1952-04-23

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for the Minister of Finance) moved:: That the public accounts of Canada and the report of the Auditor General of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1951, tabled in the house on October 31, 1951, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.
He said: This motion was made at the last session and carried, but we have to make it anew so that the accounts will be sent to the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What Is the amount recommended to be paid or paid to each of the farmers in the Regina area for cattle that have been destroyed in the eradication of foot-and-mouth disease?
2.	How many head of cattle did each of said farmers have?
3.	How much has been paid or has been recommended to be paid to the Burns Company by way of damages for:	(a) destruction of buildings or
other facilities: (b) for cattle?


Mr. McCubbin:: Before I answer this question I should like to discuss it with the hon. member for Lake Centre.


Mr. Speaker:: Question stands.



ARMED FORCES


Mr. Fulfon:: 1.	How many army personnel have been returned to Canada from Korea to date, apart from those returned for wounds, sickness or injury, since the policy of personnel rotation was announced? How many from Europe?
2.	How many casualties have been suffered to date by the 25th brigade in Korea since it landed, In the following categories: (a) sick: (b) killed: (c) wounded; (d) injured; (e) missing?
3.	Of the total in category (c) in part 2 above, how many have been (a) returned to their units; (b) returned to Canada; (c) still in Korea or Japan but not returned to their units?
4.	What is the total army strength in Korea and Japan?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	As of March 28, 1952, from Korea, 982. None from Europe.
2.	As of March 28, 1952:
(a)	Sick	 5,565
(This figure is made up of the number of admittances of nonbattle casualties of the 12,509 soldiers who have been in Korea.
4,450 of this number returned to
their units; 909 were sent back to Canada for medical reasons, and 206 are still in hospital.)
(b)	Killed in action and died of
wounds		 143
(c)	Wounded in action	
528(d)	Injured	in	action	
61(e)	Missing	
4Prisoner	of	war	
13.	(a) 166; (b) 167; (c) 195.4.	As of March 28, 1952-7,646.



INCOME TAX ARREARS

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many certificates of judgment have been issued since the first day of September. 1951, by the Department of National Revenue, regarding arrears in income tax?
2.	Of these judgments, how many have been withdrawn without payment having been made by the taxpayer in default?


Mr. Lapointe:: 1.	Since September 1, 1951, 6,673 certificates of judgment for the collection of past due taxes have been filed in the exchequer court by the taxation division, Department of National Revenue.
2.	During the same period of time 118 of these judgments were renounced before payment of tax.



NEWFOUNDLAND RAILWAY


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: What arrangements now exist for payment of pensions of persons retired from the railway service in Newfoundland (a) prior to 1949; (b) retired or to be retired since 1949?


Mr. Benidickson:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
(a)	Persons retired from the railway service prior to April 1, 1949, received their pensions direct from the province 'Of Newfoundland.
(b)	Persons retired or to be retired from the railway service since March 31, 1949, receive their pensions from C.N.R. The C.N.R. obtains reimbursement from the province of

Questions
Newfoundland in respect to the portion of the pension arising from service prior to April 1, 1949.



OBSCENE LITERATURE

William Joseph Browne: What steps have been taken by the Department of National Revenue to investigate the importation into Canada of obscene literature, including magazines forbidden entry by the customs laws, and what has been the result of such activity?


Mr. Lapointe:: Item 1201 of schedule "C" of the Customs Tariff prohibits the importation of books, printed paper, drawings, paintings, prints, photographs or representations of any kind of a treasonable or seditious, or of an immoral or indecent character, and a list of prohibited publications has been issued to customs-excise officers engaged in the examination of imported goods. Instructions have also been given to forward to the department for examination before permitting entry a sample from any shipment which might reasonably be considered as prohibited under the provision of tariff item 1201, if not on the prohibited list. The result has been that publications on the prohibited list have not been allowed entry into Canada.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Fulion:: 1.	Have any officers or employees of the Canadian immigration service, besides Messrs. Wilson, Cianci and Bourget, or of the Canadian external affairs service (a) resigned; (b) been discharged; (c) been suspended, by reason of illegal or irregular activities in connection with the admission of immigrants to Canada from Italy and Germany?
2.	If so, how many, what are the names, and in which service were they employed in each case?
3.	Of those named in answer to No. 2, which ones, if any, were working in (a) Canada; (b) Italy; (c) Germany, at the time of their resignation, discharge or suspension as the case may be?
4.	What further action has been taken by the government against the individuals referred to?
5.	If no further action has been taken what is the reason in each case?
6.	How many immigrants have been admitted as a result of these illegal or irregular activities, including those admitted, as a result of the three individuals named in No. 1?
7.	Was any amount paid by or on behalf of such immigrants to secure admission accordingly? If so, how much?
8.	What, if any, steps are being taken to check the admissibility, under the regular provisions of the immigration laws and regulations, of those illegally or irregularly admitted, apart from the 75 admitted as a result of the activities of the three individuals named in No. 1?

9.	Are the names of any private individuals in Canada, Italy, Germany or elsewhere, who were involved in, or in any way connected with, these irregularities or illegalities (other than the immigrants themselves) known to the government? If so, what are the names, addresses and occupations of such persons, and in what way were they involved?
10.	Is any action being taken against the persons, if any, named in No. 9? If not, for what reasons?
11.	Has the government any reason to suspect similar abuses in respect to immigration arrangement from any other country or countries?


Mr. Cote (Si. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: Return tabled.



FREIGHT RATES


Mr. Laing:: 1.	Since January 1, 1952, which of the so-called transcontinental rail rates to Vancouver have been withdrawn from railway tariffs?
2.	Which of the so-called transcontinental rates to Vancouver have been adjusted upwards, and what are the old and new rates per 100 lbs.
3.	What is the car lot rate on stone fruits, peaches, cherries, apricots, from (a) Kelowna to Regina; (b) Kelowna to Winnipeg?
4.	What were the car lot rates per 100 lbs. on the above commodities, on January 1, 1952?
5.	What were the car lot rates on such commodities, per ICO lbs., on January 1, 1950?


William Moore Benidickson: Return tabled.



SCHOOL BOARD DEBTS

Mr. Pouliot:: 1.	During each of the last five years, has the government of each province (a) taken over; (b) guaranteed the debts of the school boards?
2.	If so, what provinces have (a ) taken over; (b) guaranteed, the debts of the school boards, and up to what amount in the case of each province?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Return tabled.



TREATY OF PEACE (JAPAN) ACT PROVISIONS FOR CARRYING TREATY INTO EFFECT

Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide that the governor in council may do such things as to him appear to be necessary for carrying into effect the treaty of peace between Canada and Japan; and for that purpose the governor in council may make appointments, establish offices and make orders or regulations; and to provide further that any expense incurred in carrying out the treaty shall be defrayed out of moneys voted by parliament.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved:: That a sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, be appointed to consider the accounts and estimates and bills relating thereto of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, and Trans-Canada Air Lines, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys; and that the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers, and records and to report from time to time and that notwithstanding standing order 63, in relation to the limitation of the number of members, the said committee consist of Messrs. Benidickson, Bourget, Carter, Cavers, Churchill, Cleaver, Dumas, Follwell, Fraser, Fulton, George, Gillis, Healy, Helme, James, Knight, Macdonald (Edmonton East), Macdonnell (Greenwood), McCulloch, McLure, Mott, Mutch, Picard, Pouliot, Thomas.


Mr. Slanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Before this motion is voted on, Mr. Speaker, may I say just a few words? They will be in the form of a question which I hope the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) will be prepared to answer.
The minister will recall that a few weeks ago, during the course of this session, a delegation on behalf of the retired employees of the Canadian National Railways presented the claim of pensioners in the lower brackets for some increase in the amount of their pension. That delegation waited on him after the announcement had been made of the new Canadian National Railways pension plan which makes provision for improvements in the pensions of those still in the service. The new plan also makes provision for improvements in the pensions of those who have already retired if they were members of a contributory plan when they were at work, but, as the minister knows, there is no provision for improving the position of those who are already retired on the sum of only $25 a month.
As the minister will recall, a day or so after that delegation waited on him I asked him, on the orders of the day, whether consideration would be given to their request that something be done to increase the amount of their pension. I pinpoint the whole question that I am now addressing to the minister to that one group, namely, those for whom no other provision has been made-in other words, those who are still on only $25 a month and at the moment have no prospect of any increase. When I asked the minister in the house, on the orders of the day, whether consideration would be given to that
Committee on Railways and Shipping request, he said that it would. I forget whether he made that as a promise to me across the floor of the house or whether he simply reported that he had promised to the delegation itself that the consideration would be given. At any rate, that was the indication. I wonder whether the minister can now say whether that consideration has been given and whether any progress is being made.
From such information as has been made public, I think it is fairly clear that nothing can be done for this group that I am speaking about-those on only $25 a month-by the Canadian National Railways itself. If anything is to be done it will have to be done either with the assistance of the government or by the government itself.
The minister knows how serious is the plight of this group of people. It seems unfortunate that when others have had their position improved, those who need it most have had no assistance at all. I hope the minister is in a position to give us a report of some progress on their behalf.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Probably it might be more in accordance with our proceedings if the minister spoke at the end and closed the debate. If any other members wish to speak, I think they should do so now.


Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, last night when the order of business was announced by the leader of the government, no mention was made of the motion which has now been brought before the house. Some of our members made inquiries with respect to this motion, and took it for granted that it would not be proceeded with today. Some of them are anxious to speak on the important matters with which this resolution has to do. In view of the fact that we did not have the ordinary notice, I would ask the minister to agree to adjournment of the debate. We are not anxious to delay the matter in any way, but we did not have any intimation that the motion was coming on today. For my part I should be glad to move the adjournment of the debate in order that we may take it up again as soon as possible.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the hon. gentleman that my experience has been that in the past it has not been the practice of the leader of the house to announce the discussion of this resolution. It has I believe been taken for granted that it would be discussed on the day on which it is presented, or the following day. However, I am not going to raise any objection to my hon. friend's suggestion. If he feels that there are some members on his side of the house who
1520	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry should have an opportunity to speak, I am quite satisfied that such should be the case.
I would hope, however, that it would be possible to have the debate tomorrow, because I have already indicated to the officers of the Canadian National Railways that we would be ready on Monday to deal with their budget and other matters concerning the business of the railway. It is therefore important that the resolution be disposed of as quickly as possible.


Gordon Graydon: Tomorrow will be quite all right.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



TREATMENT OF CANADIAN NATIONALS BY COMMUNIST AUTHORITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister with reference to the statement he made to the house on Monday, April 21, concerning the conditions of treatment of Canadian missionaries, largely, in China. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make any further statement amplifying what he said at that time. The reason I ask the question is that information has just reached me, which I have not been able to pass over to him, to the effect that both the numbers of those in prison and the conditions of imprisonment are considerably more disturbing than would appear from the Prime Minister's statement. There have, I believe, been factual reports in the past on which my information is based-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I say, I have not had an opportunity to send this information over to the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would appreciate it if he would indicate whether he would look into the matter and perhaps make a further statement at a later date.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I never give the house anything but the information I get. My sources may not be the same as those of the hon. member, but I can assure him that the information I gave him was that obtained through official and semi-official sources; and to the best of my knowledge it is accurate information. If the hon. member has other information and will communicate it to me, I will pass it on to those
[Mr. Chevrier.l

from whom I obtained what I communicated to the house, and will report later upon it.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture in connection with the floor price on hogs; I have already brought it to his attention. In the province of Saskatchewan-and I think it is general- although the floor price has been fixed, as low as $14 a hundred is being paid by the packing companies. Will the minister say what control the department has over the packing companies to make sure that the farmer receives the floor price? What is to be done by farmers who are being denied the price fixed by the government? I think this abuse is generally taking place and it deserves consideration.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to notify me of his question and to send me the slip which the farmer sent to him. It indicates that on the 17th day of April the farmer received $14 per hundred for three extra heavy hogs. I would just point out that a special arrangement was made after the foot-and-mouth outbreak to the effect that hogs could be allowed to get heavy, and that would not affect the grading. Notice was given three weeks in advance that the condition would end on the 19th day of April. It was two days prior to the 19th day of April that these hogs were delivered, but, according to the records on this slip, they were extra heavy.


John George Diefenbaker: The three of them
weighed how much?


James Garfield Gardiner: They dressed at 204, 205 and 201 pounds, and the extra heavy runs from 186 to 195 pounds. I think the only thing for this farmer to do is to write to our department; we shall check with the packing house, and if there is any possibility of adjustment, the adjustment will be made. It has been made in a number of cases.



FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE    FURTHER OUTBREAK IN SASKATCHEWAN  MEETING OF AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: May I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture? It arises out of his statement yesterday in connection with the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in Saskatchewan, in which he said it has been established that the disease was

transmitted from the area in which it was originally found. I seem to recall that the minister or someone said that it came from frozen meat which originated in the original quarantine area. That may not be right, but I should like to have the minister clarify it and indicate how the disease was transmitted from one area to the other, and on what date it left the original area to go to the new area of outbreak.


James Garfield Gardiner: I hesitate to make a statement on a report of this kind, which may not be absolutely in accordance with the facts- because you can scare people too much these days by saying certain things. I am quite prepared to discuss the matter with my hon. friend and give him any facts which I have, rather than make a general statement with regard to it at the moment.


Mr. Wright:: Can the minister give us any indication as to when the agriculture committee will meet to deal with this matter of foot-and-mouth disease? We were told it would meet immediately after the Easter recess.


James Garfield Gardiner: I had hoped to be able to suggest to the chairman of the committee that the committee be called the week after next, until this new case was discovered. I am not too sure now that we could get the officials away from the area to bring them here that soon. My suggestion would be- and I think it has already been discussed with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe)-that the committee be called together, and, if we are not able to deal with that question at that time, that we go on with the report of the wheat board or with some other matter which is to be referred to the committee, and bring the matter of foot-and-mouth disease on as soon as we can.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Will the government take immediate steps to provide necessary help for farmers who must carry out seeding and harvesting operations in western Canada within the next few weeks? Will the government again make members of the armed services available for such work?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: The hon. member kindly sent me notice of his questions. As to the first question, there will be rather a special farm labour situation
Inquiries of the Ministry in some areas of Saskatchewan over the period of the next several weeks, arising particularly from the additional requirements of spring harvesting operations now in process, which are in addition to the usual spring farm labour needs.
The agricultural employment officers of our national employment service in the prairie region are working hard on the recruitment of labour to meet this shortage, in conjunction with provincial agricultural officers. A concerted effort is being made to meet the short-time requirements-because it will only be a short time-from within the prairie region. Our officers are optimistic that as a result of these efforts there will be no serious shortage.
I would ask my hon. friend to suggest to any farmers in need of help that they get in touch with their provincial agricultural officer or with our nearest national employment officer, if they have not already done so. While the list of unemployed at our offices in the prairie region is down by 4,677 as at April 17, as compared with April 3, two weeks before, there are still in the prairie region listed for employment some 33,000 male workers. Our officers will continue to do their best to deal with this situation.
Now, as to the second question, this is of course a matter of government policy, and therefore even though I were sure, which I am not at this moment, that the necessity existed, I would not be able to make any comment on it because it affects other departments, particularly the Department of National Defence.
(Translation):



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) a question.
Under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, has the minister received from the province of Quebec a request for the approval of the plans of a bridge to be built at Havre-aux-Basques, in the Magdalen islands, between Grindstone and Amherst islands?
If so, will the minister grant, at the earliest possible moment, the approval required under the act, since this bridge is urgently needed and has long been asked for by the people of the Magdalen islands?
1522	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Alphonse Fournier: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question.
In reply, I must say that the provincial authorities, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, have requested the approval of the plans for that bridge. Their request was referred to departmental engineers, who reported that the project would in no way be prejudicial to navigation.
Once the provincial government have assured us that all public notices have been given in accordance with the requirements of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, we shall ask council to authorize the plan of the proposed bridge.
(Text):



CAMP BORDEN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence in regard to Camp Borden. Are there any cases of typhoid fever among the troops there?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Two cases of suspected typhoid fever have been found, and show the clinical symptoms of that disease, but so far the laboratory tests are negative. It is not known yet whether in fact the patients have typhoid, though they show the clinical symptoms of it, andi they are being treated as if they have typhoid.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. My question arises out of a Canadian Press dispatch that I received just a short time before I came into the house. It is short, and if you would give me permission to read it-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. McLure:: All right.


Mr. Speaker:: That will establish a very bad precedent. The hon. member might put his question.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I will just ask the question. My question is this. From a Canadian Press report of April 17 I quote-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[Mr. Cannon.)


Mr. Speaker:: Probably the hon. member will put his question without quoting the dispatch.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: All right. My question is: Will the contractors for a large eighteen-storey building in Vancouver, to cost $5,500,000, use Canadian steel in its construction? If so, would that not be a good opportunity to secure sufficient steel at the same time for the dominion public building at Charlottetown?


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I was sure the hon. member had a serious question to put, because he has not put a question to me in the last three weeks. I was getting lonesome. I have not seen the plans for the eighteen-storey building in Vancouver.


Mr. Sinclair:: Private.


Alphonse Fournier: Then I would have to ask a minister of private works to answer. I have no knowledge of the specifications of such a building, and I am not quite sure of the specifications of the building in Charlottetown, because the plans have not yet been completed.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Defence Production, prompted by a rumour now circulating in Alberta. Have any representations been made to the Department of Defence Production by the United States government with regard to a supply of natural gas from southwestern Alberta for the atomic energy installations at Hanford, Washington, and Arco, Idaho? If so, what volume of gas is desired, and spread over what period?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):: I have had no notice of this question. I remember vaguely receiving such a request probably a month or six weeks ago. I simply replied that no gas was available, that the gas is controlled by the province of Alberta and that until the province releases it for export outside its boundaries, I could not discuss the matter.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 22, consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go

into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this budget debate I think I should first of all recall the very warm and well-earned round of applause from this side of the house which greeted the financial critic of the official opposition (Mr. Macdonnell) when he rose to his task yesterday. I mean, in all sincerity, that it was well merited.
All of us, through the years, have watched the financial critic go about his task. We know it is a difficult one. Each year we have heard his Cassandra-like prophecies of calamity and a poor year ahead, only in the intervening year to see that production has increased, employment has increased, capital investment has increased-


Mr. Fleming:: And the surplus has increased.


James Sinclair: Yes, and the surplus-and no Tory deficit. But members of the House of Commons do admire the manly way in which the financial critic of the official opposition does go about his difficult task. This year's speech was no exception. He covered a wide field. He livened his speech with a little whimsy, a bit of poetry and anecdotes, and a few quotations. But one thing struck me- and because it struck me I have decided to change my form of speech today. The major part of the early portion of his speech, which he devoted to finance, was directed not so much to the budget as to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott)-anecdotes about him, cartoons about him, and a prolonged discussion of the minister's last radio address.
I thought to myself that I am not guiltless in that connection, either, because in my speeches on budgets I often stray away from the subject and take a swipe at the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) or perhaps the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). So I decided to set hon. members a good example today-unless, of course, I am interrupted by the hon. member for Eglinton-and to devote myself entirely to a discussion of the budget and the criticisms of it which have been made since the debate began.
I would begin by referring to the amendment moved yesterday by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the C.C.F.; and so that there will be no illusions about it I should like to read 55704-97i
The Budget-Mr. Sinclair its opening words as they are set out at page 1489 of Hansard for yesterday. They are:
"This house further regrets that the government has ignored the wish of this house, as expressed by a unanimous vote on March 26, that the four per cent floor under medical expenses deductible for income tax purposes should be abolished."
Now I should like to refer to the resolution debated at that time, and put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Hansard for March 26 records the resolution in part, in these words:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability-
And so on-leaving out those parts I shall not discuss at this time. I do not think there is any need to repeat the thirty-minute speech I made that day in the debate, when I dealt with the history of medical deductions in our income tax laws, and the various extensions of those exemptions, as well as the four proposals currently made to extend these exemptions. That is all to be found in Hansard.
Perhaps I should repeat the instructions which were given to me by the Minister of Finance. He was in the house with me, and told me to accept the resolution asking that consideration be given. In his own words, he said to me; "We will accept consideration of any proposal or any resolution put forward by anyone in Canada on tax matters." That, of course, has been the policy of every minister of finance in this and other British countries.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Even parliaments.


James Sinclair: I will come to parliaments, because parliaments are members considered collectively, and then there are the responsibilities of the individual members of parliament under our parliamentary system, as contrasted with the United States system. In our system of government, responsibility for the imposition of taxes and for public expenditures rests solely with the government.
We have the British form of responsible government, as practised here in the House of Commons. It is unlike the United States system, where responsibility for taxes and expenditures rests with oongress, not the government, and where there is often difficulty between the government and congress, especially when congress is of a different political complexion from the president.
I have wondered what would have happened if the minister had said to me about this resolution: We will not consider it. No doubt there would have been a real howl condemning an arrogant minister for failing even to give consideration to a perfectly

The Budget-Mr. Sinclair right and proper request. The minister was right in saying that he would accept and give further consideration to this proposal. I mentioned at that time the various proposals which had been made to the department throughout the year. I mentioned also that it was not a member of parliament but a member of the Department of Finance who had first suggested the incorporation in our Income Tax Act of this special provision for deductions for unusual medical expenses.
The leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low) had this to say yesterday, and I quote from page 1491 of Hansard:
-in the light of the encouraging statement made in this house on March 26 by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, I think we had every reason to expect something very different...
I think the fairest way to answer that is not to summarize what I said on this four per cent proposal but to actually read from the record of March 26 three paragraphs in which I discussed this matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Are you in order?


James Sinclair: I am perfectly in order. If the hon. member will look at the rules he will find that if something in a previous debate is under discussion in a later debate, it is perfectly proper to quote the earlier debate. Otherwise the Speaker would have ruled out of order the amendment of the leader of the C.C.F. I should like hon. members to listen to see if anywhere in my statement I indicated the encouragement which the hon. member for Peace River implied. I quote from page 820 of Hansard of March 26 as follows:
The first suggestion is part of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre:	Why do we not remove the four per cent
average entirely? There are two or three fairly good reasons for that. First of all, four per cent is quite a bit less than the average medical and hospital expenses across this nation, so we are giving some allowance even to average costs. Our main tax exemptions of $2,000 for a married man and $1,000 for a single man are in part to cover actual expenses, such as the usual expenses of food, clothing and transportation. This specific exemption we are now discussing was put in for unusual expenses. Once that door was opened, then of course there would be demands for exemptions of other unusual amounts in the ordinary man's budget. The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) raised this proposal of removing or lowering the four per cent item, and pointed out that this would give the maximum help to the little man, the man with just enough income to place him in the income tax bracket.
A point-which X mentioned in the beginning-is the fact that this tax must not only be good in theory and good in the House of Commons but must be good in practice as far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned in the collection of the tax and in the verification that there is no abuse through fraud or evasion. When you expect the department to attempt to verify and spot check the endless amount of small bills which will be turned in if all medical expenses are to be deducted, you are imposing on them a large administrative

task, and a costly one by reason of the salaries of the civil servants who would have to be employed for what would be a comparatively small tax relief.
A third objection is the fact that in most of these medical schemes it has been found necessary- whether it be a state scheme, a company scheme, or a private scheme-to place some sort of check against too free use, which actually becomes abuse, of the facilities offered. For example, in British Columbia, in connection with the hospital insurance they have had to bring in co-insurance, a small initial charge in hospitals to prevent unnecessary use of hospital beds. Most of the company hospital health insurance schemes in my riding insist that a man pay half the cost of drugs, again to prevent abuse and waste of drugs if provided free. Most of them too make the request for a small payment from the man on his first visit or on his family's first visit to a doctor to check waste of the doctor's time with trivial visits. I think perhaps this present four per cent is in that category, of a check on unnecessary expenditures.
So much for the encouragement I am alleged to have given at that time.
In the rest of my speech I made mention of other objections. There is the objection to giving a broad exemption which applies all across the country because in giving such an exemption you remove from the taxable income of the country a certain amount of income, which of course immediately reduces the tax returns from that income. Taxes and expenditures are not in two separate watertight compartments. If we reduce taxes we still must meet the cost of operating the nation, and so taxes will have to be imposed in some other field to compensate for the loss of revenue through the tax exemption given.
In this instance, if the four per cent, which is less than the national average of hospital, medical, dental and drug care, was removed, that would remove four per cent of the present taxable income of this nation. It would result in a reduction in our personal income tax receipts of four per cent or approximately $48 million. That $48 million would certainly have to be recovered through increased taxation in some other field. So the net effect as far as the average individual is concerned would be zero. It would certainly be an illusion to say that they were getting tax relief in that way.
That applies to any particular exemption which extends across the taxpayers in the country. I pointed out the weaknesses in the proposal-this is perhaps the Department of Finance or a student of taxes speaking- of trying to do indirectly through tax relief what could be much better done otherwise directly. In this instance, there is no doubt that the better way for the individual to protect himself against this hazard of unusual medical expenses is for him to act as he does when he protects himself against the unusual hazard of losing his home by fire-by taking out insurance. I pointed out

at the time that the problem in Canada is a diminishing one because each year a great many more Canadians are coming under such schemes, whether they be state schemes such as they have in British Columbia and Saskatchewan, industrial schemes such as many of the great industries of this country have set up, Blue Cross schemes or even insurance with private companies. Then I suggested, as reported on page 822 of Hansard, that the minister would be very glad to give still further consideration to the representations which had been made by the speakers who had taken part in the debate.
The position of the Minister of Finance is a little different from the position of other ministers as far as representations being made to him are concerned. I suppose every hon. member of this house has been part of a delegation which has called on other ministers to present projects or proposals. A trade delegation might appear before the Minister of Trade and Commerce and lay its problem before him; the minister would comment on it and say whether it was within his powers to deal with it. He might point out the weaknesses. If he could come to a decision, either favourably or against it, he might do so at the time, or he might say that the matter would be further investigated and the delegation would be informed of the results.
The Minister of Finance is in a very different position. When a delegation comes before him, or when members of parliament write him letters on tax changes, or when parliament asks for the consideration of tax measures before the budget is brought down, obviously he cannot indicate what he is going to do about it, either acceptance or rejection. Secrecy of the budget is one of the most important factors in the financial control of the country through parliament. It would be incredible if one group in the country knew of tax changes in advance of other groups.
Under our British parliamentary system great attention has been paid to secrecy in connection with the budget. We all remember how Right Hon. J. H. Thomas lost his position as chancellor of the exchequer because of a leak, apparently through his family. We have the more recent dramatic example of Chancellor of the Exchequer Dalton, who, just as he was coming into the house to give his budget speech, made a casual remark to a newspaper reporter that his smokes were going to cost him less. He immediately resigned when the issue was raised. If the minister was to indicate in advance of the budget that tax relief was to be given in any field it would put him in exactly the same position as the gentlemen
The Budget-Mr. Sinclair in the examples I have given. Therefore I say that the minister carried out the undertaking given by me on his behalf, in the only way he properly can. Consideration was given to the proposal when the minister and his budget committee were discussing the personal income tax field. Further consideration was given to it by the minister and his budget committee after the resolution had passed the house.
For reasons such as those I have indicated, and for other reasons, it was decided that the floor should remain but that the ceiling should be raised. That is an interesting thing because, as I pointed out in my last speech on this matter, last year only eight members got in touch by letter with either the minister, the deputy minister or myself on the matter of exemptions and deductions for medical expenses. There were six members on the government side and two on the Conservative opposition side. Five of those wrote about special cases in which people had abnormally high bills which were beyond the present ceiling. They asked if relief could not be given by increasing the present exemptions. Three of them asked for consideration in the case of the purchase of special drugs. Relief was asked by way of increasing the ceiling in order to meet the increased costs of medical services and drugs. This has of course been done in the present budget.
I want to draw attention now to one special remark by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to be found at page 828 of Hansard. I had said that the minister would certainly consider the resolution, that it was not going to be defeated and there was no point in wasting the time of the House of Commons talking it out. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had the opportunity to close the debate. I was listening very closely to what he said, because he is a very accomplished parliamentarian. He ought to be; he is on his feet every day. He had this to say:
The particular point that the house is voting on is the request that the four per cent floor be wiped out.
What happened? I jumped up immediately and said:
No, no. I must make this correction. What the house is voting on is that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) should give consideration to this proposal.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, "That is right". He does not say that is right today. The Minister of Finance
1S26

The Budget-Mr. Sinclair gave consideration. After giving consideration a second time he presented the form of relief given in the increase of the ceilings on deductions.
I should like now to turn to the other point which is causing considerable debate, the matter of the changes in the personal income tax. Each speaker has questioned whether or not we are to get a reduction in income tax this year under the new bill which of course is not yet law. The difficulty perhaps arises because of two things. One is-and it is understandable-that the people who are dealing with taxes all the time take for granted that everybody understands them as quickly and easily as they do. It is a common failing with almost every group of professional men. The second difficulty arises because of two points in connection with our present income tax procedure. The first is the division of the tax year, and the second is the impact of the social security payment contained in the old age pension bill.
Let me deal with the first difficulty, the matter of the tax year. When we collected taxes from individuals in the same way as today we collect taxes from corporations, at the end of their fiscal year, there was no problem. We could make changes in taxes effective this year and the individual did not have to make any payment until next April. During the war however we turned to deduction at the source, payroll deductions each week, fortnight or month. I think both the taxpayers and certainly the government agree it is a great improvement. The taxpayer is not faced each spring with a debt he cannot pay, and the government is assured of even revenue throughout the year. But this system, has difficulties. For example, last year the income tax bill with the surcharge was not formally approved until June, but income tax deductions at the previous rate had been going on in that year since January 1. We approved a 20 per cent surcharge on the old rate.
Let me trace it through in. sums. I shall use the example the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar used yesterday, the simple case of the married man with an income of $3,000. He has an exemption of $2,000. His first $1,000 of taxable income in 1950 was taxed at the rate of 15 per cent, and in 1950 he paid $150. That rate was also in effect for the first six months of 1951 until the change was made by parliament. We then voted a 20 per cent surcharge on that, which actually made the increase 20 per cent of 15 per cent, or a total of 18 per cent. If we had wanted that to apply to the whole tax year, having regard to the fact that deductions in the first

half had been made at 'the rate of 15 per cent, we would have had to set up tables of deduction at the rate of 40 per cent surcharge for the last half of the year.
In January of the next year we would have to withdraw all those tables from every industry in the country, get them to change all their payrolls and substitute new tables going back to the 20 per cent figure. Therefore we only made the 20 per cent surcharge apply to the last half of the year, which was a gain for the taxpayer in that year. There was no change until the 20 per cent surcharge became law last June. On the first half year's income no surcharge was paid, and on the last half year the surcharge was 20 per cent, or an average over the year of 10 per cent. Therefore while in 1950 he paid $150, he paid $165 in 1951. The 18 per cent rate has been in effect since last July, and the present tax tables used for deductions this year are on the 18 per cent rate.
If the minister made no change whatsoever in the present budget in the income tax law our man this year would pay $180. Here again we have exactly the same problem because of existing tax tables and deductions already made. The minister has decided to remove the surcharge and get back to a revised scale. He has reduced the basic rate from 18 per cent to 17 per cent, but at the present time, and up until June when the present bill will be passed and become law, deductions at the rate of 18 per cent are being made. After July 1 deductions at the rate of 17 per cent will be made. Over the year therefore the individual pays 18 per cent on the first half of his taxable income and 17 per cent on the other half. The net change is that this year he will pay $175 in income tax, but next year when we will not have this division and will have got down to the 17 per cent for the full year, his tax will be $170, this is down 6 per cent on the $180 he pays under the present law. This taxpayer's tax before Korea was $150. The surcharge brought it up to $180 for a full year. The reduction in the budget brings it back to $170 for a full year. However, just as last year with the split between no surcharge and surcharge, this year with the split between surcharge in the first half of the year and the 17 per cent rate in the second half an intermediate stage will be reached where his tax is $175.
The other point is the matter of the social security tax. The social security tax, the old age pension tax of two per cent of taxable income, does not even appear in the Income Tax Act. That is by design. We all know the story of the demand and desire for social security in this country. We all know there

are many people on the hustings who claim that social security is free, that the government pays for it. Therefore we have a demand for bigger and bigger payments out of the treasury, apparently with blind ignorance of the fact that the treasury can only be supplied by taxes from the taxpayers. I think most people in Canada who are in favour of social security realize that there must be some direct connection so far as the individual is concerned between what he pays and the benefit he gets. That is why the old age pensions committee, which did such good work two or three years ago, recommended the method of payment they did, the 2-2-2 principle-two per cent income tax, two per cent sales tax, two per cent corporation tax.
It could have been done in another way. The cost of old age pensions at 70 to the federal government today is $322 million. Today in Canada there are about 5,200,000 people gainfully employed. If each man working in this country had to pay a direct old age pension tax, contribution, premium, whatever you care to call it, it would amount to $62 a person a year. We generally think, however, of taxpayers as those who pay income tax, and there are between 2,500,000 and 2,600,000 income taxpayers today. If only income taxpayers paid for old age pensions by direct contribution it would amount to $124 each a year. For very good reasons, however, the old age pensions committee did not want a direct payment as you would pay an ordinary private insurance premium and they arrived at the 2-2-2 principle. The two per cent on income is the premium for that insurance, and it is the only premium directly visible to the individual. If people want to lump that two per cent for old age pensions into the general income tax, then with equal logic they should lump the unemployment insurance premium into the general income tax, with equal logic workmen's compensation premiums, and with equal logic the payments they make for other insurance.
One obvious exception is family allowances, where we do not in any way attempt to separate the contribution, premium, or whatever you want to call it, from general taxes. There again I think the figures are interesting, because in the case of family allowances we do acknowledge in the tax tables that these are paid directly out of taxes and compensate for this in the children's tax exemptions. As you know, we have two different types of exemptions for children. There is an allowance of $400 if the child is not in receipt of family allowance. That is in the case of a child over 16 or a child of a family that has not been in the country for a year. Again
The Budget-Mr. Sinclair taking the example of a man with two children, that means that the man with two children not in receipt of family allowance actually get an income exemption of $2,800 a year. On the other hand, the man with children eligible for family allowance does not receive as big an income tax exemption. He receives only $150 a year for each child, therefore on the face of it his total exemption is $2,300. However, when the tax he pays to the government is equated against the family allowance he gets in cash from the same government we find that he has to earn more than $3,147 a year before he actually makes any net payment to the government. Just as a matter of interest, a man with five children, if they are not on family allowance, has no income tax payment to make until he earns $4,000. If he is in receipt of family allowance, he does not pay any net payment until after he has earned $4,750. These are, without a doubt, the highest income tax exemptions in the world.
Turning now to corporation taxes. It is true that we were only able to reduce that by -6 per cent. I think the businessmen and industrial leaders of this country still believe that, high though this corporation tax is, it is much better, gives greater encouragement to production and less encouragement to waste than if we had introduced an excess profits tax.
Another interesting point is the relief given to a certain class of corporation, those public utilities which are controlled by the provinces and regulated so far as their rates and profits are concerned. We already pay half of the corporation tax on the earnings of these public utilities back to the provinces. Of course, this comparison can only be made in some provinces because in others, notably Ontario, these utilities are for the most part publicly owned and pay no corporation tax. This puts the private utilities at a disadvantage. This 14 per cent reduction in corporation tax to them is a measure of relief because of that situation.
Then, at the other end of the scale the minister has commenced something which I think is very laudable. In this country today we have this combination, side by side, of privately-owned companies and crown companies. The great advantage these crown companies have, of course, is that they do not pay corporation taxes. When the corporation tax is 50 per cent in eight of the provinces and 52 per cent in the other two, that is a considerable handicap to private industry so far as comparison is concerned. This year the proprietary corporations of the federal government are going to pay corporation tax to the government. True, it is

The Budget-Mr. Sinclair only a matter of taking the money from one pocket and putting it in the other so far as the federal government is concerned, but for the first time it will put these corporations on an equal footing with private industry so that we can compare the relative efficiency of private corporations and crown corporations.
Turning now to the indirect taxes, there was an interesting comment made by the leader of the Social Credit party last night. On page 1491 of Hansard for April 22, 1952, he said that since the Liberal party came into power they have relied more and more on indirect taxes. Then he said:
It continues, as any study of the budgets down the years will show.
I would say that the hon. member's study was not a very deep one. I do not want to be unkind, since I have reformed, but he could have gone to the library and found the facts by looking up the last budget before we took office, that is the Rhodes budget on page 1989 of Hansard for 1935. In that year only $76 million out of the tax revenue of $336 million were direct taxes. In other words, 22 [DOT] 6 per cent of the tax revenues in 1935 were direct taxes. If the hon. member will then look at page 1259 of this year's Hansard, he will find ini the minister's statement that $2,600 million out of $4,095 million of this year's tax revenues are direct taxes. Today 63 per cent of the tax revenues of Canada are from direct taxes. We have gone from the 23 per cent we inherited from the Tories to 63 per cent this year-a remarkable change.
If the hon. member were even to study the present budget he would see that the only substantial tax cuts are in the field of indirect taxes, excise taxes, special excise taxes and the tax on cigarettes. Undoubtedly if we could have a single tax today, the best single tax would be the income tax. Fifty years ago they thought the best single tax would be Henry George's single tax on land. Their criterion was different. They thought a tax should be related to the benefit received, but today we think that ability to pay is the soundest criterion of taxation. At the same time I think most of us here appreciate the reasons why a single income tax to replace all other taxes, no matter how desirable it might be academically, is neither desirable nor practical. I remember Mr. Ilsley in 1944 or 1945 giving a very fine statement to the house on this matter.
In so far as excise taxes are concerned, of course the general excise tax has been cut back from 25 per cent to 15 per cent. I remember that last year the member for Eglinton

never mentioned the increase in the general sales tax to take care of old age pensions from 8 per cent to 10 per cent as being a 2 per cent increase, but always mentioned it as an increase of 25 per cent. I hope that this year the hon. member will not mention the reduction from 25 per cent to 15 per cent in excise tax as a reduction of 10 per cent but on the same grounds he used last year will call it a reduction of 40 per cent. The reasons, of course, for the increase last year and the decrease this year were given in the two budget speeches of the minister. This tax was put on last time when war came in Korea, and it was primarily for revenue. A secondary reason was the shortage of steel and copper and the need to restrain spending. Well, in the past year the country has been more buoyant, production has been greater, prices and wages have been up, and so of course, tax revenues have been better. The second thing is, of course, an increase in the ability of the steel mills and copper mills of Canada and the United States to meet the demand for steel and copper, and this, to a degree, has relaxed pressure. Moreover the cost of living has levelled off. I do not want to prophesy, but I think that this level will continue, because of the fiscal and monetary actions which were taken by this government to curb inflation. All these factors give the opportunity to give this relaxation in excise taxes.
The customs tariff changes are best discussed when the schedules are before us. Here again there is a very interesting pattern. I came across it because of the remarks of the member for Peace River (Mr. Low) on indirect taxes. In 1867 over 90 per cent of the revenue of this country came from customs tariffs. In 1914 it was 57 per cent and in 1935 it was 26 per cent. In this budget it is down to 9 per cent. In the old days it was a principal source of revenue. It was also a weapon for protection, but primarily it was for revenue. Today it is a minor source of revenue. Because of our adherence to the general agreement on tariffs and trade, and because of the policy of this party towards reducing tariffs especially on primary production, we have steadily reduced the protection aspect of our tariff schedule.
The other comment I would like to make is on the opening remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) when he recalled the budget introduced when he first came into parliament in 1935. The minister in his budget speech made an analysis of the present expenditures on page 1249, and I think it is interesting to compare 1935 and 1952. This year we are spending

roughly $2 billion on defence, and that of course was unknown in 1935. This $2 billion defence expenditure has been acknowledged as a necessity by all parties in this house, and some parties would go farther than that. There is $900 million for social security which the minister mentioned, and that was almost unknown in 1935. Today old age pensions, old age assistance, family allowances, veterans benefits as a consequence of the war, unemployment insurance, and national health grants are with us and I think every party in this house approves of those things. The greatest check, and I think a necessary check from a taxation point of view, is that with the social security benefits there should at all times be a realization of the cost. The best way to do that is to directly associate the benefits with some definite contribution as we have done with the old age pension.
There is $180 million for provincial subsidies and tax rentals. Subsidies, of course, were known in 1935 but tax rentals were unknown. Tax rentals have been, for eight provinces at least, a very forward step in spreading across the country extra revenue because of increased national production and increased population. There is $440 million for interest on debt. The main reason for that great increase was the last war. The only way to reduce that burden is the way the Minister of Finance has been following since the end of the war. There has been $2,300 million taken off the principal and $62 million a year off the interest. We have actually paid the total cost of the first three and a half years of the last war.
Then, finally, there is $100 million in grants and subsidies, subsidies on freight rates, coal, lime and all these various subsidies which the groups in this country urge upon us and which members of parliament, especially the opposition, think are too niggardly. Of all these amounts almost $1,500 million are transfer payments and not expenditures by the federal government. They are actual transfers of cash passed to the provinces and individuals for them to spend. That leaves out of our present budget about $580 million for direct operating budget, and $157 million for capital construction and replacement. In relation to 1935, when you take into account first of all increased costs and prices and, second, the expansion of this country, that is not at all an unreasonable expansion, in direct operating costs. It is in the other directions -directions approved by this parliament- that our budget costs have gone up so greatly since 1935.
In conclusion I want to turn back to the financial critic of the opposition.
The Budget-Mr. Sinclair


An hon. Member:: Oh, do not bother about him.


James Sinclair: I was interested in his quotations. Ten times he quoted from the Winnipeg Free Press. For 50 years the Winnipeg Free Press has been the scourge of the Tory party in the prairies and still is and when they run their next stinging editorials about the Tory party and the party leader, I hope he will again favour us with ten quotations from the Free Press.
The other opinion he quoted was of a magazine. There were eight references to the Atlantic Monthly. I know the Atlantic Monthly, slightly; it is a magazine devoted to literature, poetry and the arts. I have never heard the Atlantic Monthly regarded as a journal of standing in the economic, financial and business worlds. I went and read the article. It is not even a signed article. Right in the same reading room, however, are many other American papers and business and financial journals such as the New York Times, the New York Herald Tribune, the Daily Mirror, the Wall Street Journal, the Journal of Commerce, right across the country to the Seattle Post Intelligencer. All of them were carrying laudatory editorials and comments in their issues after presentation of the budget. The financial critic of the opposition has reason to smile. He remembers the hard work it was for him to find just one lone literary magazine which criticized the Canadian budget. Perhaps he read the interesting proposal in an editorial of the New York Daily Mirror which, after the presentation of the budget, vividly contrasted the Canadian position and the American position to the great advantage of Canada. Then they finished up by saying that if nations operated like a baseball league, they thought they should do what baseball teams do when they are weak and want to improve their team. They said they should offer three of their American cabinet ministers for Doug. Abbott in a swap. They might actually be doing that now because the minister is now down in the United States as guest speaker at the annual meeting of the American chamber of commerce.
I will not weary the house with American praise and analysis, however objective and impartial. In conclusion I will just come to the home town of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) and quote from a paper which is the leading financial paper not only of that city but of Canada. It is a paper that I am sure he has read every week for the last forty years of his life. I refer to the Toronto Financial Post. In the issue of April 12, 1952,

The Budget-Mr. Sinclair the leading editorial-right after the budget- is headed "It Hurts, but it's Sound" and it reads as follows:
Under the circumstances most must agree that Mr. Abbott is following sound fiscal policy for a period when the country is enjoying a very high degree of real prosperity and when government revenues were never more buoyant. We are paying our heavy defence bills out of current income and not out of loans.
Or out of deficits. That is my own comment.
We are using surpluses to reduce the national debt. It is down a very creditable $2-3 billions since the end of the war. There are people in other countries who only wish that their own governments would or could follow our example. Painful as it may seem to be, this tough fiscal policy makes Canada the envy of the world.
No one likes paying taxes, and our taxes, judged by any standard, are certainly high. But if we are honest, we must admit that our capacity to pay is also high.
As all taxes, federal, provincial and municipal have risen so has national production, savings, wages, salaries and profits. The proportion of all taxes paid (federal, provincial, municipal) to gross national product is almost exactly the same as it was in 1939-about 15 per cent.
If I may interject something there, I should like to point out that the financial critic in his speech mentioned a quite well-known paper by an Australian economist Clarke, saying the danger point would come for a nation when its total tax collections came close to 25 per cent. The Financial Post estimated all Canadian taxes at 15 per cent, so we still have an ample margin, through good management.
Our country was never more prosperous than it is today. After making all allowances for the rise in prices, there has been very real expansion in real output of goods and services.
The development of new resources is proceeding at a pace never before approached. Capital investment has reached new levels in the past year and notwithstanding a record inflow from other countries, the remarkable fact is that nine-tenths of that new investment has been by Canadians. These are vital factors to be considered along with any national budget this year and in the years ahead. No budget is likeable: none is perfect. In the days and weeks ahead, before the amendments are enacted, it is to be hoped responsible citizens will present their views to the legislators. There are some administrative amendments which could well be made.
With that last sentence members may agree.
In conclusion my last word is to the financial critic of the opposition whom I should like to ask this one question. We have listened to his Cassandra-like prophecies, which may be found at pages 1494 and 1496 of Hansard, such as that we were living in a fool's paradise, that the boom would burst and that trade was going to fall off. We have had that sort of thing from him for five years. Let me ask him this one question. Where, in the world today, is there any country whatsoever with a sounder

economic position, a better fiscal policy, better development, or a higher level of employment than this country of Canada under the present Liberal administration?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of the house have felt a certain sympathy this afternoon with the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, who has just taken his seat. He had great difficulties to contend with in supporting the budget.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sure that no one was more conscious of those difficulties than he was. The role which he has chosen for himself, apart from this great initial difficulty, is certainly a new and unparalleled role for him, namely the role of moderation in speech in the house.


An hon. Member:: You follow it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The parliamentary assistant has today chosen to follow the good example I have set him on former occasions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I followed his speech with great interest. In his new role of moderation it perhaps did not have quite the same interest as usual for the house. I noticed that the Liberal supporters in this house were just waiting for one of those customary slashing attacks on the opposition but somehow or another it did not come, and those disappointed colleagues of his had to sit back until the conclusion of the speech in order to have their long-awaited opportunity to contribute their cheering.
I have a simple belief that all things should be in season. This budget is out of season. This budget was introduced in April, but it should have been brought down at Hallowe'en, for it is a budget with a false face. One would have supposed that those who have listened to the hon. gentleman this afternoon would have been struck with astonishment that the people of Canada do not entertain the opinion of the budget with which he closed his speech this afternoon. That public opinion is one of the finest examples to be found anywhere of the application of intelligent thought in a democratic country to the errors of a government in its budget.
When the hon. gentleman calls for cheers for our opportunity to live in Canada I join with him in expressing appreciation to Providence that my lot is cast in Canada because here, among other blessings that we enjoy, the Canadian people still have the opportunity, as they have the intelligence, to see

through this budget and to see it for what it is. This budget has not succeeded in fooling the Canadian people. Hon, gentlemen opposite ought to get that fact clearly in their heads right now. Public interest which had been fanned to a high degree by public impatience over the intolerable load of taxation under which the Canadian public has been suffering under the present government, has had the effect of fixing the glare of public attention- yes, and I think parliamentary attention- on the essence of this budget. And the verdict of the Canadian people, which has received wide expression, is that this budget, if possible, sir, is even worse than last year's. There is no principle in this budget; there is no guiding aim in it. It is a budget of expediency, and nothing better. The public indeed has lost all confidence in the present government's budgeting.


Mr. Sinnotl:: No, they have not.


Hugues Lapointe: Moderation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What shall we say of the speech in which the budget was offered to the house? Well, as has been pointed out in this debate and in newspaper articles, it was accompanied on the part of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) with a good deal of sleight-of-hand, of juggling, and I think we may compliment the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, if it be a compliment, that he has added to the minister's sleight-of-hand some sleight-of-tongue today. I am prepared, too, to leave that public verdict on the basis of a summary of press opinion which appeared in Le Soleil, in the issue of April 12. This is the way in which the budget commentaries appearing in the press were summed up in this newspaper:
La presse frangaise du Quebec a accueilli avec une impression teintee de desappointement le budget de M. Abbott. Aucun journal ne lui manifeste de l'enthousiasme. La note generate est celle d'une deception.
If I may attempt a translation of that article, Mr. Speaker, I would say that it runs like this:
The French press of Quebec has greeted the budget of Mr. Abbott with an impression tinged with disappointment. No newspaper manifests enthusiasm for it; the general note is that of a deception.
I am prepared, sir, to put the verdict of the Canadian people on precisely that basis. One goes back in memory to that day in somewhat similar circumstances in April, 1949, in this house when the Minister of Finance said: "Let us not fool ourselves, even if we are trying to fool the people". Sir, on this occasion the people have not been fooled, and hon. gentlemen opposite, as I have said before,
The Budget-Mr. Fleming ought to have that fact clearly impressed upon their minds by now.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Nobody is trying to fool them at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And with all the air of mock modesty with which the minister approached his task one failed to find anything very modest in the essence of his statement. What of the 1951 budget, sir? It was the worst in Canadian history up to that time, without exception. And the Minister of Finance showed himself extraordinarily and unusually sensitive to criticism in respect of the inaccuracies and the blunders of last year's budget. He says that the policies of the government had been proven to be wise and right. Well, it took him a long time that night, Mr. Speaker, in the course of his speech, to try to justify the wisdom and the correctness of those policies. Certainly it was not apparent to anyone else, and he had to labour hard and long to prove that there was any wisdom or anything correct in these policies. I think the Canadian people know by this time that the way in which they should measure the accuracy of last year's budget is not by the figures that have been given by the minister as to the surplus, but they should measure last year's errors by the extent to which overtaxation, as compared with estimated expenditure, resulted in a budget surplus which has been whittled away now by additional expenditures and by nonbudgetary allocations which have had the effect of creating a certain diminution in what is otherwise shockingly and unjustifiably bad budgeting.
Sir, we have seen the effects of last year's budget manifested in downright hardship on the part of the Canadian people, restriction in development, unemployment, smuggling. And the credit restrictions, the minister tells us, are to continue. Credit restrictions have hampered and restricted enterprise in many directions, have been discriminatory in their effects as between different kinds oj businesses, and have also been discriminatory in favour of the larger interests at the expense of new businesses and smallei enterprises.
But what has become of the budget surplus? It was $721 million on December 31 after the fiscal year had run but nine month: of its course. The great Ottawa mystery oi this spring of 1952 is, where is the vanishec surplus? The minister has announced a budget surplus of $356 million. Well, what ha: become of this surplus? That bears somi examination, Mr. Speaker.
In launching upon that inquiry it is no amiss, I think, to recall the variety of th<
1532	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Fleming approaches that the government has manifested with respect to the virtues of budgetary surpluses. Last spring, a year ago now, when the minister was budgeting for a surplus of $30 million he and those associated with him had not a good word to say for surpluses. They did not budget for a surplus of more than $30 million. Where then were the virtues of debt reduction? We did not hear anything about that, because only $30 million was to be provided for by way of surplus. Then, as the year progressed, of course the tune changed, and we heard from the minister declamations about the virtues of big budget surpluses and debt reduction. Yes, we heard the minister say on the radio last February: It has been an excellent thing-
He was referring to the budget surplus which then stood at $721 million. I continue: It has been an excellent thing not just for the government, but for each and every one of you.
He was referring to the hard-pressed taxpayers of this country. Well, so much for the contrast between the minister of April, 1951, and the minister of February, 1952. But then the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) joined the chorus when he spoke in this house in the throne speech debate on March 6. He not only lauded the surplus, but in taking up the remark of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) that the effect of the surplus showed that every family in Canada had in those nine months been overtaxed to the extent of 8250 each, the Prime Minister rose and proclaimed the benefits of that overtaxation of every family to that extent. At page 172 of Hansard we find the Prime Minister using ;hese words:
And if the amount of commodities had remained what it was, and there had been $250 more purchasing power for every family of five-well, in my simple logic I would come to the conclusion that ;hat would have added to the inflationary pressure nstead of the fact of its having been withdrawn as jurchasing power adding to the inflationary >ressure.
But now, sir, we have moved forward igain another six weeks. We are now in \pril, 1952, and the tune has changed again. Ye no longer hear of the virtues of planning !or debt reduction or planning for surpluses. Che minister is now content to plan for $9 nillion, which he says is tantamount to a jalanced budget. Well, it is very difficult, I tm sure, for the house. I fancy hon. members lave long since given up any attempt to keep >ace with these frequent changes on the part >f the minister, these kaleidoscopic changes hat occur almost from month to month. The ninister now says, according to his radio peech on April 15:
The government does not think It is necessary o plan for a surplus under present conditions.

The Budget-Mr. Fleming to a man who simply removes taxes that he imposed last year, despite the warnings we gave him that they would feed the fires of inflation-as feed the fires of inflation they certainly did.
Now, what about the income tax? Again here, instead of going away with the cheerful impression the minister invited in his budget speech that night, what we see when we remove the masquerade from the budget is that what the minister has done is to increase the income tax. As I have said, the total burden of taxation is greatly increased. The burden of the income tax is also severely increased. And I am content to accept the dictum as set out in Le Soleil of April 12, in this particular aspect, when it said:
(Translation):
The general note is that of a deception.
(Text):
Speaking of the note that runs through the press Le Soleil indicates that the reaction to this budget is that of a deception. (Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Your speech is another
deception.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No indeed, I am not mistaken; but it gives me great pleasure to read to the house, and more particularly to the minister himself, the excerpt which I have just read from Le Soleil, a worthy newspaper from the province of Quebec.
(Text):
The iniquity of this budget is shown in no particular more than in the fact that whereas it pretended to decrease the income tax, it in fact increased it. And those increases are found to be heaviest upon those with lower incomes. I am not going to go over the whole story because yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) put figures and detailed calculations on the record. The argument is unanswerable that this budget has committed a cardinal sin. Having disguised itself as a budget that reduces the income tax, having been exposed as a budget that increases the income tax, it has committed the sin of imposing those increases most heavily upon those with lower incomes.
Let us look at the corporation tax. Was that worth all the time spent on it today by the parliamentary assistant? There is a reduction, but what does the reduction amount to? Instead of paying 52-6 per cent the corporations are going to pay 52 per cent next year. They are to be expected to throw up their hats in the air and cheer the budget. Our eyes are not closed to the fact that when the government heaps up taxes upon corporations,

in the main those taxes ultimately rest upon the shoulders of the consumers. What were the effects of the increases last year in the corporation taxes? They were passed on where possible and the effect was inflationary as it added to the cost of living. It did not matter that the minister was warned about this, because the minister does not listen to anybody. He is not even here now because of an engagement to address the American Chamber of Commerce, if you please. Apparently that is more important to the minister than to be present in the House of Commons when his budget is being debated. There is nothing unusual in that because the minister would not listen to us even if he were here.


James Sinclair: As the minister is not here perhaps I should rise to say that this engagement is at least three months old and the minister told both the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and the financial critic. I am sorry he did not also inform the junior financial critic.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I suppose the parliamentary assistant thinks that it is an end of the matter when he says that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) after the thing was done came over and acquainted the leader of the opposition and the financial critic of the official opposition with the fact that it had been done. Let me make it perfectly clear to him that that is not good enough. Surely the Minister of Finance has a first obligation when the budget introduced by himself is under debate in the house to be here throughout that debate. I have said that it would not make any difference if he were here because he would not listen to anybody, anyway.


James Sinclair: On a question of privilege, I suggest that the leader of the opposition has an obligation to be in the house to listen to the junior financial critic.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sure the parliamentary assistant derives satisfaction from taking up my time.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Where is he today?


Donald Methuen Fleming: He will be here, do not have any fear. I think the hon. member will have his hands full looking after himself and explaining to his constituents how he comes to support a budget of this kind which adds to their already excessive burdens. There are only two ministers in the house during this present discussion.
What is the result of these present taxes on corporation profits? There is this fact which the minister would do well to ponder. He treated the house last year to a pious expression of regret that taxes on corporations were so high. The country needs something more than a pious expression,

especially when we see the results that flowed from last year's budget. We see the Bell Telephone Company obtaining authority to increase their rates by over $14 million, of which nearly $8 million went for direct taxes. It was so also with the increases in railway freight rates. The minister boosts the taxes, but who pays them? The consumer.
The taxation which the government is heaping up in this present budget means that every man, woman and child in Canada will on average pay in excess of $300. As the financial critic of the official opposition pointed out yesterday, it means that the average Canadian family of five will be paying about $1,715 in federal taxes alone. Is it not about time that the people of this country had an opportunity to say that they do not want to be smothered by the impositions being heaped upon them by the government at Ottawa?
In order to show what this taxation means in terms of burden on the Canadian people I turn to newspapers published in the province of Quebec which have passed accurate and pungent comments upon the scale of taxation applied during the fiscal year just ended. I look forward to hearing their comments on the much heavier taxation that is proposed for this new fiscal year. Here is the comment made by Le Devoir:
Les impots reglent l'activite economique d'un pays. Quand les impots deviennent excessifs, ils tuent l'esprit d'initiative et le commerce aussi surement que les detruit le socialisme.
If I might attempt a ready translation of that it would be that taxes regulate a country's economic activity. When taxation becomes excessive it kills industry and trade as surely as does socialism.
In a recent editorial L'Action Catholique had this to say:
Le gouvernement federal saigne le contribuable canadien a blanc.
I translate that to mean that the federal government is bleeding the Canadian taxpayer white. That was for the fiscal year just closed. How much whiter can this government bleed the Canadian taxpayer in the fiscal year 1952-53? The Minister of Finance is at least going to try.
Let us remember also what this is doing to the whole fabric of confederation. The distinguished premier of Ontario pointed out in a speech on April 21, as reported in the Toronto Daily Star, if you please, of April 22 as follows:
A dozen years ago the federal government took 49 cents of every tax dollar; the provincial and municipal governments took the remaining 51 cents. Now the federal government is taking about 73 cents of every tax dollar and the province and the municipalities divide the balance of 27 cents.
The Budget-Mr. Fleming
The way this government is going on to bleed the Canadian taxpayer white is having the effect of upsetting the whole scheme of confederation. While they go ahead and levy these impositions they try to make a great thing of the fact that having overtaxed the people they are ready to hand back certain amounts. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), who is not here today either, made a press announcement on February 19 that out of approximately 3,500,000 taxpayers more than 2,000,000 individual taxpayers will be entitled to refunds on their 1951 income tax of a total amount in the neighbourhood of $60 million.
What does that mean? Does it mean that the federal government is doing right by the Canadian taxpayer in making refunds? Rather it means that even in the face of its outrageously heavy rates of taxation last year levied through the income tax the federal government overtaxed two million taxpayers, or more than half of those subject to income tax. Now they make great fellows of themselves and make a great display of handing back the excess. The best reaction to that kind of tactic that I have seen appeared in the St. Catharines Standard of February 22, 1952. The article reads as follows:
The Minister of National Revenue, Dr. McCann, made a nauseating little speech the other day about all the lucky taxpayers who were going to get some money back from the government. Two-thirds of the nation's taxpayers, he indicated, would get some sort of rebate on the taxes sucked out of them during the past year . . . This noble gesture on the part of Dr. McCann is something like a bank robber returning to the scene a year later and handing a surprised manager a few of the greenbacks he stole. The manager doesn't get down on his knees and lick the bandit's boots in thanks, and neither do we. If they don't mind a suggestion up at Ottawa, we'd as soon keep possession of our own dough, instead of having them look after it for a year and then return it when it isn't worth as much as it was when we earned it.


Gordon Graydon: Without interest.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It continues:
If there were no hidden taxes, and we were all made aware at many points of just what we are paying in taxes, there would be a greater demand for careful spending and an end to extravagance in government.
So much for the Minister of National Revenue. The expenditure that I have indicated as contemplated by the budget will be boosted to record heights. Never in the country's peacetime history has there been anything approaching it, and if I recall correctly even in wartime there were only three years when expenditure, even when we were in the throes of a life and death struggle, exceeded the expenditure budgeted for by the minister for this present year. Profligacy is written all over the acts of this government. This is a spendthrift government. Yet it even has the temerity to preach thrift, and

The Budget-Mr. Fleming item 587 in the recent supplementary estimates is a vote of $10,000 to assist a particular organization to carry on a thrift campaign. I wish the minister were here because I should like to say to him: Physician, heal thyself.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: The parliamentary assistant is just as good.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Thrift is a great thing for other people to practise, in the view of this government. It is high time the government practised a little of its own abysmal preaching. The mentality shown by the budget is just that shown by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) in 1945 when he said, "What's a million dollars?" It was not worth saving. Hon. members will recall that in the fall of 1948 during the negotiations with Newfoundland somebody mentioned a figure of $180 million and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said, "What is $180 million? That is just peanuts." When methods can be so loose that a budgeted surplus of $30 million can expand to $900 million you have some measure of the utter unreliability of this government.
When we, of the official opposition, in decrying the extravagance of the government and the shocking wastefulness with other people's money, money of the Canadian taxpayers, call for up-to-date methods that would afford parliament an opportunity of applying the searchlight of publicity to these expenditures, what are we met with? We are baffled at every turn by the government's refusal to permit the introduction of methods that would enable us to really get at these expenditures and expose the extravagance in them. When the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) a fortnight ago asked the Prime Minister if he would agree to the estimates of the Department of National Defence amounting to over $2 billion being referred to the special committee on defence expenditures for review, he was met, as he has been met repeatedly, with the same old answer-no. Why does the government not want parliament to have an efficient and up-to-date method of reviewing these expenditures? I leave that question to the house.
Look at social security. It has been made quite plain that the government has bungled the financing of that the same as they have bungled the financing of everything else. The old age security plan was to be on a pay-as-you-go basis. The plan has already become a deficit plan. There is a deficit of $58 million this year. The basis of the scheme has so far not been honoured by the government.
I have time to mention only one other matter. I should like to have spent some


time on what the government has done in ignoring, yes, defying the clear expression of opinion of the house given on March 26 that the four per cent limitation on medical expenses as deductions from income tax should be removed. What the house said on that occasion in the clearest-and unanimous -expression of opinion was that the four per cent limitation should go and that all medical expenses should be recognized as deductions from taxable income. But the minister has ignored, yes, he has defied, the clear expression of opinion of the house, and in the face of the kind of sophistry that we heard on this subject today from the parliamentary assistant to the minister we can only be left with the conclusion that either the house has been defied or the house was hoodwinked on March 26. There has been no attempt on the part of the government to address itself even to the merits of the subject. On that occasion the parliamentary assistant sought to belabour the hon. member who introduced the resolution and said: Oh, this will increase the ceilings. Then, if you please, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) not only ignores the request for the removal of the four per cent limitation but he boosts the ceilings, the very thing his parliamentary assistant had decried in the house on March 26.


James Sinclair: That is not true either.


Donald Methuen Fleming: These two hon. gentlemen, the minister and his assistant, ought to get their heads together. They are not working together. It is high time they got their trains running on the same track.
We have had enough of this defiance of parliament. We have had enough of this attempt to override and ignore parliament. I hope that by this time the house is sick and tired of the insults the government is deliberately heaping upon it.
I think I have justified what I called the budget in the first place, a budget that should have been introduced in season, at Hallowe'en, because it is a budget with a false face.


James Sinclair: Full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.	[DOT]


Gordon Graydon: He put the light in the pumpkin for you.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: The Tory light is out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) moved, and I had the honour to second, the

subamendment now before the house. That subamendment reads as follows:
This house further regrets that the government has ignored the wish of this house, as expressed by a unanimous vote on March 26, that the four per cent floor under medical expenses deductible for income tax purposes should be abolished.
Despite the tortuous and circuitous effort of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sinclair) to justify the failure of the government to carry out the unanimous wish of the house as expressed on March 26, I can tell him that the people of this country feel that they were tricked. The plain fact of the matter, despite all the technicalities upon which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and his parliamentary assistant may seek to rely, is that this house expressed a definite opinion when it accepted my motion on March 26.


James Sinclair: To give consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The parliamentary assistant is still trying to trick the people of Canada. But he certainly cannot fool the members of this house.


James Sinclair: It is not that I object very much, Mr. Speaker, to the assertion that I tried to trick. The only thing is that the hon. member has placed the blame in the wrong place. He is the author of the trickery in the resolution asking for consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member has been here quite a while and professes to be an expert in a number of matters-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: He is, too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and he should know that the rules of parliament deny to private members, including himself, the right to introduce motions involving the expenditure of money or loss of revenue to the treasury.


James Sinclair: I mentioned that in my
speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But he also knows that it is the established right of members of parliament to introduce what are referred to in the authorities as abstract motions which technically do not bind the house but which if passed express the opinion of the members of the house. I agree that technically the motion of March 26 did not bind the house or the government, but it did express the opinion of the members of this House of Commons. I would remind him that Bouri-not, in his fourth edition, in discussing these abstract resolutions, after having pointed out that it is impossible for members to move motions that involve directly the expenditure of money, says that they are intended to point out to the government the importance
The Budget-Mr. Knowles and necessity of such expenditures. An expenditure or a reduction in taxation amount to the same thing. The point I am making is that when members of this house vote on a motion asking the government to consider something they are, in fact, expressing their opinion on the substance of the question which the government is asked to consider.
The parliamentary assistant tried today to make a great deal out of the fact it was only a request to consider. He parroted the words of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) yesterday, when the minister interjected a remark in the speech of the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). As recorded at page 1486 of Hansard for April 22, 1952, the Minister of Finance said:
The Minister of Finance never refuses to consider any suggestions, whether it is from the House of Commons or from any other place. That was the reason the resolution was not voted down.
Most of us did not come to this house yesterday. We have been here for some time and we know what the practice is with respect to private members' resolutions. If the government does not like them and is not prepared to consider what their substance calls for, they are either talked out or voted down. In some cases, they are withdrawn at the request of the government, when the sponsor is a government member.
Let me remind the parliamentary assistant and the minister what happened a year ago. On February 26, 1951, I moved a motion asking the government to consider the advisability of introducing legislation to amend the Income Tax Act so as to provide for the deductibility of trade union dues. The opening words of that motion were identical, to every jot and tittle, to the motion that I introduced this year on March 26 with respect to the deductibility of medical expenses. I made sure that the wording was identical. My motion of a year ago asked for consideration. Did the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) say on that occasion, as he said to my leader yesterday, that the Minister of Finance never refuses to consider any suggestion whether from the House of Commons or any other place, and that is the reason the resolution was not voted down? Not on your life; the resolution was voted down on February 26, 1951, by the majority on the government side. I was very pleased that in that particular case the Minister of Finance changed his mind some time between February 26, 1951, and the date of his budget. When he brought down his budget of April 10, 1951, he did carry out, in part at least, the request in that resolution, even though the resolution itself had been defeated.
Let me remind the parliamentary assistant and the house generally of some other private
1538	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Knowles members' resolutions. I had one that was defeated on October 3, 1949. It asked the government simply to consider the appointment of a royal commission to look into the loss of pension rights by Canadian Pacific Railway workers who were involved in the 1919 strike. Did the government say they were prepared to consider anything, and therefore would not vote that down? No, they were against the substance of what was involved in that resolution, and so it was voted down by the government majority.
On February 19, 1951, the member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) introduced a resolution which merely asked that the government consider the advisability of establishing a committee to consider certain aspects of cigarette smoking. It was only a request for consideration. Did the government say, as the Minister of Finance said yesterday, that the government is prepared to consider anything? No, they said, through the mouth of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), that no doubt the member for Fort William would be satisfied that his case had been made. He was asked to withdraw his motion. When some of us refused to give unanimous consent to the withdrawal of that motion, it was put to a vote. Was it allowed to pass because it was simply a request for consideration? Not on your life, it was defeated by the government majority.
The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) has on a number of occasions introduced a private member's resolution with regard to soldier settlers. I am thinking particularly of the one on February 21, 1951, which asked for all that a private member can ask, that consideration be given to the granting of clear titles to certain soldier settlers. Did the government say, in the words of the Minister of Finance or of the parliamentary assistant, that the government will consider anything and therefore allow it to pass? No, it was defeated by a recorded vote with the government majority seeing to it that it was defeated.
On February 22, 1951, the member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard) introduced a motion asking that the government consider, just consider, the abolition of tolls on certain bridges in the Montreal area. When the debate was just about over the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) indicated that a very good case had been made, that it would be studied, and perhaps in view of that undertaking the member for Chambly-Rouville would be prepared to withdraw his motion. Why did not the Minister of Transport do what the Minister of Finance said yesterday and say that the government was prepared to consider anything, so the motion could pass? No, they did not want to commit 

themselves to the substance of the motion so the member for Chambly-Rouville was asked to withdraw it. He was prepared to do so, but when some of us said we were not prepared to give unanimous consent to the withdrawal of the motion it was put to a vote and it was defeated, despite the fact the Minister of Transport had just spoken sympathetically about it.
I could go on referring to motions put by other hon. members, such as the one by the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) asking for the decentralization of industry. This motion has not come to a vote as yet; it has been talked out and that is- another means that is employed from time to time to defeat these motions. What is crystal clear to anyone who wants to face the facts is that when a motion has in it something which the government does not want to have itself committed to, it sees to it that that motion does not pass, even though it technically asks simply for consideration. It either sees to it that it is defeated by the government majority in this house or if it is a Liberal motion it sometimes persuades its sponsor to withdraw the motion. Or again, the motion may be talked out. Therefore, I contend that though my motion asked for the only thing a private member can request, consideration, nevertheless the fact that it passed unanimously means that this house expressed its view not only that consideration should be given to my proposal but expressed its thought on the substance of that motion.
Hon. members who were in the house on the afternoon of Wednesday, March 26, will remember the general feeling that was around the house. They will remember also the general feeling of satisfaction that the government had seen fit to accept the motion, and the hope that that would result in the principle being implemented when the budget was brought down. A short while ago the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sinclair) read his interjection in what I had to say on March 26, as recorded at page 828 of Hansard. May I read some of the rest of what I had to say on that same page, making it crystal clear that I fully recognized the technicality of the position but also that the house accepted the spirit of what I was advocating on that occasion. I said:
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I realize full well that the passing of this resolution does not mean the immediate legislative enactment of what it asks for. The resolution asks for all that a private member, under the rules of the house, can ask for, namely that the government give consideration to the proposal that the four per cent floor, in connection with medical expenses in relation to income tax, should be wiped out.

I take it that if this resolution is passed, since it has won the support of the government, the government will do what the resolution asks, namely will give consideration to that proposal. Naturally I hope the fact that this resolution is passed unanimously by this house will suggest to the government that that consideration should be favourable.
The parliamentary assistant, who says today that he was watching me like a hawk, did not interrupt at that point. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that at that time I stated the position with exactitude. The position was that technically it was a request for consideration; but in spirit, in terms of what was the thinking and the opinion of the members of this house, we were expressing our unanimous view on a specific idea and we were hopeful that the government would go along with that idea when it brought down the budget on April 8.
People outside the house are not impressed with the technical aspect of this matter even to the extent that I have been prepared to spell it out. People outside the house see this whole picture in terms of parliament, which consists of 262 members, which they believe to be superior to the cabinet of 20 members. People outside this house-and most of us have been home during the Easter recess and have obtained the views of the man in the street-simply understand that the 262 of us, the entire house, expressed a view but then one member in the cabinet rejected that view. The man in the street simply cannot understand such defiance of parliament.
In the press of the country many references have been made to this affair. That is natural, because the morning after the motion passed on March 26 in support of the abolition of the four per cent floor, it was headline news in most of the papers in the country; and within the next few days a great many papers editorialized on it favourably. They were pleased to see that the government had accepted a private member's motion and in particular a motion from the opposition side of the house. Editorial writers in general approved of the substance of that motion and anticipated that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), after giving it his consideration, would certainly carry out the wish of the house.
It is therefore only natural that many of these newspapers are annoyed over what happened and are now beginning to express their views. For example, I have here an editorial that appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune of Thursday, April 17. The heading of that editorial is significant; it is "Parliament be Blowed". The editorial reads in part as follows:
Just how much Influence parliament has with the government in some things was clearly shown by what happened to deductions from income tax for medical expenses in the current budget.
The Budget-Mr. Knowles
On March 26 Stanley Knowles. M.P. for Winnipeg, introduced a resolution urging the government to consider the introduction of legislation to permit taxpayers to deduct from their incomes, before computing the amount of income taxes to be paid, the entire amount of medical expenses rather than merely the portion in excess of four per cent of their taxable income, as the act now stands.
The editorial goes on to point out that this motion received the support of members in all sections of the house. It points out also that there was some discussion on other aspects of the problem, notably references to the ceiling, but says that in the end no change was made in my motion and that it passed in its original form asking for the one change, namely the removal of the four per cent floor. Then towards the end of the editorial the Tribune says:
Mr. Abbott chose to ignore what amounted to a directive from the Commons and followed something that had been merely mentioned in the debate. He raised the ceilings-something that would benefit only taxpayers with phenomenal ill health.
This is another instance of the parliament-be-damned attitude of the present administration.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the parliamentary assistant and those on the other side can argue, if they wish, that it is not technically correct for the Winnipeg Tribune to say that that motion was a directive. But that is the view of people who look objectively at the functioning of parliament. They see these 262 members pass a motion unanimously. To them-and in practical terms they are correct-it amounted to a directive from the Commons and the Minister of Finance chose to ignore that directive.
I have here another editorial. This time it is from the Globe and Mail of Toronto and it appears in the issue of Friday, April 11. The heading is "A Loaf and a Stone". I will read only two or three sentences of it:
A minor item in Finance Minister Abbott's budget precisely illustrates the contempt with which the federal cabinet treats the views of parliament and the needs of the public. In this instance, it seems to have made a special effort to express that contempt, to assert its lordly disregard of the taxpayers and their elected representatives.
Then the writer goes on to point out that a change has been proposed in the budget to raise the ceiling to $1,000 and to $2,000. Then he says:
This is exactly the opposite of what parliament wants; and in fact, has asked for.
Then the editorial goes on to spell out the terms of the resolution in language similar, as a matter of fact, to that in the editorial that I have just read. Then I quote this:
The cabinet was not satisfied merely to deny that request, but cynically twisted it right around, giving parliament what it did not seek, and refusing it what it did ... It accepted the principle endorsed by parliament, but handed it back in such a way as to make parliament look absurd. Asked for a loaf, it grinningly gave a stone.
1540	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Knowles
If parliament must accept the insult, it is the taxpayers who must accept the injury; particularly those in the middle income brackets.
I have here as well a letter to the editor that appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press. I really would not expect the Winnipeg Free Press to take my part against the Liberal government, but at least they went this far. They ran this letter a few days ago. It appeared on Saturday, April 19, 1952, and it is over the signature of J. W. Gilbert of Hanover, Ontario. This is an exceedingly interesting letter because it deals not only with the amazing situation that the cabinet could ignore the unanimous vote of the members of the House of Commons but also deals with an important point of substance in relation to the question itself, namely that of abolishing the four per cent floor.
I will come back to that matter in just a moment. Before I do so, I want to sum up this part of my remarks by saying that I regard what the government did in this respect as one of the worst exhibitions that I lave seen in this parliament for a long time. This government is asking the people of this rountry to spend billions of dollars for the lefence of democracy, yet the government is scuttling democracy right here in the House )f Commons. The whole approach of this Government to parliamentary democracy is such as to spread cynicism in the minds of )ur people and to weaken the support of our leople for what is so often called our way >f life. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that times ike the present call for greater adherence han ever to the principles of democracy; md when a group of 262 members of parlia-nent unanimously express their view as to vhat should be done, it should be carried out >y the government of the day.
I now want to go on and say a bit more ibout the substance of the matter itself >ecause I dare to hope that the government nay reconsider its position on this matter wen at this session, even before this budget s put through. I would say that one of the vays to bring that event about is for a good leal to be said about this matter, not only >y those of us on the opposition side of the louse who perhaps feel most annoyed by chat has happened but also by members on he government side of the house, many of idiom probably feel the same way. We all iave the experience in parliament of know-ng that copies of letters written to us are ometimes sent to members in other parties, t happens both ways. There have come to ly desk copies of letters that have been sent a members on the Liberal side of the house, sking their views on what happened, and rging them to call upon the Minister of 'inance (Mr. Abbott) during the course of


this budget debate to change his position with respect to this four per cent floor, and I hope that that will be done and that the government will yet give favourable consideration to the request of this house, which was expressed in that vote on March 26.
Now, with respect to the question itself, the parliamentary assistant has not yet dealt with the point that we made in the previous debate as to the unfairness of allowing the deduction for charitable expenses right from the first dollar up to ten per cent of income; whereas in the case of medical expenses the first dollar is not allowed; in fact, nothing is allowed until you reach this four per cent floor. I need not go into that again at length; I have done it on two or three occasions when I have spoken on the matter. But may 1 say that many of the letters I get on this subject deal with it, and people generally simply do not understand that unfairness. We urge that if people are allowed to make deductions for charitable donations, which they make voluntarily, without any floor, the same attitude should be taken toward medical expenses, which are made involuntarily and of necessity.
The Minister of Finance and the parliamentary assistant have a great deal to say about four per cent being the average medical expense. Well, that same concept might be applied to charitable donations, but it is not. As for this whole concept of averages, Mr. Speaker, surely anyone like the Minister of Finance or the parliamentary assistant who deals in mathematical matters must know how deceiving averages can be. I believe the average personal income in this country at the present time is something over $1,000 per year per person, including every man, woman and child. That would work out to an average personal income per family of about $5,000 per year. But it is no help to the family on $2,000 a year to know that the average is $5,000 a year. As for average medical expenses, the fact of the matter is that what hits the person is not an abstract average but the fact that if he has medical expenses at all, he is probably paying more than the average because somebody else is fortunate enough to go through a year without medical expenses. Statisticians tell us, for example, that about one out of every seven persons is hospitalized every year. Well, to those who are the ones in the seven and who need assistance it is no help simply to be told that four per cent of their income spent on medical costs is an average and therefore cannot be allowed.
This whole business of averages being deceiving was brought out again today in what the parliamentary assistant tried to do, which I thought was not a very sound analysis. He suggested that if we removed

this four per cent floor it would reduce the taxable income by four per cent, and would reduce the income tax accruing to the federal treasury by four per cent of the amount estimated by the Minister of Finance. I take it that is where he got his $48 million, which is roughly four per cent of the $1,200 million odd which it is expected will accrue from the personal income tax in the current fiscal year. But I would point out to him that when you abolish the four per cent floor it does not mean that every taxpayer in the country reduces the amount of the income on which he then pays by four per cent, because a great. many people will have no medical expenses at all during the course of the year. Then, after you have accounted for that mistake in the parliamentary assistant's reasoning you have to look at another fact. People pay different rates of taxes on their income, depending upon what bracket they are in. Some will be in higher brackets; some in lower. I submit that he has done something that amounts to oversimplification in just assuming that the loss would be $48 million. But whatever it is, Mr. Speaker, his point of course was not concern for the amount, as to whether it was small or large. He sought to make the point that the $48 million would apparently come off everybody on the average, and everybody on the average would in turn have to make it up. My point is that it would not be a saving spread evenly; it would be spread according to the individual taxpayer's medical expenses. I submit that, like all the rest of his argument about averages, what he said was no argument at all.
I said a few moments ago that this letter to the Winnipeg Free Press from Mr. J. W. Gilbert touched on a very important point. He points out that people who have to use certain drugs right along like insulin, for example, in many cases get no benefit at all of the deduction for medical expenses. A year ago, when the Minister of Finance added insulin, cortisone and ACTH and one other drug to the list of items that could be classified as medical expenses, a great ado was made of it by the government. But a great many people who have to use these drugs find that thait provision is no help to them, because their expenditures on these drugs in the course of a year, while they may be heavy, while they may be a blow to them, and while it is a blow that they have to meet year in and year out, will not in any one year add up to more than four per cent of the taxpayer's net income. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, my point is that these people are not comforted at all by being told that four per cent of their income for medical expenses is an average. Indeed you are giving no benefit to people who are faced with recurring
The Budget-Mr. Knowles medical expenses and recurring costs for drugs of this nature. You can only do it if you are prepared to wipe out that four per cent floor.
The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance quoted again today the remarks that he had quoted from the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), and which he gave to the house on March 26. I was very glad when he made that quotation in the first place, and I was glad that he repeated it today, because it indeed is the whole point of our asking for the removal of the four per cent floor, and our suggesting that that is more important than raising the ceiling or making some of the other changes that might be suggested.
Let me read again what the parliamentary assistant said as reported at page 820 of Hansard for March 26:
The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) raised this proposal of removing or lowering the four per cent item, and pointed out that this would give the maximum help to the little man, the man with just enough income to place him in the income tax bracket.
I concur wholly in the sentiment expressed by the hon. member for Spadina, and I must say that it was about at that point in the speech of the parliamentary assistant on March 26, when he quoted the hon. member for Spadina, that it dawned on me that my motion had a chance of passing. Here was an admission by the parliamentary assistant, despite the difficulties that he had listed, and other difficulties he might add yet, here was an admission that what I was asking for would be of assistance to the little fellow, So I began to realize there was a possibility of my motion passing, and sure enough, a couple of pages later, he indicated that the Minister of Finance was prepared to give consideration to that proposal.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I need not take the time to repeat the arguments with respect tc substance that are in the speech I made on March 26, and that are in the speeches tha1 I have made in former years on this subject. But I do make this passing reference tc them, because I think it is our job now in this House of Commons not only to condemn the government as strongly as we can foi having hoodwinked the people of Canada on this matter, but it is our job to try to persuade the government to repair this damage at this session. I emphasize the words "a1 this session", because there is no doubt in my mind that if it is not done at this session il will be done next year, or in whatever budgel that comes on the eve of an election.
This will not cost the federal treasury a great deal of money; but it is an issue oi concern to the little man, as the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) has said. It is oi

The Budget-Mr. Knowles concern to the people right across this country; and there is no doubt in my mind that this four per cent floor will go before the government goes to the country in another election.
I suggest that that is not a proper discharge of responsibility. That is not loyalty to the principles and practices of democracy-just to fool around with budgetary and taxation matters in that way, leaving desirable changes until election time. If the principle I have set out is good-and it is good, because the whole house said so on March 26, and the newspapers from coast to coast are saying so, as well as the little people of Canada from coast to coast-then let us have it at this session of parliament.
Another reason for my continuing to make this plea for action at the present session, despite the fact that the budget has come down and that it is only very seldom that changes are made after its presentation to the house, is that there have been exceptional occasions when changes have been made. Dne of those exceptional occasions was one to which I made reference on March 26, oecause it related to this very question. At the risk of repeating what I said then, I would state briefly that in 1944, when Mr. [lsley brought down his budget, he included .n his budget resolutions two resolutions relating to the deductibility of medical jxpenses for income tax purposes. They were resolutions numbers 4 and 5 in the list le tabled on June 26, 1944. I shall not take ;ime to read them, but I will point out that neither of those resolutions included any reference to lowering the floor or raising the reiling. Despite that fact, when we reached committee of ways and means to consider ;he budget resolution, and got down to -esolutions numbers 4 and 5, the committee witnessed a lengthy debate in which the ninister of finance was asked to raise the ceiling and to lower the floor.
Hon. members from all sides of the house md in all parties participated in that debate, indeed, I pointed out on March 26 that even ;he Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) participated in it. I said at that ;ime that in those days he was somewhat closer to the taxpayers' point of view than re is today. He wanted funeral expenses to )e included as medical expenses for purposes cf the act.
The then minister of finance took part in ;he debate and accepted the reasonableness )f some of the arguments. In the main, lowever, he stood up against them, and most >f us in the house at that time thought that t would be the same old story, that we were

making a case for something we would get, but that we would get it one or two sessions later. To our pleasant surprise, however, following the debate which took place in midsummer-July, I believe it was-a bill was brought in to amend the Income War Tax Act, in conformity with what had been contained in the budget resolutions. We found, however, that the bill included something that had not been in those resolutions, namely a section to raise the ceiling and a section to lower the floor.
Prior to that time the floor had stood at 5 per cent, and we had pleaded that it be reduced to 2 per cent or 3 per cent. Mr. Ilsley met us part way-I admit it was only a little way, but at least it was part way-by reducing the floor to 4 per cent. This was welcomed as a demonstration of the fact that once in a while the government does pay attention to a debate in the house. My hope is that there will be sufficient debate at this session with respect to medical expenses so that, when the bill to amend the Income Tax Act is brought in, the government will go a step farther than is provided for in the resolutions, and will make the change asked for on March 26, by way of abolishing this floor altogether.
I do not know what the cost to the treasury would be, but I am satisfied the parliamentary assistant is not correct in suggesting that it would be $48 million. I am satisfied he is not following a correct method of computation, when he arrives at that figure. But. whether it is greater or less than that amount, it is a principle of justice and of fairness we are asking for. And in this case it is even more than that. We are asking for a recognition by the government of the clearly expressed wish of parliament, instead of sheer defiance.
Let us not have any more of the attempts we had yesterday, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) interrupted my leader, or the attempt today by the parliamentary assistant, when they tried to hide behind a technicality. Certainly the motion asked that the government consider the matter, as do all private members' motions. The government knows that is as far as private members' motions can go; but it also knows that it looks at each and every one of these motions-and not just at the words down to the word "consideration." It looks at the substance following that word. If the substance is one to which the government does not wish to commit itself, the motion does not pass. But in this instance the government allowed the motion to pass, and to pass

unanimously. We had every right to believe that that meant approval of the proposal contained in that resolution.
I submit the criticism we level at the government for ignoring that clearly expressed wish is one which reflects the thinking of the people of this country. I call upon the government to pay attention to that thinking, to make the change at this session and to abolish the four per cent floor under medical expenses in relation to income tax.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fori William):: Mr. Speaker, it is well known that I am not a financial critic, but I appreciate the ability of those who are able to do that which I cannot do. I congratulate the financial critic of the official opposition on pulling the budget to pieces, and leaving it as a whole. I think he did a good job.
Today the parliamentary assistant did what I was going to do, when he read from the Financial Post. By doing so he has saved me from that necessity. I read the Financial Post because I can learn something from it, and because usually it tells the truth. I would add to that, that outside the House of Commons the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) is held as an outstanding financial expert.
I know we do not like to pay taxes; nobody does. I would rather spend a dollar on cigarettes than on taxes. But taxes have to be paid; and I am one who did not expect the budget this year to contain many reductions in taxation. I did expect there would be reductions in some respects, especially on articles connected with household needs. And those taxes have been reduced.
The people of Fort William know that I have worked for the last number of years to have old age pensions brought to the point where they would be helpful to people over seventy years, and to those in need. Because old age pensions and old age security measures were passed, almost unanimously, I cannot for the life of me see how the amount of taxes could fail to be higher. We congratulate the Minister of Finance upon his taxation measures, and his ability to reduce the national debt. Taxes have been increased since we came into this house. Not long ago I was criticized in Fort William because of the amount of taxes being collected by the dominion government and the surpluses that had been built up. I asked this man what taxes he paid in 1935, 1936 or 1940 and he wanted to send me to the hot place. I said that I was not going there, neither was I going to take our taxes there.
We should realize that taxes are insurance against war, unemployment, poverty, old age, crime and the growth of unpleasant ideologies.
The Budget-Mr. Mclvor If this insurance is being increased to include other ways of helping Canadians then our taxes must go up.
I want to tell the Minister of Finance one place where he can get more money. The Shebandowan district contains large quantities of nickel, gold, iron ore, chromium, tungsten and other minerals. The International Nickel Company should be encouraged to open up the claims they have in that district instead of allowing them to remain idle. I expect to see the minister of mines and ask him his advice.
There are two ways in which the minister could spend a little more. I am not going to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) to build a gymnasium for the House of Commons, but it is needed. Members who are interested in keeping their health have found other ways of doing that. I was thrilled today to receive from the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) a challenge from members of the opposition and the press gallery to members on this side of the house to meet on the first Thursday in June for our ball game. I accepted willingly.
There is another important way in which the minister could spend some money, to take care of our incapacitated. I am going to lay this matter on the doorstep of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) because I remember how he blotted out little nests of Irish, Scotch, English, Ukrainians, Italians, Russians, Germans and others and made us one Canadian nation. That was a fine thing to do. I remember also how he brought in the scheme to aid hospitals with construction and hospitalization costs. Then last year he brought in his old age assistance and old age security measures.
I am going to lay on his doorstep a problem that is just as important, the taking care of those who are incapacitated. I have a number of letters here but I shall not read them all. I have a long list of incapacitated which I received from the trades and labour council of Fort William, but I shall not read it. However, I should like to read one letter from outside Fort William, from Cape Breton. This is a mother writing, and she said:
I have a girl 35 years a victim ol polio, and a boy 32 years. They are both helpless cripples. They have never had a cent they could call their own. Their father was hurt six years ago in the mine and will never be able to work again. You can imagine the hardships they endure.


Mr. Speaker:: Probably I should remind the hon. member-


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Do you want me to give the name?

The Budget


Mr.   MclvorMr. Speaker@: If the hon. member wishes to read the letter the house may feel that he should give the name of the writer.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I shall be very glad to do it. The writer is Mrs. Neil K. McNeil.
I think the incapacitated can be divided into three classes. First are those who can get around in wheel chairs, on crutches or in some other way in order to earn a living. Then there are those who cannot get around but who have the use of their hands, their mind, their eyes, their speech and are able to earn a little. Then there are those who cannot get around at all and who cannot earn one cent.
Up to a day or two ago I thought that these were the forgotten people. We have old age pensions, mothers' allowances, family allowances, workmen's compensation and unemployment insurance, but these measures do not touch these people at all. Many of these people have relatives who are mighty proud and do not want to send them to homes for incurables. They want to keep them in their own homes just as John Bunyan held in his heart his little blind girl and kept her with him. These people do everything in order to keep their own folks in their own homes.
While I do not want an extra session this year I think the government would, be well advised to take up this matter at this session and see that something is done this year, or at least at the beginning of next year. This is one of the outstanding needs of Canada. To think that we have such people in a Christian country whose program is to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and visit the sick! These people cannot earn a cent. I can take you into a home where a pretty little girl, who is completely helpless, just sits in the corner. She must be fed, she must be dressed, she must be carried everywhere. Yet there is not a dollar for her. Surely the Minister of National Health and Welfare has enough heart to feel that these things should not be.
As I said, I thought that these people were not recognized, that no attention was being paid to them, but the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) has indicated that something is being done. He informs me that officials of the appropriate provincial departments, officials of welfare agencies and officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Labour are co-operating under a national council to promote as a joint effort the medical and vocational rehabilitation of the disabled.
The first meeting of this council was held in Ottawa in February last. The object of the council is to co-ordinate all existing facilities for helping the disabled to overcome their handicaps and to equip themselves for work and wage earning as was so successfully accomplished with Canada's veterans. At the February meeting Dr. McNally, chancellor of the University of Alberta, was elected chairman and Father Beaudin of Montreal, vice-chairman, with a very strong executive. This indicates that the three dominion departments are combining with the provincial governments to provide for the incapacitated. I like to refer to the suggestions of people on the other side when they suggest something good. Premier Frost of Ontario is going all-out to help the incapacitated of that province, and I am sure that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) will co-operate. I appreciate very much what has been done for the Fort William district by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). Many things have been done which have helped us. Now this further need is faced not only in Fort William but all over Canada. We think it is an outstanding need, and I will not support an increase in any other pension until this matter is thoroughly considered and settled.
On motion of Mrs. Fairclough the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will continue the debate on the budget. Members may want to know when the house will replace the time taken from private members for the setting up of the committee on redistribution. Tomorrow we expect to put in Votes and Proceedings a notice of motion which will take away next Monday as a private members' day but with the understanding that on that day we will give private members the same time as was taken for government business last Monday.


Gordon Graydon: So that there will be no misunderstanding with respect to the motion of the Minister of Transport to set up the committee having to do with Canadian National Railways, will that be the first order of business tomorrow or the budget?


Alphonse Fournier: I think we should take the motion of the Minister of Transport first because from the way he explained it today I think it is urgent. Therefore that will be the first item tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 24, 1352