1954-03-23

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. E. Nixon (Algoma West) presented the first report of: the standing committee on industrial relations, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I am tabling two copies, in English and in French, of Note 169, dated March 10, 1954, from the Canadian ambassador in Washington to the Secretary of State of the United States, concerning House of Representatives Bill H.R. 3300, relating to the diversion at Chicago of the waters of lake Michigan.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: May I be permitted to direct, to the Minister of Fisheries or his parliamentary assistant, a question which is based on a statement in the Montreal Gazette this morning captioned "Newfoundland Fisheries under Ottawa ruling." Will the minister inform the house if the new arrangement between the government and the Newfoundland fisheries industry means that floor prices may be placed under that industry?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: In the
absence of the Minister of Fisheries and his parliamentary assistant, I shall take the question as notice and draw the attention of the minister to it upon his return.



EMERGENCY POWERS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? In view of his statement of yesterday that it might be possible to deal with the subject matter of order in council P.C. 3486 of July 4, 1951, in some other way, has consideration been given by the government to repealing that order in council? As the Prime Minister knows, that is the secret order in council.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The matter of whether or not there is legislation sufficient to ward against the dangers that were contemplated by this order in council is still under consideration by the law officers. Until we get their report the other question will not arise for consideration.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Has the Minister of National Revenue given consideration to a temporary rearrangement of office hours for some employees in the income tax offices across Canada, so that taxpayers might be offered an opportunity to visit such offices on Saturday mornings and certain evenings to obtain assistance at this time when they are wrestling with their income tax returns?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: The matter referred to, Mr. Speaker, is one of administration and such matters are continually under review by the department. In most of our offices, but not in all, the five-day week is operative now. Our experience has shown that in former years there has been no great demand for keeping our offices open on Saturday morning. In view of the fact that in almost all districts business offices are closed on Saturday morning, we do not consider that it would be advisable to open our offices. If it were done

Inquiries of the Ministry it would involve overtime or compensatory leave for employees; and at this time of the year we are usually short-handed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what arrangements have been made by the Canadian government for representation at the conference to be held at Geneva next month in relation to affairs in the Far East, and what instructions, if any, are being issued to the Canadian delegates?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In answer to the first part of the question, I hope to head the Canadian delegation to this conference, myself, and will be accompanied by certain advisers. No instructions have yet been provided for the guidance of the Canadian delegation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the absence of those instructions, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what position is going to be taken by the Canadian delegation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I understand there is to be an opportunity for discussion of external affairs on Thursday. No doubt this and other questions might be discussed at that time.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. This question is supplementary to one I asked him on December 14. I might say also that it arises out of a very interesting tour some of us-


Some hon. Members:: Speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -were permitted to make-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -through the kindness-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to realize that he had better ask his question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Apparently the Liberals will not even permit me to-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister say
whether a date has yet been fixed for the proclamation of the new Food and Drugs


Act, and what progress is being made in recruiting personnel for the inspection required under that legislation?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minisier of National Health and Welfare):: The date has not yet
been settled, but we hope to be able to do so at the earliest possible moment.



EMERGENCY POWERS ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on a government motion to resolve the house into committee of supply it is not only a traditional opportunity but it is, as I conceive it, the duty of the official opposition to raise questions that are matters of essential grievances on the part of parliament and the Canadian people.
Here we have before the house a matter of serious parliamentary concern. It should not have been necessary, indeed, to introduce an amendment to debate the matter in the house, but it has become necessary because of the fact that this government is so wedded to power, arbitrary power. Not only is the government reluctant to give up power, but, sir, it is reluctant even to submit such questions for discussion in the house.
It will not be forgotten that as early as November 18 of the present session, noting that the speech from the throne was silent on the important subject of the Emergency Powers Act, I made so bold as to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) this question, as reported at page 122 of Hansard:
May I ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the government to ask parliament at this present session to extend the Emergency Powers Act?
To that question the Prime Minister made this not very informative reply:
That is a matter of policy about which information will be communicated to the house in due time.
What is "due time"? Apparently "due time" has not yet arrived. Therefore those of us who are not prepared to bide the time of a tardy government consider this an eminently proper occasion to put this matter squarely before the house. And the house will have an inescapable opportunity to say whether it is proper to condone, under today's circumstances, the continuance of arbitrary powers in this government.
The government is having trouble to make up its mind on this question, as the Prime Minister conveyed to the house yesterday.

Well, let us take due account of the indecision of the government, and let the house, then, assist this indecisive government with respect to this question.
What is the background? The background is one of a succession of statutes under which this government has been seeking sweeping powers ever since the emergent days of the war. First it was the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act; then it was the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act; then it was the Emergency Exchange Conservation Act, followed by the Emergency Powers Act-and now by the various extensions of the Emergency Powers Act.
Sir, our amendment will invite the house to record its opinion on this question. The amendment is as follows:
this house desires to record its opinion that the powers granted to the governor in council under the Emergency Powers Act are repugnant to responsible parliamentary government.
Sir, the Emergency Powers Act is a notorious measure; it is time it was expunged' from the statute books of Canada. It is a blot on the records of the Canadian parliament. That statute is the measure of the extent to which, under today's conditions, there has been under the pressure and leadership of the present government a departure from parliamentary processes and responsible government. This statute, if it is left where it is, will continue in force until May 31. Sir, it should not be allowed to run its course; it should be removed from the statute books of Canada without further delay.


Mr. MacDougall:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There will be an opportunity for my hon. friend, who took a very praiseworthy course on an earlier occasion, again to express that true conception of the relationship between the government and parliament which on a noteworthy occasion last year he was courageous enough to express. I am looking forward to seeing him exhibit the same courage he did on that quite unusual occasion.
Those who sat in the house last year will well recall the debate on the government measure to continue the Emergency Powers Act for another year, from May 31, 1953, to May 31, 1954. And those same members will not have forgotten that the official opposition, fought up hill and down dale against the continuation of that measure, at every opportunity and every stage. The position we took then was a position of complete, outright and irreconcilable opposition to the continuation of powers of this kind. That was our position at that time, and on August 10 last year, and it is our position today.
Emergency Powers Act


Some hon. Members:: Oh, Oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It will not be forgotten-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. When there is so much turmoil in the house it should be kept in mind that a point might be brought up on which I would have to rule and, under present circumstances in the house, I would have to admit that I had not heard. I am sure hon. members would want me to hear the hon. member who has the floor. Therefore I would ask them to be silent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: One of the features of the debate which occurred last year was the participation in it of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). He has not yet participated in the present debate. I for one look forward to hearing what he may have to contribute to this debate today.
It will also be remembered that last year some hon. Liberal members of this house did express grave concern over the continuation of these powers. Indeed, one of them had the courage to stand in this house, the then hon. member for London, Mr. Jeffery, and say that he could not support the continuation of this measure were it not for the fact that we were almost certain to have an election in the then succeeding months, and there would be no parliament to be called into session if an emergency did arise.
It will not have been forgotten, either, Mr. Speaker, that the measure to extend this statute passed on second reading only after the Prime Minister had spoken and had given certain very sweeping assurances to the house. Those assurances were to this effect, that the government would not make use of those powers except under the compulsion of grave necessity. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, he said, as you will find recorded at page 3319 of Hansard of March 26, 1953:
I hope it will not have to be used at all.
Well, with these assurances ringing in their ears, the house, on a majority vote, decided to give the government the extension of power for another year which it then so urgently sought. What became of those assurances? The record is quite clear and all too fresh.
Let me first ask the question as to the extent of those powers. The extent of those powers, Mr. Speaker, is such that to most intents and purposes the governor in council may do everything that parliament may do. The words of section 2 of the Emergency Powers Act are sweeping in their breadth. Section 2 reads:
2. (1) The governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, as he
3240	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act
may by reason of the existing international emergency deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;
Notice, if you will, the unqualified breadth of these statements, Mr. Speaker. The terms that follow are set forth only for the purpose of clarification. The section proceeds: and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms, it is hereby declared that the powers of the governor in council shall extend to all matters coming within the classes of subjects hereinafter enumerated, that is to say:
And there follows an enumeration. The only limitation placed by this statute upon these powers, so sweeping and broad in their full amplitude, is to this effect, that those powers do not include the power to make orders or regulations in relation to:
(a)	arrest, except as incidental to proceedings under section three, detention, exclusion or deportation of any person;
(b)	censorship or the control and suppression of publications and writings; or
(c)	expenditure of moneys otherwise than in accordance with an appropriation by parliament except expenditure of moneys from any fund or account established by order or regulation in connection with a scheme of control for the purposes of that scheme of control.
There you have, Mr. Speaker, powers that would make any dictator swoon with envy. And, sir, how do they compare with the powers in the statute which the government tells us they do not wish to have occasion to invoke, namely, the War Measures Act? Well, sir, the language of the War Measures Act is virtually identical with that of the section now under discussion with the exception of these excepting words which I have mentioned, and indeed not even all of them. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with the exception of the power that I have mentioned, it is perfectly clear that under this notorious measure the governor in council possesses power to do everything that the sovereign parliament of Canada itself can do.
This is the year 1954. Why should parliament be any longer a party to abdicating power given to it by the people, given to it by the constitution, in favour of a group of men whom we call the cabinet? Sir, I submit to you that powers as sweeping as those cannot be justified in a democracy in this year of grace 1954.
How does the government justify them? They can only justify them, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the assertion by parliament of the existence, not in 1944 or 1945, or in the years immediately following the war, but today, 1954, of such an emergency that democracy cannot be permitted to proceed in its normal constitutional and traditional manner.

The statute speaks of an existing international emergency. Well, that is what the statute spoke of in 1951 when it was placed on the statute books. I put this question to hon. members opposite:	What emergency
exists today that is of such a nature that it cannot permit of the continuation of normal constitutional parliamentary processes? What condition exists either in Canada or in the world today that requires that there be on the part of parliament this abdication of powers, that no self-respecting parliament can possibly justify abdicating in favour of a small group of men? What the government has had to say in past time in trying to justify continuation of these sweeping powers under the guise and pretext of emergency was indeed vague. We know the dangers that lurk in the assertion by parliament of the existence of an emergency, sir; for ever since the Nolan case it is clear, if there were any doubt before, that the courts of this land will have no power to examine into the facts to determine whether such a declaration on the part of parliament has authority or justification or not. If parliament will simply say in legislative terms that there exists in Canada today an emergency, then, under that decision, power flows to parliament to legislate even at the expense of the constitutional powers of the provinces.
Sir, we of the official opposition assert that there exists neither in Canada nor in the world today any such condition as justifies this overturn of the processes of democracy.
I next ask the question, sir, what use has been made by the government of those sweeping and arbitrary powers? First, I say, sir, that since this measure was brought into being in 1951, a total of 25 orders in council has been passed under the authority of it: in 1951, 19; in 1952, 5; in 1953, 1.
In the second place, what has been the nature of these orders in council? Well, there has been quite a variety and assortment of them, Mr. Speaker, but this characteristic is common to all of them, that parliament was competent to do everything that every one of these orders in council did.
The third feature is this, Mr. Speaker, that whether parliament was in session or not matters not a whit to this government in exercising these powers. If it happened to suit their convenience to proceed by order in council rather than submit the proposed measure to parliament for enactment here by the elected representatives of the people they went ahead and put it into effect by order in council.
In 1951 the session of parliament began on January 30 and extended to December 29. It is true that parliament was not actually

sitting every day of that period; but if you will simply count the days that parliament did actually sit right here in this room and in the other place you will find, sir, that twelve of those orders in council were passed while parliament was in session.
In 1952, of the five orders in council passed under the authority of this measure three were passed while parliament was actually physically in session here. In 1953 the one order in council that was passed was passed while parliament was in session. Therefore you see, Mr. Speaker, that of the total of 25 orders in council passed under the authority of this notorious measure 16 were passed while parliament was actually sitting here, assembled here for the purpose of doing the business of the country and meeting the legislative needs of Canada.
Let us examine a little more deeply into this question of legislating while parliament is in session. March and April of last year saw events in this house that ought to be carefully observed by every student of constitutional history and by every citizen who is alive to what the rule of law has meant in buttressing the liberties of Canadians and those from whose example we have drawn these liberties. I have mentioned, sir, that the bill was given second reading following assurances given by the Prime Minister to the house on March 26, 1953, very solemn assurances, if I may say so, and it was on April 17 that the government opposite proceeded to tear to shreds and tatters these solemn assurances given to the house by the Prime Minister and accepted by the house in good faith.
What then happened? Without saying a word to parliament the government, on Friday, April 17, went to work and under the authority of the Emergency Powers Act passed order in council No. 1953/604. It was a measure relating to the control of contraband on the China seas. It was not made public on Friday. The house was in session that Friday. It was in session morning, afternoon and evening that day, but not a word was said to the house. On Monday morning, April 20, when here in session the house actually was dealing with amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, of the very same subject matter as the order in council then three days old, still preserved in official secrecy.
The house had certain amendments before it on that Monday morning, April 20, in committee of the whole. It dealt with those amendments and the measure in due course was given third reading and sped on its way to the other place. Fifteen minutes later,
Emergency Powers Act after that measure had safely taken its departure from this house, with a delicate sense of timing the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) came into the house and announced, in the ears of a dumbfounded House of Commons, that this order in council had been passed dealing with the very subject matter that had been before the house only minutes previously.
The official opposition on that occasion, as on this occasion, did its duty and introduced a measure of censure and invited the house to express its censure upon a government that had proven itself so callously, so deliberately forgetful of the promises and solemn assurances given to the house by the Prime Minister less than a month before. You will recall how completely, how tragically the whole attitude of this government towards the House of Commons, towards its constitutional responsibilities, was revealed in the course of that debate by the spokesman for the government, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), when he uttered these memorable words recorded for all time in Hansard at page 4197:
If we have overstepped our powers, I make no apology for having done so.
Sir, no Cromwell, no Hitler, no Mussolini, could have put in plainer terms his dictatorial concept of the function and power of government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have been listening very intently to the remarks of the hon. member, and possibly I should have risen earlier. The hon. member, in language which was very carefully selected, did, in my view, imply that some hon. members have shown bad faith toward the house. He did not mention any one in particular. But later he went on to say, after having referred to one or two cabinet ministers, that they had deliberately forgotten the assurances they had given to the house. The hon. member's language was couched in such learned terms that I did not want to take issue with him and ask him to be careful about the language that he was using, but I am afraid that the leniency I have been showing has perhaps given him some encouragement. He has now reached the point where, I think he will agree with me, the words he has just addressed toward the Minister of Trade and Commerce are not parliamentary. To say of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he has used language which Hitler or Mussolini would have used-


Mr. Drew:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: I see that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) considers that I am not

Emergency Powers Act citing exactly what the hon. member said. I do not want to entertain an argument as to what was said. I remember the incident when, after prolonged debate, Mr. Speaker Macdonald could not get the transcript of the notes immediately and had to wait a few hours until he did get it. I have heard exactly the expression used by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and I think that in substance I am citing it exactly as I heard it. It may not be word for word, but I am asking the hon. member to withdraw those words unconditionally.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy indeed to abide by any of your rulings. As you know, the words that I used-


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Just a moment, please-with reference to the statement made in the house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce were these, that no Cromwell, and others, could have used language-


An hon. Member:: Who were the others?


Donald Methuen Fleming: -better calculated to express their conception of power than the words used by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on that occasion. I am sure you will give me credit for this, Mr. Speaker. If I had had any idea there was anything unparliamentary about those words I would have refrained from using them. With the greatest respect, I did not undertake to refer to the minister. I referred to his language, and in my humble submission that unfortunate statement by the minister should be open to the strongest form of censure in this house. I am dealing with the words he used and I confined my remarks to the words he used. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I intended nothing unparliamentary. I was not speaking of the minister personally. I confined my remarks to his language.


Mr. Speaker:: I know that sometimes it appears to be difficult for hon. members to withdraw words. When I was a private member I was never called upon to withdraw words, perhaps because I did not take part in debates as often as some hon. members do. To me it is a simple matter to withdraw words which are considered by the Chair to be unparliamentary. Now, the hon. member is reasonable, and I say that in my view it is offensive and unparliamentary to attribute the comments he has to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who is also the Minister of Defence Production. Indeed, had the hon. member used the same words in relation to any other hon. member of this house I would have felt exactly the same way and I would have asked the hon. member to withdraw. I am sure the hon.

member would not have used that expression if this, for example, were just at the end of the war. To say of a cabinet minister that his attitude is comparable with that of Hitler or Mussolini is unparliamentary and I do not believe the hon. member would want to insist upon having these words on the record no matter how strongly he wishes to censure the government at this time. See Beauchesne, third edition, citation 260, which states that no member can be allowed to say that a minister has transferred himself from a constitutional minister into a tyrant.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do say again to you, sir, with the utmost respect-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am asking the hon. member to withdraw.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I still do not know, Mr. Speaker, what you are asking me to withdraw, but such is my love for you that I will withdraw anything. I am very glad though, Mr. Speaker, that it does not lie within the power of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to withdraw what he said on that occasion. His words are there for all time and they are there for all Canadians who value their rights and privileges to look upon.
If I cannot use the language to which I am accustomed, then I will simply have to resort to Shakespeare:
Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed,
That he is grown so great?
There were two hon. members of the house who on that occasion showed a most commendable degree of courage. The first was the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall). I was hoping he would be in the house at this time. Perhaps he is here. I can hear his voice but I cannot see him. The other member was the then hon. member for London. Be it said to the credit of these two hon. members that for the sake of principle they courageously voted against the government on that occasion and expressed their disapproval of what the government had done.
May I also remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the use of the powers vested in this government has been accompanied by the sort of thing which goes with the exercise of powers such as these in the way in which this government has exercised them. It has bred lawlessness in this government. You will remember very well, Mr. Speaker, that one of the 25 orders in council has been kept secret. Although when parliament passed the statute it called for a tabling of these measures, nevertheless one has still been kept secret from the public by the government.
One last fact worthy of note in relation to the use of the powers under this act is

that since that notorious order in council was passed on April 17, 1953, the government has not found occasion and has not even found the need for any further use of these powers by way of pretext or excuse for the continuation of this measure.
We have had given to us time and time again the threadbare argument that the government must have standby powers in case the international situation should take a turn for the worse. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am going to suggest to you that that argument has been overworked. It is a dead horse now.
In the first place, parliament should be doing the legislating. Parliament can be called to meet upon very short notice. In 1950 parliament met on three days' notice. In the second place, parliament is capable of swift action in an emergency. If we do not believe that, if we do not believe that parliament is capable of appreciating the existence of an emergency and rising to the need in meeting it, then, Mr. Speaker, we have indeed betrayed parliamentary government. Parliament is capable of meeting these situations and we were elected for all such purposes.
In the third place, there evidently will be no election this year. It need not now worry any hon. members that there may not be a parliament in existence for any period during this year.
Then, sir, if an extreme emergency should suddenly and unexpectedly arise, I say to you, sir, that in the first place parliament ought to be summoned. If it is a matter of the gravest emergency, of the kind which faced this country in 1914 or 1939, there are on the statute books statutes capable of dealing with it. There is standby legislation already there.
Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that we of the official opposition have never suggested that the War Measures Act should be invoked in reference to any of these situations to which the government has referred as a pretext for asking parliament to vest in it these emergency powers. We have said no emergency powers are needed to deal with any existing situation.
Let the house remember that there are vast powers conferred on this government by parliament in other measures. Let me remind you, sir, of the very wide powers conferred on this government by the Defence Supplies Act. Under section 3 of that act the Minister of Trade and Commerce may:
(a)	buy or otherwise acquire, exchange, process, develop, repair, maintain, store and transport defence supplies:
Emergency Powers Act
(b)	acquire, store and maintain stocks of strategic materials, and other materials or articles entering into the manufacture of defence supplies or the construction, development, repair or maintenance of projects, and sell or otherwise dispose of such materials or articles and use the whole or any part of the proceeds . . .
And so on. These and more extended provisions in keeping with the sweeping powers conferred upon this government are in the subsection I have just read.
Consider also the provisions of the Defence Production Act, section 15 of which provides that the same minister:
. . . may, on behalf of Her Majesty and subject to the provisions of this act,
(a)	buy or otherwise acquire, utilize, store, transport, sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of defence supplies;
(b)	manufacture or otherwise produce, finish, assemble, process, develop, repair, maintain or service defence supplies or manage and operate facilities therefor;
(c)	construct or acquire defence projects and sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of them;
And so on. That, and another following long list of very wide powers, have been conferred upon the government through the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Let me also remind you, Mr. Speaker, that last week this house approved the extension for a further period of three years of the powers conferred upon this government in relation to the import and export of goods, and giving the governor in council power to impose limitations on the export and import of goods, particularly of strategic materials, except under government licence. Here are sweeping and ample powers adequate to meet the needs of legitimate government necessity under any situation now existing or likely to arise.
We must examine this situation in its essence. Parliament, a free and unfettered parliament, is and historically has been the champion of the rights and the freedoms of the people. Tie the hands of parliament, force on the part of parliament an abdication of its functions and its duties and you have taken the first long step towards intrusion upon and invasion of the rights and privileges of the people.
I have been speaking of the essence of the parliamentary method. The essence of the parliamentary method is just this: Parliament is elected to do all the legislating that is required in the interests of the Canadian people. It is of the essence of the parliamentary method that parliament alone legislates. It is also of the essence of our parliamentary system that the government is responsible to parliament. It is likewise of the essence of the parliamentary system that parliament functions in public, for the public to see and

Emergency Powers Act to judge and tor the public to bring responsible public opinion to bear upon members of parliament.
We are seeing here a renewal of the historic struggle between parliament and the executive branch of government. We see here in this situation and in this parliament, sad to say, a completely inverted relationship. We see a government supreme, tyrannizing over parliament. We see it using its sweeping powers in a way that no government should use them. We also see, Mr. Speaker, existing side by side with parliament another lawmaking body, namely the governor in council. That is a body that does not meet in public but meets in secret, and whose processes are not open to public review and cannot be observed by the public or by parliament before decisions are taken. It is not a proper legislative body, yet it is existing side by side with parliament here as a legislative body. It is functioning in secret and it can function with a quorum of four persons. Mr. Speaker, this is a carryover from the mentality of the war. Surely the time has come for this house to emancipate itself from the mentality of the war. When, if not now, will the government give up these sweeping and arbitrary powers? We have present in this measure all the elements needed to transform the Canadian democracy into a Canadian dictatorship and to transform the Canadian confederation into a centralized form of government. I do not say that this government is going to do that, Mr. Speaker; but our concern in parliament must be not to place it within the power of any government to work that wrong upon our constitution and upon democracy.
Mr. Speaker, under this measure and measures like it there has been under this government a decline of parliament, of respect for parliament and in the position of parliament. In putting forward this amendment we on this side of the house are fighting for the restoration of the power, the prestige, the dignity and the supremacy of parliament. We are fighting for the restoration of democracy. We are fighting for the restoration of parliament to its full vigour and stature as the champion of the rights and freedoms of the people. We are fighting for the restoration of the integrity of the constitution of this country, which has been badly battered at the hands of this government. In a word, Mr. Speaker, we are fighting for the restoration of responsible government. On the vote on this amendment there is now given to every hon. member the opportunity and the challenge to show by his vote where he stands on the issue of responsible government.
(Mr. Fleming.]


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) or the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is this a speech?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Is there any amendment
asking for-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are not in committee. This is a debate in the house. If the hon. member wishes to speak, he may do so but if he wants to ask questions he may not expect an answer unless the people to whom he is directing his questions are prepared to reply at the moment and make a speech themselves.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Then I will ask myself the question. Is there before this house any amendment asking for the repeal of this act? I ask myself another question. Is there on the order paper any request for the extension of this Emergency Powers Act? If not, what are we talking about? To me it is just like one who talks to beat the air. We are talking about something that does not exist.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, the remarks made by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) prompted me to rise at this time. He is incorrect when he makes the statement that the amendment now before this house gives to hon. members an opportunity of voting on the Emergency Powers Act. That statement is incorrect. Actually there is nothing before this house but a lot of noise.
For a start, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), on the motion to go into supply, moved an amendment to the effect that legislation such as the Emergency Powers Act is offensive to the parliamentary institution. There is not any argument about that fact. There are, however, some things we must remember with regard to the Emergency Powers Act. First, that act is not before the house at the present time and it may automatically cease to exist at the end of May. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made that point quite clear. We are therefore not discussing the Emergency Powers Act at all. There is no proposal to amend it. As to the hon. member who just took his seat, of course it is his job and that of the opposition to beat the government and to prove to the people of Canada that they might do a better job. But I suggest that he is wasting a lot of energy because we are four years away from the time when that would be possible. I think the official opposition are shooting off their ammunition a little bit early, and that their timing is off.


Mr. Harkness:: We have lots of ammunition.


Clarence Gillis: It has not been demonstrated in this debate.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is a matter of opinion.
An hen. Member: Shooting off blanks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Clarence Gillis: I like to try to be fair about these things. When the Emergency Powers Act came into existence, the hon. member and all members of this house voted for it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not correct, Mr. Speaker. An examination of the record clearly shows that this measure, on third reading in 1951, passed on division. If the hon. member looks at the record he will find that in what I had to say I was extremely critical.


An hon. Member:: Were you against it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. The record clearly shows that it passed on division.


Clarence Gillis: I am not going to quibble about that matter. In 1952 it was passed unanimously. But what brought it into being? The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) made it quite clear that we should not place the government in the position of having to invoke the War Measures Act if certain things had to be done when members were not here. Mind you, I am not saying that I agree with all the things the government does by order in council, but I also want to say this. Regardless of whether the Emergency Powers Act was there on the statute books or not, orders in council would be passed. The revoking of the Emergency Powers Act does not take from the government the right to pass regulations and orders in council. That right would still be there. I call to the attention of hon. members the fact that when section 98 of the Criminal Code was enacted there was no Emergency Powers Act. Nevertheless, a highly offensive statute was placed on the statute books of Canada at that time without an Emergency Powers Act. It took us a long time to get clear of it. I do not need to remind the hon. member what party was in power at that time. All of this argument, to the effect that we are going to abolish orders in council, the right to make regulations and all that kind of stuff by getting rid of the Emergency Powers Act is not correct.
I am afraid that as I see this debate developing, and from what I have read in the press during the past few weeks on other issues, it would seem that most of the arguments I have heard in this debate are a repetition of what I have read in the press
Emergency Powers Act from certain sections of Canada concerning taxing powers. I feel it is well that members should understand that. So far as I am concerned, I am not prepared to stand up in my place and vote on this amendment, thereby leading the people of the country to believe that I am voting to get rid of the Emergency Powers Act; that is not correct. All there is before the house at the moment is an attempt on the part of the opposition to beat the government on this question of too much power.
Now, let us take a fair look at the proposition. All members have stated that while these emergency powers are there, the great objection to them is that they have not been used; that they were not necessary. If they have not been used, then there has not been any undue exercise of power by the government. What brought the Emergency Powers Act into being in the first place was the fact that we were living in a very insecure world. The legislation is offensive because we do not want to be living in that kind of world. When you have to have that kind of legislation it is an indication you are living in that kind of world. In my opinion it is still that kind of world. While you have an uneasy armistice in Korea, no one can say that the war could not flare up again overnight. There was no formal declaration of war when that act of aggression took place. Our allies are fighting in Indo-China, and we are part of that war because we are part of the NATO set-up.
Some members say that it is only a matter of hours to get the members into this house from across Canada. So far as Ontario and Quebec are concerned, that may be true. It certainly is not true of the other parts of Canada. We had the experience of being called here during the railway strike, for example. It was impossible to come here by train, and it was impossible to get here by aeroplane within the time prescribed. I know that I had to drive up here in an automobile. Flying weather is uncertain. It is not correct to say that members can get here within a matter of hours. I suppose the thinking behind that statement is that nothing exists east or west of Ontario and Quebec, because that is the thinking in so far as other things are concerned. It certainly is not correct to say that the members could be here in a matter of hours.
So far as I am concerned, I am not prepared to vote on this propaganda statement; that is exactly what it is. When the Emergency Powers Act is before this house, if it does not expire in May, so far as I am concerned I shall look at the bill in the light of the circumstances then existing in the
3246	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act world. I am not going to fool anyone now or let anyone fool me into thinking that I am voting on that act this afternoon. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) talked about legislation and the great exercise of powers. I have said a good many times in this house, and I am prepared to say again, that so far as the province from which I come is concerned, if more power were exercised by this government a lot of the chaos that exists in industry and in other fields would not exist. I am not quarrelling with that at all. We have not got the power to legislate upon a lot of the matters upon which we should be legislating. I hope the time will come when we will have that power, because without greater activity on the part of the central government it is impossible to get equality of opportunity in many fields across this country.
I am not prepared at any time to maintain Canada as ten little Canadas rather than one big Canada. There is a lot of legislation that we should be handling in this parliament that would be in the best interests of the Canadian people, but unfortunately there are constitutional bars to that consideration. They will have to be ironed out through the regular democratic processes in consultation with the provinces. I rose to speak because, when the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) was taking his seat, he stated that every member of this house now had the opportunity of showing where he stood on the Emergency Powers Act. I wanted to make it quite clear that he was not fooling me. So far as I am concerned, he is not going to fool the country into believing this vote has anything to do with the Emergency Powers Act. I will oppose the government on a lot of things they are doing, and they would be doing those things if the Emergency Powers Act were not there, such as making agreements, arrangements, and issuing statements to the press that should be issued in this house. However, that has nothing to do with this debate. So far as I am concerned, I am going to vote against this motion, and reserve my vote for the time when the matter is in issue.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I should like, if I had no other reason for rising to my feet, to offer congratulations to the two last speakers. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) by asking two questions shed more light upon this whole matter than had been shed by several preceding speeches from the opposite side of the chamber. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) continued the work of clarification that was begun by the two questions asked by the hon. member for Fort


William. I wonder whether the hon. member for Cape Breton South will permit me to continue the process a little bit farther?
There is not only as he has suggested the matter of creating great sound and fury in this chamber in connection with this general subject matter. There is something even more serious than that involved, in my opinion, and that becomes quite clear when one carefully reads the resolution moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). It reads:
this house desires to record its opinion that the powers granted to the governor in council under the Emergency Powers Act are repugnant to responsible parliamentary government.
Who granted those powers to the governor in council, Mr. Speaker? This parliament did so by the Emergency Powers Act. What the hon. member is urging, instead of bringing in a bill to repeal the Emergency Powers Act, is that parliament should criticize parliament for having given those powers to the governor general in council. Now, I know -that it has been customary for our hon. friends in the opposition to attribute to the government, as if it were the fault of the government, the actions of this parliament, upon the ground that members of parliament who were elected to support the government should not carry out the mandate they have received from the people, upon the rather strange ground that they should not support government legislation when they come to parliament. But I would suggest, sir, that in casting their votes in this parliament in a manner to carry out the mandate they have received from their electors, they are not acting in any capacity other than as members of parliament, and the law which they vote for and the law which is passed, in this case the Emergency Powers Act, giving these powers to the governor general in council, is a law for which none other than parliament is responsible. Therefore, it seems to me that, sir, without raising any point of order-because I understand Your Honour has said Your Honour is prepared to receive this resolution which we are now discussing-it is very regrettable indeed that a statute which has been passed by this parliament-


Stanley Howard Knowles: By the last parliament.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, by the last parliament, but by the parliament of Canada at the time- should be stated as a grievance which the opposition tries to raise against the government on a motion to go into supply. Because, Mr. Speaker, if it is possible to do that in connection with this particular statute, why is it not possible in respect of any other statute on the statute books of the country? In that way, sir, a small minority group in

this parliament could postpone indefinitely parliament getting into committee of supply to consider the estimates-which, in my judgment, is one of the most important functions parliament has to perform, and one which is not always too well or too faithfully discharged because of the tendency upon the part of certain members in the house to protract debates upon other matters, so that there is not time left properly to consider the estimates.
As the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has pointed out, at least by implication, surely if there were a sincere desire here to permit the house at this time to vote upon the question of the Emergency Powers Act, the proper method to have followed would have been for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) to bring in a bill to repeal the Emergency Powers Act.
It is quite true that if he did not bring in that bill, the present act would expire by the mere efflux of time on May 31 next-and without all this debate and sound and fury. And it is also true that if, under the world circumstances existing in, we will say, the middle of May next, the government considered that it was warranted in asking parliament to give another year's extension of the powers in the Emergency Powers Act, a debate would then ensue upon that piece of legislation, in connection with which all the oratory we have heard today, in the abstract, could be much more pertinently, more relevantly and therefore more cogently applied to the question as to whether these emergency powers should or should not be extended for another year.
But if my hon. friends of the official opposition, not being content to wait for a few weeks until they could see what precisely were the circumstances in which the question as to whether the Emergency Powers Act should be extended would be decided, desire at this present time to have the house vote upon the principle of the legislation, then surely the sensible course for them to have followed would have been to bring a bill into the house to repeal the present Emergency Powers Act forthwith.
Nothing could be more ridiculous than that they should ask parliament to censure parliament in respect of that for which only parliament is responsible, namely the passage of the Emergency Powers Act, giving certain powers to the governor general in council. Supposing this amendment were to carry: would not the Canadian parliament cut a fine figure among intelligent people throughout the world when it became known that, in 1954, it had solemnly got together
Emergency Powers Act and, after careful consideration, upon motion of the Leader of the Opposition, had solemnly resolved that parliament-
-desires to record its opinion that the powers granted to the governor in council under the Emergency Powers Act are repugnant to responsible parliamentary government.
Or, in other words, my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition is asking that this parliament in 1954 move a vote of want of confidence in itself for what it did in 1953; only that and nothing more.
And it is not as if he needed to employ this particular vehicle to register the dissent of his party in this matter. For, by merely the efflux of time, perhaps the whole matter would have cleared itself without any debate at all. But if he could not wait until that time came, and wished to bring the matter before parliament in a form in which we could vote upon it with some dignity, then he should have brought in his bill forthwith to repeal the Emergency Powers Act.
For that reason, and for that reason primarily, and without going into all the arguments which the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) repeated this afternoon, I should think for perhaps the third or fourth time in the house, for my part I am quite content to vote against the amendment upon the ground that it is purely vexatious, and that it would be highly embarrassing to parliament itself for us to pass it.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the smokescreen of
complicated verbiage which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has just tried to throw all around this question has been extremely well done. I congratulate him as a producer of smokescreens. There is nothing he can say, however, which can hide the essential fact of this case; and the essential fact of this case, as I see it, and as my colleagues see it, is that we do not like to have a government with secret controls, secret powers, and broad powers which are not subject to constant control and review by the House of Commons.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will my hon. friend permit a question? If my hon. friend does not like that, why did not his party bring in a bill to repeal the act?


William McLean Hamilton: I am glad the minister has asked that question, because I am coming to it. In the course of his remarks he made the statement that it would not be right for parliament to censure parliament, and referred to the possibility of parliament in 1954 censuring parliament in 1953.
Mr. Speaker, the system of Canadian government is such that parliament is composed
3248	HOUSE OF
Emergency Powers Act of certain parties. The gentlemen who now form the government belong to a certain party. Any action this amendment suggests is not censuring parliament as such; I would feel that it is more definitely censuring actions this government has taken in past years, and particularly in 1953, when, over the vocal opposition of this party, it insisted upon perpetuating this iniquitous legislation.
I was most interested yesterday and again today to hear certain references to past statements by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) and-I do not know which title to use, whether it should be the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) or the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I was just thinking how these clarified certain issues, and that at this point those gentlemen might be all right if only they could shut their mouths retroactively. Since they cannot do that, we have now set on the record for all time to come an attitude which is not good for the perpetuation of a free democratic government in this country.
It seems to me that it is wrong in this enlightened mid-twentieth century that this government, not this House of Commons but this government, should wish to deprive this house as a whole of powers which men have fought and died for almost since the dawn of history.
Three names were linked earlier today in a certain connection. Two of them were fairly recent, the third was not. The third was that of Cromwell of many hundreds of years ago. In the fight, turmoil and heat of that time we forged traditions and principles which have come down to us almost intact until the present time. During the past war the government instituted certain measures which may have been necessary at that time, but which they have perpetuated unto the present in a most unnecessary fashion.
It is almost axiomatic that once powers have been conceded to an executive committee for a special emergency-and originally that was the basis of this legislation- there is a deep-rooted resistance by that executive to the suggestion that they should be surrendered, even though the emergency is long past. It seems to me that was made crystal clear by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself yesterday in only one sentence, Mr. Speaker, when he said in the course of his remarks, as reported at page 3217 of Hansard:
I do not foresee any immediate occasion or any immediate reason for having to exercise the powers under the act.
If there is no immediate occasion and if there is no immediate reason, why then


does he remain silent in the face of the repeated suggestions that these powers should be repealed? He does not want them; the government say they do not want to use them; and yet they want to keep them for some indefinite, unknown, vague reason in the future. It is the most specious argument, Mr. Speaker, that it is possible to introduce in support of this legislation which we dislike so vehemently.
A book was published recently called "The Passing of Parliament". Were I in a position to do so I should like to make it required reading at least for the gentlemen of the treasury benches, because it might gnaw at their vitals a little bit. As was pointed out very clearly, some of the things they are doing are not perhaps in the best democratic tradition, and there is one quotation from this book that I should like to introduce at this point. It is found at page 7, and reads as follows:
In the last half-century there has been a shift in the centre of gravity from the floor of the House of Commons to the offices of the great departments of state, where in reality policy is framed. Parliament becomes year by year less of a governing council and more of a censor of executive acts.
It is hardly in the tradition of this house, and particularly it is hardly in the tradition of this great party, that we should sit here quietly and acquiesce in that shift and in that gradual closing down and further and further delimitation of the powers, responsibilities and opportunities of this house to examine the legislation which comes before us. Because this issue is so clear, because it is so definite, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I need to take up any more time of the house save for a moment to look once again at the wording of this amendment. It is one of the interesting aspects of this debate that the amendment has been repeated so many times. Perhaps the reason for that is that the amendment carries within itself the great weight of debate that should force people to vote in its favour, because it says:
this house desires to record its opinion that the powers granted to the governor in council under the Emergency Powers Act are repugnant to responsible parliamentary government.
The powers which are granted under that legislation are powers which should normally be exercised by this house. To the extent that they have been taken away from this house we have lost something which has been traditionally and rightly ours. To the extent that the gentlemen on the treasury benches and the others behind them, who speak so little, oppose this amendment, they are defending the type of government, or the tendency toward the type of government,

which is one that we have fought against and as a nation we have opposed throughout our history.
I have one more thing to say. I am delighted to see the gentlemen over there and the gentlemen to my left working together and agreeing in their attitude on this legislation, because, Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing which the gentlemen to my left will need if-and I hope it never comes-they come into power in this country, it is some measure by which they can cloak the actions which they will want to take to turn us into a socialist state, some measure by which, without proper supervision by this house, they can proceed to do things which the people of this country would not want to approve. And I suggest that when we see these two groups linked in opposing this amendment we begin to see come out from underneath the dark clouds and from underneath the covers some of the very objectionable features of this government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.

Canada Grain Act



CANADA GRAIN ACT

Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of the house a grievance having to do with a motion adopted by the committee on agriculture during the last session of parliament recommending that the government should consider the advisability of referring the Canada Grain Act to this committee on agriculture for study at a future session of parliament. Also, the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in reply to a question I asked him on this matter on December 16. My question, as reported at page 970 of Hansard, was as follows:
Can the minister say whether the committee on agriculture and1 colonization will he called together early in the new year in order to review the Canada Grain Act, as recommended by that committee at the last session of the house? As the minister is aware, it would be called for the purpose of discussing the question of overages and box car distribution.
To this the minister replied:
My hon. friend is aware that it is not the duty of any minister to call committees together. As a member of the committee in question, my hon. friend is in a position to do so. I have no amendments to the Canada Grain Act to recommend. There will be later in the session matters that I will wish to refer to the committee; but the subject matter of its business, I assume, will be determined by the committee.
I asked this supplementary question:
Has the minister any objection to the government's carrying out the committee's recommendation, that the Canada Grain Act be referred to the committee on agriculture for study?
To this the minister replied:
I have nothing to do with the matter. If the committee meets and desires to undertake that work, I shall endeavour to co-operate. But I have no wish either that it should be done or should not be done.
Following that statement by the minister, Mr. Speaker, I communicated with the chairman of the agriculture committee, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras), and I suggested to him that the committee should be called together to consider whether at this session we should undertake a review of the Canada Grain Act.
In reply to my letter the hon. member for Provencher pointed out, I believe quite correctly, that according to the standing orders of this house a committee can only consider matters which have been referred to it by the house. Therefore, according to the chairman of the committee, the committee can undertake a review of the Canada Grain Act only when a motion is passed by the house directing that such a review be undertaken.
On Monday, March 15, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) presented a motion to refer the annual report of the
[Mr. Speaker.)
Canadian wheat board, together with the annual report of the board of grain commissioners, to the committee on agriculture. My point is that in that recommendation there was no inclusion of a study of the Canada Grain Act as recommended by the committee on agriculture during the last session of parliament. On the important issue of reviewing the Canada Grain Act, which has not had a general overhaul since 1930, the minister says it is up to members of the committee. Then when a member of the committee endeavours to have the committee undertake such a review he finds that, according to the chairman, a committee can undertake the review only when matters are referred to it by the house and when those matters are included in its terms of reference.
I think that the members of the committee on agriculture last session unanimously came to the conclusion that it was time for an overhaul of the Canada Grain Act. Certainly they came to the conclusion that it was time a thorough study was made of the provisions of the Canada Grain Act.
The Canada Grain Act came into existence in 1912, being a substitute then for a previous act, namely the Manitoba grain act. There was a general overhaul in 1930. There has been no substantial review of the Canada Grain Act since 1930. By refusing to refer the Canada Grain Act to the committee on agriculture I think the government is breaking faith with and flouting the wishes of the members of that previous committee. That previous committee of this house studied the Canada Grain Act and found that a further review should' take place. Last year we held quite a number of meetings. Our evidence extended to 162 pages and we discovered, with respect to the Canada Grain Act and its administration, a great many things that should be the subject of review. The whole question of grain overages was a bone of contention. I think it is fair to say that the members of the board of grain commissioners left a great many questions unanswered. There were put to the members of the board some extremely important questions that they were unable to answer.
I think our experience last year demonstrates that there needs to be an overhaul in the personnel of the board of grain commissioners. Certainly there needs to be a review of the authority contained in the Canada Grain Act. We were unable to get information as to the quantity of grain that was lost through drying. We were unable to get a breakdown of hundreds of thousands of bushels of overages and shortages in the various grades other than the straight commercial grades. We reviewed what has since

come to be known as the Brancepeth case where a farmer endeavoured to demand the right to unload his grain at the elevator. To say the least, the evidence we received in that committee was highly conflicting. The authorities in charge, according to the evidence they submitted to that committee, were anything but consistent in the stand they had taken in relation to this particular case. I think it is time that that part of the Canada Grain Act was reviewed so that we may find out once and for all just what a farmer's rights are under the present act; and in the light of that information the committee can consider whether or not changes should be made in the present Canada Grain Act.
There is one further thing that came before the committee last year that should be thoroughly reviewed, in my opinion, during the present session, namely the section of the act dealing with the distribution of box cars. The distribution of box cars is a bone of contention in western Canada. I have certain ideas as to how box cars can better be distributed. The minister has said that those particular ideas would not work out satisfactorily. However, of this I am sure. If the committee on agriculture is requested to review the section of the Canada Grain Act having to do with the distribution of box cars and the car order book, and if we are given the right to call witnesses from the various farm organizations, a workable solution to this problem can be obtained.
My point in rising this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, is simply this. As reported at page 970 of Hansard, of December 16, 1953, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) informed me how the committee itself might undertake a review of the Canada Grain Act. He went further. He told us he had no opinion himself as to whether the Canada Grain Act should or should not be reviewed at the present session. I now inform him that I have endeavoured to have the committee called together as he suggested in the statement to which I have referred and that as a member of the committee I am informed by the chairman that I have not the right to have the committee consider such a review. In the light of the experience we had last year in the committee, the evidence given in that committee, and the fact that a recommendation was made to this house asking that the Canada Grain Act be referred to the committee at a future session of parliament, I ask the minister now whether he will not during this session present a motion referring the Canada Grain Act to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization for review.
Canada Grain Act
I want to say that, as to any questions I have placed on the order paper this session with regard to some of the matters I have raised, the answers have been much better than those I have received previously; the answers have been much more complete. However, I suggest to the minister that referring the report of the board of grain commissioners covering a period of time that is already in the past is not sufficient and that the members of the committee on agriculture should be given the right and the authority to review the act and to see whether the points in the act that apparently do not completely meet with the wishes of the western producers at this time cannot be met by suggested amendments. I can certainly see no harm in the committee's undertaking such a review. I think a great deal of benefit might result from it.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the minister in charge of the Canada Grain Act has followed the usual practice. As soon as the report of the board of grain commissioners was available it was tabled and referred to the committee. I have attended the committee in the last few years and I have never known of any reluctance on the part of the committee, in studying the report of the board, to discuss the Canada Grain Act. It always has been discussed and, I presume, not without authority. Certainly the discussion has usually hinged on the terms of the Canada Grain Act. The report of the wheat board was also tabled as soon as it was available, and with the report of the board of grain commissioners is referred to the committee. The committee is now free to proceed to study both reports, and I presume it has ample latitude to study the foundation of the report, which is the legislation that brings both of those organizations into being.
My hon. friend said, why not have the committee start at the beginning of the session and make a complete review? I do not recall any government saying to any committee of this house, take this act and tell us what is wrong with it. If the government knows of anything wrong with an act the government puts forward an amendment of its own, sends that to a committee and allows the committee to deal with the amendment and with the act as it sees fit. However, I have asked the board of grain commissioners if they know of any desirable amendment, and I am told that they have nothing to suggest. I have discussed the matter with farm organizations, and I find that they have nothing concrete to suggest.

Canada Grain Act
The hon. member has referred to the matter of the distribution of box cars. My hon. friend has closed that door himself. He has advocated his ideas on the floor of the house, and his bill has been rejected by the house. Surely he does not expect to have another debate on the distribution of box cars at this session. I believe that is quite obvious. I have never tried to minimize the discussion of wheat matters. I have gone beyond the ordinary rule in answering questions in this house. I have answered questions that under the practice built up over the years perhaps should not have been answered. The practice has been that we do not discuss the marketing of wheat from the current crop. In other words, we do not answer questions bearing upon marketing in the current marketing year. However, I have stretched that rule to the limit.
Today hon. members are in a position where a committee meeting can be called and officers of the wheat board or the board of grain commissioners can be called before the committee. Witnesses from any farm organization can be called and, so far as I know, so long as the subject is one that is touched upon in either annual report any questions can be asked of those witnesses.
Now, my hon. friend asks why this is not the year to spend the whole session investigating the wheat board.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not the wheat board, I never mentioned the wheat board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, the board of grain commissioners. This is perhaps as difficult a year from the point of view of the board of grain commissioners as any year we have ever experienced. We have congestion from one end of the handling system to the other. I know the board of grain commissioners are being run ragged, if you will allow that unparliamentary expression, in trying to deal with the situations that arise from day to day. I doubt if any responsible member in this house would say that work should be suspended and the board of grain commissioners, instead- of functioning in the usual way, must come to Ottawa and start functioning in a wholly different way. I know of no other way of overhauling the grain act except to have the experts here in Ottawa to help in the discussion.
I am willing to be reasonable about these things. I believe the thing in which the western farmer is interested is in getting his wheat to market and having it converted into cash. Every Department of Trade and Commerce official is directing his effort towards that end. I have noticed that the

farm organizations are very reasonable. They seem to agree with my viewpoint. They say that when everything is abnormal in the grain situation as it is today, that is not the time to enact legislation designed for years in the future. I think that is agreed. I believe that if my hon. friend will reflect he will realize that the energies of our experts can be better devoted to present-day responsibilities than to his purposes. I have heard no great echo of his purposes from other hon. members in this chamber. I have not heard any member stand up and say, that is the thing we should do. I believe most members are responsible enough to know that we should get on with the main job, which is marketing this wheat.


Hazen Robert Argue: They echoed it a year ago.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has not been able to carry his views. The reason the house has not complied with his wishes that these matters be referred to the committee is that not too many people agree with him. I have noticed the tendency lately of the opposition party to believe that parliament exists wholly in the opposition. The other side does not count if the opposition wants to do something. That is a theory that should not be adopted in this house.


Mr. Coldwell:: We have learned differently from time to time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is my view, but nevertheless I have no desire to stifle the committee on agriculture or any other committee. I ask the committee to be reasonable in the demands that they place on an organization that is busily engaged in other ways. If it is a case of getting the board of grain commissioners to come down here for a week or perhaps two weeks-any reasonable period -there is no objection to that. However, to ask them to come down here for a month or a period of months might well wreck the grain handling situation in the west. My officers are geared to that kind of operation. I am quite willing to ask the board to come here. I am quite willing to ask the wheat board to come. I shall be glad to do so whenever the committee indicates that the time is convenient to them. In this year I am not prepared to go beyond that, and make unusual demands on the time of either body.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask one question before the minister sits down. From his statement, I take it he has no objection to hearing representatives of the various farm organizations on any point whatever in the Canada Grain Act, even though it might not appear in the annual report?

Canada Grain Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: Fortunately, I am not in the position of having to hear them because I am not a member of the committee. I have no objection to the committee hearing anyone it may wish to hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Before another hon. member speaks, I want to make one observation. I am seriously asking myself if it is a proper grievance to submit to the house on this motion to go into supply to say that the chairman or the majority of members composing a committee refuse to call a committee meeting for certain purposes. I was listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). I assure hon. members that I shall study this point carefully, especially after the debate we have had on the amendment moved earlier in this debate.
It seems to me the remarks made by the hon. member do not constitute the proper type of grievance that could justifiably be brought before the house on a motion to go into supply. I know the hon, member will be looking at the citations that refer to any matter coming under federal authority. The citations cover a great deal of territory. According to those two citations that appear in Beauchesne, third edition, 345 and 467, it would seem that one could speak about anything under the sun. It seems to me that what is developing is that if the majority party refuses to introduce a bill or to repeal a bill or to continue an act for a further period; if a committee that is a standing committee of this house is not called, then that is a grievance.
I am reminded of what appears in the introductory remarks to Beauchesne, third edition, where it says:
The basis of the Eritish constitutional system is that the recognized leader of whichever political party has gained the greatest number of seats at a general election should be called to form a cabinet and that there should always be an alternative government. When the party in power has lost the confidence of the House of Commons, the Governor General should be able to entrust the administration of the nation's affairs to His Majesty's loyal opposition.
And in a later paragraph, the following:
It is essential that the Prime Minister and his colleagues should trust their supporters to assist them in carrying the cabinet's legislative program through parliament. If the administration is to fulfil its pledges to the electors, it must be able to count upon the loyalty of its followers in the House of Commons.
It then goes on to say that each political party should be well organized, and so on.
It seems to me that the matters brought up as grievances have to do with the machinery provided by the House of Commons for the 83276-206
purpose of studying legislation, and that hon. members to my right, who have been directed to administer, are the ones who are to say whether or not they want to review a certain matter, or to review an act, and whether they want to use a committee for that purpose.
I believe the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) asked the minister earlier in the session if he would object to having the committee called for the purpose of reviewing the act. Indeed, I think the hon. member quoted the question and answer. Now, at a later time, because he is not satisfied with the answer received on December 16, or the letter received from the hon. member who has been appointed chairman of the committee, he says, "This is a grievance, and, on the motion to go into supply, I will bring it up as a grievance".
I assure hon. members that I shall study the point carefully, but it does not seem to me right now that this matter should be called a grievance which justifiably can be brought before the house on this kind of motion. I do not think it can.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would you permit, Mr. Speaker, one suggestion as to a matter which might be taken into consideration when you are studying the point, as you have promised. Would you take note of the fact that my deskmate, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), has based his claim to the fact that he has a grievance on a report from last year's standing committee on agriculture and colonization, as it appears at page 667 of Votes and Proceedings for Tuesday, May 12, 1953. That report included a recommendation approved by, if I may use Your Honour's words, members to your right, and it was precisely because of the decision taken with the approval of the majority side of the house last year that the matter is now raised.


Mr. Speaker:: As my hon. friend knows, the decision of a committee in a previous session does not bind hon. members in a following session. Everything stops at prorogation. There is an interruption of proceedings. To use the words of May, proceedings are quashed by prorogation.
However, as I said, I want hon. members to consider the point I have made, because it seems to me if we are to be in a position where any refusal by the government to consider a certain matter raised by hon. members to my left is to be considered as a grievance, then we are initiating a practice which I suggest was not contemplated in the rules governing the airing of grievances.
I know all hon. members are interested in maintaining the traditions of the house and
3254	HOUSE OF
Income Tax-Deduction of Quebec Tax not embarking upon a practice which would not be in conformity with the rules. This is what I am concerned about, and it is only in that spirit my comments have been made. I know hon. members will want to co-operate with me in trying to clear up this matter. However I do not think this is the right type of grievance to bring in on a motion to go into committee of supply.
We have heard now from the official opposition and the C.C.F. and I would at this time invite a representative of the Social Credit group if one wishes to speak. If not, I will hear the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon).


Mr. Blaclimore:: I would like to speak on another matter, that of old age pensions. If it is in order I shall do it now.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the debate on the Canada Grain Act concluded? If so, the hon. member may proceed or allow the hon. member for Chicoutimi to speak; he can follow him.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Paul E. Gagnon (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to call the attention of the government to a matter which is highly important for the citizens of this country.
The legislature of the province of Quebec has recently passed an act levying a personal income tax. The main object of this bill is to safeguard the autonomy of the province in the educational field, and to assist universities by giving them grants. It also provides for social and health improvements. In other words, the purpose of this bill is to promote the interests and the welfare of the people.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, excellent in its principle and purpose, this act has the approval of all who consider the prime interest of their country above party politics. The federal authorities are now constitutionally bound to co-operate in its operation.
Among the exclusive powers of provincial legislatures under section 92 of the British North America Act, we find "Direct Taxation within the Province". It is true, however, that section 91 recognizes the right of the federal parliament to "raise money by any mode or system of taxation". These wordings are not contradictory; rather they indicate that the provinces, with an exclusive right on direct taxation, have unquestionable priority in that field.
Until the end of the first world war, that is for nearly half a century, the central government generally refrained from resorting to this taxation. It was only in 1917, after


solemn statements to the effect that this encroachment was only temporary, that it entered this field, never to leave again.
In 1942, the provinces made an agreement with the federal government, under which they yielded, for the duration of the war, their right to levy personal income tax, as well as the tax on corporation income and capital. The federal government then formally undertook to facilitate the use of these sources of revenue by the provinces at the end of the war. The agreement prescribed that:
The federal government shall have the exclusive right to collect personal and corporation income tax for the calendar year ending on the thirty-first day of December nearest to the date of termination of the present agreement and undertakes to reduce the rates of the said personal and corporation income taxes, for the next calendar year, by an amount sufficient to allow the province to re-enter the field of personal and corporation income tax and particularly to reduce its rate of taxation on corporation revenues by at least 10 per cent of such revenues.
In 1941 the Hon. Mr. Ilsley stated: "It is proposed, therefore, as a temporary expedient for the duration of the war only, to ask the provinces to vacate these two tax fields". The minister of finance was referring to personal and corporation income taxes, recognizing at the same time that these taxes rightly belonged to the provinces.
According to official statistics the net income of the ten provinces of the Canadian confederation for the fiscal year 1952-1953 amounted to $1,220,889,000; the government's contribution to this over-all budget was $333,277,000, which represented 27-3 per cent of the grand total. From that federal source, the province of Quebec received $4,211,000, that is 1-49 per cent of its total budget for the fiscal year, of $281,735,000. The details are as follows:
	Total	Federal
Provinces	Revenues	ContributionNova Scotia 	$45,228,000	$20,360,000New Brunswick 	46,401,000	16,333,000Prince Edward Island	7,133,000	3,939,000Ontario 	339,566,000	127,442,000Manitoba 	53,737,000	28,173,000Saskatchewan 	88,960,000	28,193,000Alberta 	142,467,000	35,440,000British Columbia 	184,737,000	48,579,000Newfoundland	30,925,000	20,107,000Quebec 	281,735,000	4,211,000
Thirty-five per cent of the sum of $333,277,000, which was subsequently divided among the ten provinces by the federal government, was contributed in taxes by the citizens of the province of Quebec; thus, Ottawa's generosity has cost Quebec taxpayers over $100,000,000.

In 1952-1953, a federal contribution of $20,107,000, or 62-05 per cent of the total revenues of $30,925,000 of Newfoundland, was received by that province. Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Manitoba also benefited from federal assistance to an extent varying between 40 and 50 per cent of their fiscal needs for the year 1952-1953. The proportion decreases for the more prosperous provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario.
As may be seen, Quebec's refusal, in principle, to enter into tax-rental agreements which are profitable to other provinces, can be quite costly.
An editorial published in Le Soleil, a Liberal party organ, reads in part as follows:
So much the better for them, until the day when they may perhaps regret having thus forsaken part of their jurisdiction for the benefit of a centralizing government.
It continues:
It remains doubtful whether the governments of those provinces have the right to commit in such a way, for so long if not forever, assets and powers granted to them by the British North America Act. However, it is up to the legal experts to study this important point. In the meantime, without recrimination and without envy, French Canada regrets it has not their strong support in its demands for privileges, rights and powers it has particular reason to defend as a sacred heritage.
Indeed, the province of Quebec is sustaining heavy material losses in having to fight alone against the encroachments of a centralizing government. Whatever financial hardships it may endure, it considers as even more important privileges and freedoms recognized by various treaties in which British honour was involved. Those privileges and freedoms have been guaranteed by the confederative pact and without that guarantee, our religious and political leaders would have been wary to approve it. In addition to what she may derive from her inheritance, the province of Quebec is determined to keep control over her civil laws, her education and religious freedoms and her social traditions. She is counting on the fairness of her witnesses and friends in the other provinces to recognize eventually that her cause is just and honourable.
Mr. Leopold Richer, in Notre Temps of February 13 last, expressed the opinion that-
-a province that lives on federal grants (statutory or not) is no longer free-
The arrangements between the federal government and the other provinces are merely temporary expedients which the federal government wants to place on a permanent basis and which only tend to aggravate the present constitutional difficulties without bringing about a satisfactory solution. It is a discriminatory system. On the other hand, it is incorrect to allege that these arrangements entail a lessening of the taxation burden. The state does not create wealth; its function is merely to redistribute the revenue collected from the taxpayers.
83276-206J
Private Bills
In fact that system of agreements has made the provinces dependent upon the central power, instead of being partners as they were previously. They are now at the mercy of federal subsidies.
Ottawa thus controls the whole economy of Canada; it is pure and simple socialism. Fiscal centralization brings about political centralization. We cannot accept it, because it is incompatible with the exercise of authority and opens the door to the abuses resulting from fiscal irresponsibility.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Since it is five o'clock the house will consider private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. John M. James (Durham) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 378, to incorporate North American Baptists Inc., (Canada).


Mr. Green:: Will the sponsor explain this bill?


John Mason James: This bill, entitled an act to incorporate North American Baptists Inc., (Canada), is similar to several others that have passed through this house in the past three years. Its prime objective is to establish a legal entity which will have authority to hold title to property within Canada and in any of the provinces of Canada.
Perhaps some may wish to have information concerning the group known as the North American Baptists. I should tell you that it is an unincorporated association of Baptist churches spread over the United States and Canada. At the moment they have 62 churches in Canada, and a total membership of over 9,000 people. The group has been functioning on this continent for over a hundred years, and I understand is well and favourably established. In Canada their main strength is in the four western provinces.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a very brief summary of this organization. As hon. members know, the passing of this bill on second reading will automatically result in its being referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and I would hope that it would soon reach that committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House again in the committee of the whole on Bill No. 198, an act respecting Commerce Mutual Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Eudes.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the sponsor here?


Mr. Harris:: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The order is "house again in committee of the whole." If the committee of the whole does not wish to proceed with the bill they will have to report progress and ask leave to sit again, but at this moment I must leave the chair.
The house in committee on Bill No. 198, respecting Commerce Mutual Fire Insurance Company-Mr. Eudes-Mr. Robinson (Sim-coe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Name changed.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, when the bill was in committee on Friday last the hon. member for Greenwood asked for an explanation from the sponsor. The sponsor not being here, the bill was stood over. I am afraid the sponsor is not here today, and I suggest that it be stood until he is here to explain it.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, it is obvious if one reads the bill that it deals only with the changing of names and the like, and unless there is any particular objection registered by any hon. member I would hope that we could pass it. The marginal note to clause 1 is "name changed", and certain rights are saved. Clause 2 has to do with the coming into force of the measure. Persons affected by the bill not having made any representations, it seems to me that it is perfectly sensible for us to pass it in the normal course.


Howard Charles Green: For the sake of the prestige of parliament I suggest that it is not very wise to pass a bill without the sponsor being here.	Surely members of the house are
entitled to have an explanation of the bill from the sponsor. If he cannot be here today perhaps he can be here on Friday. Just because a bill may appear simple is surely no reason why it should go through the house without hon. members being able to obtain-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is no reason to make parliament look simple, too.


Howard Charles Green: -one word of explanation about it at all. Probably there is nothing objectionable in the bill, but it is the principle that worries me, that members can put their names down as sponsors of bills, not bother coming here, and expect the rest of us to pass

them without explanation. I suggest that is going very far and that it is a practice which should not be supported in the house.


Walter Edward Harris: Under those circumstances,
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that you rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, but should the same thing occur on Friday I shall undertake to sponsor the bill myself.
Clause stands.
Progress reported.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles for the second reading of Bill No. 4, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in support of this bill. It is one that has been before the house and has received consideration on a number of occasions. As was pointed out by the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), when the industrial relations and disputes investigation bill was being considered by the standing committee on industrial relations in 1948 the committee approved a section of this kind in the bill. When the bill came back to the house the action of the committee was rescinded. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has persisted in introducing this measure session after session, and it has received increasing support in the house.
At the last session, after some debate in the house, the bill was referred to the standing committee on industrial relations and that committee approved the principle we are now discussing. Some objection was raised to this measure by one of the speakers who has opposed it on the ground that it has some compulsion in it. May I point out that the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act is in itself an act of compulsion. Section 12 of the act reads as follows:
Where the board has under this act certified a trade union as a bargaining agent of employees in a unit and no collective agreement with their employer binding on or entered into on behalf of employees in the unit, is in force,
(a)	the bargaining agent may, on behalf of the employees in the unit, by notice, require their employer to commence collective bargaining; or
(b)	the employer or an employers' organization representing the employer may, by notice, require

the bargaining agent to commence collective bargaining; with a view to the conclusion of a collective agreement.
There you have compulsion, and compulsion was necessary because of the resistance of employers in this country to collective bargaining on the part of their employees. Those of us who were interested and active in trade union matters during the war years and before remember that the chief cause for dispute between employers and employees in the war years was the refusal of employers to recognize trade unions.
It is because of that refusal that the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act was put on the statute books. It laid down that where there is a union and it wishes to enter into collective bargaining with an employer, that employer must enter into collective bargaining with that union. On the other hand, where the employer wishes a collective agreement with his employees through their trade union organization, they in turn must bargain collectively. Since the passage of this act there has not been the same difficulty in the matter of getting employers to recognize trade unions. The provisions of the act obviated that. But now that the labour market has become more favourable to employers, the employers are again beginning to resist trade union organization.
The measure before us proposes that where a unit having a collective agreement with an employer asks for the voluntary revocable check-off on behalf of the membership of the union, the employer shall concede that, but only when the employee in writing makes a request. The employer need continue it only until the employee in writing withdraws the request.
Some people are afraid that members of a union have no freedom of action. Such people either have very little acquaintance with trade unions by experience through being a member, or they have acquaintance with very badly run trade unions. I have been a member of a trade union, though not actively, for some years now. In fact, I have been an active member and a card-carrying member for pretty close to 45 years. For some years I have been the business representative of that union, and I have not seen exercised any compulsion such as hon. members fear.
It is a fact that in the world in which we live, due to the fact that some people refuse to carry a fair share of their social responsibilities, their trade union responsibilities, or their responsibilities as a citizen, compulsion has to be exercised. But that compulsion is exercised according to certain rules and regulations which makes it fair to everyone.
Industrial Relations
I was rather interested in some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley), when she spoke on this bill some days ago. She referred to the fact that she was particularly shocked recently to read in a newspaper some very harsh words hurled at the premier of the province of Ontario. I do not see anything wrong with anyone criticizing a premier of a province, if that person feels like it, or even criticizing the Prime Minister of Canada if a person feels like it, or the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), or anyone else, as long as that criticism is in restrained and proper language. I am sure the hon. member for Timiskaming has not been lending a close ear to some of the criticism which is made in this house, otherwise she would be shocked much more, I believe, than in reading criticism in the newspaper, because I have heard criticism in this house, not only of the living, who can defend themselves, but of the dead who cannot defend themselves. That, in my opinion, is far more shocking than criticizing a premier who can talk back.
I gather too from the remarks of the hon. member for Timiskaming that she is not in favour of applying compulsion to membership in a union. She would be quite willing that members of a trade union organization should reap the benefits without paying a share of what it costs to obtain these benefits. Unfortunately for the hon. member, in this country we have had decisions on that point, and I refer particularly to the award of Mr. Justice Rand in the dispute between the Ford Motor Company and the United Automobile Workers. I would like to quote briefly from this very important document. Mr. Justice Rand states:
It may be of some interest that the Ford Motor Company in the United States with over 100,000 employees affected, has accepted the union shop and check-off in all of its production and assembly plants and units in that country. On the other hand, the employees as a whole become the beneficiaries of union action, and I doubt if any circumstance provokes more resentment in a plant than this sharing of the fruits of unionist work and courage by the non-member.
Those of us who know something about labour organization know that, as Mr. Justice Rand points out, it not only requires work to organize some industries, but it also requires courage and, as he says correctly and truly, it creates the greatest resentment when those who benefit by the result of the organization are not willing to support it either by their work or by their money. Mr. Justice Rand did not suggest that all the employees of the Ford Motor Company should become members of the union, but he did suggest, and this is what has become known as the "Rand formula", that every employee who benefits

Industrial Relations
under an agreement should pay dues equal to that paid by members ot the union, whether he is a member or not.
We do not, as taxpayers, object when those who refuse to pay their taxes are compelled to pay them, which, in effect, is practising the principle involved in the Rand formula.
The hon. member for Timiskaming is also worried about the irresponsibility of trade unionists. I would like to quote her remarks as reported at page 2496 of Hansard:
When I say that certain unions do not show responsibility and therefore should not be given this concession, that their employers should not be forced to give it to them, I do not just mean responsibility to the company; I mean responsibility to the community, responsibility to their own members, and above all a respect for law and order.
I do not believe that trade unionists as a class, section or category of the population are any more irresponsible than are employers as a class, section or category of the population. In another debate I put on the record the number of companies that were breaking the laws of this country and defying the laws of this country-and had been doing so for years-through the formation of combines in restraint of trade, raising prices and so forth. In my opinion, that is irresponsible action. But before we can demand responsible action from any section of the community we must put those people in a position where they can enjoy the democratic rights enjoyed by other members of the community.
Some years ago, in 1943, to be exact, this government appointed a board known as the national war labour board, to make an investigation into employer-employee relationships in this country. The board was under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice C. P. McTague, as he was at that time. The board made a report dated August, 1943. I should like to read briefly from that report, and I am doing this because of the opposition that is coming from employers now to legitimate trade union action. There was a majority and a minority report of this board.
I am reading from the majority report which was signed by the chairman and by the employers' member on it, Mr. Leon Lalande. The report stated:
The most serious question involved at the present time is that of the right of collective bargaining. It must be kept in mind that this is a right which in a practical way has been recognized in Canada for a period of half a century. The recognition of the right has been far from universal. By far the majority of employers have resisted it over the period. Generally speaking, the great mass of employers, until comparatively recent years, have employed all weapons in their power to resist and discourage the trade union movement. There have been exceptions of course.
[Mr. Maclnnis.j
That was the attitude of employers. When you get that attitude from employers, you are bound to get some similar sort of reaction from the employees of those organizations. You get the highest degree of democracy in the older trade unions, in the trade unions that have had a longer existence, great experience, in the same way as you find the greatest amount of political democracy in governments that have exercised political democracy for us for some time. Then the majority report of the board continues:
When it is remembered, however, that the international trade unions represent but approximately 20 per cent of Canadian labour generally it is apparent on a comparison with other countries such as England, Sweden and Australia that Canada's trade union movement has been very, very slow indeed. Until comparatively recent years we have been in the main an agricultural country. That factor, together with resistance to the movement by reactionary industrial employers, induced by the fear motive or other even more selfish motives, has served to hold in check any widespread advance in the movement of trade unionism for quite a period of years.
Those are not my words. A trade unionist is not saying that. That is the studied opinion of a board set up by the government to investigate employer-employee relationships. As I said before, when you get that condition you cannot expect people who have been denied the democratic right of trade union organization to be wise, prudent and considerate in the exercise of newly found power. That desirable result will have to come through time. I think it was Lord Macaulay who said that the only way to build freedom was to extend freedom. I could continue reading from this report but I think I have read enough to show that if there is any irresponsibility on the part of trade unions-and I am not conceding that there is-responsibility for that situation rests in other places.
I now want to take you back a little bit further, Mr. Speaker, just to show the attitude of employers to trade unions in this country; and this is not so long ago; I think the report was made in 1937. In 1936 or 1937 the federal government set up a royal commission to inquire into the textile industry. The royal commissioner was, I believe, Mr. Justice Turgeon. The present Chief Justice of Ontario, Mr. Justice McRuer, I believe was counsel or one of the counsel for the commission. The heads of the textile industry were asked as to their attitude to trade unions, and I am going to read you their replies as they were given in a brief submitted to the royal commission on February 2, 1937, by Elie Beauregard, K.C., commission counsel. The president of the

Industrial Relations
Wabasso Cotton Company Limited, C. R. Whitehead, was asked in regard to the company's attitude to trade unions and he said: The men can belong to any union if they like. We do not ask a man if he belongs to a union or what his religion may be, but the board of directors refuse to recognize the union, any union.
Remember, that was only in 1937. Then here is another quotation:
I never had to deal with a union here before, never heard of such a thing, and I am not going to be led by a lot of such folk as if I might just have a rope around my neck and be led like a lamb to the slaughter.
That is Henry Johnson, president of Courtaulds (Canada) Limited. Then here is another one:
We have no objection whatever to our employees joining any kind of organization they feel so disposed to. I don't think we would be prepared to consider dealing with any organization, because we would very much prefer to deal with them as individuals, because there are always people who get in control of these things,-
And may I say that people get in control of the textile industry.
-or it seems to be the case, who have very radical ideas, imaginary ills or problems.
I could read you some of the evidence as to the wages paid in the textile industry at that time, and I assure you that the ills were anything but imaginary. The quotation I have just read was from W. P. MacDougall, general manager of Belding-Corticelli Company Limited. Then here is another quotation:
The company will not permit any third party to interfere between the management and the employees or to take away from the employees their rights as individuals to deal with the company.
That is the Dominion Textile Company Limited.
There was one exception, and that was the president of the M. E. Binz Company, Limited. He said:
We as manufacturers. .	. have got the right
to organize ourselves. Is it not right that labour should have the same right?
Now, I wanted to put that on the record in order to show those who feel that labour is irresponsible that if labour is irresponsible-I say again I do not concede it-it is because they have not had the opportunity to exercise the rights and duties that build responsibility. They can never do that until the opportunity is extended to them. Over a good many years we have had considerable discussion on this matter, and since the industrial relations committee has approved the principle on two occasions I suggest there is no good reason why the proposal should not now be made the law of this country.


Mr. Gregg:: May I ask the hon. member a question? In view of the fact the quotations
which he read dated back about fifteen or seventeen years, would he admit that there have been a good many changes in the attitude of management towards organized labour in those intervening years.


Angus MacInnis: I want to be quite fair. I will admit at once that there undoubtedly has been a change. The textile industry is now fairly well organized. The trade union movement has made great strides in Canada since that time. But I wish to draw to the attention of the minister the fact that the advance made by trade unions was made at a time when there was close to full employment, and when you might say the labour market was in favour of the trade unions.
I am afraid that now there is a trend in the opposite direction. There is definitely a trend, and how far it will go I do not know. All over the country there are signs that employers are again resisting the organizational efforts of their employees.


Mrs. Shipley:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Angus MacInnis: Certainly.


Marie Ann Shipley: I should like to know if the hon. member would suggest that every veteran in this country who has received benefits by reason of the representations made to the government by the Legion should be forced to join the Legion and pay his dues, or if every person who goes to church should be compelled to join that church and pay the proportionate costs of operating the church.


Angus MacInnis: It is my understanding that such church duties are required of certain people, but I cannot talk about that from experience. The Legion and the churches are an altogether different thing from the relationship between employers and employees. Does the hon. member propose that an employee need not help pay for the benefits he receives from the union? Is he entitled to take those benefits and give nothing in return? I would prefer Mr. Justice Rand's opinion. He says, no, you are getting benefits and you should pay for those benefits. The government of this country-and the hon. member sits on the government side of the house-pass the income tax laws and say that you will pay your income tax.


Marie Ann Shipley: That is a different thing.


Angus MacInnis: It is the same thing.


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Portneuf):: I should like to say a few words on this bill, just as I have in the past on two different occasions when this measure was presented to the house

Industrial Relations
by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I should like it to be clearly understood that I do not oppose the measure because I oppose the check-off. I believe it should exist and be put into operation if both the employer and the employees want it. I refuse, however, to think it should be included as an article of the labour code, and I believe that is what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wants. I am not in favour of that, and I am going to try to explain as clearly as possible my attitude towards the measure now being discussed.
I certainly am not trying to bring into the debate the constitutional question. I believe the measure relates to federal jurisdiction only. I say that because it would be futile to try to impose the will of this house on the provinces. It is for that reason I do not intend to discuss the constitutional issue. My hon. friend puts it on the federal ground exclusively, if I understand him correctly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is correct.


Mr. Gauthier (Porfneuf):: I do not want this measure to form a part of the labour code because I want to leave every individual and every industry free to accept the check-off after the two parties have come to an understanding without the slightest shadow of coercion. I have in mind the words uttered by the hon. member for Timiskaming when she spoke on February 26, 1954, as recorded at page 2496 of Hansard. She said:
It was so outlined as to leave the impression that any workman, at his will, could simply walk into an employer's office and sign a card to the effect that he wanted union dues deducted from his pay check; and if he wanted to discontinue this process then, supposedly, it was just as simple to walk in and lift the card.
I think it is well known to most hon. members that it is not as simple as that.
I agree with her. I shall show that is true because of two lines put in the phraseology of the bill now under discussion. We ought to concentrate our efforts on avoiding friction between employers and employees in so far as that is possible. We ought to provide all parties with every possible occasion for developing that fraternity that is so necessary today. We must never forget that those who want to profit by uncertainties, misunderstanding and unrest for the purpose of giving their destructive propaganda every possible opportunity, try to create misunderstandings and friction between the proletariat, as they call them, and the employer. The more friction there is between the two parties, the more satisfaction there will be among those who want to destroy our institutions. They never miss a detail; they never skip an opportunity to disturb the waters. We 
have a few of that kind in our country, unfortunately, those who would try to divide employers and employees.
I believe that if what is suggested in this bill were made compulsory under the law it would cause the same kind of friction. Because, after all, we are just human beings; employers as well as employees are also human beings. There is a science known as psychology. Some think it is only a word, but it is in fact a true science. We have to deal with it and to apply it to the actions of human beings in their relations with each other, whether they be employers or employees.
I feel sure that if an employer feels he is compelled by the law to collect union dues from employees, and give them back to the union, there will be some kind of friction. The employer will feel it is an imposition on his shoulders, or on his activities as an employer. If he is a good-natured employer and has a true understanding of the situation between his employees and himself, he does not like to be compelled to perform a duty he understands perfectly well. This is why there would be friction; and that would please the opponents of the constitutional rights and institutions. The aim should be to create as little friction as possible which might have the effect of dividing employees and employers. However, some people would take that chance; they would take any chance available to divide labour and those who head industry.
That is why I take this position, and tell the hon. member who sponsors the bill that he should look at the matter more carefully from this angle. I am sure he would see that it would be much better to have the check-off applied after good understanding, discussion and agreement between employers and employees. It would be better to abandon the project suggested here, so that employers and employees could come to agreements among themselves voluntarily, like good brothers, in an effort to develop the type of fraternity that we need so much, not only in this country but throughout the world. I believe this procedure would be much better in the world as it affects labour and industry.
I am surprised when I hear some people say or write that the check-off is no worse than the collection of income tax at the source. Everyone remembers the storm that developed when it was suggested that the collections should be made in that way. Indeed, we still hear grumbling against the imposition of that regulation. If it was a bad thing to collect income tax at the source, then I cannot see how it could be considered a good thing to collect union dues in the same way. After

all, by the collection of union dues at the source part of the freedom of the workers is destroyed. I am sure of that.
Others offer the argument that collection of union dues in this way would serve to recognize in the law the important position occupied by labour throughout the country. Well, sir, labour has come very far in the plan of organization. It has made rapid headway in the last hundred years-and without the check-off. The check-off does not add to the paramount importance of labour, a position labour has held in the minds of the people of many countries throughout the world. Labour and management will gain more in grandeur, and their relations will be more friendly and numerous when they feel that they are on the same side of the fence, and are devoted to the welfare and prosperity of the groups to which they belong.
I repeat what I have said on the same subject. We hear a good deal about bureaucracy. I am almost ready to agree with Guerin, a socialist writer, whom I have already quoted in the house, that the union heads should avoid the danger of decreasing in importance in the eyes and minds of their members, or, as Guerin has written in his book, they will be "sitting in comfortable arm chairs". I believe these union heads would lose their importance, in the eyes of union members, if they permitted their duties to be performed by employers.
In my county I am very friendly with both employers and employees. Whenever I deem it my duty I give them my opinion or advice, and when I believe it is good for them I do not hesitate even for a moment. I realize that in the past the unions have had to strengthen themselves against some employers who were slow to realize the position of employees in their factories, and to treat them, not as ordinary tools but as human beings. However it may happen that if duties formerly performed by union chiefs are handed to employers, the workers will realize that after all management is not quite indispensable. After all, they are human beings; and if employees see the duty of their chief performed by management, they will say to themselves, "After all, our chief is not so important; he is handing over his work to the employer in the matter of the check-off of dues." It is only human to think that, very human.
I say that those who sponsor the bill and who are attempting to make the check-off compulsory are rendering a disservice to labour. When I make that statement I am expressing my own opinion. I have used strong words in the past, and have pointed out that if labour chiefs insist upon having 83276-207
Industrial Relations
this work done by employers, then the union chiefs will appear only as figureheads on a pedestal. That is what the employees will think; that will be the view of union members.
The acceptance of this legislation would render a very bad service to those devoted union chiefs who are doing their utmost to help employees and, I believe, at the same time to help employers. I believe they hold the view that if there is good understanding and a feeling of fraternity between these two large groups we will have in Canada a condition in which labour and industry will work in harmony, and we will have quietness and satisfaction, as well as a smooth-running organization. That is what we need. There are two lines in the bill to which I should like to refer. Line 15 reads:
. . . and the employer shall furnish to such trade union the names of the employees who have given and withdrawn such authority.
I think the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) dealt with these two lines in her speech the other day. She entertained a doubt about it, which is in my mind. As I see it, these two lines would oblige the employer to furnish the names. That is not voluntary. You never can tell what will happen. They are human beings. They have their qualities and they have their trend of thought. If employers give the names of the workers who do not sign their cards after they have a month or two they will go to see these men.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It does not ask for that.


Pierre Gauthier: It reads:
. . . and the employer shall furnish to such trade union the names of the employees who have given and withdrawn such authority.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But not the names of those who gave no such authority. That is what the hon. member said a minute ago.


Pierre Gauthier: No. I said: suppose the chief of the union received the names of two or three workers who have withdrawn-


Mr. Stick:: They will not be in the union very long.


Pierre Gauthier: -their acquiescence in the check-off, what will happen?


Leonard T. Stick: They will get kicked out of the union.


Pierre Gauthier: That is what I am asking. I do not know what will happen. That is why I feel that it is not that voluntary. I believe that the check-off will operate much better if it comes into operation after good understanding and friendly discussion between employees and employers, without imposing it by law.

Industrial Relations


Stanley Howard Knowles: One horse, one rabbit.


Pierre Gauthier: No, it is not that.


An hon. Member:: Two horses.


Pierre Gauthier: There is a difference in imposing it by law and having it come about after a good understanding between the two parties. It is not the same thing and my hon. friend knows it.


Walter Edward Harris: Did you say "honourable and humble"?


Pierre Gauthier: Honourable and humble.


Walter Edward Harris: I thought the hon. member said "my humble friend".


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are all honourable here; the book says so.


Pierre Gauthier: Yes. Some industries have gone a long way to make their employees feel that they are part of the company. Listen to this, and this exists in some parts of our country and in other countries of the world. Industries have gone a long way to make the employees feel that to a certain extent the company belongs to everyone working for it, whether he sweeps the floor, oils the machinery, works in an office or is even in the office of the manager or the president. They do not need to have the check-off, and I am positive that some companies make the employees feel that they are working for their own industry, and that is brought about by the way they treat their employees.
If my memory serves me well, I read somewhere that a man by the name of Tony Montiero-I am not positive that that is the right name-worked for quite a number of years in industry in the United States. He was a hard worker. He looked over various industries and saw that unrest existed between management and labour. He decided that he wanted to devote his life to the betterment of relations between the two parties. This Tony Montiero is preaching in different industries. If my memory serves me well, one company manager sent a letter to the newspapers of the United States stating that he was very glad to have a man of that calibre trying to do that much good for his compatriots in his efforts to try to develop understanding and fraternity between the two parties. He said, "Since we have had that man working in our industry the relations between myself and my employees are quite different from what they were and everything is going smoothly".
Well, he knew what psychology meant and he knew that in dealing with human beings we have to look at the intellectual, moral

and spiritual side of the question as well as at the material side. That man has done a lot of good in the United States. If I have not given the proper name I shall correct it in Hansard tomorrow.
I think I have said enough, Mr. Speaker, to prove that I am not altogether opposed to the check-off, but I do not want it to be imposed by law because I believe that there may be friction, and 1 do not want any friction between the two parties because our opponents, those who want to destroy us- and they are in this country-will take the least opportunity to get in between the two parties and do their nasty work, as they have done in the past.
1 heard the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) say that some say that labour is irresponsible. I have never heard that word used against labour in my life, and I have quite a large labouring force in my county, and I have industries in my county. There everything is working very smoothly because they see each other, they speak to each other and they understand each other. That is the way to look at this situation and to deal with the problem. If labour is that responsible I do not see why by law we should take from it part of its responsibility towards its union members and towards the employers. You are taking away a part of the responsibility of labour. We do not think labour is irresponsible; we think it is responsible, and we ask you not to take away a part of its responsibility toward the nation.


Mr. Speaker:: Since it is six o'clock the house will at eight o'clock revert to the business which was under consideration prior to five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of supply.
(Translation):
Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Centralization, according to Proudhon, claiming exorbitant rights, aspiring to maintain in joint possession groups which are sovereign, by the very nature of things, and to govern associate cities like conquered ones, violates the very principle which it claims to uphold, i.e. the principle of political unity . . . There arises therefore immediately antagonism between central direction and

local autonomies . . . the consequence of which is to defeat the purpose of government which henceforth is solely employed in consolidating and furthering its own preponderance.
Is it necessary to recall these words by Sir Wilfrid Laurier:
The principle under which a government levies taxes when another government spends the product of such taxation is absolutely false. Provincial governments should surrender none of their fiscal prerogatives, for such a surrender would explicitly and necessarily imply the relinquishing of certain administrative responsibilities.
This opinion is shared by the chamber of commerce of Quebec city.
Time has shown that the Liberal party has shelved this wise piece of advice given by its former leader.
In the newspaper Notre Temps of February 27, 1954, we find this alarming item by the editor, Mr. Richer:
I have recalled the Liberals' centralizing attitude, both in the provincial and federal fields, and the continuous struggle they have waged or tolerated against provincial autonomy. This is no personal opinion on my part. It is rather an historical fact.
One has but to go back to newspaper reports of former years, or, should one have the courage to do so, to go through Hansard for the past thirty years, to find the unquestionable proof that the Liberals have never stopped condoning centralizing action, even at the price of an actual weakening of provincial independence.
Mr. Alexandre Taschereau, a man of strong character, was the only one to set himself against the federal encroachments. He did not succeed in safeguarding completely the autonomy of Quebec but he managed to save the most important. It was quite a feat, for he had to fight against the federal leaders of his party, particularly Mr. Mackenzie King and Mr. Ernest Lapointe.
Nearly all the other Liberals gave up the fight. There were, of course, a few die-hards and rebels here and there, but they were not of the front ranks and their action was ineffective, and the huge steam-roller crushed everything that stood in its way.
In turning down the proposed agreements, cur province only wishes to remain true to the spirit and the letter of the confederation pact.
We are not going to give up inalienable rights in exchange for subsidies subject to the whims of the bureaucrats.
Quebec has always in the past as well as today given the whole country the best example of loyalty and faithfulness to the Canadian constitution, for it is the only province which has treated the Anglo-Protestant minority in accordance with the ideals which prompted the fathers of confederation.
In a speech delivered on January 21, 1952, before the members of the Quebec Bar Association, assembled in convention at Quebec, 83276-207i
Income Tax-Deduction of Quebec Tax the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) congratulated the leader of the Union Nationale for the generous way in which he was treating minorities.
The provinces that have signed agreements with Ottawa will share, during the coming fiscal year, a sum of $322 million. Ontario will receive as her share $140,800,000.
Quoting those figures, the Montreal Gazette wrote as follows on February 10 last:
(Text):
When Ottawa is prepared to make payments on this scale to provinces who have agreed to continue the "temporary expedient", it should find no insuperable obstacle in conceding the additional $25 million to a province that wishes Ottawa to keep its undertaking of 1941.
If Quebec were to sign an agreement similar to other provinces, a larger sum than $25 million would have to be found. As it is Quebec is helping, in effect, to finance the federal subsidies to other provinces, and is asking for comparatively little in return.
Finally, Ottawa has made clear that it has no intention of exercising any pressure upon any province to sign an agreement. This promise was given by the prime minister of Canada in 1946. "The fact is", said Mr. King, "the dominion government is not seeking to force any agreements."
This assurance has been given repeatedly ever since.
It is hard to believe that Ottawa would have any reason, or any wish, to penalize any province because it has seen fit to re-enter a taxing field which it was asked to vacate "as a temporary expedient, for the duration of the war only", and when there was no attempt to get any province "out of these tax fields permanently."
(Translation):
In another editorial on the same subject, under the heading "Not an excessive demand", the Gazette wrote as follows on February 15 last:
(Text) :
What would Ottawa have to pay Quebec if an agreement were signed on the same basis as that signed by Ontario? The payment would be about $112 million. At the present time, Ottawa allows Quebec taxpayers to make certain deductions in the field of corporation taxes, and in regard to the education tax that falls upon certain corporations. Supposing Ottawa were to go further and to make the whole of the new provincial income tax deductible from federal income taxes, what would the total be? The total that Quebec taxpayers could deduct from their various federal taxes would be about $82 million to $86 million.
Can Ottawa afford this? It would seem so. For if Quebec were to sign the same kind of agreement as Ontario, Ottawa would lose about $112 million. In other words, even with this new income tax concession, Ottawa would still, it seems, be the gainer by about $30 million.
(Translation):
On February 19, 1953, in his budget speech, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), after stating that the volume of federal taxes made tax increases by provincial governments more difficult, said:
3264	HOUSE OF
Income Tax-Deduction of Quebec Tax
No one in Ottawa wishes to deprive provincial governments of their rights or to take over their responsibilities . . .
No one has any desire to aggravate the already difficult problems facing provincial governments.
And he added:
Our national unity must always be built on a foundation which gives practical effect to the constitutional distribution of foreign powers and administrative responsibilities between the central and the provincial authorities.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister now has a splendid opportunity of proving the sincerity of his statements.
If he does not want to aggravate the present position of provincial administration and if, on the other hand, national unity is not meaningless let us see to it that Quebec taxpayers will be able to deduct from their income tax the amount of the tax they will have to pay to the province, under the act recently passed by the legislative assembly. Justice and fair play make it a duty for us. This is the urgent request I am placing tonight before the government of my country.
On the other hand, by admitting that the provincial tax on corporate incomes, and the provincial tax on natural resources, which is earmarked for education, were both deductible, the federal government has already set two precedents in that respect.
What is at stake here is neither the Union Nationale nor the Liberal party, but solely the interests of the citizens of my province, who must not be placed, with respect to taxation, on a lower and less favourable level than the other taxpayers of this country.
It is the people of Quebec who, through the constitutionally established civil authority, are calling for fair treatment and asking for the recognition, in a concrete way, of a fundamental right granted them by the fathers of confederation, that is the priority right in the field of direct taxation.
We are not asking for piecemeal 5 per cent decentralization, but for 100 per cent decentralization. If the federal government has incurred financial obligations which now make it difficult to give back to the provinces taxation fields which were taken over because of an emergency of its own creation, it has but itself to blame. Let it assume the responsibility and suffer the consequences. It has been generous with other people's money and even made gifts to other countries. Well, let it fulfil its obligations through the means granted it under the compact of 1867.
"He who keeps rights which do not belong to him, commits robbery", said Senator Nicol commenting on the Ottawa government's conduct.
It would be iniquitous to continue persecuting my French-Canadian compatriots because they make use of the privileges granted to them under the constitution; because they


refuse to exchange their liberties for money; because, on account of their tongue, their race and their faith, they cannot live under the guidance of a leader who is completely ignorant of their problems, their traditions, their ideals and their hopes.
In an editorial of March 8 last, Commerce-Montreal, the official publication of the chambre de commerce of the Montreal district, may be found the following:
Refusal to deduct the present provincial income tax constitutes a preference given to other provinces, pressure and coercion applied to Quebec.
In effect the province of Quebec is being told: "If you wish to exercise your prerogatives and to collect yourself those taxes which have been rented by the other provinces, you must be ready to pay the price for it by allowing your taxpayers to be more heavily taxed than others".
The noisy propaganda and publicity undertaken in certain quarters in favour of centralization would have people believe that sound legislation, security, pensions, happiness, prosperity, everything comes from Ottawa and that it is almighty Ottawa that should receive every bit of revenue and all thanks, it being the source of all good.
Let the Quebec government receive the hundreds of millions of dollars annually taken from its people. We would then see what our government leaders could do with this money.
In closing my remarks, I should like to quote a few excerpts from a study on federalism by Proudhon, a famous French socialist of the last century.
A federation agreement having for purpose, generally speaking, to guarantee to the confederate states their sovereignty, their territory, the freedom of their citizens; to settle their disputes; to provide, by means of general measures, for everything which affects common security and prosperity, such an agreement, as I say, in spite of the importance of the interests at stake, is essentially restricted. The authority invested with its implementation can never prevail over its constituent parts; I mean by this that the federal prerogatives can never exceed in number and in actual fact those vested in the communal or provincial authorities, nor can the latter prevail over the rights and prerogatives of man and the citizen. Otherwise, the commune would be a community; the federation would revert to a monarchical centralization; the federal authority, instead of being a mere mandatory and a subsidiary function as it should be, would be considered as preponderant; instead of being limited to a special service, it would tend to monopolize all activities and endeavours; the confederate states would be reduced to the rank of prefectures, intendances, branches or stewardships. Thus transformed, the body politic could be called a republic, a democracy or anything you like; it would no longer be a fully autonomous state, a confederation. The same thing would happen, and all the more so, if, through a false sense of economy, through deference, or for any other motive, the communities, districts or confederate states were to make one of them responsible for the administration and control of the others. The federal republic would become unitary and would be on the road to despotism.

Briefly, the federative system is the very opposite of the administrative and governmental hierarchy or centralization, which is a common feature of imperial democracies, constitutional monarchies and unitary republics. Its fundamental and characteristic principle is this: In a federation, there is a specialization, a restriction of the attributes of central authority; they lessen in number, in immediacy, and I daresay, in intensity, as the confederation develops by the addition of new states. In centralized governments, on the contrary, the attributes of supreme power become more numerous, more extended and more immediate, attracting into the ruler's orbit the affairs of the provinces, communities, corporations and individuals, in direct ratio to the size of territory and of the population. Whence the crushing of all freedom, not only municipal and provincial, but even individual and national.
(Text):
No doubt, Mr. Speaker, this house will wish to express its opinion on this matter and I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin), that all the words following "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
this house is of the opinion that the portion of income tax payable by the taxpayers of the province of Quebec, according to the act No. 43 passed by the legislative assembly, the 5th of March, 1954, be deductible from the income tax payable to the federal government.


Mr. Speaker:: I would point out to the hon. member that citation 345 of Beauchesne's third edition states, in the middle of the citation:
Only one amendment and one sub-amendment may be made to this motion,-
That is the motion to go into supply.
-but if the amendment is negatived, a discussion on other questions may be raised but no other amendment can be proposed.
We have had one amendment which has been negatived and I submit that another amendment at this time cannot be accepted. Standing order 49 confirms this view.
(Translation):


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, even though the amendment moved by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon), has been declared out of order, may I be allowed to deal with the matter which he has introduced in this house this afternoon.
I deem it my duty-indeed, it is also a great pleasure-to say a few words in support of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Chicoutimi.
The present debate raises the whole question of the fiscal autonomy of the provinces in general and of Quebec in particular.
Some of the opponents of the present Quebec government have upbraided its leader for having misused the topic of autonomy, for having played all the varia-
23. 1954	3265
Income Tax-Deduction of Quebec Tax tions of that tune without ever putting autonomy into practice. Are they right or wrong? It is not up to us, as federal legislators, to settle that question. However, these same critics could surely not claim today that bill 43, adopted by the Quebec legislature, is not a clear and definite statement of policy with regard to fiscal autonomy. I hope it will not be repeated here that the government of the province of Quebec could have avoided the levying of that tax by managing in some other way the moneys entrusted to it by the provincial taxpayers.


Mr. Dupuis:: The electoral fund would have suffered.


Raoul Poulin: I hope I can reply to the very intelligent remark made by the hon. member, the type we generally hear from the member for St. Mary (Mr. Dupuis).
Such an argument may be advanced in the provincial legislature involved, but the matter surely rests with the Quebec electorate who will be called upon to deal with it in due course. However, I do not hesitate to say this argument cannot be taken into account by federal legislators when discussing this problem.
We are here, Mr. Speaker, only to inspire legislators with new ideas. A discussion on such a basis would not solve at all the question of principle involved here.
In my humble opinion, though I am neither a lawyer nor an expert in constitutional law, this whole discussion can be summed up under two principal headings which I shall summarize in two questions:
1.	Are the provinces allowed by the constitution to levy direct taxes?
2.	Is it advisable, for Quebec in particular, to cover as much ground as possible in this field in order to preserve its fiscal autonomy?
My answer to the first question would be that the field of direct taxation is open to the provinces, that they have priority and that the federal government has in practice recognized that priority.
(a)	The field of direct taxation belongs to the provinces. Subsection 2 of section 92 of the British North America Act is very clear on the matter and I quote:
* . . the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to . . . direct taxation within the province in order to the raising of a revenue for provincial purposes.
There is no denying that income tax is direct taxation; there is no denying either that the bill introduced in Quebec confines the levying of this tax within the geographical limits of the province; there is no denying,

Income Tax-Deduction of Quebec Tax finally, that the purpose of this levy falls within the jurisdiction of the province. In this connection, one has only to read section 168, subsection 12 of the bill:
The purpose of this act is to provide for expenses necessary to meet provincial needs and developments in the fields of education, public health and social legislation. All the revenues therefrom shall be used to those ends.
It is clearly provided in the constitution, in sections 92 and 93, that all three subjects fall within the jurisdiction of the province.
(b)	And now, the provinces have precedence over the federal power in the field of direct taxation.
Indeed paragraph 2 of section 92 is very explicit on the subject and grants to the provinces not only precedence but exclusivity in the field of taxation for provincial purposes. Bill 43, introduced in the Quebec legislature, stresses the point in its preamble. I quote:
Whereas the Canadian constitution gives priority to the provinces in the field of direct taxation . . .
Moreover, such priority may be established through deductive reasoning. Since the field of direct taxation is the only one the provinces have access to, it must be open to them to such an extent as to enable them to collect enough money to achieve their own purposes. Otherwise, it would mean that the fathers of confederation, having recognized the right of the provinces to achieve their purposes, would have failed to provide them with the necessary means to do so. Finally, if the field of direct taxation is already saturated with federal taxes, that right of the provinces becomes entirely illusory; therefore we are not straining the principles of logic when we conclude that the federal government must abandon the field to the provinces whenever the latter express the wish to occupy it in order to achieve their own provincial purposes.


Hector Dupuis: Clean or dirty?


Raoul Poulin: I wish to quote here a much more advanced opinion; it is a statement made recently before the Tremblay commission by the secretary general of the University of Montreal, Mr. Marcel Faribault, when he submitted to the commission the brief on behalf of the university. When questioned by one of the commissioners he replied, as reported in a news item published in La Presse of Montreal, on February 24, 1954:
It should be remembered that the federal government must levy taxes since it does not have any

natural resources. If it levies taxes and then applies the revenue derived from those taxes to provincial fields which do not come within its jurisdiction, that is evidently unconstitutional.
(c)	Besides, the federal government has, in practice, recognized that priority on several occasions.
In 1947, it authorized, in favour of certain provinces, a 5 per cent deduction from personal income tax. It also permitted Quebec companies last year to make a deduction corresponding to the amount paid by the said companies into the education fund of the province. Another 5 per cent deduction was granted with respect to income tax on corporations, in favour of those provinces which refused to sign a tax agreement. And last year, the federal government went still further and underlined even more the importance of this principle, by raising the amount of this deduction to 7 per cent.
May I be permitted to quote from an editorial published in the Quebec L'Action Catholique, on January 15, 1954, under the signature of Mr. Charles Pelletier:
A clause in the federal Income Tax Act allows the taxpayers to deduct 5 per cent from their contributions, if this portion is already claimed by the provincial treasury. This taxation field is certainly one in which the province should normally be *' bsoluiely free to act. It means little from the monetary point of view, but it means much from the point of view of principles. It gives recognition to the fact that, when a provincial legislature decides to levy an income tax, the central authority must, at least to a certain extent, give it priority.
I would also like to quote from an editorial published in the same newspaper, on February 20, 1954, under the signature of its editor-in-chief, Mr. L. P. Roy, and entitled: "Ottawa could not refuse this deduction." After some preliminary considerations, the editorial continues:
Our high treasurer could hardly refuse by claiming that he needs the money. Why should Mr. Abbott refuse? To punish Quebec for having renounced a right for a period which has been far too long extended? Does Ottawa want to punish our province for reminding it, by its attitude, of the fact that his predecessor in office did not keep his word? When the Hon. Mr. Ilsley was asking the provinces to give up, for the duration of the war, their right to tax corporations and personal incomes, he insisted on the word "temporarily". That was the understanding.
The fact that it has been renewed once or twice does not change its nature in the least.
If Quebec, as it could have done, had instituted a provincial tax upon the expiry of the agreement, nobody could have held it against that province. Now, the provincial government, needing the additional funds for educational and health purposes and fearing that some day it may be denied a right

which it has not exercised for several years, is proposing taxation legislation. Its conduct is absolutely logical. What would be illogical would be a lack of co-operation on the part of Ottawa. Should the taxpayers now find themselves overburdened by this double taxation, they will know that the blame rests on those who are in undue occupation of a taxation field which they should have occupied only temporarily.
It would now be in order to quote from another article from Montreal's Le Devoir of February 26, 1954, signed by Andre Lauren-deau. This article is entitled:
"Ottawa must rule provincial tax deductible from its own".
Part of the provincial tax-more than one-third -will be deductible from the federal tax. Will we ever bring Ottawa to accept the fact that the whole provincial tax should be deductible? This should be possible, if Ottawa does not consider centralization over and above simple justice.
The urgent task at present lies in mustering opinion and in getting Ottawa to agree that the provincial tax shall be wholly deductible from the federal tax. It is possible that we may meet opposition in some quarters. But even if the struggle appears to be a long one, it is no reason not to undertake it.
In December, 1952, the Quebec Catholic farmers' union submitted a brief to the government of that province in which I read, among other things, the following which I quote from Le Devoir of January 21, 1953, and which was written by Dominique Beaudin:
Our rural parishes feel as much as the cities the effects of the taking over of the taxation fields by the federal government at the expense of the provincial and municipal governments. That is why we are happy to approve the requests of the chambers of commerce and to assure you of our complete support for the course of action you advocate in order that Quebec may exercise its rights.
I want to repeat that I attach great importance to the opinion of the leaders of farmers organizations in the province of Quebec, even on a question as difficult and abstract as the autonomy question. Their common sense is a pretty sure guide.
It is rather interesting, Mr. Speaker, to consider what was said in the past on the autonomy problem by certain leaders of a great political party which played, and still plays, a great part in this country. On November 17, 1920, at the Reform Club of Quebec, the Hon. Alexandre Taschereau said:
There is a conspiracy against the provinces, and particularly against the province of Quebec. I ask you to ponder over all that in order that we may face united the attacks of the federal government. We belong to a great party of glorious traditions and a noble future. Be uncompromising and pure Liberals worthy of the founders of that great party. Be of those Liberals who will never go for measures which can only be detrimental to our province.
And the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, whose name, after all, will live in the history
Income Tax-Deduction of Quebec Tax of Canada, had this to say immediately after those words had been said by the Hon. Alexandre Taschereau:
As the honourable premier has so well indicated a moment ago; what Ottawa is really seeking is to buy us and many citizens of this province do not seem to protest enough against that ambush. We of the province of Quebec should not let go any particle of our autonomy and our rights.
We see by Bill 43 that the leaders of Quebec have changed, but that, as far as autonomy is concerned, ideas have not.
In November 1952, the chamber of commerce of the province of Quebec submitted to the government of that province a brief on dominion-provincial relations in the field of taxation. On the last page but one of a summary entitled "Official views of the Chamber" I read the following:
The chamber of commerce of the province of Quebec believes: (1) that the pact made in 1867 between the two great nationalities of this country, as confirmed by the British North America Act, has to be fully complied with; (2) that, since direct taxes are the only source of provincial collections, it is important that they should have full freedom of action, and that the federal government should restrict very precisely its action in this field.
In this case, such statement is self-explanatory.
Lastly, I would like to quote a few lines from an editorial published on March 8, 1954 on the first page of Commerce-Montreal, the official organ of the Montreal district chamber of commerce:
Is Ottawa going to allow the Quebec taxpayer to deduct the whole provincial tax from the federal tax? To justify such an attitude it would seem that even good will, good faith, electoral purposes or other reasons of this kind are not required. Obvious facts and the most elementary justice call for such an attitude.
Now, is it advisable, for the province of Quebec in particular, to cover as much ground as possible in order to safeguard its fiscal autonomy and, by this very fact, its autonomy proper? Autonomy is more essential to Quebec than to any other province if she wants to maintain and develop her own life and to preserve the particular characteristics of its functions and manifestations.
The saying "he who pays eventually gains control" is quite old but time has not impaired the truth of that assertion. On the contrary, it allows the accumulation of new proofs of its veracity. It is all very well to discuss, to argue or to quibble but the fact remains that the confederation pact not only gave assent to an agreement between two provinces but was mainly the recognition and the guarantee of the rights and privileges of two great races which had decided to unite. For the benefit of those who dislike the statements of the prime minister of the province
3268	HOUSE OF
Income Tax-Deduction of Quebec Tax of Quebec on that point I shall quote, among hundreds of others, an opinion voiced in the brief submitted recently to the Tremblay commission by the University of Montreal:
Some people do not like to hear it said that confederation has been a pact between two races. One has only to make an objective and impartial study of the Canadian constitution to immediately see the special position in which the province of Quebec was placed. Section 133 could not be more definite. Its provisions concerning language and the right to use it in the federal parliament together with the attendant obligation to publish the statutes in both languages that is in Ottawa as well as in Quebec (in the latter case for the benefit of the English-speaking citizens) show that in fact the confederative act has been an agreement between two racial groups of different languages, religion and traditions which they aimed to preserve.
I surely feel justified in quoting at this time an editorial which appeared recently in a Quebec newspaper, Le Soleil to mention it by name, and which was reproduced on February 22, 1954, in Le Devoir. It reads: Independence before dollars
Indeed, the province of Quebec suffers heavy material losses by opposing, all by itself, the encroachments of a centralizing government. No matter how great a monetary loss she may suffer, the province still holds much dearer the privileges and liberties which were granted her by treaties involving British honour. Those privileges and liberties were formerly guaranteed under the confederation pact, which the province's religious and political leaders would not have endorsed without this guarantee. Apart from what she may derive from her inheritance, the province of Quebec wants to keep control of her civil laws, her educational and religious liberties and her social traditions. She relies on the fairmindedness of her friends and witnesses from the other provinces to ultimately acknowledge that her case is just and honourable.
Mr. Speaker, when one reads such words, inspired by the purest nationalism, it is impossible to refrain from making a travesty of a famous line of verse and ask:	"How
into such fine gold has that base lead been changed?" The supporters of the Liberal party who seem to oppose in this house the suggestion of my colleague from Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) will have a hard time to reconcile their views with the attitude adopted by their official organ in Quebec.
It has been said that the federal government had to get as much revenue as possible in order to redistribute that money among the poorer provinces. This argument is put forward in favour of a greater centralization of direct taxation at Ottawa. It is claimed that if the amount which the taxpayer from Quebec will have to pay is deducted from the federal income tax, the province of Quebec will no longer be helping the poorer provinces. 1 hate to put forward opinions of too categorical a nature-one can always err in spite of good intentions-but this time I say without hesitation that nothing could be farther from the truth. Other speakers have


established-or will do so, I hope-that should such a deduction be made the province of Quebec would be far from getting as much money as it would have obtained if it had been a party to the financial agreements which the other provinces have accepted. Therefore, through that accounting operation, there is a deficit which becomes a surplus for the central government which, in turn, redistributes the money among the poorer provinces.
The province of Quebec, which is naturally rich-I admit it and 1 thank Providence for it-will therefore continue to help the poorer provinces, even if the central government allows the deduction of the tax that will be paid by the Quebec taxpayers to the provincial government.
One might perhaps object as follows: But tell us, what has the province of Quebec to worry about? What are the rights of which she could be deprived? What privileges could be taken away from her through more or less encroachment upon her autonomy? In replying briefly to that objection, Mr. Speaker, I shall try to put aside all question of sentiment because I am prepared to take for granted the intelligence of the hon. members of the house, to whatever party or group they may belong.
It is generally admitted today, to quote a concrete example, that the way things are going, within a few years we shall have some sort of health insurance program in which the state will have a word to say.
Let us suppose that the province of Quebec, owing to the fact that her field of taxation is practically saturated, does not have the financial means of setting up an ad hoc system, the federal government will do it. Therefore, for all practical purposes, I can see there a serious threat to the principles and morals of the French and Catholic people of Quebec.
I once mentioned here the case of Dr. Chisholm, who was deputy minister of health not so long ago, and I could mention others. Mr. Speaker, can you see what would happen if an individual of that type were to avail himself of his influence and position to have regulations drafted regarding hygiene and medicine in our Catholic hospitals? I shall not dwell on the point, because I think the house understands what I mean.
I am well aware that above those civil servants, there are always the ministers who take responsibility for their decisions. However, if I may say so with due respect, I definitely feel that the ministers do not always do what they want, even with the best intentions in the world. How else could you explain that we do not have yet bilingual cheques, for

instance, to mention a concrete case which will help to understand the principle, and here I am entering deliberately another field where I can show that our excessive regimentation in the federal administration works certainly against us. I am sure that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) is a well-intentioned man who is very strong on having all cheques issued by the various government departments bilingual and this on the basis of the indisputable and unrefuted facts which I stated. How is it that he has not yet succeeded in this? Undoubtedly, on account of crafty subordinates not so well disposed as he is, upon whom he does not exercise the authority necessary to implement what he wholeheartedly desires.
If we now consider education, what should we expect when the day comes when our provinces, because their taxation field has become unproductive, find themselves unable to extend to our school boards the assistance they need? I already indicated in this house why I object to federal subsidies to universities and classical colleges. I want to say again, even though this statement could be used against me, I do not fear any interference by the politicians we have today here in Ottawa in our two great political parties. I am prepared to trust them, but they will not live forever! In 25 or 50 years from now who will be leading Canada? Perhaps a socialist government the supporters of which are always asking the government today to enter into every field and especially the field of education and health.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is not exaggerated to foresee 25 or 50 years ahead for those who take it upon themselves to prepare for the future. And I am rather wary of what these socialist gentlemen, with the support of more or less well disposed civil servants, might have to suggest for the improvement of the educational system of the province of Quebec.
I will not resist the temptation to quote in this connection a few lines from an article written by Gerard Filion, in the March 6 issue of Le Devoir:
Ottawa has its own little Marshall plan . . . Beyond legal borders it offers gifts for hospitals, vocational schools, youth training, universities. Just like the countries in receipt of the real Marshall aid, the provinces mutter under their breath, but accept, nonetheless. They know full well that in doing so they are coming under the domination of the federal government; they feel that they are gradually being deprived of their rights, but they submit, in spite of everything. And having done so, they look for arguments to justify their surrender.
I might add here, Mr. Speaker, that it is fortunate that the province of Quebec does not come under this plan.
Income Tax-Deduction of Quebec Tax
It will thus safeguard a principle which, some day, other provinces might be glad to invoke, even though this collective revolt on the part of the provinces might bring about the collapse of the whole Rowell-Sirois structure.
Now if we take a look at social legislation, we see that the central government has made a full-fledged intrusion in this field. Now we know that this legislation directly, and sometimes intimately, affects the individual himself or his property. However, according to the spirit and letter of the constitution, this field is reserved to the provinces. Would it not be more logical that all moneys connected with this legislation be under direct and absolute control of the provinces? At the present time, we are away ahead in this direction. Although it would be most desirable, we cannot hope that the central government will retreat from its position; the most we can expect is that they do not overstep certain bounds.
Let us not believe for a moment that all possibilities have been exhausted in this connection. Popular pressure will force governments to go still further in this direction. However, in future, provinces should be allowed to cover the remaining ground; but, if that is to come about, the central power will have to give them the income sources they need in order to exercise their own rights in that particular field.
Mr. Speaker, whatever class or group we may belong to, we are all citizens of a great and rich country. It was the will of Providence, which is everywhere, that two great races should contribute chiefly to the building of the Canadian nation. For 150 years they fought each other. And when the fighting was over there remained to be found a common ground for an agreement which would permit each of those two races first to live and to develop itself according to its characteristics and its genius, and then to contribute to the development of this great country of ours, so that subsequent generations might be happy and free. In order to achieve that ideal, at a certain time in our history the leaders of those two groups got together to draw up a proper program.
That was the birth of the Canadian constitution which later on took the form of an act which was ratified by the imperial parliament, under the name of the British North America Act.
Were those leaders mistaken? Could it be that in practice the legislation they have drafted failed to achieve their purposes which were nevertheless quite clear? Not one member of this house will maintain that the fathers of confederation did not want to
3270	HOUSE OF
Income Tax-Deduction of Quebec Tax guarantee to the two great races who had decided to unite the full and complete exercise of their rights and privileges, with the use of the appropriate means to attain that end.
Would the statesmen now leading the nation, either in the federal or in the provincial field, not be so well-intentioned as those of the past? Would it be their purpose to melt in a single mould the wonderful qualities of each group forming the nation, at the great risk of distorting them? I refuse to believe that. That is why I trust that this house, desirous to leave each of them its full freedom, will also give them the means to preserve it by readily allowing the taxpayers of the province of Quebec to deduct from their federal income tax the total amount of the income tax payable to the province of Quebec.


Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I refrained from making my speech until tonight, in order that the government may do something for the taxpayers of the province of Quebec with regard to the total deductibility of the provincial income tax. The matter of deductibility of the provincial tax is the general topic of conversation in Quebec today. As a matter of fact it is the issue of the day, and all papers have been commenting upon it ceaselessly for the last two months. It is of such importance that I am convinced it will prove to be a turning-point in the economic life of Quebec. Not a day passes but the papers mention it in their editorials.
The question of provincial rights has been considered many times in this house and the people have had the opportunity to acquaint themselves with the policy of the different parties on this matter. May I say that I scarcely hope to change the government's mind on the matter tonight. It is not my intention therefore to discuss now the question of provincial autonomy as such. I want to deal objectively with the subject of provincial income tax and try to prove to the house that, in all justice and fairness, the federal government must allow deduction of the provincial tax from the tax paid to the central government.
The federal government must recognize and admit that the province of Quebec is autonomous, that she insists that her rights be respected, fully preserved and even extended and that any move towards centralization in Ottawa, a course most obviously pursued particularly since the beginning of the war of 1939-45, must cease.
The people of the other provinces may not be as much interested in the conservation, by their governments, of the taxation rights


that the central government tries to take away from them by more enticing means. For the other provinces, this is purely a financial matter devoid of all sentimentality. But for us, of the province of Quebec, provincial autonomy, provincial rights and any matter pertaining to sources of revenue are, indeed, considered as directly related to our religion, our language, our rights and our traditions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Léon Balcer: I know members opposite do not agree with me on that score, but I wish to remind them that they must nevertheless realize that a provincial government which refuses to sign agreements proposed by the central government shows remarkable courage, when it is evident that the immediate revenues to be derived from such agreements are greater than the revenues to be yielded from the fields which the province is unwilling to give up.
The people of Quebec clearly show their autonomist feelings when they approve their government's stand in refusing such attractive federal grants.
In fact we see tangible proof of this in the brief presented by the chamber of commerce and of which previous speakers spoke at great length. Such proof is equally reflected at this time in every newspaper of the province of Quebec for, regardless of their political beliefs, they seem to support the provincial government unequivocally in this regard. I shall take the liberty of quoting a few excerpts from editorials published in the newspapers of the province of Quebec to show that, in that province, public opinion seems unanimous in recognizing the full validity of the decision arrived at by the provincial government. For example, an editorial published in the Montreal newspaper La Presse on Wednesday, February 10, 1954, stated:
The only solution to this problem would be for the central and provincial authorities to conclude an agreement which would allow the Quebec taxpayer to deduct in full, from the amount of income tax payable under federal laws, any payments to be made to the provincial government.
Last year already, when presenting his estimates, the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Mr. Abbott, granted a reduction of the tax levied on corporations to firms situated within the limits of a province which had no fiscal agreement with Ottawa. His obvious reason in doing so was to equalize the fiscal charges of the taxpayers throughout the country.
Could not the reasons then put forth be invoked in the case of the new provincial income tax? That matter has already been raised, but it has not as yet been fully studied.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but if my eyes do not deceive me, he holds in his hands a pretty

big bundle of sheets containing extracts from newspapers, and if, as seems to be the case, by quoting from newspaper clippings, he wishes to show that the provincial government has the support of the people from the province of Quebec in the struggle to which he referred, I am afraid he is out of order in so doing. Newspaper editorials may be quoted, provided one can do so without being out of order. (See Bourinot, page 335; citation 265, Beauchesne, third edition.) But another standing order says that members of the house must express their own ideas, without reading a text and must not therefore read into Hansard, instead of their own views, those of newspapermen or newspaper editors.
I supposed the hon. member wished to read abundant quotations from newspapers. If such was not his intention I apologize for interrupting him. I have allowed a reasonable use of quotations to support an argument-it is permissible in such a case to bring forth various quotations-but I wish to caution the hon. member against changing his speech into a review of the opinions expressed by every newspaper on the question which he intends to bring up.


Léon Balcer: I understand your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and it is a pleasure to bow to it. However, my only purpose was to show that most Quebec newspapers approved the attitude of the provincial government in this regard and were asking, along with that government, that the provincial income tax be made entirely deductible. That is why I wanted to quote certain passages from various editorials. I shall therefore content myself with giving the references and if some hon. members want to take the trouble of referring to them they will recognize the truth of my statements, I am sure. In fact, newspapers like he Soleil, L'Evenement Journal, La Patrie, L'Action Catholique, the Gazette, and Le Droit of Ottawa, all seem to admit that the federal government should decide right now to permit Quebec taxpayers to deduct the amount of that tax.
The problem can be summed up as follows: Should Quebec be punished by Ottawa for refusing to sign the financial agreements proposed by the latter? And when I say "should Quebec be punished by Ottawa", I do not simply mean the government of the province of Quebec, but the whole population of my province.
First, there is a point upon which everyone agrees: the right of a provincial government to direct taxation. There is no disagreement in that connection; the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) admitted that
Income Tax-Deduction of Quebec Tax fact himself upon his return from Australia and he said so very clearly and unequivocally.
This right to levy a provincial income tax would be a joke if, by levying it, the government would be putting the people of the province in an inferior position compared to that of the citizens of the other provinces. And, vice versa, one could understand why the federal government would be reluctant to let go its revenue in one province to the detriment of the other provinces. This is precisely the point I want to make tonight. It indicates precisely the strength of the stand taken by the government of the province of Quebec in this respect: If the federal government denies to the taxpayers of my province the right to deduct from the federal income tax a tax required from them by the provincial government, the federal government puts them in an inferior position. On the other hand, the government of the province of Quebec, by demanding that this tax be made deductible, does not take a single penny away from the other provinces.
It is a well-known fact that the federal government offered an amount of $123 million to the province of Quebec. In return the province was to sign the federal-provincial agreements and to hand over succession duties, corporation income tax and, finally, personal income tax.
If we consider that in so doing Quebec would have been giving up revenue amounting to $80 million, the federal government would have been obliged to hand over approximately $40 million more than today.
We must also note that the great majority of the people of Quebec have shown that they wished the provincial government to keep its sources of taxation, so as to make sure that these taxes would be spent in the province, in accordance with the traditions, mentality and aspirations of the Catholic and French-speaking majority of that province.
Anybody who has read the editorials in the Quebec press in the last few years will have been readily convinced of that fact. If any further proof should be required, one has only to read the various briefs submitted to the Tremblay commission. The great majority of reports urged the provincial government to retain jealously its taxation sources and not to sign the agreements proposed by the federal government.
And yet, if the provincial government had accepted these direct grants, Quebec would have received $123 million, whereas by retaining, as it does, the taxation fields, it has received only about $80 million.
3272	HOUSE OF
Income Tax-Deduction of Quebec Tax
Another point to be emphasized is this: the total grants given to the other provinces by the federal government amount to $322 million, and the taxpayers of the province of Quebec contribute part of this amount-perhaps not to the same extent as the others, but at least they do contribute some part of it.
In 1953, the central government levied $700 million in taxes in the province of Quebec, that is, $296 million in direct income taxes and $400 million in corporation taxes.
It is readily understood that the federal government cannot hand back to each province an amount equal to that paid in income tax by the population of these provinces, but, just the same, it is to be noted that all the provinces which have signed these agreements get more than if they had not signed them. Consequently, the federal government feels that it has to maintain its taxes at a very high level, and these taxes bear as heavily on the people of Quebec as on the people of the other provinces, but the province does not benefit by them. It follows therefrom that the province of Quebec gets less than all the other provinces because it has refused to sign an agreement with the federal government. Now, if the province of Quebec does not sign an agreement, it is because it does not want to hand over its taxation rights but wants to preserve its autonomy in order to better safeguard its traditions, its tongue and its religion, or because it simply wants to be its own master.
Besides, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) admitted in 1946 that these famous fiscal agreements could place a province that did not sign them in an inferior position from a financial standpoint, in relation to the other provinces, and that is why he allowed the provinces who refused to sign an agreement to deduct 5 per cent. Why that 5 per cent? Well, it is only because the federal government realized that it had no right to place in an inferior position the citizens of a province which refused to submit to that centralizing campaign the federal government is carrying on since 1946. The government of the province of Quebec did not make use of this 5 per cent, and thus has left since 1946 to the federal government an amount of $56 million. This is certainly not the time to refuse the deduction of $22 or $25 million during three years, when the population of Quebec have left here, in Ottawa, a sum of $56 million. If we add another period of three years at 5 per cent to these $56 million, well, we come to a figure of almost $90 million. Now, all the provincial government is asking is to deduct about $66 million during three years. The federal government would
[Mr. Balcer.l

find itself still richer by $28 million, if the people of the province of Quebec were permitted to deduct the provincial tax. As to the provincial government, it would be richer by $22 million and the citizens of Quebec province would not be submitted to double taxation.


Mr. Breton:: Will the hon. member allow me to ask him two questions?


Léon Balcer: If I may finish my speech, I shall permit questions later. The result of the government's refusal-


Hector Dupuis: Don't disturb his master's voice.


Léon Balcer: Are you speaking for your son in this house?


Hector Dupuis: I beg your pardon?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the federal gov-enrnment's refusal is such as to put the Quebec taxpayer in an unfavourable position compared to the rest of the population. Quebec taxpayers are placed in a position of inferiority because they believe in autonomy, because they feel that it is for them the surest way to make certain that their legislation will always reflect the will of the majority of the population of Quebec.
Of course, I know that, for many members of this house, provincial autonomy is a fear that should not exist, and so on. I know many members opposite who would be delighted to see provincial governments disappear completely.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame! Shame!


Léon Balcer: They prove it by their silence on this question.


Hector Dupuis: A real joke!


Léon Balcer: The province of Quebec wants the federal government to acknowledge the autonomy of the provincial government. We, of the province of Quebec, do not wish to force it upon other provinces; we do not want to take away one single cent of the money the other provinces may receive from the federal government. Even if this deductibility were granted, no other province would stand to lose one cent of service from the federal government. On the other hand, the people of Quebec have the right to ask the people of other parts of the country to respect their views on the matter, especially when it does not cost them a cent.
The policy of the federal government which aims at doing its utmost to compel the province of Quebec by the blackmail involved in these grand federal-provincial agreements puts the citizens of Quebec in a false position.

The federal government cannot of course give such large amounts to the other provinces and draw them only from the revenue of these provinces, but the government is bound to distribute its revenue fairly and to treat every Canadian on the same basis. However, that is not what is happening today, since the central government treats Quebec taxpayers as inferior citizens because they want to keep their taxation sources.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Léon Balcer: I am convinced that no taxpayer from the other provinces would tolerate such treatment. The federal government cannot say that the means are lacking since it would be ready to grant $123 million to the province of Quebec. Neither can it say that the amount involved would have to come from the other provinces since the amount earmarked for Quebec does not serve to increase the total amount of the grants going to the other provinces when Quebec does not accept it. Since 1946, Quebec has left this amount to the federal government. The Minister of Finance may say to himself that this money might be used to reduce the national debt but if the citizens of the province of Quebec like to pay their debts they do not want to have to pay the whole of the national debt.


Some hon. Members:: Oh! Oh!


Léon Balcer: Attempts have always been made to strip Quebec of her rights of taxation. I believe that the reaction of the province of Quebec towards the provincial income tax as well as the position taken by the different associations which came before the Tremblay commission should make it quite clear to the central government that our people cherish their rights.
When deduction was granted to companies last year, the Minister of Finance said that he did not want to place the companies of the province of Quebec in a position of inferiority just because the provincial government had not signed a tax agreement. Well, we ask the federal government to do for the small taxpayers of Quebec what they have done for the big corporations.


Mr. Chevrier:: You know something about big corporations.


Léon Balcer: I suppose the Minister of Transport knows nothing about them, has never heard a thing about them!
One must not forget that the 15 per cent deduction which is asked for the taxpayers of Quebec will apply to 300,000 taxpayers, while the federal tax applies to 600,000 taxpayers, which means that the total amount paid to
23, 1954	3273
Income Tax-Deduction of Quebec Tax the Quebec treasury by the taxpayers will represent only 7 or 8 per cent of the amount paid to the federal government.


Jean Lesage: This is where the mistake is made.


Léon Balcer: My friends opposite may think that the provincial government in levying that tax only from those who are better off financially is not following the same method as the federal government but I believe it is fair-


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: That is where the mistake is made.


Léon Balcer: The people of Quebec, no more than the provincial government, do not follow to the letter the instructions of the federal government. Not a single member opposite has yet made a speech during this debate. Yet I remember that during the last general election all those gentlemen in front of me all of a sudden became great upholders of provincial rights. Today, the same gentlemen are facing a problem affecting 300,000 taxpayers of the province of Quebec; it is up to them to solve the problem without the rest of the taxpayers of the country losing a single penny and without the federal government losing a penny since the province of Quebec in this way would still get less than the amount the federal government was ready to pay if the province had decided to sign the agreement.


Hector Dupuis: You said all that in Verdun.


Léon Balcer: Tonight, we press the government to take a decision to that effect; the matter is urgent because beginning April 1 the provincial tax will be deducted at the source from the salary of a large number of Quebec taxpayers. That is why I hope that the government and its supporters will avail themselves of this opportunity to break their silence in this connection, because we must not forget that the people of Quebec are all looking towards Ottawa and wondering whether the federal government will fulfil their wishes and treat the Quebec taxpayers on the same footing as other Canadians. Everyone is wondering whether Quebec taxpayers are to be penalized because the provincial government refuses to accept the terms of a federal-provincial agreement drafted by Ottawa and which does not please the people of Quebec who have their autonomy at heart.


Maurice Breton: Mr. Speaker, now that my hon. colleague from Three Rivers has concluded his speech, may I ask him two questions?


Léon Balcer: With pleasure.
3274	HOUSE OF
Income Tax-Deduction of Quebec Tax


Maurice Breton: First, is it not true that the province of Quebec is opposed to the federal-provincial agreements because she is against the idea of federal subsidies to the provinces?


Léon Balcer: It is true, when the subsidies are not related to education and other matters dear to the heart of the French Canadian.


Maurice Breton: Could you answer yes or no to this question: Is it not true that Quebec is opposed to the idea of federal subsidies?


Léon Balcer: I have already answered you.


An hon. Member:: Answer, answer.


Léon Balcer: I do not have to take any orders from the hon. member. I have answered and if he is at all intelligent he will understand what I said.


Maurice Breton: Is it not true, hon. colleague from Three Rivers, that a deduction from the federal income tax would amount to a federal subsidy to the province of Quebec?


Léon Balcer: It is a pleasure for me to answer the hon. member from Joliette that he may call this deductibility what he likes. If the federal government grants it, we will be perfectly satisfied.


Mr. Fernand Girard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, it is possibly a very good thing, for the sake of this fiscal question, that it happens to be broached more particularly by independent members. We cannot be accused, in this instance, of acting for political advantage-


Hector Dupuis: Independent or Conservative?


Fernand Girard: I am very happy to see that the hon. member for St. Mary apparently wishes to speak very often since, on the other side of the house, everybody seems to remain silent. He will no doubt be happy to speak after I have finished my speech.
Our independence is such that it has prevented us from occupying positions of eminence. The government to which we have given our support on a number of occasions must listen to us attentively and objectively.
Our opinion has not been conjured out of political theory. We have found it in the light of the letter and spirit of confederation which must be the bible of every representative of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this preamble to be necessary to any discussion of fiscal problems.
Therein lies perhaps the fate of the province of Quebec. It depends upon the reply of the federal government to the province, which has just repossessed its rights in the field of direct taxation; and history will pronounce a severe judgment on those who will stoop to the point of placing political considerations over and above the provisions of the B.N.A. Act.


Subsection 2 of section 92 of the B.N.A. Act grants to the provinces direct taxation rights within their geographical boundaries, in order that they may levy funds for provincial purposes.
Quebec has refused to sign the fiscal agreement and it has repossessed the rights which belong to it; it is now up to the federal government to deduct in full this provincial tax, for it has no right to punish Quebec for having wished to safeguard its autonomy.
I do not wish to emphasize the soundness of the provincial tax and the priority right of the provinces to levy such a tax. My colleagues have done so with convincing logic. My intention is to show that the federal government itself has never had any real doubt about the rights of the province and that all the measures it has taken to monopolize the powers of direct taxation do not derive their force from the letter or spirit of the confederation pact. They aimed rather at luring the provinces by holding out certain advantages in order to gain that consent which eventually would have put us before the fait accompli. That was a clever process, for everyone knows that for most political institutions precedent is as good as law.
Not being able to claim as of right the exclusive use of the income tax, the federal government tried to transform a temporary situation into a permanent one. Each time it has offered subsidies for provincial purposes, the federal government has unquestionably exceeded its jurisdiction and proved that it was but an usurper of provincial rights. In offering to the provinces an annual subsidy, it not only proved its unconstitutional interference but showed that it is less interested in revenue than in centralization itself, for it has offered much more than what the province asks in a constitutional way.
In the eyes of members from outside Quebec, the attitude of our province may seem somewhat isolationist. To us, autonomy is a guarantee of survival and the provincial tax is the consecration of that principle. May I be permitted to quote, in this connection, an excerpt from the brief submitted to the Tremblay commission by the University of Montreal. In my estimation, it gives the fundamental reasons of two concepts, the concept of Quebec and the concept of the other provinces:
Our English-speaking compatriots are often astonished at the importance which we give to constitutional problems, for they believe that one must think, first and foremost, of that which is immediately possible. There is evidently in all this a question of heredity, of a deep measure of atavism. The Anglo-Saxon constitution is in great part unwritten; the common law is evolved day by day through the judges' decisions; the Anglo-Saxon refuses to accept dictatorial rules . . . his ideal is,

first of all, liberty and his decisions are both pragmatic and affective. Compare to that, not directly the French-speaking Canadians, but the French themselves and you find yourself immediately before such monuments as the declaration of human rights, the Napoleonic code, the concordats with the Vatican, the French Academy, the love of the soil, the preservation of family values and the nation's community spirit.
In the eyes of French Canadians, the Quebec resolutions are the debates of a real constituent assembly, like that of France in 1789. The act of 1867 may, with regard to its form, take on the appearance of an imperial law; but this has no importance whatsoever. It must be basically held for what it is, i.e a constitution as sacred as that of the United States.
Moreover, the fact that our people are sparsely represented in the key-posts of this country, though we are a bilingual nation, with two equally valid cultures, and though it is our group that went out to meet the other, as we are about the only really bilingual race, all this rather justifies our anxiety. Briefly, all those bitter struggles we have to put up with every time we call for the recognition of one of the rights of French culture, that are the special feature of the Canadian constitution, have proved without doubt that for us autonomy is somewhat like a rampart that does not exist for the English element of our country.
Consequently, we are entitled to ask the members representing other provinces to support our request in connection with the deduction of the provincial tax, not because such request is or is not in accordance with their approach to the fiscal question because autonomy does not mean to them what it means to a minority. We are asking their support because our request is in keeping with the spirit and the letter of the confederation pact which they have signed and because our request represents, in terms of money, a smaller amount than the one we would have received through the signing of the fiscal agreement.
The government, which wanted the fiscal agreement to be signed, has made a gesture which it has always claimed was unselfish. It offered a subsidy greater than the amount which the provincial tax will yield. Quebec has taken a measure consistent with the Canadian constitution; the federal government now owes an answer to the province of Quebec. Will it penalize her to the extent of $25 million a year for having preferred to keep within the constitutional bounds established by the fathers of confederation?
It has to choose between trampling down the rights of the most imposing province of Canada and thus uncover a move for centralization or giving back in fairness and
23, 1954	3275
Income Tax-Deduction of Quebec Tax equity what it had requested only temporarily for the duration of the war according to the very words used by the Hon. Mr. Ilsley.
The Liberal members from the province Quebec know perfectly well that it is their duty to join us in asking for this tax reduction, because it is clearly in the interest of their province and their 300,000 voters who would otherwise be sacrificing $25 million yearly to a party's centralizing policy. They should not come to us saying that their government cannot allow more than a 5 per cent reduction because they would then be contradicting their own government which has offered to pay even more through the centralizing method of grants. We should not let them tell us, as has been done so candidly elsewhere, that they do not want to give an opponent millions to spend. That would be shifting ground; this is an old method which the politicians have used so much that it has become valueless. They should take care not to subordinate the interests and the future of their province to a political philosophy; Quebec will have to pay $25 million yearly to keep it in mind and their action might have historical consequences because every one of them must remember that autonomy is a pedestal on which stands the monument of French culture, that other component of our national life which they represent in this house.
That matter transcends political parties as well as the men who have to solve the problem and is directly related to the confederation pact. If a province of her own free will declines to sign an agreement which leads to another device, it cannot be denied that right by the federal government unless the present wording of the compact be amended. One might object that the federal government has undertaken to sign no new agreement providing new benefits without extending it to other provinces.
That objection can easily be overcome because as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, this is not a new agreement, since Quebec has declined to sign a fiscal agreement. The full Quebec income tax deduction would carry no new benefit; it would only correct an injustice. Which other province would consider it an advantage to receive nearly $25 million less than the amount written in its fiscal agreement? In deducting the full Quebec tax the government merely releases the Quebec taxpayer from an overcharge.
Another objection which might be raised would be the fear on the part of the government that the request of the province of

Income Tax-Deduction of Quebec Tax Quebec might give to the other provinces the idea to ask tor the same right and claim their entire share of income tax.
I find an eloquent answer to that objection in the 1952-1953 budget speech by the Minister of Finance, in which he dealt with federal-provincial relations. I quote Hansard for February 19, 1953, at page 2131:
As the house knows, his proposals took the form of optional agreements relating solely to taxes, known popularly as tax rental agreements. The virtue of this approach was that it was not dependent for success on the unanimous acceptance by all provinces. A cardinal principle in the offer was that no pressure, direct or indirect, should be placed on any province to accept an agreement.
Further on, the minister adds:
This double-barrelled system would, I think, imply the unanimous acceptance by all provinces before it could be adopted. This might never be possible. As a matter of fact, I am by no means sure if I were a provincial minister of finance that I would agree to such an arrangement. I am afraid I would find something repugnant in the idea that an outside body-a board, council or commission-would be investigating provincial affairs and determining the size of the fiscal needs for a particular period which amount in turn would be the measure of the federal grant.
Those words of the Minister of Finance uttered in this house last year also favour the deduction of the Quebec tax.
The federal government cannot contend that it fears that the province might increase her requests up to 100 per cent of the tax. The offer of a fiscal agreement sets a standard and the request made in this motion is inferior to it by several million dollars. That is why to accede to Quebec's request would not be detrimental to any province or to the federal government.
How can the Minister of Finance say that the principle underlying the taxation question is that no direct or indirect pressure will be brought to bear upon the provinces and that their choice would be optional, if, in order to exercise her rights to taxation, a province must assume an additional burden of $25 million?
If the federal government refuses to authorize the deduction of the Quebec tax, that will go against the statement of the Minister of Finance and will mean rather: "I leave you free to accept or not the tax agreement, but if you reject it, that will cost you another $25 million." It is not the Quebec government that should be considered by the federal government but the taxpayers of this province which must not be penalized because they have made the choice which, even according to the federal government, they were free to make.
The basis of the American constitution is this great democratic principle: "No taxation without representation". I believe that the

opposite is also true. No government could efficiently carry on, deprived of its taxation powers.
It becomes a servant of the central state, an honorary body, and thus destroys the very existence of its national entity which is a constituent part of confederation.
Nobody in this country can deny that the confederative pact was a convention between two races. The Massey commission is definite in that regard. Every eminent Canadian -has praised the dual culture which is the basis of Canadian unity. No single important politician in this house has failed at one time or other to emphasize the importance of maintaining Canadian unity by respecting the dual culture which is the most valuable attribute of Canada. It is therefore agreeing in principle to the fact that each racial group has the right and duty to have its own culture flourish and, thus, to develop our national life.
Therefore there can be no over-all or universal formula to develop both racial bases of the Canadian people equally. That is why it is up to each racial group to direct its destinies the richness of which is found in their diversity. The province of Quebec, the natural garden of French culture, has an exclusive right in the pursuit of its national destiny.
Its aim is to retain it within the framework of its autonomy, and the taxation issue serves to put that autonomy in a concrete form; even if it were mistaken, Quebec is the only one having the right to commit that error.
To deny it the right of choosing its own method of attaining its destinies is to seek to destroy that Canadian unity based on -a dual culture.


Mr. Robert Perron (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate.
The matter under discussion is of very great importance to at least half the taxpayers of the province of Quebec. At the same time it is of the very greatest importance, from the point of view of the principles involved.
Before entering into the heart of the matter, may I be allowed to congratulate the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) who has initiated this most important debate. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, it is the first time that I am privileged to speak in this house. I crave your indulgence, especially since I am rising after the eloquent speeches which we have just heard.
The government of the province of Quebec, therefore, in the session just ended, has

Income Tax-Deduction of Quebec Tax
adopted legislation taxing the income of a certain number of its taxpayers. I will not spend any time discussing the various details of this legislation. I would nevertheless like to say briefly and simply that it only affects those taxpayers whose income is greater than $3,000, and more if they are married, and the single persons who earn more than $1,500 a year, and the rate of this income tax is 15 per cent of the federal tax.
The purpose of this provincial legislation and the reasons why it has been adopted are outlined in the preamble of the act, 2 and 3, Elizabeth II, chapter 17 of the statutes of the province of Quebec. The act which was adopted by the legislature this year is entitled: "An act guaranteeing to the province the income required by its developments".
Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote the preamble of this act which outlines its purpose and which, at the same time, is a declaration of principle:
Considering that the extraordinary progress enjoyed by the province in the last few years implies ever-increasing governmental expenses, especially in the fields of education and public health;
Considering that it is essential to the survival of the provinces that they have at their disposal the necessary financial resources to exercise their rights and fulfil their obligations;
Considering that the Canadian constitution grants priority to the provinces in the matter of direct taxation;
Considering that the province wishes to co-operate with the federal authority in order to establish a fiscal system that is fair, proper and in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the federative pact;
Considering that, in that spirit of co-operation, the province, since 1946, has not availed itself of its rights in the matter of income tax;
Considering that it would be unfair and detrimental to the province if it were deprived any longer of a source of revenue where it has a priority by right and which it requires in order to face the new needs resulting from its powerful development;
Considering that, under the circumstances, it is advisable to enact for a period of three years . . .
... an act taxing the income of the taxpayers in the province; and section 168 states more precisely the purpose of the act. I quote: The purpose of this bill is to provide for expenses which are necessitated on account of the needs and the developments of the province in the fields of education, public health and social legislation, and all revenue derived from it will be used to such ends as the lieutenant governor in council may determine for each fiscal year.
In other words, as Quebec lacks the means required to meet the growing needs of education, public health, and of the different social measures which it has to administer, the province had to find a new source of revenue.
Those who have examined the financial position of the universities in our province during recent years, as well as that of our
secondary schools and of the various specialized institutions within our Quebec school system; those who, in another field, are familiar with the balance sheet of our hospitals, of our asylums, our charitable institutions, have been able to satisfy themselves that those resources are necessary in the various fields of social activity, and that there is a great need of money.
Those needs are due, up to a certain point, to the tremendous development of the province of Quebec, a development that also prevails throughout the country.
No one has denied, up to now, and no one will dare deny I hope, that the province of Quebec has the right to tax the revenue of its citizens. The question is whether the federal government will allow this new provincial tax to be deducted from the tax it collects.
Section 92 of the British North America Act sets forth, among matters exclusively reserved to the provinces, "direct taxation within the province". It is perhaps the clearest clause in the constitution. Even if section 91 confers on the federal government the power to collect moneys, by any means or system of taxation, in fields other than those reserved to the provinces, it follows that the provinces enjoy at least a priority right in that field.
Moreover, it is the historical interpretation given to those sections of the constitution. And, on constitutional matters, we must not disregard history if we want our federative system to survive.
In 1917, when the federal government established the income tax as a temporary measure to meet war expenditures, the then minister of finance, Sir Thomas White, stated in that debate, as reported at page 1441 of Hansard of 1917, volume II:
The income tax is peculiarly within the jurisdiction of the province and is a suitable tax for the purposes of the province and the municipality.
Up until that time income tax had been considered to be a provincial matter, and was considered as such thereafter, so much so that when the matter of wartime taxation agreements was brought up in 1941, the hon. minister of finance, Mr. Ilsley, stated:
It is proposed, therefore, as a temporary expedient for the duration of the war only, to ask the provinces to vacate these two tax fields.
That is the personal income tax and the corporation tax. And when in 1942 the provinces entered into an agreement with the federal government, surrendering for the duration of the war their rights with respect to the personal income tax and the corporation tax, it was then agreed that:
The dominion alone will have the right to levy taxes on the income of individuals, institutions and
3278	HOUSE OF
Income Tax-Deduction of Quebec Tax corporations for the calendar year ending on the 31st of December nearest to the date of expiry of this agreement and it undertakes to deduct from the taxes on personal and corporate incomes for the next calendar year an amount which will allow the province to re-enter the field of personal and corporate income taxes.
The sentence is perhaps a bit long and in rather poor French, but nevertheless it is a quite clear and well defined pledge which indicates exactly the respect for the spirit and the letter of this pledge that the taxpayers of Quebec are asking for today. Quebec did not sign any fiscal agreements in 1947 and 1952 and the only agreement still remaining between the province and the federal government is the one signed in 1942.
In 1947 and 1952, the government signed agreements with the other provinces, agreements that the government has always held to be free and voluntary. Some provinces did sign cheerfully. Others did it with the knife at their throat!-


Some hon. Members:: Oh! oh!


Robert Perron: -according to the phrase used by the premier of Nova Scotia. The province of Quebec declined to sign because she was unwilling, and rightly so, to forsake her autonomy.
To say that an agreement is free and voluntary and to state moreover that failing to sign will cost taxpayers between 20 and 25 million dollars more is, to say the least, illogical and it strangely reminds us of the knife at one's throat referred to by the premier of Nova Scotia.
Now the province of Quebec has decided to tax personal income and to take back the rights she had rented in 1942. Will the federal government refuse her taxpayers the necessary deduction? When this should be but a redistribution of taxes, some people want to make it a new tax, a heavier burden. Taxpayers have been paying annually for the last ten years millions of dollars to the federal treasury for the benefit of Canadians in general and without deriving themselves any benefit whatsoever. The federal government acts in the same way as a tenant who would refuse to give back to the landlord even a part of the dwelling.
It would be understandable at least if someone suffered. But the federal government is ready to grant $115 million to the province of Quebec if that province will sign an agreement. And yet the federal government would not agree to do without a revenue of about $20 million, an amount which, added to the product of other taxes collected by the province, would represent a total of $90 million! In other words, the federal
tMr. Perron.]

government would be saving money. I cannot see how it would lose in accepting those deductions.
If the revenue of such a tax plus that of the other taxes mentioned in the agreements with the other provinces were greater than the amount which the province would have received if it had signed such an agreement, the government would have some justification in refusing, not completely but at least up to the amount of the grants. Such is not the case however; the contrary is true.
Besides, the government has already admitted, on two occasions, I believe, the principle of deductibility. This was when it amended the corporation income tax legislation in order to allow companies to deduct 7 per cent of their federal tax, i.e. the amount of the Quebec provincial tax. The same thing happened when these companies were allowed to deduct the amount that they were called upon to contribute to the educational fund of the province of Quebec, and that, by means of an amendment adopted at the last federal session.
Mr. Speaker, I understand it is now ten o'clock, but I could conclude my remarks in two or three minutes.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Do hon. members give
unanimous consent to the hon. member to complete his remarks? He says he can finish in a minute or two.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed.
(Translation):


Robert Perron: I was saying, then, that the government had admitted, on two occasions, the principle of deductibility, that is first in the case of corporation income tax, and again in the case of the amounts these companies were called upon to pay the province for educational purposes. Must we then conclude that the government lends a favourable ear to the corporations' requests and yet turns a deaf one to those of the taxpayers? Must we conclude then that the government's hearing is more acute when it is a matter of listening to representations made to it by corporations and yet that it is unable to hear those made by 300,000 taxpayers of the province of Quebec?
The two main sources of revenue involved in the agreements with the provinces are personal income tax and corporation income tax. Why should the government refuse to make the same allowances as regards both personal income tax and corporation income tax?

Even if there were some doubt or at least some discussion-which I do not admit, however-as to whether agreements with the provinces violate the autonomy of the provinces, even if it could be held that the power to collect its own taxes is independent from the power of legislating and, in other words, that the power of legislating is divorced from that of levying the necessary funds to administer the legislation enacted; even if it can be held that grants from the central government to universities do not interfere with education, which comes under the sole jurisdiction of the provincial government, one thing is certain, that is that in enabling the provinces to use their taxation right, without penalizing the taxpayers, we shall put an end to the dispute, preserve autonomy and do justice to everyone.
Before concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I wish to sum up by saying that we must not forget that there are things which cannot be sold and which a government should not try to buy.
There are 3,000,000 French-speaking Canadians in the province of Quebec. The province has her own history, traditions, customs, tongue and faith, which set her apart in our confederation.
Income Tax-Deduction of Quebec Tax
The province of Quebec, if I may say so, would like to preserve its personality, while continuing to maintain cordial relations with the rest of the country and to respect the absolute rights of the minorities within its own borders.
The province of Quebec is asking for no favour, but it would like to be treated fairly. I cherish the hope that the present government will do it justice.
(Text):
On motion of Mr. Blackmore the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, we shall continue this debate tomorrow and if the motion to go into supply is carried we will take the departments of mines and technical surveys and transport. I understand it is the desire of hon. members, perhaps not all, to have the motion disposed of tomorrow so that we can proceed on Thursday with the motion I mentioned preparatory to the debate on external affairs.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 24, 1954