March 22, 1943

CCF

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):

We do not find fault.

The Budget-Mr. Donnelly

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Thomas F. Donnelly

Liberal

Mr. DONNELLY:

Again, in his speech the hon. member referred to the fact that free enterprise in the nineteendhirties brought the people out there to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, put them in debt so they would never get out, and so on. I live right beside the hon. member; my constituency borders on, his. It was not any legislation which caused this condition; it was because we had no crops. When they spoke of "poverty in the midst of plenty" in those times, my people used just to laugh, because the only plenty we had in those days was plenty of dust, plenty of wind, and plenty of poverty; there were no crops at all. Let me here acknowledge the wonderful way in which we were treated in those times of depression and famine by easterners, and by both governments. Liberal and Conservative administrations alike used us well, and we were thankful and grateful to them for what they did, because at that time it was an act of God with which we were confronted; we had no crops whatever. To say that such conditions arose as a result of free enterprise or some policies which were adopted at that time-well, it is ridiculous.

Let us now see what a better authority than the hon. member for Weyburn says. I have here a copy of a report of the Searle Grain company quoting from a speech of the Hon. Sumner Welles. In an address he made in New York on October 7, 1941, this is what he said was the cause of our trouble in, the 'thirties:

Many foreign countries, which had not recovered from the shock of our tariff increases in 1921 and 1922-

That is, tariff increases in the United States.

and were tottering on the brink of economic and financial collapse, were literally pushed into the abyss by our tariff action of 1930. Throughout the world this withering blast of trade destruction brought disaster and despair to countless people.

The resultant misery, bewilderment, and resentment, together with other equally pernicious contributing causes, paved the way for the rise of those very dictatorships which have plunged almost the entire world into war.

The report continues:

It merely requires to be added that Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, and the Argentine, rapidly followed the example of the United States with similar high tariffs and with other obstructions to trade, and that the example then spread to almost every country in the *world.

This is the cause of the depression in the 'thirties as given by Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles.

I want to refer only to one other statement, because if I were to answer all the piffling remarks which the hon. member made here, it would take up all my time, and I wish to go on with my own speech. He refers to the fact that the Liberal government put a tariff of one cent a gallon on light crude oil coming in from the United States. I happen to know something about that. Years ago I had something to do with the' investigation concerning gasoline, if I remember rightly.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
NAT

Ernest Edward Perley

National Government

Mr. PERLEY:

We all remember that.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Thomas F. Donnelly

Liberal

Mr. DONNELLY:

The Budget-Mr. Donnelly

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CCF

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):

It is owned by the farmers. Does the hon. member want an answer to his question?

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Thomas F. Donnelly

Liberal

Mr. DONNELLY:

You made a mess of your own speech; now sit down. I have here the second annual report of the board of directors-

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CCF

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):

I rise to a point of order. Is the hon. member allowed to ask rhetorical questions?

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Vien (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member asks whether the rules permit the asking of rhetorical questions. All I would say is that there is no rule of tit-for-tat in this house.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Thomas F. Donnelly

Liberal

Mr. DONNELLY:

I wish to refer to something that has happened to myself and several others in Saskatchewan in regard to this cooperative elevator matter. When the Saskatchewan cooperative elevators started, in order to build elevators, they took two cents a b-ushel from all the people who gave them wheat to handle, and they took over S6.000.000 for a reserve fund, amounting in all to about eighteen to nineteen million dollars. At that

The Budget-Mr. Donnelly

time they promised us that they would pay interest on it at six per cent. I have here an extract from the second annual report of the Saskatchewan Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, dated October 12, 1926, at page 6:

The deduction of two cents per bushel for acquiring elevator facilities as provided under the growers' contract amounted, as a result of last season's operations, to $2,751,765.91. Of this amount the sum of $2,000,000 was turned over to Saskatchewan Pool Elevators Limited to apply on the purchase of the Saskatchewan Cooperative Elevator Company's system, and the balance for the extension of the pool elevator system in other directions. The pool holds stock in the pool elevator company for these amounts plus last year's elevator deductions used in acquiring and constructing elevators.

An account has been opened for each grower crediting him with the full amount of the deductions made out of his deliveries, and it has been decided that such deductions will, subject to the earning capacity of the pool elevator system, bear interest at the rate of six per cent per annum. Interest will be paid in cash at the end of the contract period, when a certificate of beneficial interest, covering the total deductions in each grower's account will also be issued.

They paid that for a few years, but they have not paid any since 1929. They pay no interest on their capital; they are paying no income tax, and they have taken in S18,000,000. It would be a queer thing if they did not prosper. I should like a little of that $18,000,000 myself. Thus we have this company that has taken all this money out of the pockets of the farmers of western Canada, paying no interest on it and paying no income tax, saying, " Boy, we are great business men." What a company! And they call themselves cooperatives.

Then the other evening I believe it was the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) who referred to the fact that we had interlocking directorates in some of our banks of eastern Canada, that certain men were the directors of banks and of other companies. That was a crime; that was almost an unforgivable sin to the people over in that corner. It is all wrong when it is down east, but it is all right when it is out west. I hold in my hand the annual report of the Saskatchewan Pool Elevator company, and as I look over it I find that the same men are directors of Saskatchewan Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, Modern Press Limited, Saskatchewan Pool Elevators Limited, Saskatchewan Pool Terminals Limited, and so on. They take a few men from Saskatchewan, a few from Alberta and a few from Manitoba, and make them directors of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited and the Canadian Pool Agencies Limited. It is the same thing; these are interlocking directorates, but it is all right out there.

My time is almost gone, Mr. Speaker. I had intended to deal with many other matters, but I should like to mention just one other thing in passing. I notice that our hon. friends in the corner to my left have a tendency to compare everything that happens in this country with what is done in Australia and New Zealand. For instance, at the present time we have before a committee of the house this question of social insurance, and we find the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group viewing the whole business with suspicion. I do not know whether he is suspicious of the legislation or of the members of the committee or of the members of the house, but those people are suspicious of everything. It must be terrible to live with men like that. They go on and say, " Why, look at Australia and New Zealand, how they manage their old age pensions. Look at the early age at which it is paid; look at the amounts they pay." That is all quite true; the old age pension is paid at an earlier age, and the amounts paid are greater. But they do not tell us that in those countries the people pay for their old age pensions, and we do not. Here it is handed to the people by the government. There they pay for it as an insurance scheme, and you have a right to do what you like with what you pay for. In this country, however, it is a gift handed out by the government, and it is free.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

Who gives it to the government?

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Thomas F. Donnelly

Liberal

Mr. DONNELLY:

and I resent that sort of thing. This is my country; I was bom here, and I deprecate such talk as that. If they do not like this country; if they think some other country is better, let them go there. Why do they stay here? I hate comparisons; they are always odious, but when you do make a comparison be fair about it and tell us both sides of the case. Do not tell us only one part of it and try to make out a good story for yourselves. You are always caught in stories of that kind. Your sins always find you out.

I should like to refer briefly to the social legislation in my own province. We have more social legislation in. Saskatchewan than in any other province.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

George Alexander Cruickshank

Liberal

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

Oh, no.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Thomas F. Donnelly

Liberal

Mr. DONNELLY:

Oh, yes, we have. I come from that province, and I know whereof I speak. We have pensions for the blind; we have unemployment insurance; we have old age pensions. Of course those are in effect all over Canada, but in addition we have workmen's compensation, to which I have already referred, and also mothers' allowances, allowances for dependent children and, besides, what we call our municipal doctors. In Saskatchewan we have 107 municipal doctors; in fact in my constituency there are only three medical men who are not municipal doctors. These municipal doctors are doctors hired by the people, paid by the municipality, who do all the medical work except major operations, in connection with which they receive fifty per cent of the ordinary fee. They also carry on the health work, visiting the schools once a year, examining the children and filling out their cards, showing that a child is deficient in this or that respect; looking at their tonsils and adenoids, seeing that they are vaccinated, and so on. Why, there are eight municipalities m Saskatchewan which even pay for the hospitalization, and for all major operations too. Then in Saskatchewan we have free tubercular hospitals, by arrangement between our municipalities and the provincial government, and in my opinion we have the best hospitals of that kind and the best record of any province in the dominion. More than that, our death rate from tuberculosis has been far lower than that of the other provinces, and it would be much lower this year if we could exclude the Indians. But in my province we have many Indians, among whom the death rate from tuberculosis is very high, which keeps the general death rate higher. In addition, we have free insane asylums.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Thomas F. Donnelly

Liberal

Mr. DONNELLY:

Yes, and one of those is in Weybum. In addition, our government pays so much per patient per diem to our ordinary hospitals. That payment has been as high as $1 per patient per diem, but at the present time, on account of the financial condition of the province, it is only fifty or seventy-five cents. As far as our municipal doctors are concerned, the public are well satisfied. In my district we have had them for the last fourteen or fifteen years, and would not have anything else. The municipal doctors like it. The people like it, and would not have anything else. These are some of the types of legislation we have there; but to hear some hon. members speaking, one would think that the people from Saskatchewan are half starved, anaemic, poor and ignorant, that they are just poor country cousins.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
NAT

Douglas Gooderham Ross

National Government

Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech made by the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly). I am sorry that with certain aspects of his speech, and particularly that connected with social legislation, I cannot agree. Might I point out to him that when Saskatchewan was being formed Ontario was inaugurating or had already in force a great deal of social legislation. And, by the way, most of the social legislation in Ontario, such as that for workmen's compensation, was- introduced by Conservative governments. If anyone has any doubt about that, let him read the record and find out for himself. He will find that Sir James Whitney and the Hon. Howard Ferguson put many pieces of social legislation into force. Ontario has had much of this legislation, and I am glad to see that Saskatchewan has followed in her footsteps. Ontario was the first province in Canada to enforce pasteurization of milk, and the first province in which toxoids were used generally. Therefore I am afraid I cannot agree with much that has been said by the hon. member from Saskatchewan.

I believe a wrong impression was left by what was said a few days ago by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie). What he said was, I thought, a slur on hon. members. The hon. member pointed out, among other things, that we were abusing the franking privilege, and gave figures to show the cost of franking the mail. He did not say, however, just where the abuse took place. I venture to say that if the cost of the franking privilege of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and ministers of the crown were deducted from the sum mentioned by the hon. member, it would be found that the expenditure on private members' account,-who

The Budget-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)

use the privilege as it is their duty to use it, namely, to inform their constituents of what is taking place, would not be very great.

The hon. member who has just taken his seat referred to the wheat pools and the banks. While he was speaking I thought it might be well to place on record some figures respecting insurance companies. The life insurance companies of Canada are well organized. As I said on an earlier occasion, had it not been for them I do not know how the victory loan compaigns would have been carried over the top. The figures I have before me show that in the last victory loan the life insurance companies in Canada invested $155,000,000. That was their direct loan to the government. In war loans, to date, they have invested $450,000,000. This means-and this is the point I wish to make -that each Canadian policyholder has an investment in victory averaging $112. That is his investment in ships, tanks, guns and the like. This does not sound like the work of a monopolistic institution. Through the medium of the life insurance companies each policyholder has been able to invest $112 out of the total of $450,000,000. *

Not only this, but it should be added that about 1,900 life insurance agents participated in the last victory loan campaign. They made 170,000 sales to a value of $57,000,000, or an average of $335 for each sale. This is the most important guard against inflation. This huge sum was over fifteen per cent of the total of $375,000,000 subscribed from other than special names and payroll deductions. These figures show that the agents got busy, went out and scratched for their sales. Let me say here and now that I give them great credit. I do not believe there is a more democratic institution in Canada than our life insurance companies, and yet my socialistic friends to my left call life insurance a big monopoly. .

May I congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) upon his real endeavour to prevent inflation in Canada. I agree with him. We must have price control, but I think there is sometimes not enough brain power used in the setting of controls. That is what leads to discord among various factions in the country. There should be more parity in ceiling prices, and I believe that could be brought about without much difficulty.

In passing, may I refer to the statement by the Minister of Finance to the effect that the billion dollar gift to the allied countries would not make any difference to our taxes, whether we sold them goods or gave them to them. I am heartily in accord with the giving of

money to the allied countries. But when the minister says that it would make no difference whether we sold the goods, or gave them away, I must disagree. Not only that, but he pointed out we would have a cash drawer full of I.O.U.'s. In the first place, our taxes are certainly higher, and it seems to me that a bunch of I.O.U.'s backed by the credit of Great Britain would not be worthless. They certainly would have value. Britain has always paid her way, and I have no doubt she intends to continue to do so. I am in favour of giving her and the allied nations money, but I did not like the minister's statement when he suggested there would be no use in our having a drawer full of worthless I.O.U.'s.

There are many inequalities so far as taxes are concerned, but I have one particular unfairness in mind. A man may have a life insurance policy in favour of his wife. The policy may state that on his death she is to be paid $272.50 each month for twenty years. On his death succession duties are paid on a policy of $50,000-because that is the amount required to yield $272.50 monthly for twenty years. In Ontario succession duties would be paid on the amount of $32,620, because $17,380 is required to yield $100 a month. That is exempt in Ontario. ' Then we take the income tax on the interest in the income, which is determined by taking the difference between 240 times $275.50, or $66,132, and $50,000, or $16,132, which, divided by twenty, gives you $806 a year, or $66.33 a month. That is a considerable difference between the income tax on the total amount of the $275.50 a month and $66.33 a month, which is the case if there is a policy payable for twenty years certain and for the life-time of the beneficiary. Then the succession duties are deducted in the same way, but the income tax is paid on the whole amount of the monthly income, $275.50, whether it is income-or principal, just because of the difference between "twenty years certain" and "for life." This should be corrected in the budget.

I come now to a matter which I think is of great importance, the treatment of our returned soldiers. I believe about 80,000 men have been discharged from the forces. Some of these men have tried to get pensions, and I think they should have pensions. But to a great extent they are met with this one argument, namely, that the pre-war disability has not been aggravated by service. I have vivid memories of the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) stating in the House of Commons, speaking of his experience when he was minister of pensions, that this war would be different from the last; that we would not

The Budget-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)

take any men who were crocks; that they would all have to be Simon-pure, A1 men. How docs it come that these men who have passed the examinations are now told that their pre-war disabilities have not been aggravated by service? They were allowed to enlist after they had passed the examinations, and it just does not add up. There are hundreds of these cases. It is not the actual case that counts; it is the way the man talks when he is met by such argument. If this is the way the government is to treat these men who have come back and who should have pensions, then we will have many more reds in this country. You can hear them talking

These returned men are somewhat different from the man who has had a job and is looking for another one. They should receive different treatment when they go to a national selective service office to look for a job. These men have had service in the army and they need to be rehabilitated. As I say, there are 80,000 of them, and yet we find in the estimates only S400.000 provided for their rehabilitation, or a total of $5 each. How far will that go? In the same estimates we find an item of $6,500,000 for air raid precautions. I .agree that we should have air raid precautions, but $6,500,000 seems a great deal. I know there is considerable waste in different parts of the country, but it seems to me we should have more than $400,000, or $5 each, for these men who have come back.

As I said the other day, when these men go to look for a job in Toronto they must go to the national selective service office on Spadina avenue. They receive no special treatment; they must stand in line with other men who have never been overseas. They think they deserve a little more than the average man on the street, and I think they do. Special arrangements should be made for these men. We all know what they are like. There are some lead-swingers among them, but not many. The treatment they have been receiving at some of these national selective service offices is such that they have been calling the places the gestapo, and I do not blame them.

I agree with the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Gray) that our troops overseas must not be let down. We now have some idea of what the casualties will be in the fighting. How are we going to have them reinforced? Have we a balanced war effort as far as man-power is concerned? Here are some figures of the strength of our armed forces as of March 12, and also the number of those engaged in industry:

Armed forces-

Males 655,424

Females 20,924

Total 676,348

War industry-

Males 827,000

Females 222,000

Total 1,049,000

Navy-

Males 55,076

Females 1,511

Army-

Males 437,843

Females 9,477

Air force-

Males 162,505

Females 9,936

Is this the even balance we should have? On June 1, 1941, we had 1,220,516 men on the farms. Since that date 400,000 have left, so that we now have 820,516. Where have those men gone? Have they all gone into industry? They cannot all have gone into the army. How many do we need on the farm? How many should we have in industry? What survey has been made? Have we ever had the result of any survey given to us in this House of Commons? What are the requirements? How much labour is wasted from time to time by hoarding in certain industries?

We hear of certain factories where a changeover in the production line is necessary. In some instances this may take a year, and thousands of men are kept around until that is complete. They try to find work for them, but that is not always possible. Is there not some way by which national selective service could take these people and put them where they are needed? Why cannot labour be used to better advantage? Why do we have the absenteeism we have at the present time? Is it because these people do not want to work so long for the government and pay most of their wages above a certain wage in income tax? I do not believe they are as unpatriotic as that. I think they are worried over seeing so many people in some of these places that they begin to think they do not need to work. What is to be done about this? What survey is being made and who is making it? How can we have any balanced effort in this country unless we know what we want and where we are heading? Up to date, this house has never been told. What we want to know is, what is the capacity of Canada in man-power; how many people have we that can do these various jobs; and how are they to be so distributed that we shall attain a total war effort?

The Budget-Mr. Cloutier

Last year we passed bill No. 80, to amend the mobilization act, and it is in the same old place, just where the plebiscite was before we passed it. We might as well have saved our time; the bill has not accomplished anything that I know of. How soon are we to do something? Anyone who listened to the speech of Mr. Churchill yesterday know's there is a long way to go before this war will be won. The sooner we put our backs to the wheel, the better. It is man-power that is wanted in these days, and man-power must be properly used. Are we to let down our boys overseas? Are our troops over there in adequate force? Have we the reinforcements which will be necessary? If not, how are they to be provided? These are questions which must be answered. We need to know where we are going, what is our policy. Is it merely the same old policy of wait and see, and muddle through somehow?

I am not saying a word against our army overseas. They are a fine body of men, wonderfully trained, and by now, I believe, well equipped; but we must not let them down. Nor am I saying a word in disparagement of our workers in the factories, or on the farms. But guidance is needed; they want to be told what to do. However, so long as the government has no policy, they will not know; we are in the same position as we were before the plebiscite was taken. I hope the government will give us a policy which will show us where we are going and make it clear what we are to do.

I intend to vote against the "funny money" amendment because it does not mean anything. We have all the money we need just now. That is paper money. You cannot fight a war without going into debt. In other words, you cannot get something for nothing. This is your war, and mine. The only way in which it can be fought is to give up a certain amount of time, and lots of it, to fight this war. That means that you give up a certain amount of your money, or you work, or you fight. Just to put a lot of money through a printing press will not do any good; it does not require enough labour to do it.

As regards the amendment of the socialist party, I have tried to explain that finance is already mobilized and to a great extent nationalized; and, thank goodness, finance is controlled by the people who have an interest in it rather than by our socialist friends to the left.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Armand Cloutier

Liberal

Mr. ARMAND CLOUTIER (Drummond-Arthabaska) (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to take part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, but I preferred leaving my elders in

politics put forth their ideas and make recommendations while I listened attentively to their speeches and their political programmes which were no doubt inspired by the feelings of the electors in their respective constituencies.

May I first of all be permitted, Mr. Speaker, even at this late hour, to congratulate the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on having given the old province of Quebec three new French-Canadian ministers. This representation was anxiously expected by the electors of that province and you may rest assured that these truly patriotic people shall not fail to remember. I wish to extend to these three new members of the government, who have nearly all lived with us, the greetings and congratulations of the electors of the historical constituency of Drummond-Arthabaska which I have the honour to represent in the Canadian Commons.

Let the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) be assured that our people rejoice at his appointment. While he does not come from our section and has never lived there, many of his relatives and friends are to be found in my constituency, particularly in Victoriaville. On their behalf as well as on my own I wish him success, good health and a long career.

To the hero of Mont-Sorrel and Vimy, the Hon. Minister of National War Services (Mr. LaFleche), I would state how glad my electors were to learn of his appointment, particularly in Victoriaville where he spent part of his youth and still counts a large number of most sincere friends.

As for the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bertrand), a native son of our district, since he first saw the light of day in the charming town of Princeville, also in my constituency, we are delighted to see him occupying such a high post and we are confident that with both his colleagues whom I have just mentioned he will continue the long line of great politicians who have represented my constituency, the Dorions (l'Enfant terrible), the Lauriers, the Lavergnes, the Perraults and the Girouards, and that history will see fit to link his name with those who have been the pride of French Canada, of their province and of their country.

Since the budget debate, Mr. Speaker, offers to every member scope for remarks on a variety of subjects, you will allow me to touch briefly upon every question, for I have no intention of detaining the house unduly at this late date. I intend merely to bespeak the mind of those who in 1940 did me the great honour of calling on me to represent them as member for Drummond-Arthabaska on the highest court in the land.

The Budget

Mr. Cloutier

I have had no occasion to speak in this house since the resignation of the former Minister of Transport and Public Works (Mr. Cardin) for whom I have always had and still have the greatest admiration. A man of great culture, a fluent speaker, a great parliamentarian and a great Canadian, I wish him to know that my electors would have had him remain a member of the government where he would have scrupulously watched over minority interests through the preservation of a truly national spirit in this country. Unfortunately, without notice to the Quebec members of whom he was the leader, he resigned from the present government to become a private member. No doubt he had serious, very serious reasons for doing this.

The subamendment recently moved by the hon. member without first consulting his colleagues from Quebec has produced quite a commotion among us and we have often wondered what were the intentions of the hon. member in this connection. Personally, and especially at first, I would have been inclined to endorse at once this subamendment purporting to suspend the calling of men under the National Resources Mobilization Act.

However, after having taken the advice of my colleagues more experienced in politics, after having spoken to the Liberal leaders of my constituency and especially after having heard the masterly speech delivered by my leader, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada, against this subamendment, on February 19 last, in which he enumerated the effects which the adoption of such a subamendment would1 have among the armed forces of Canada, as well as in Great Britain and the other dominions, in the United States and other allied nations and, above all, among our enemies, I realized that voting in favour of this subamendment would mean casting a vote of non-confidence in my leader and his government. On this occasion, Mr. Speaker, I adked myself who would be called upon to replace the right hon. Prime Minister who, upon losing the confidence of the deputation, would tender his resignation. Would it be such men as Mr. Meighen, Mr. Bracken, or the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group (Mr. Coldwell), or the Social Credit chieftain (Mr. Blackmore), every one of whom, since the beginning of the war, has persistently advocated conscription for overseas service and criticized the Liberal government, claiming that they have not gone far enough in the prosecution of the war and that Canada should participate to the last man and the last dollar? [DOT]

I have gladly voted with the government on this occasion and I say without fear that,

at the present time, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada is the only man qualified to prosecute the war. This fact is acknowledged by right-thinking Conservatives in my constituency.

I feel bound to make the following statement: as long as my- leader, the right hon. Prime Minister refrains from putting conscription into force for overseas service, I shall remain among his most faithful followers; however, I must say to him that if he ever gives way to the imperialists, even though they be members of the present government, or to the opposition, and puts conscription into force for overseas service, it shall be my painful duty to fight him, for I am opposed to conscription for overseas service and as a gentleman, and a man of honour, I shall keep my pledge; in other words, I shall discharge the trust reposed in me by my constituents in this respect. Doubtless, my constituents would have preferred to see the hon. member for Riehelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) refrain from obstructing the government's policy. On the other hand, had the hon. member had good reasons for moving his subamendment, I still feel that this conflict between these two outstanding figures of Canadian politics should never have occurred. After the work accomplished in Quebec during the last quarter of a century by the hon. member, to promote friendship, to preach conciliation, to establish mutual understanding between the two great races of our country, we would have wished to enjoy seeing these two great men marching hand in hand, in close cooperation, and pursuing the tremendous task they had undertaken in the footsteps of their great and revered leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

Mr. Speaker, I have followed with great interest the budget speech delivered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). Generally speaking, this budget brings a marked improvement to the condition of the people. It remits half the liability for war taxes on 1942 incomes; it simplifies the final settlement of accounts with the income tax office through a 5 per cent increase of the deduction from wages or salaries.

The new taxes, unimportant as they are, will not affect him, if he will only tone down on alcohol and tobacco. It must also be remembered that the workers are assured by the government that the buying power of the Canadian dollar will be maintained, and thus they are freed from all material worries till the end of March, 1944. This is truly a workingman's budget, Mr. Speaker. The increase of more than 20 per cent on alcoholic beverages ensures both moral and practical

The Budget-Mr. Cloutier

results; it fosters temperance and economy, and both these things are conducive to the greater industrial and financial effort which we will have to put forth during this critical year. On this point, the civil and religious authorities from the province of Quebec willingly approve the federal government.

Canada will spend the enormous sum of nearly four billion dollars on its war effort and will contribute a billion dollars to aid the united nations this year. What classes will benefit most from the five billion dollars which the government will spend for war purposes, on food, munitions and arms, if not the farmers and the workers? The farmers in my county are prosperous nowadays as they never were before. Many of those who had borrowed money from the Canadian farm loan board have asked the board to reimburse both principal and interest on their loans.

As to the working men of my constituency, many of them who are working in the war plants of the district and who only earned $15 a week in the past, though they were glad to earn that sum then, are now earning from $75 to $100 a week. Not long ago I met a working man from my town who, during the depression had to wait six months before obtaining a job at S14.99 a week. He told me he had earned $116 in a single week; he added that he had paid $30 in taxes of all kinds, namely, income tax., unemployment tax, compulsory savings, etc., and that he had SS6 left for the week, instead of the $14.99 which he earned heretofore. This worker, a true Canadian and a real patriot, told me that, even if the government were to double his taxes, in order to preserve his religion, his tongue, his freedom of action, his freedom of speech in this countiy, he would still be quite satisfied.

I must congratulate the hon. Minister of Pensions and National Health on his vast programme of social security for the post-war period, a programme which he himself laid before the parliamentary committee on social security, whose chairman is the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macmillan), the operation of which will cost the enormous sum of one billion dollars a year. I have gone through that report and I have been glad to see that it advocates a great deal of social legislation.

There is first a contributory health insurance proposal that would cover the whole population and would be subsidized by the central power subject to certain conditions to be fulfilled by the provinces.

Second, the report offers also to pay children allowances of $8 or $9 a month for each child or graduated according to age, without taking into consideration the family revenue, but doing away with the income tax exemptions for dependent children.

Third, there is a provision with regard to unemployment insurance. It tends to increase the insurance benefits paid to workers with dependents.

Fourth, it mentions free medical care for every one.

Fifth, maternity allowances for women workers only.

Sixth, sickness benefits with rates comparable to those of the unemployment insurance.

Seventh, increase of old age pensions from $20 to $30 a month and lowering of the age for eligibility from seventy to sixty-five for men and sixty for women.

Eighth, setting up of a new contributory system of superannuation.

Ninth, payment of pensions for total incapacity to those unfit for work.

Tenth, death allowances at the rates of $100 for adults, $65 for children and $25 for infants.

Such are, Mr. Speaker, the principal measures embodied in that social security plan.

I was glad to note that the recommendations made by my good friend the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Blanchette) and endorsed by myself concerning family allowance have been incorporated in this plan. And1 I must congratulate him on the forcefulness which he has displayed in the speeches he has delivered in this house, particularly in that of February 19, in which he so brilliantly and so eloquently pleaded for the enactment of such a measure.

As I wanted to endorse the recommendations made by the hon. member for Compton with regard to family allowances in the event of this report on so-called social security being presented after the adoption of the budget, I intended also to demand an increase of old age pensions, which doubtless had become imperative, and I am glad to find that a provision calling for that increase has been included in the report.

While I am dealing with the matter of social security, may I call the attention of the government to female labour, particularly to industrial female labour at night.

One of the most deplorable effects of industrial capitalism has been to take women out of their homes and throw them in increasing numbers into industries. Women have re-

The Budget-Mr. Cloutier

sponded, actuated in the first place by the necessity of supplementing a family income which is entirely inadequate and lured by a selfish and blind propaganda setting woman's dignity not in her role as wife, mother and queen of the home, but in the assertion of her personality, in the organizing of her own life and in her emancipation.

So, for the last three years, the enlistment of thousands of men in the armed forces and the building up of new industries have created an urgent and extensive need for additional labour and such is the need that our Canadian women are called upon to meet. Such is the terrific tax raised by modern total war. Tens of thousands of Canadian women are already serving on the industrial front.

It behooves our political and industrial leaders, conscious of their responsibilities to the nation, to restrict to the real needs the taking on of women in industrial plants, particularly in war plants. Now, far from being so, in a good many war industries, men, even of military age are being freely set aside in favour of girls who, of course, are paid less and thus removed from their home and from school, for a great number of them are barely more than children, and laid open to the moral dangers of the factory and even to many a physical hazard.

Many employers of Canadian war industries do not seem to have realized the impropriety of having women work in the night-time. Night work exposes women, and especially girls, to a multitude of physical and moral hazards, leading to the disintegration of the home.

To this very day, nations most busily engaged in the conflict are endeavouring to secure strict adherence to the provisions of the International Labour office which, for half a century, has striven to prohibit women from doing night work in industry.

For instance, in Great Britain, the employment of female labour on night shifts in factories is prohibited by law and is allowed exceptionally only on special permit.

Is it not truly deplorable, therefore, that our own country should countenance, as it does, girls, wives and mothers engaging in a form of labour which amounts to the sabotage of our nation?

I trust I may be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to read a copy of a resolution passed at the Quebec Province Catholic Action Congress, recently held in Montreal. It reads as follows:

Resolutions respecting female labour.

The following are resolutions passed by special organizations of the Quebec Province Catholic

Action gathered in congress at Montreal and are to be referred for adoption to the provincial and dominion governments:

1. Prohibition of night work for girls and married women;

2. Prohibition of factory work for married women with children under 18;

3. An 8-hour day and a 48-hour week;

4. Prohibition of too strenuous work and the lifting of too heavy weights;

5. Improvement of sanitary and safety conditions wherever these are still below standard;

6. The general extension of industrial social service;

7. The creation of working conditions and of standards of supervision calculated to ensure the moral safeguard of girls and women;

All of which will serve as a protection against the abuses of female labour and as a safeguard to the family, unit of a sound nation.

Inasmuch as the same resolution was passed in the various towns of my county, I feel bound to express in this house the feelings of my electors on this grave issue.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with the deepest interest to the splendid speech delivered in this house by the hon. 'member for Shefford (Mr. Leclerc). It contained many thoughtful statements, and constituted a magnificent plea on behalf of the workers of the small manufacturing towns of the province of Quebec.

The present plight of the small town industrial worker is obviously unfair.

Wages have been frozen to the lowest level of any industrial province of the country. Had not the federal authorities acted with such speed, these workers would have been better off. The freezing order came into force on November 15, 1941. At that time, the provincial government of Quebec was considering the adoption of various orders to raise the basic wages. Notices to that effect had already appeared in the Official Gazette of the province. The orders would have been in force after three months. The federal order was enacted before the expiration of this delay, with the effect that a legitimate adjustment of wages in small industrial towns of the province of Quebec was prevented and, at the same time, a rank injustice was perpetrated. All these workers who, during the depression, could not obtain a readjustment had their wages frozen at the level obtaining during the depression. With the hon. member for Shefford, and on behalf of the working class of my constituency, I strongly protest against such discrimination and I hope the government will take the necessary steps to remedy the conditions existing at present in the small manufacturing towns of our province.

The Budget-Mr. Cloutier

Mr. Speaker, I would feel derelict in my duty, if I refrained from pointing to the house the sorry plight of weekly newspapers at the present time, especially those published in the small towns of our province and circulated mostly in rural districts.

As a result of the restriction imposed upon publicity by the government a large number of these newspapers will find themselves in a most embarrassing financial condition and may even be forced out of business. Yet, no one has contributed more generously to our war effort than our newspapers. We have in my county five weekly newspapers and I wish here to commend them for their earnest cooperation with the government during the campaigns in connection with the victory loans, the sale of savings certificates and) the Red Cross. .

Our weekly newspapers must be maintained, Mr. Speaker. I therefore respectfully suggest to the government that they compensate for the loss in commercial publicity by a large amount of advertisements concerning the different departments of administration.

I feel it my duty on behalf of the farmers, the farmers' help and farmers' sons and of the persons employed in a part-time capacity in industries connected with agriculture to thank the government for having adopted the measure which came into force on March 23, 1942, exempting these classes of citizens from military service. This measure, Mr. Speaker, has been a real boon to the agricultural population. Here is, for example, what happened in a parish in my constituency. After that law came into force, a few citizens of that parish came to my office seeking more information and the proper procedure in the matter of getting a postponement should any one be called for military service. I explained that the procedure was as follows:

(a) The farmer's son, the farmer's help, the farmer or part-time farm help who receives notice to pass his medical examination, must do so within three days from the date of such notice ;

(b) Should he wish to apply for a postponement, he must apply in writing, within fourteen clear days from the date shown on the notice, to the registrar of the division where the notice originated.

In filing his application for postponement the applicant must:

1. File with the registrar of the division an affidavit stating that on March 23, 1942, he was wholly employed in agriculture or that he was employed in a part-time capacity only in lumbering, forestry, fishing, hunting or trapping;

2. File a letter signed under the seal of his parish priest or the mayor of his municipality, attesting the truth of the statements.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that these men went to work with a fine desire of cooperation and that out of ninety persons called for military service from the agricultural municipality, eighty-eight were granted a postponement.

The difficulties which I met in connection with the mobilization act came from people who, although acting in good faith, instead of consulting me, chose to take advice from persons with political opinions different from those of our party. These individuals to whom I shall refer as petty politicians, dissuaded them from seeing me and advised them not to pay any attention to the notice. In advising them to do so, they knew that these young men who had been called for military service would have trouble with the authorities concerned and thus supply an opportunity to state that the Liberal party was not any better than their own and that we had conscription. They even went as far as to say that conscription was effective for overseas.

I had to deal with a good many of those cases, and I accompanied the young draftees concerned to Montreal so as to explain their cases to the registrar-by the way, I did all this without any compensation, to help them -whom, I must thank as well as all the members of his staff for their hearty cooperation.

I imagine that some of these young men have not yet legally applied for the deferment to which they would be entitled and who are worried and living in fear of the .military police for not having obeyed the law. I join with the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Lalonde) who, in the magnificent speech he has made in this house, has requested an amnesty for these young men who have been deceived by shortsighted politicians.

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to tell you about the war effort of my constituency, particularly in connection with the third victory loan, but I presume that I will have a chance to take up this subject before the end of the session. I shall then speak in English so as to be understood by my English-speaking colleagues for whom I have the greatest regard and consideration.

Before I conclude my remarks, I shall say a few words about the airmen, sailors and soldiers from my constituency. Our people are proud of them. As to those who have fallen on the field of honour, I wish their relatives to be sure that we will always keep a pious and grateful remembrance of our heroes. To the family of Flight Sergeant

The Budget-Mr. Tripp

Beliveau, who died for his country, I offer in the name of the whole population of my constituency the most sincere sympathy.

I do not want to forget Corporal Cloutier, severely wounded at Dieppe, presently in the hospital. According to the medical men both his legs will have to be amputated. He is only twenty years old. What a pity to see such a young one become an invalid for the rest of his life! I am proud to tell you that this hero is a son of my county. He has been a fine representative of his race at the Dieppe raid: "Rather die than surrender." His name will never be forgotten among our people who will remember this victim of the war who risked his life for them in the defence of justice, right, liberty and honour.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Jesse Pickard Tripp

Liberal

Mr. J. P. TRIPP (Assiniboia):

Mr. Speaker, may I first of all congratulate you upon your elevation to your high office, and may I say that it comes to you as a reward for service, and by the unanimous consent of the house.

This evening I should like to speak about the constituency of Assiniboia, which I have the honour to represent. My constituency is located in the southeastern corner of Saskatchewan. This was about the first portion of the province which was settled, in the early eighties, a larger number coming in the early nineties. Most of the settlers came from the two older provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Those men and women did not come out for the purpose of making money quickly and then flying away to some other part of Canada or the United States. Rather they came for the purpose of establishing homes, of securing pieces of land they might own, and with the object in view of establishing their families on other lands close by. Those early settlers homesteaded, built roads, and erected churches in which they worshipped. They organized school districts, trading centres and municipal governments. For a number of years they were a prosperous and contented people.

Then, in 1930 began a series of disastrous years. For the following ten or eleven years they suffered as possibly no other community in Canada has ever been called upon to suffer. For those ten or eleven years men and women sowed but did not reap. In the spring time they did their ploughing and seeded their land, but in the fall they never had occasion to use either binder or threshing machine. Through it all, however, they maintained their faith in their country. Most of them stayed there, and came through.

This afternoon we listened to an ably delivered address by the hon. member for

Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) who also comes from Saskatchewan. In that address he defined free enterprise as rugged and uncontrolled individualism. I think most hon. members know, and I think he knows that that definition could not be applied to the affairs of Canada for the past fifty years. For that length of time we have not had uncontrolled or rugged individualism.

He also defined a new type of socialism. I believe he called it Cooperative Commonwealth Federation socialism. I was reminded that Heinz, the famous manufacturers of pickles, pride themselves on their fifty-seven varieties. Well, I am told there are over 200 kinds of socialism, and I believe at this session we have heard nine different kinds described by the nine members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party. This afternoon the hon. member for Weyburn defined a new kind, and went back to Sweden for his authority. He stated that his was the kind of socialism they had in Sweden. Although he did not quote from a book, he did refer to one. To-night I will quote from a book called "Sweden-the Middle Way".

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CCF

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):

That is the book.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Jesse Pickard Tripp

Liberal

Mr. TRIPP:

I will quote from it. At page 22 it says:

Cooperative leaders are proud that in the course of their long struggle they have never appealed to the state for help. They have been able to meet their competitors on an equal basis without seeking special privileges or favours. And yet in many respects Swedish law has worked to the disadvantage of the cooperatives and in the interests of privately owned stores. This is particularly true with regard to taxation.

And at page 23 it says:

If the cooperators are proud of their independence of the state, they are also proud of the fact-and they insist that it is a fact-of their independence of political parties.

True friends of cooperation would do well to follow this advice. I have heard it stated many times that neither Sweden nor Norway is a socialistic state, but that they have highly developed cooperatives within their boundaries, not as means of socialism but as means whereby individuals can cooperate, and can use their capital to compete with individual capital within a capitalistic country. In no way or manner could one describe the situation in Sweden or Norway as socialistic.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink

March 22, 1943