desire, to do, at all times, what is in the best interests of Canadians and in the best interests of Canada.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the member for Northumberland, Ont. (Mr. Robertson) has used the words "double talk" and "fraud" in a manner that suggests some attention should be paid to certain of the remarks that he made. I noticed that he has seen fit to repeat the utterly false statement that I, as premier of Ontario, was opposed to family allowances. This suggests the desirability of referring to the incident which occurred here on Monday, and for the reason that the statement that was made on Monday in another debate has been followed by a similar statement tonight. I intend to deal first with that subject.
Speaking on a private member's motion the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) entered the debate just before the closing hour, and, with the knowledge that there would be no immediate opportunity for reply, placed on the record statements with which I now propose to deal, in view of the fact that it is obvious that this is a pattern which is to be followed by those associated with him. I propose to deal with this because it is not the first time that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has placed on the record similarly inaccurate statements in the same way. If I do not deal with them, particularly in view of the repetition of those statements tonight, I know that the minister will follow his usual practice of saying that his statements were not challenged, and therefore it must be assumed that they were accurate. He will, of course, disregard the fact that he spoke until eleven o'clock, and that no opportunity was afforded to deal with it. The minister had special reasons for knowing how completely inaccurate his statements were, but it is not only the inaccuracy of his statements in which I am interested; I am equally interested in the very obvious reasons for the introduction once again at this time of something which had no conceivable bearing of any kind on the motion which was before the house last Monday.
The motion under discussion at that time proposed that consideration be given to the adjustment of family allowances to bring them in line with the greatly increased cost of living in this country. Whether that


would be wise or unwise is obviously debatable. One member of the C.C.F. party attracted considerable attention only a few days ago when he argued that there should be a reduction in the over-all payment of family allowances. The minister responsible thinks that there should be no change. Others consider that if the figure originally chosen was correct, then adjustments should be made so that the family allowance will represent the same amount in real buying power. It should not be open to question in this house that each of those three points of view could be sincerely held, without any question being raised about the belief in the principle that family allowances should be paid. Nevertheless, although I did not introduce the motion, nor in fact had the resolution on this occasion been introduced by a member of the Conservative party, the Minister of National Health and Welfare took the opportunity to once more attempt to create the false impression that I was opposed to the payment of family allowances. In support of this contention he read from a newspaper report covering part of something I had said nearly eight years ago.
One might well wonder why this persistence. One might well wonder why the return to something that took place during the war years. One might well wonder why the minister returned to something that took place before we finally met here in a dominion-provincial conference in August, 1945, in response to the request of the government of Ontario, conveyed to the government of Canada by myself as premier of that province at that time. Even if the minister had correctly interpreted my position at that time, it would have had no bearing whatever upon the motion before the house.


James Sinclair: Have you ever recanted?


George Alexander Drew: This is not the first, nor the second, nor the third time that the minister has made this same inaccurate statement. When he says that I was opposed to the payment of family allowances at the time I was premier of Ontario, he is repeating what he knows from the record and from his personal knowledge to be directly contrary to the facts. Under the rules of the house the minister would, in any event, be compelled to accept my statement as to the truth or otherwise of what I said. I do not rest my position on any such rule, and I will deal with this matter upon the basis of the record which is well known to the minister. On the other hand I express the hope that the hon. member for Northumberland (Ont.) has been misled, as others have been, by the minister through the repetition of that inaccurate statement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Sinclair: Iniquitous legislation!


George Alexander Drew: The point I wish to emphasize and re-emphasize is that, in this case, the minister has no excuse, because my own position as premier of Ontario and that of the Ontario government are a matter of record.


An hon. Member:: It sure is.


George Alexander Drew: Speaking on behalf of the Ontario government, and before any of the discussion took place which the minister now seeks to interpret so inaccurately once again, I made it clear over and over again that we believed in the principle of family allowances and that we wished to discuss the subject with the dominion government. As the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) well knows, in writing and otherwise we proposed to the then prime minister of Canada that there should be conferences to deal with the broad problems of social security. Those who remember what took place know that the letter which I wrote to the Prime Minister of Canada was used by him as the basis for the discussions. He sent that letter to the premiers of the other provinces, with the suggestion that this be taken as the basis of our subsequent meetings.
At that time the war seemed to be drawing to a close and the Ontario government-and for that matter most of the other provincial governments-were expressing their concern at that time about the danger to our constitutional position if centralization of taxation and control continued to follow the pattern which had developed during the war. During the war we had all agreed to the suspension of many constitutional prerogatives of the provincial governments to facilitate the war effort. We were doing our utmost, however, to persuade the dominion government to hold conferences before the end of the war so that after the war was over our democratic federation should return to its historic position of checks and balances between the dominion and provincial governments, as laid down in the British North America Act. I objected-and I was not alone in that objection-to the action of the dominion government in dealing with this subject of family allowances without consulting the provinces and in dealing with that subject as though the payment of family allowances were merely a matter of dollars and cents and not a social problem of the utmost importance to all our people.
The Budget-Mr. Drew
As has been the case over and over again when we have sought to emphasize the constitutional position, the government employed all its propaganda power, used at the expense of the people, to convey the impression that we were impeding their course which, one would almost think, to hear their statements, had by that time gathered something of the atmosphere of divinity.
In the very speech to which the Minister of National Health and Welfare referred last Monday, I said as long ago as August 9, 1944:
We are in favour of every proper step being taken to encourage large and healthy families. We believe in sound provisions for family allowances and social security.
That was nearly eight years ago. Surely those words are definite enough. But they were studiously disregarded by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, as they have been over and over again when he seeks to give the very opposite impression to this house-and, of course, outside of it with even wider disregard for the accuracy of his statements. As he well knows, that has been my position, as it was the position of the Ontario government, at all times when this subject was under discussion. Nor is there any necessity for defining my position by any isolated statement of that kind. In public statements, in letters to the Prime Minister of Canada at that time, in personal discussions with him and in statements to the Ontario legislature, this subject was discussed many times. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is well aware of that fact.
Just to place on record exactly what our position was-and a position that I might say was well known to the dominion government at that time and since-I propose to quote from the record of what I said in the Ontario legislature on February 22, 1945, more than seven years ago and long before I was in this House of Commons. I shall continue to quote until I indicate that the quotation is ended because, of necessity, it is a fairly extensive quotation.
This government has from the beginning been convinced that family allowances are an integrated part of the whole question of social security, and has so stated. The members of this legislature will recall that I made this clear and definite statement on behalf of the Ontario government on August 9 last:
"We are in favour of every proper step being taken to encourage large and healthy families. We believe in sound provisions for family allowances and social security."
That was our position then. That is our position today. I have stated over and over again that we regard family allowances as one of the most important social services: that it is therefore within the exclusive constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces; that the provinces must be consulted if there is to be any effective administration of family

The Budget-Mr. Drew
allowances; and I have publicly urged over and over again that there be a dominion-provincial conference to settle the basis upon which the dominion and provincial governments of this country can best combine their legislative authority for the benefit of all our people.
The problem with which this and every other provincial government is faced has been stated most clearly by the Hon. Stuart Garson, Premier of Manitoba. I will quote his own words on the subject;
"We are still puzzled as to one of the most important points. . . We have no information before us which indicates conclusively whether the dominion government itself regards and justifies family allowances primarily as a social security measure, or as an instrument of federal fiscal policy . . .
It seems to me that the point here is that the dominion government in introducing family allowances without consulting the provinces, whose jurisdiction over the field of social services heretofore in practice has been considered almost exclusive, surely could not have intended to justify them solely or even primarily as a social service measure. As such they would constitute a federal intrusion in a provincial field of jurisdiction."
I would remind hon. members of this house that I have been quoting from the words of Hon. Stuart Garson, who at that time was premier of the province of Manitoba. I will now continue to quote from the record of the debate in the Ontario legislature:
I do not believe the situation could be more clearly stated. If family allowances are to be regarded solely or even primarily as a social service measure, then again to quote Mr. Garson's words, "They would constitute a federal intrusion in a provincial field of jurisdiction."
Now we are told by the minister responsible for the administration of this act that it is part of a broad system of social security. If that is so, and we have never been in any doubt that it was so, then this act is an intrusion upon the provincial field of jurisdiction without any consultation with the provinces. In fact the situation goes very much farther than that. Having disregarded the constitutional position of the provinces and their jurisdiction over social services in the introduction of the act, the dominion government has refused repeated requests from myself and other provincial premiers for a dominion-provincial conference to discuss this and other invasions of our authority.
I wish to assure the members of this legislature that we have at all times made it abundantly clear that we were not seeking to raise constitutional issues but that we were seeking to avoid constitutional difficulties in the future. I have made it clear, and I believe the premiers of other provinces have made it equally clear, that our purpose in insisting upon a dominion-provincial conference immediately is not to raise barriers against measures which will be for the benefit of our people but rather to make sure that we combine the full constitutional power of the dominion and provincial governments, so that whatever is done may not be upset subsequently by any one who wishes to test the validity of legislation of this nature in the courts. We also wish to make sure that the highly trained and competent social service workers in the different provinces have their part in the administration of any plans of social security which may be adopted.
Anyone with the least knowledge of family and child welfare knows that the health, housing, nurture and all the interests of human beings, hang

together in a well-integrated whole. You cannot deal with the human needs of a family today without relating closely all the resources in your social catalogue-maternal	care, nutrition, housing,
mothers' allowances, all forms of assistance, etc. So, your whole welfare security program cannot be done on a bits and pieces basis. It has to be unified and its administration rests with the provinces unless the whole basis of confederation is to be destroyed. . . .
That is the end of the quotation from the records of the debate in 1945.


George James McIlraith: What is the precise date of the quotation?


George Alexander Drew: February 22, 1945.


James Sinclair: What is the date of the quotation the minister used?


George Alexander Drew: No sooner had 1 made that statement than misrepresentations were repeated such as those which have been repeated here tonight, and were repeated on Monday night in regard to our position in relation to family allowances. For that reason I referred to this subject again only four days later in the Ontario legislature, on February 26, 1945, and to those who have apparently come into the house since I started to speak, that was over seven years ago. Again I quote from the record of what I said on that occasion, and again until I have indicated that the quotation is ended I shall be quoting from the record of the discussion in the Ontario legislature:
The statement I gave to the legislature last Thursday was not intended as a complete statement on this subject, nor was there any suggestion that it was intended to take the place of the remarks I proposed to make in the debate on the speech from the throne.
I did recall, however, our positive and very definite statement that "we are in favour of every proper step being taken to encourage large and healthy families. We believe in sound provisions for family allowances and social security."
In spite of our position having been stated so clearly, statements are still made that we are opposed to family allowances.
I referred to the iniquitous principle involved in the measure which has been adopted by the dominion government. My speech quite clearly was not referring to any opposition to family allowances. It was referring to the principle that family allowances are not part of social security and that they should be regarded as a mere economic question. We also believe it is an iniquitous principle that very large sums of money should be taken from the taxpayers of this or any other province to be paid for something which falls within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments, without consulting those provincial governments and establishing a proper basis of taxation and payment right across Canada.
At the time I said that we would oppose the course being followed by the dominion government, we had the unqualified assurance of the Prime Minister of Canada that there was going to be a dominion-provincial conference to discuss matters of this kind, and it was our intention to do everything within our power at that conference to assure that we have a proper system of family allowances and that the rights of the people of Ontario be protected.

Now may I come to the suggestion that we intend to take legal steps to prevent the dominion act going into effect. That is not our intention and it never has been our intention. I have said in this legislature and elsewhere many times that I do not believe that the dominion and provincial governments should get involved in legal technicalities, but rather that they should meet around the council table to work out their problems and find the very best solution in every case, so that their combined powers may find full expression for the advantage of the people of this country.
Our purpose is to have in this province the very best system of family allowances which can be worked out on the basis of the accumulated experience of every other jurisdiction which has already adopted this measure. As I said last week, we wish to join hands to combine our legislative power with that of the dominion government to assure the best social services which can be devised.
You will find that in a speech as recently as Saturday night, Mr. Claxton made it quite clear that this province has been co-operating in all the preliminary details necessary for carrying out such a measure under such terms as might be agreed upon. We have, in fact, set up the most modern methods of recording vital statistics, and have installed photographic devices which provide the government at Ottawa with every detail of our vital statistics for the very purpose of carrying out this or any other measure.
I believe it is an iniquitous principle that payments should be a mere baby bonus based upon the fact that a baby has been born. I believe that our people want real family allowances, in the accepted meaning of that term, for the maintenance, care training and upbringing of children, in a way that will assure the welfare of the children themselves. That is not accomplished by the present dominion act. We have the clear words of the Prime Minister of Canada, "The act does not in any way attempt to legislate in respect of family life." If it has nothing to do with family life, then how can it possibly assure the welfare of the children in those families which receive the money?
As you know, we have continued to press for a dominion-provincial conference right up to the opening of this session for the very purpose of bringing together the combined authorities of our governments so that in this, and every other case, no constitutional difficulties might arise and that everything should be done with full knowledge of the facts and with the certainty that what is undertaken will be carried out in the best interests of our people.
That is the end of the quotation which was taken from what was said in the Ontario legislature on February 26, 1945. I would point out that what the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) read had nothing to do with the question of whether or not we were in favour of family allowances. He was quoting from a speech which he now has in his hand'-and I welcome the fact that this has been brought out in the open, here, instead of simply knowing that it is being repeated with trimmings, as it has been repeated, with very unreliable trimmings over and over again in the past.
And may I say this, in so far as this is concerned, that I believe the Minister of National Health and Welfare knows his
The Budget-Mr. Drew Shakespeare well enough to recall that it was only when Iago was not exposed that he was really dangerous.
But, in so far as this is concerned, I do wish to go on with another aspect of the subject. The Minister of National Health and Welfare himself is either dealing with the question of family allowances or he is dealing with something else. And if he wants to raise other subjects, then let him be quite assured that, on that level, he will be inviting a course that would of necessity result in dealing with matters which have no relation to the subject which he pretends to be dealing with, and which he regards as of so much importance.
Those were not the only occasions upon which I spoke about this subject. It was discussed frequently. What is more, the subject was discussed with representatives of the dominion government. And they themselves came to realize that it would have been an iniquitous thing to have carried out their original plan, and simply appropriate money and hand out payments without any regard to the possibility that those payments might never be used for the benefit of the children. Therefore they came to the Ontario government, as they went to other governments, and they sought the assistance of their social service organizations to do the very thing that we had said should be done.
And it may be a matter of interest to know that the present Minister of National Health and Welfare has on different occasions commended the Ontario government for the manner in which it has carried out those services in co-operation with the dominion government. And the very minister who now repeats this statement that we were opposed to family allowances knows very well that it was under my direction, as premier of Ontario, that the instructions were given that those services should be made available.
It may very well be asked why the Minister of National Health and Welfare would raise this subject at this time. The purpose was clear. It was the same purpose which has prompted a number of members on the other side of the house for some years to do the same thing, and prompted another member here in this house tonight. Because those statements seemed so unworthy of notice, and were so palpably absurd, I must confess that I have not dealt with them as vigorously as I should. It seemed to me that, in themselves, they constituted the most severe criticism of those members who made them.

The Budget-Mr. Drew On looking back over the numerous occasions on which this utterly unfounded allegation has been made I find, however, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has taken occasion to mention that I did not deal with his statement and that, therefore,
I must be regarded as accepting its accuracy. He knew perfectly well what the position was; but because of that attitude, because of the obvious reason for introducing a subject which had no relation to the motion before the house last Monday, I place these facts on the record today in a way that I have not attempted to do before, or have never thought that it was necessary to do since I entered this house.
I am well aware of the nature of the attacks which have been made upon me personally in regard to family allowances. Please do not think that these attacks, which are made from house to house, do not come back and are not accurately reported. Please do not think for one moment that I am not well aware of exactly the nature of the things that are being said in the different provinces, and which are being said in different provinces in entirely different ways.


An hon. Member:: You were not there, George.


George Alexander Drew: I recognize the fact that at least one member of the Liberal party is well aware of exactly what has been done, and has indicated that. In the province of Quebec I am described as being an opponent of the people of Quebec.


George James McIlraith: Aren't you?


George Alexander Drew: And do not think that I do not know that. And may I say that the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) displays his usual fairness in the remarks he has just made.


George James McIlraith: Your association sent me a speech delivered on July 9, 1944, with the subheadings that the association put on it.


James Sinclair: When you called the French a defeated race.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am very
interested in these interpolations, because it is quite obvious that what is being said has nothing whatever to do with whether I was for or against family allowances-nothing whatever.
What has just been said has supported what I have been saying, and what has been exposed now is the type of underhand campaign that has been carried on; and I welcome the opportunity to bring it into the open.


Lionel Chevrier: You are a past master at underhand campaigns.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Transport says that I am a past master at underhand campaigns, he simply brands himself as the contemptible type of politician that I always knew he was.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege: No hon. member in this house-[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Take it.


Lionel Chevrier: I have a right to the floor.
I am rising to a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I decide whether it is a question of privilege, I would suggest to both hon. members that they withdraw their remarks.


Lionel Chevrier: Just a minute.


George Alexander Drew: Not "just a minute".


Lionel Chevrier: The leader of the opposition has made a statement in this house using the word "contemptible", which no member has a right to use in regard to another member. He should withdraw it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I willingly withdraw the statement I have made if the hon. member withdraws the statement that prompted it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Minister of
Transport (Mr. Chevrier) did make a statement which, in my opinion, was also unparliamentary; and I think both hon. members should withdraw.


Lionel Chevrier: I accept your ruling, and
withdraw accordingly.


George James McIlraith: Before the leader of the
opposition continues, and speaking to a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


George James McIlraith: -the leader of the opposition used precisely-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is speaking to a question of privilege, but I cannot hear what he is saying.


George James McIlraith: On a question of privilege: The leader of the opposition used the precise language with respect to me that the Minister of Transport used with respect to him, and which Your Honour has asked the Minister of Transport to withdraw. I would presume, therefore, that the leader of the opposition will withdraw his remarks, which were in identical terms.


Mr. Abbott:: He certainly will.


George Alexander Drew: I point out that I referred to a "contemptible campaign"; those were the words I used; and I leave it to the record.


George James McIlraith: "Underhanded".


George Alexander Drew: "Underhand campaign", yes.
I referred to an underhand campaign, and that of course obviously was referring to a general campaign outside this house-and the matter stands there.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not take it that the leader of the opposition was referring to the hon. member for Ottawa West.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He did; he certainly did.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is unfortunate that the matter was not brought to my attention at the time. I am sure that the leader of the opposition does not want to use any expression that is unparliamentary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As I say, I do not know what words the leader of the opposition used. He knows what words he used and if they were unparliamentary, it is up to him.


An hon. Member:: Better withdraw.


George Alexander Drew: I am proceeding because the words that I used were not unparliamentary. They will stand as a matter of record and Your Honour will be able to read them tomorrow in Hansard.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Continue with your text.


Mr. Mutch:: Have you special privileges?


George Alexander Drew: I was referring to the kind of campaign that was carried out from one point of view. But, of course, that would not have been a satisfactory campaign to carry on in other parts of Canada so an entirely different campaign was carried on in the rest of Canada. In that campaign I was described as being too friendly to the province of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: Where was that?


An hon. Member:: That is a good one.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Why bring that up?


George Alexander Drew: Apparently the hon. member has fallen a victim to his own propaganda. There are one or two hon. members who do know the nature of that propaganda. I see the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) nodding affirmatively, because he does know of it. I am pointing out something to which I shall refer by means of quotations because this was dealt with as well in the Ontario legislature. My experience in this respect is not unique.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He has lost his place.
The Budget-Mr. Drew


George Alexander Drew: May I at this time, in order to lighten the otherwise rather strained atmosphere some people are seeking to create, welcome the wanderer home and say on behalf of everybody in this house that we are glad to hear his remarks again in this house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am more than grateful. The weather was not as good as it was in Nassau, I am told.


George Alexander Drew: I shall deal with that subject later. I say that my experience in this respect was not unique. We had an example yesterday afternoon in a speech made in this house when we heard the old catalogue of attacks upon different leaders of the Conservative party. There is not a member in this house who does not know of the shameful and shameless things that were said about one of the most brilliant Canadians who ever entered public life, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. I remember the things that were said about Sir Robert Borden, about Lord Bennett, about Mr. Manion, Mr. Hanson and Mr. Bracken. The time has come, yes the time is long overdue to place squarely where it belongs the full responsibility for this effort by officials and others of the Liberal party to undermine confidence in their political opponents by fair means or foul.
The quotations from what I said in the Ontario legislature, which I have already read, dealt with attacks of one kind which have been made here in this house and were made in this house more than seven years ago and also in the Ontario legislature. But I also found it necessary to deal with that other kind of attack, the charge that we were so closely associated with Quebec to the detriment of the rest of Canada. There is no hon. member who is frank who will not admit that he has heard that statement made here in this house and elsewhere. So that I may indicate what my position has been all the way through these discussions, I shall quote from the Hansard record of the debates of the Ontario legislature of April 15,	1948, as
follows:
The co-operation between the governments of Quebec and Ontario has covered a very wide field. We have been able to make satisfactory agreements, not only for the construction of new power plants on the Ottawa river, but also for additional supplies of electric power over and above existing contracts. We have established a wide measure of uniformity in different fields of taxation, and there has been the closest co-operation between such related departments of government as mining, lands and forests, highways and so on.
The governments of Quebec and Ontario have at all times, since the meeting of the dominion-provincial conference, in August, 1945, held similar views in regard to the importance of respecting the constitution which made this country a nation in 1867. On no single occasion, either at the first

The Budget-Mr. Drew meeting of that conference or at the meetings which followed, did either the government of Quebec or the government of Ontario express any opinion or put forward any proposal which did not recognize the desirability of general agreement to provide those services which will elevate the living standards of all the people of Canada wherever they may live.
It is only necessary to examine the statements made in different provincial legislatures this year to realize how disillusioned are some of those governments which submitted to the terms put forward by the dominion government without consulting the provinces. The governments which a year ago hailed the purchase price of their taxing rights as the dawn of new financial security for the provinces, are, in a number of cases, now forced to resort to new forms of taxation to meet their current financial requirements.
I believe the time is not far distant when those provinces which did give up their most important taxing rights for a fixed payment, without any compensating advantage, will come to the decision that the refusal of the governments of Quebec and Ontario to submit to such terms actually saved our federal system, without which there can be no sound basis for national unity in Canada.
I repeat exactly what I said then: The time will come when the people of this country will understand that it is extremely important for all Canadians that the British North America Act at least have the continuing existence which was assured by the fact that two of the provinces representing well over 60 per cent of the population of Canada did not abandon that division of authority which was so well created in 1867. Then I went on to refer to this attempt that had been made at that time in the Ontario legislature to criticize me for being too friendly with Quebec, for being too closely associated with them in what we were doing at that time. I quote again from the Hansard record of that day:
I regret any attempt should be made to criticize that co-operation. Before confederation these two provinces were one. Our history follows a parallel course through many long years. One of the most important questions before all of us today in Canada is whether we will fan the embers of past misunderstandings, or seek in every way we can to find a broader basis for co-operation and friendship with the common purpose of building a stronger and more united Canada, within which every province and everyone in them will share the many advantages and opportunities which Providence has placed at the disposal of this great nation.
What I have quoted shows the position I took, first of all in regard to family allowances, and second in regard to this allegation repeated over and over again that the government of Ontario was aligning itself too closely with Quebec, that they were becoming too intimate. Yes; on that very day it was said, as an attack, that I walked arm in arm with the premier of the province of Quebec.


Mr. McCann:: You let it go, though.


George Alexander Drew: I have been prepared to walk arm in arm with the premier of Quebec or

the premier of any other province or the Prime Minister of Canada when the course they were following was really intended for the welfare of the people of Canada. May I say to some of those who are so anxious to sow the seeds of suspicion and distrust-


An hon. Member:: And discord?


George Alexander Drew: Yes, and discord-that it was not only the present premier of Quebec with whom we had very friendly and satisfactory relations. My very first official call as premier of Ontario was on Premier Godbout of Quebec, to discuss the mutual interests of our two provinces. I have said publicly in the Ontario legislature and I repeat now, that unlike some of those who belong to the same party in other fields I found Premier Godbout most anxious to co-operate with the province of Ontario and ready to join hands in any way he thought he could at that time, in the interests of the two provinces.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is not one of us who on some occasion has not used words which taken from their context could convey a meaning entirely different from that which was intended. I will go further. There is not one of us, including the Prime Minister and the members of the government, who on some occasion has not used words that at a later date and in view of later events he would have chosen otherwise.


James Sinclair: Now we are coming to it.


George Alexander Drew: But let us go still further. The question before us is this. Is this government, or are the members of the party who make up this government, so anxious to establish a basis of understanding and good will among other nations but anxious only here in Canada to create friction, misunderstanding and discord by the repetition of things of this kind? Is it more important to try to create good will and understanding in Canada or good will and understanding among distant countries in whom we are interested but whose welfare is not our concern as much as that of the country in which we live and which we are pledged to serve? I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that not very long ago we listened to a Liberal member repeating these very statements, using such terms as "fraud" and "double talk" and words of that kind.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that I only read what the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) had said in referring to the budget. He referred to it as a fraud, and I said the real fraud was the double talk of the Conservative party.


George Alexander Drew: The hon. member who has just spoken obviously was only reflecting what



I. 1952

[Stage Direction]
had been prepared lor him, perhaps by the recent member for an adjoining riding.
Frederick Greystock Robertson: I would ask the leader of the opposition to withdraw that remark, because absolutely no one helped me in the preparation of that speech.


George Alexander Drew: I withdraw the remark. The speech sounded so much like Mr. Thomson that I did make a mistake.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That sounds so much like Rod Finlayson that it is hard to distinguish.


George Alexander Drew: The great intelligence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) is well displayed by the interjection he just made. He has been complaining about the fact that for some time I have been reading statements I made in the Ontario legislature over seven years ago. I would point out that, highly though I regard Mr. Finlayson, he was not with me at that time. I was quite able then, as I am now, to make my own statements and I take full responsibility for the statement that the minister was utterly irresponsible in the statement he just made. It was very interesting to note the very generous applause with which members of the Liberal party greeted the speech by the hon. member for Northumberland, Ont. (Mr. Robertson).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: And of course it should be applauded because it followed their pattern, and I would be surprised if it were not. But it is also interesting to note how unwelcome to the members who applaud in that way is any statement which deals with the conduct of which they have been guilty for so many years.
I have placed these matters on record, Mr. Speaker, and I go further and say this. There is not one member of this house who would not wish that at some time he might have put words in a different form.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: That applies to the Prime Minister, to every member of the government, and I am sure to every Liberal member in this house. May I say this? No matter what words are used the question before the members in this house today is whether or not we are going to seek a basis of unity or try to destroy unity by picking out anything that will sow the seeds of discontent in this country of ours.
Mr. Speaker, is it not an interesting thing that we should be applauding the fact that two nations, which only a few short years ago were engaged with us in bitter conflict, are now free of the shackles imposed upon them after the war and that we are seeking
The Budget-Mr. Drew to lay the foundations of friendship with those nations at this time? True, we remember the conflicts that took place, but today we are seeking to build for the future by extending the hand of friendship to Germany and Japan, and other nations, in a common fellowship of nations for our own good. If it is logical, if it is sensible, that we should seek grounds of understanding in the international field, then surely it is unworthy of any Canadians who profess a belief in that course and at the same time follow a different course here in our own country. Certainly, there have been misunderstandings; certainly, there have been differences of opinion and violent differences of opinion; but it is the genius of our form of democracy and of our people that we are able to compose our differences and join hands in friendship in building for the better days ahead.
I ask hon. members to recall this fact. They are going back nearly eight years, as they have gone back for other periods of time and yet is it not significant that here in this building, on August 6, 1945, the representatives of the nine provinces which then made up Canada met to discuss the future of Canada with the representatives of the dominion government? Is it not significant that there were those that thought that the unity of purpose and common understanding between the representatives of Quebec and Ontario were too close for their satisfaction? Whether the allegation was right or wrong, that it was too close for their satisfaction, at least there was no doubt that there was real understanding between the governments of Ontario and Quebec in regard to the constitution and what it meant in protecting the rights of our people. May I go further and say that there was not a single provincial premier who disagreed with the position that we took at that time in regard to the importance of the constitution as a basis for national unity. One by one some of the provinces found it necessary to make financial arrangements, but that did not change their expressed belief that we should preserve the constitution intact in every way.
Now, with that background, with the fact that the representatives of Quebec chosen by democratic process within that province, met and found common ground-yes, and, according to those who sought to criticize us, close friendship-with representatives chosen by democratic process in Ontario, surely that is evidence of the way in which the affairs of this country can be operated in the best interests of the people of Canada. Those who talk so piously of national unity, and at the same time sow the seeds of suspicion and

The Budget-Mr. Drew distrust, not in relation to any subject under discussion but for another purpose clearly disclosed, those people are guilty of nothing less than a form of national sabotage. I repeat the words that I have used before:
One of the most important questions before all of us today in Canada is whether we wilt fan the embers of past misunderstandings, or seek in every way we can to find a broader basis for co-operation and friendship, with a common purpose of building a stronger and more united Canada, within which every province, and everyone in them, will share the many advantages and opportunities which Providence has placed at the disposal of this great nation.
We have great and important subjects to discuss, Mr. Speaker, and we can discuss them upon a factual and reasonable basis. There are two courses open. If members of the government depart from any subject before this house seeking to introduce other subjects for purposes so clearly unrelated to the matters in debate, then their real interest in national unity will be clearly expressed. The choice is theirs. There is no doubt about the fact that they have used anything that they thought would be of advantage, and no harm will be done in exposing openly anything that they have used secretly, and used over and over again. But the fact still remains that if we here in this country are sincere in our expression of belief in good will, in better understanding and friendship between peoples in distant lands, then the test of that sincerity will lie in the course that we follow right here in Canada.
I have placed that on the record, Mr. Speaker. I shall be able to refer to it without repeating it on other occasions. The choice is the choice of those on the other side as to which course we follow from this point on. I have dealt with one subject which I was prompted to do by the remarks that were made here tonight and earlier. I wish now to deal with the remark that was made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). Of course, Mr. Speaker, that vacant look of surprise on the minister's face is a perfectly natural expression to which we are all accustomed. Nevertheless, it is a perfectly natural expression for a man who returns after a long absence to surroundings which now must almost seem strange to him.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not get as far away as Nassau, either.


George Alexander Drew: I am referring to the interjection he made when I welcomed him back. I welcomed him back and he made an interjection which suggested that possibly he was able to keep in touch with affairs just as well where he was as it was possible for me to do in Nassau. It happens that I was in Nassau while this house was not in session.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Why did you not wait?


George Alexander Drew: It also happens that I am not responsible for the presentation of the budget. I would be ashamed if I were.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Charles Abbott: So would the country.


George Alexander Drew: But I will assure him of this. This is not the first time that I have been in opposition and it is not the first time I have occupied another position. I will only assure him of this. No matter how remote he may think is the possibility of a Conservative government's being in power, I will tell him that no Conservative finance minister who was the finance minister of any government for which I was responsible would lay a budget before this house and then leave the house without any member of the government representing him to deal with what was before it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was just wondering-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was just wondering if my hon. friend-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was just going to ask a question.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is a question that the minister wishes to ask, it can be asked with consent.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am quite ready to allow the minister to deal with this matter after I have finished. He has not risen on a question of privilege. I would suggest that he contain himself.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was wondering if my hon. friend would allow me to ask a question. If he does not want me to ask it now-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: -I will wait.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If my hon. friend-


An hon. Member:: He is up again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can we not sell tickets to this show?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I just wanted to ask a question.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot allow the question to be asked unless the leader of the opposition consents.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is quite all right. If he does not want to answer it, I do not mind.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a very simple question. He is afraid to answer it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a very simple question.


William Earl Rowe: Rise, then, and ask it.


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask hon. gentlemen to maintain order.


An hon. Member:: Ask the Conservatives.


Mr. Speaker:: I refer to all members of the house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not want to interrupt.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps the leader of the opposition will allow me to ask the question when he is through with his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can we not sell tickets to this show and pay off the national debt?


William Earl Rowe: I do not think the minister wanted to ask it very bad. Let him get to his feet if he wants to ask it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a good question.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Killing time.


George Alexander Drew: To me it is a very interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, to hear a remark to the effect that I am killing time; but this is the first moment for some time that it was possible for anybody to be heard, in view of the noise which has been coming from the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Sinclair: From the Conservative
benches.


George Alexander Drew: I was interested in one of the remarks made by the hon. member for Northumberland, Ont. with regard to the budget itself which he finds to be so satisfactory. He asked us where there could be any savings in this budget. Without attempting to cover too broad a field with regard to the many places where savings can be made- and many of them have been suggested- may I remind every hon. member that we have had dramatic evidence recently of how
The Budget-Mr. Drew money can be saved. That has been furnished by what happened at Petawawa.


Mr. Ferrie:: Do you endorse Ross Thatcher?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: The Petawawa incident is something which does more than merely raise the necessity for charges being laid. It is a great deal more than that. Let us remember that this is not the first time that there have been extensive thefts from camps here in Canada. This is not the first time that there have been warnings to the Department of National Defence that it was necessary that there be careful supervision of the military establishments of this country. There was, for instance-apart from other lootings in other camps-the dramatic episode at Farnham in Quebec where, for all practical purposes, it was discovered in December, 1949, that a whole camp had disappeared. That camp was equipped with plumbing, electrical fixtures, wiring, sinks, showers, refrigerators and all the things that go along with camps.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Was that Sam Hughes?


George Alexander Drew: That camp disappeared except for a few of the walls and the foundations which could not be conveniently moved. Of more than 100 wooden structures-and very solid wooden structures they were-in that huge camp area, an undisclosed number had been lifted intact from their foundations by a heavy-tracked vehicle and sold for prices ranging from $25 to $50 to farmers and other residents in the eastern townships at that time.
That incident surely should have been a warning of the necessity for effective supervision of the valuable property under the control of the Department of National Defence. But other events have gone on which were or should have been a warning to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), and the responsibility must be his under our system of responsible government. Last June here in Ottawa there was a fire which did damage to the extent of $731,332.88, according to the returns tabled in this house. That was on June 2. On June 6 the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) met the Minister of Justice_


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In his seat.


George Alexander Drew: -spoke to him in his seat in
this house, and told him that he was able to furnish him with the names of men who could swear that paint, raincoats and other materials of that kind, and of the nature of those that had been in this building which was burned on June 2, had been offered for sale on the streets of the city of Ottawa. He

The Budget-Mr. Drew told the same thing to the Minister of National Defence on June 12.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: June 13.


George Alexander Drew: Or on June 13. It was indicated that those names were available. Naturally the hon. member for Peterborough West expected that he would be requested by the appropriate officials to give the names so that these could be followed up. Nothing was done. That was only one of a number of fires last year which resulted in damage which reached a total in value of $1,438,354.87. Nor have those fires stopped. For the first two months of this year there were fires that cost this country, according to the government's figures, $3,173,442.27. The thing that is very noticeable about these fires is the number of occasions on which they occurred in places where goods and equipment, and things that might be disposed of, have been stored. After all, what more effective way to make it impossible to check on the amount of the remaining stores of any kind could there possibly be than to have a fire which would destroy part of the stores and make it quite uncertain as to what had been there when the fire started?
Let us simply consider what happened at Petawawa. This extraordinary series of thefts was not discovered by anyone in the Department of National Defence. These carload thefts were not discovered by this department that had warnings for years of looting and thefts as well as of the danger of fire. It came to light only because of the integrity, because of the honesty and the sense of public duty, of the wife of one of the men in that camp. She, knowing that her husband was being approached by a participant in this nefarious scheme, reported it, as it was her duty to report it, and a duty which she fulfilled, to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. But it was not the Department of National Defence. So far as they are concerned, the chances are, so far as any record would suggest, that these thefts would still be going on if it had not been that someone was approached whose honesty itself was the safeguard of this country.
If it were not so serious in what it implies in a break-down of morale in certain sections of that organization-and certain very limited sections of that organization-this thing would be laughable. Who ever heard of any organized thefts which had reached the effrontery of stealing a whole railway siding?


William Earl Rowe: Tracks and all.


George Alexander Drew: Tracks and all. Theft is certainly becoming a fairly confirmed habit when the temptation to lift rails from a siding cannot be resisted by those who were carrying

out this operation on such a grand scale. And there appears no likelihood that this would have been discovered, although all this was under the supervision of the Department of National Defence. It so happened that these rails belonged to a railway company. The report suggests that they belonged to the Canadian Pacific Railway. Of course, so far we have only the reports, but reports written in a manner to suggest that they were from people who had made inquiries on the spot.
The officials were challenged in regard to the absence of this track. They indicated their surprise, and I have no doubt that the surprise interpreted itself in a proper admonition to those who had been so careless in their operation. But, according to reports- and these are the reports, after all, that the public received-not to be stymied by anything of that kind they went and tore up another track and replaced the rails in that way.
It is ludicrous, Mr. Speaker, but it is the sort of thing that indicates a complete breakdown of any measure of supervision by-


An hon. Member:: Better anchor it.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, they should have anchored it, as one of the Liberal members suggested. They should have anchored that baby tank that got away.


William Earl Rowe: They had better watch some of the branch lines of the C.N.R.


George Alexander Drew: The fact is that in so far as we have yet been informed these carload thefts include stoves, electric refrigerators and things of that kind-


Mr. McLure:: Everything that was loose.


George Alexander Drew: -in substantial quantities. The fact is that anything that was loose went, and even things that were fairly tight went as well until they were discovered.
This wholesale looting is not just the responsibility of a few men whose names have been mentioned in the newspapers. This could not have happened if the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) had paid the slightest attention to the repeated warnings in this house that looting was taking place and that steps should be taken to safeguard government property in this country. These things would not have happened even, in all probability, if the Minister of National Defence had acted on the clear and positive information furnished him by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) last June. These things would not have happened if a proper system of supervision had been established in any of the camps.

Most hon. members have had military service of some kind, and most of them know that almost to the point of annoyance the very first thing that is insisted upon in any military establishment is a daily accounting for the stores for which you are responsible; and officers and N.C.O.'s are detailed for the express purpose of checking over daily, or at regular intervals, things that are under government control.
This great camp at Petawawa, with an investment not by the government but by the people of Canada of many, many millions of dollars, was a place where any sort of efficient organization under the Department of National Defence would have prevented a thing of this kind happening before it even started. These series of thefts, the disappearing camp at Farnham, the fires in government stores amounting to millions of dollars, the thefts at Petawawa, and the other reports that have been presented to this house of the looting of government property, all have suggested for a long time the most detailed and exhaustive examination of the Department of National Defence.
The Minister of National Defence tells us there are inquiries. What kind of inquiries? I asked him today under what authority Mr. Currie had been appointed, and he has promised to inform me, but I must admit that it has not been possible yet to find under what order in council, or other order, Mr. Currie has been appointed.
It is not a few men at Petawawa, Mr. Speaker, who are on trial; it is not a few men with whom they were in contact who are on trial. It is the Department of National Defence that is on trial. It is the Department of National Defence that should be brought before a proper tribunal and made to account for its handling of government property, and that is particularly true at a time when this department is asking for a blank cheque of more than $2 billion of the people's money.
If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) wants to find places where he can save money, now that he has returned to the fold, may I suggest that he ask the government that an order in council be passed appointing an appropriate body which will have the full authority to inquire into every activity of the government, including the activities of the minister himself. I have heard the suggestion that this is something for the defence committee. Members of this house know just how freely the defence committee is being permitted to go into matters at this time. But, Mr. Speaker, I pointed out on an earlier occasion that the terms of reference of the committee on defence expenditures are not wide
The Budget-Mr. Drew enough to embrace the kind of inquiry which should be conducted into the inefficiency, gross negligence and failure properly to administer public property, which has already been disclosed by this series of events to which I * have referred.
When I speak of the minister being accountable, naturally I am speaking of his being accountable only in his capacity as a minister of the crown. In view of certain statements that I have seen reported in the press, even made by a Liberal member, asking that there be some scapegoat for the minister among the officials in the department for the incompetence and failure of that department in regard to the foot-and-mouth disease, I would point out that under our system the man responsible for the effective administration of his department is the minister. ^ And when a matter of this kind occurs, it is the minister who should explain, before some body that can take evidence in the proper manner, exactly what the circumstances were, what directions were given, what measure of control there was or what lack of control there was, in regard to these matters which are of' so much importance to us.
Now, these are matters which certainly are worthy of the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). But one thing more. The Minister of Finance made a statement in his budget speech of April 8 which carries us beyond this immediate point-and I leave that point with the recommendation, which I make in all earnestness, that the Minister of Finance, while this budget debate is still on, will urge the appointment of an appropriate body to conduct an inquiry into that department which is asking for approximately naif of the vast sum which he seeks to raise from the Canadian taxpayers this year.
But when we examine that huge sum, in the light of what he has said, we find that on April 8 he told us-and these are his words-
I expect there will be a shortfall of expenditures below the amounts provided by parliament in the appropriation votes.
Mr. Speaker, without some explanation, which has not yet been made, that statement means one thing, and one thing only. It means that the minister expects that he is actually going to tax the people beyond the amount he actually requires. That is something he has no right to do. It is something he has no right to ask us to support. From medieval days our system of parliament has rested upon the assumption that parliament could rely upon the figures presented by the minister of finance, and that it could rely upon the fact that, to the best of his knowledge, he was placing before the House of

The Budget-Mr. Drew Commons the figures which represented what he thought would be required from the people for the tasks the government expected to be called upon to undertake.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did that this year, too.


George Alexander Drew: Then, if he did it this year, it would be interesting to know what he means when he tells us that he expects the expenditure will be less than the amount for which he is asking.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said by how much.


George Alexander Drew: Oh-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, I did; read the speech again.


George Alexander Drew: This speech is perfectly clear, and it clearly indicates the expectation that once again, to use the words of the minister, there is going to be a shortfall of expenditures below the amounts set out in the appropriation votes.
Already tonight the suggestion has been made that it was a commendable thing that surpluses be used to reduce debt. The repetition of that statement merely indicates how dangerous a state of mind some of the members of this house are actually in at this time. No member has raised any question about the wisdom of paying off debts at the appropriate time. But what has been questioned is the right of this government, or any other government under our parliamentary system, to raise funds for one purpose and to appropriate them for something else.
If it is intended to tax our people, to overtax our people, in the way the government is doing, then let the government say what the moneys are for. If they are for the payment of debt, then say so-and, upon reasonable explanation, doubtless the minister would receive support from the house. But the trouble is that the minister's record is so bad that members of this house have no reason to expect that anything that he puts before them will have any relation whatever to the facts as they will ultimately appear.
The last budget proved, by the most convincing demonstration that there could possibly be, the need for the most exacting review of every detail of the government's estimates before us, and for the most exacting review of the budget itself. After all, could anyone imagine a better piece of evidence of the slipshod and careless way in which last year's budget was prepared than what happened in the case of certain high incomes in this country?
Until such time as the Minister of Finance is prepared to say that he has reached the conclusion that there is some point at which


some people should receive not only nothing, but should receive less than nothing, then his budget of last year is simply evidence of slipshod methods in the preparation of the budget, no matter what his intentions might have been. Because he has disclosed quite clearly that at a certain level his taxes reached the point where they not only took the whole income, one hundred per cent of it, but in some cases taxed the people beyond their incomes.
Now, do not let him put on any smug appearance of glorying in taxing the rich. That was not his intention, as he disclosed. It was simply a result of slipshod methods, and now he seeks to rectify them. And nobody will know until next year whether he has or not, if he continues in the same way, and without any more willingness to review the facts than he displayed previously.
There is also this fact that should be borne in mind. There have been inquiries going on now for the last couple of days which have disclosed, as a result of the brilliant and untiring efforts of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), the utter breakdown of the supervision of the Department of Agriculture over an extremely important aspect of agricultural activity in this country.
What has been disclosed there, as is clearly set out in an article in Maclean's magazine, by Mr. Blair Fraser, is not merely negligence within a government department, but a failure to integrate the activities of that department in a manner which would have produced effective results.
There, again, is something with which the Minister of Finance should be dealing, not in this case in connection with the awful impact of the foot-and-mouth disease, but rather as to what it discloses in the way of a costly lack of integration of the efforts within that department.
These are only some of the things the Minister of Finance could be doing. Therefore I return to the request that has been made before, that if the committee on defence expenditures is, in fact, to be a committee which can carry out the terms of reference under which it operates, then it should not be confined to things that have happened m the past; but all the defence estimates for the coming year should forthwith be referred to that committee, as were the estimates of the Department of External Affairs.
I close these remarks with the request to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that, just as he moved that the estimates of the Department of External Affairs be referred to a committee, he likewise move that the estimates of the Department of National Defence be referred forthwith to the committee on

defence expenditures. May I suggest at the same time to the Prime Minister that he advise the chairman of that committee to act in a manner which will suggest reasons for confidence that the committee really intends to inquire into the affairs of the Department of National Defence.
We are dealing with a budget which means $343 on the average from every man, woman and child in Canada during the coming year, or a total of $1,715 on the average from every family of five in this country. These taxes can and should be reduced. I have suggested' ways in which the Minister of Finance, if he will make his recommendations to the government, can reduce expenditures and thus reduce the crushing burden of taxation during the coming year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, what I have to say in the few moments I shall take to say it will have reference to that part of the speech of the hon. gentleman that had to do with family allowances. All I can say to him is that while I may not be a good enough scholar of Shakespeare to appreciate the quotation he gave the house I do know of another quotation from Shakespeare that might fit this particular occasion. My hon. friend will remember the words in Hamlet which Shakespeare immortalized: The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Reference was made the other night to my hon. friend's earlier views on family allowances arising out of comments that were made by myself regarding a proposal to increase the present family allowance payments. I went on to say that since there was in one quarter of the house a desire that that should be done one could but conclude that there was now general agreement in this house with one exception-that exception of course being my amiable friend, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher)-as to the merits of the present Family Allowances Act.
I noted, as I think is historically the case, that the then acting leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Peel, had on July 25, 1944, moved an amendment to the Family Allowances Act which would have had the effect of giving the Family Allowances Act a period of suspension for many months. As one looks hurriedly at Hansard he cannot help but agree with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), who said on that occasion, and I quote from page 5345 of Hansard, volume V, 1944:
I regret that the constitutional argument has been introduced at this time by the official opposition. I
The Budget-Mr. Martin
think that was a move to shelve this important matter, and I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that your ruling has been sustained.
That was the situation at that time. Undoubtedly the amendment brought in by the then leader of the opposition would have had the effect of shelving the present Family Allowances Act. I want my hon. friend to know that the reference that was made to his views on Monday night was not a paraphrasing by me, for I used words which he was reported in the press to have uttered. He did not take me to task; he did not say that those words were incorrectly reported; but he went on tonight to explain what his view was, not only in 1944 but in 1945, one year later, when it was apparent to everyone in the country, including the then premier of Ontario, that family allowances were indeed very popular and acceptable to the people of Canada.
I take it that my hon. friend is fully convinced now that the present Family Allowances Act is one that deserves the support of the people and if he should perchance ever become prime minister of this country he will never repeal the existing measure. I put that question to him three years ago and he made no comment. I take it that I interpret correctly what his position would be if that were to eventuate.


George Alexander Drew: I do not wish to interrupt-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


George Alexander Drew: -the hon. minister-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


George Alexander Drew: I do not wish to interrupt-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. minister has resumed his seat.


George Alexander Drew: I merely wanted to say that I have already referred to the fact that my failure to comment at that time was taken subsequently as having a meaning that I did not intend. If the minister wishes me to state very briefly what my position would be I shall be happy to do so.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: It is a matter between the minister and the leader of the opposition.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like my hon. friend
to speak.


George Alexander Drew: I shall state it very briefly. As I have said from the very beginning, I believe in a system of family allowances which recognizes the constitutional responsibility of the provinces for social services as being part of property and civil rights.

The Budget-Mr. Martin It I were called upon to accept responsibility my first act in respect of family allowances would be to call the provinces together and to work out with them a fully effective system which would take full advantage of their social service organizations. That is what I have said before and what I have quoted tonight I believe.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am very glad that we have had a very important declaration just now from the leader of the opposition that-


George Alexander Drew: Not just now, in 1945.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -he would call the provinces together and that the present Family Allowances Act would be submitted for their consideration and if there was a substantial number of the provinces-


George Alexander Drew: I did not say any such thing. Do not distort what I said; I said nothing of the kind.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If a substantial number of the provinces should take that view-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have only ten minutes.


George Alexander Drew: On a question of privilege.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am entitled not to be interrupted.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has not
completed his remarks.


George Alexander Drew: On a question of privilege, I would point out that I made no such statement. The Hansard record will indicate the extent to which the minister is now seeking to distort what I said less than two minutes ago.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not distort what anyone says in this 'house and I think the house generally accepts that as the case. My hon. friend has said that he would submit the existing Family Allowances Act-


George Alexander Drew: I said nothing of the kind.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says that he said nothing of the kind, but has he not just spent an hour telling us that he never said anything against family allowances and now he says, "I said nothing of the kind" although he just said he would call the provinces together.


An hon. Member:: Two hours.


George Alexander Drew: Read Hansard and you will see what I said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am going to read not Hansard first of all, but from a publication entitled "Where Ontario Stands."


George Alexander Drew: Iago again.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not like to make personal remarks. I have no doubt that I have been guilty sometimes of being self-centred, but I am not alone in that. This to not selfcentring. I am now going to quote my hon. friend.


George Alexander Drew: You are going to say just exactly what I said a short time ago.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When my hon. friend was speaking I did not interrupt him once. I enjoyed his speech, just as I suspect he will enjoy mine. This speech was entitled "Where Ontario stands; an address broadcast by Hon. George A. Drew, K.C., M.P.P., Premier of Ontario, August 9, 1944." If I were to quote from a publication other than this I am sure the hon. gentleman would be on his feet at once contesting the source of my quotation, but I am sure there will be no question about this source, for the speech to contained in a document issued by Progressive Conservative headquarters, 85 Richmond street west, Toronto. In those days it was known as the Progressive Conservative party.


George Alexander Drew: As it is today.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am glad to have that correction. I am not going to read this whole speech, though it is quite interesting. On page 3, however, in the second paragraph I find these words:
Why is it that Mr. King has created the serious situation which he himself foresaw? Why, in spite of our repeated requests for a conference to prepare for the post-war period, did he go ahead with the bill which he knew was not worth the paper it was written on?
I put this query to the leader of the opposition, not for a reply now: Is he still of the opinion that the Family Allowances Act, which is responsible for improving the health standards and welfare of over four and a half million children every month, is not worth the paper it is written on?


George Alexander Drew: Is that a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Marlin:: Then he went on-


George Alexander Drew: I thought it was a question and I was going to answer.


Murdo William Martin: I am sorry the hon. gentleman interrupts. He concluded his observations. He was entitled to make a defence, just as he is entitled now to protest against his discarded opinions.


George Alexander Drew: Nonsense.


Murdo William Martin: But I rather deprecate that he should have brought in the question of national unity. I did not raise that issue. I quoted from one source only; that was the hon. gentleman himself. He will find nothing in what I said the other night that is at all inconsistent with what I have tried to do all my life-


George Alexander Drew: It had nothing to do with the issue before the house, nor has this.


Murdo William Martin: In that speech the hon. gentleman went on:
Many millions of dollars from the pockets of the people of Ontario would go to the province of Quebec under this measure. But 1 assure you that the government of Ontario intends to do everything within its power to make sure that this iniquitous bill does not go into effect. It is not this bill alone-
These are the significant words.
It is not this bill alone but the whole principle involved-
Not this bill alone but the principle of family allowances.


George Alexander Drew: No, no.


Murdo William Martin: The hon. gentleman continued:
-but the whole principle involved which we intend to resist. If our money is to be used under the agreement then it is to be used for total war.
Lest there be any misunderstanding about the interpretation I place on what my hon. friend said, I am going to quote from an editorial in the Ottawa Journal of August 11, 1944; and I believe I have current justification for thinking the Journal would not misinterpret anything the hon. gentleman said. The heading was, "Premier Drew on Family Allowances" and the editorial went on:
When the government first introduced family allowances, the Journal said that apart from the measure's objeetional dole principle, plus its dangerous mortgaging of the future national income, the proposal held a threat to national unity. We based the last claim upon the disparity between our different provinces in the matter of large families, or, to be more specific, upon the preponderance of large families in the province of Quebec.
Those were not the words of my hon. friend. That is the first paragraph in the editorial. I do not know who wrote it, but recognizing the language I have my own idea. It goes on:
Now comes Premier Drew of Ontario to bring this issue into the open; to state it with a force and in a way to challenge grave reflections. Says he:
"When Ontario handed over certain of its taxing powers (to the federal government) the reason for doing so and the conditions under which the transfer was made were so that the government and parliament of Canada could wage total war."
55704-114J
The Budget-Mr. Martin
They are now quoting the leader of the opposition, as premier of Ontario.
"This family allowance bill is an obvious bribe . . . there is every reason why it should meet with approval in Quebec where there was a very important election approaching . . . Millions of dollars from the pockets of the people of Ontario will go to the province of Quebec under this measure . . . The people of Ontario will be asked to pay nearly half of the $200 million which will be needed as the initial amount to put the Family Allowances Act into effect.
Our attitude toward any measure which takes money from the pockets of the people of Ontario for the special advantage of Quebec is based upon considerations which affect that province alone. You know what those considerations are.
You know that we face an issue here in Canada hardly less important in its bearing upon our future than the outcome of the war itself. Temporizing will no longer do . . . We are paying the penalty of appeasement . . . Silence has been mistaken for weakness . . ."
No one need be in doubt about Mr. Drew's meaning. He may be right or wrong; he at least is honest and clear. Little sense exists in efforts to gloss over the fact that, in the main, he is right . . .
Nor need any doubt exist that in the matter of gain from this family allowance measure Quebec's share will be out of all proportion to that of Ontario . . .
I am not going to speak at length; I am just going to refer to some other editorials. On September 30, 1944, again in the Ottawa Journal, will be found an article dealing with the hon. gentleman's views on family allowances. There was another on February 23, 1945, in which I find this:
Premier Drew's August 9 radio address, in which he declared that the "iniquitous bill" (the Family Allowances Act) would be resisted by Ontario, was quoted in part by Mr. Hepburn. Reading from a copy of the radio address, Mr. Hepburn quoted the paragraph in which the premier spoke of Ontario's money going to the province of Quebec under the Family Allowances Act.
"It is one thing to say, as the premier says-
And this is the point I made a while ago.
that the province should have been consulted," said Mr. Jolliffe, "and it is an entirely different thing to say that this measure will be resisted by every means within the power of the government. I assume Ontario families will receive payment under the act in July, and I do not suppose the government will attempt to intercept the allowances."


George Alexander Drew: Was that Mr. Jolliffe or
Mr. Hepburn? You mentioned both names.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Hepburn first and Mr. Jolliffe second. The hon. gentleman will recognize those two gentlemen as distinguished contemporaries in another legislative field.


George Alexander Drew: I recognize them as authorities you would follow.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They are not authorities, but they are witnesses as to what my hon. friend's views were at that time. The fact is that these quotations, some of which I have given in extenso and some of which I have

The Budget-Mr. Martin paraphrased, and others in which I have given dates and references, can be looked up by any hon. member. I say to the hon gentleman, as I said the other night, that as the minister responsible for the administration of this measure I welcome the fact that, in spite of the reservation he has made tonight, at least he now accepts the important principle of family allowances. But since he has raised the issue-


George Alexander Drew: Just the same as ever.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend groans. 1 suppose if I were in a similar situation I would groan too.


George Alexander Drew: You cannot follow a straight line for thirty seconds.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In his speech tonight the hon. gentleman challenged me to support what I had said in this house last Monday evening. I leave it to this house and to the hon. gentleman if I have not been accurate and fair. I sincerely hope I have convinced the hon. gentleman that we should not disturb the present Family Allowances Act.
On motion of Mr. Abbott the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 2, 1952