March 9, 1948

PC

Arthur Leroy Smith

Progressive Conservative

Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):

Mr. Speaker-

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Question.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Arthur Leroy Smith

Progressive Conservative

Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):

I am going to delay the putting of the question- by not more than two and a half minutes at the out-

The Address-Mr. Knight

side. I have not taken part in the debate on either of the amendments or on the main motion. I am glad the hon. member for Wey-burn (Mr. McKay) raised the subject he mentioned a few moments ago, because I want to place myself squarely behind everything he said with respect to this tax form which is being presented to the farmers of the west and, as I learned a few days ago by questioning the minister, also to the farmers of the east. All I have to say about it is this, that it is there to serve a certain purpose, namely, as a stool-pigeon in written form for the income tax branch. There is no other reason on earth why they should cover this net worth business. If the farmer has to do it, then why have not, I, a lawyer, to do it? I do not care what the occupation is; if the farmer is to be picked out for it, then, let us all be picked out.

It is utterly unjust, unfair and indefensible, and is to be used only as a process of detectiv-ing, if I may coin that expression, to catch the poor chap, who says this year that his net worth is $10,000 and next year makes out he has a profit of $2,000. Next year he puts down $15,000 as his net worth. Perhaps next year there is an increase in value and they say, "But what about the $3,000 you did not show?" That is all it is for.

It is utterly unfair that one class in our community should1 be singled out for discriminatory treatment of that kind. So far as I am unconcerned, and for all I am worth, I will buck that thing from now until this session either comes to an end or freezes over -if you know what I mean by that.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CCF

Robert Ross (Roy) Knight

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

Mr. R. R. KNIGHT (Saskatoon City):

Mr. Speaker, I notice that most hon. members who have spoken recently have apologized for rising in this debate. I have no apologies to offer, although I assure the house I shall be brief. There are two subjects I consider it my duty to bring before hon. members because certain of my constituents have asked me to do so. These matters may have been discussed before, but the people like to have their own members discuss them on their behalf.

First of all is the matter of commercial rents. This subject was discussed: eloquently by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldiwell).

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) gave the lead1.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CCF

Robert Ross (Roy) Knight

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

Mr. KNIGHT:

I do not think the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar needs a lead from anyone. That, of course, is a matter of opinion. In my view the matter of commercial rents was handled in an inadvisable and hasty manner. I do not know whether the

hon. members from Ottawa have spoken on the point; if they did I did not hear what they had to say. I know, however, that there is considerable consternation on Bank street and many other streets in this city.

I do not think the government has given much consideration to the little man. The minister says these small businessmen will be protected when rentals rise above a point considered just and reasonable. But the process of defining what is just and reasonable is a difficult procedure. I am reminded of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), when he was pleading with businessmen not to raise their profits above a point which could be considered just and reasonable. We all know how business responded to that appeal. I believe the government's decontrol policy was at times hasty and ill-advised.

Another point I wish to discuss briefly is the removal of the ceiling from canned milk.

I should like to tell the house what happened in my city on that particular occasion. It is well known, sir, that in these days many babies are fed from cans; and that applies not only to milk but other baby foods. When the ceiling was removed there was almost a panic in my city. When decontrol became effective in respect of milk people who had been short of it for some considerable time, people who, because of the high cost of living, could not have cream, turned immediately to canned milk. The effect of decontrol was that it produced a shortage, and mothers of young babies were unable to get the food which they required, and the feeding of which they understood. Their babies were being fed on formulae, and when the canned milk supply was short the whole procedure was upset. I received calls from many irate mothers, although I do not know what they thought I could do about it. I did my best, however, and telephoned the civic health department. They told me that the condition was serious, and that instructions had been issued to these young mothers enabling them to convert plain milk which could be purchased from the dairy. Proportions were suggested which would approximate the milk they had been getting from cans.

For a few days there was almost a crisis, and I was afraid that some of these babies would be casualties of decontrol such as the minister spoke about somewhat casually the other evening. In a condition of this kind I suggest that the government, and particularly the Department of National Health and Welfare, should have seen to it that some provision was made before decontrol became

The Address-Mr. Castleden

effective. They should have seen that provision was made for hospitals, other institutions and young children.

I believe I have said all I wish to say, but I have made these few observations because the people I represent expect me to bring matters of this kind to the attention of the house.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CCF

George Hugh Castleden

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

Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join with those who have voiced protest against the type of income tax form, and the general picture of farm incomes in western Canada. I cannot speak for eastern Canada, because I am not so sure of conditions here. Let me assure all hon. members that the protest is a real one. It is a protest against a condition of injustice, discrimination and maladministration, which exists and is not good. This condition exists in western Canada in a very real way, or we would not have this kind of protest against the present set-up.

Farmers are a tolerant and long-suffering people. I can tell the house that they thought this government would so change the income tax form, and would so simplify the matter, thereby giving them justice, that they delayed their protest until recently, when they received the new so-called simplified form. I used the word "simplified" in a jocular fashion, of course; because if anything could be considered complicated, then certainly it would be the form recently issued. It would require a Philadelphia lawyer and six parliamentary assistants to prepare one of these forms. And when they had finished I am quite sure that most lawyers could find a hole to go through it.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

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

Mr. KNOWLES:

That makes the parliamentary assistants shudder.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CCF

George Hugh Castleden

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

Mr. CASTLEDEN:

The general picture of farming in western Canada is one which requires official attention. If these new income tax forms prove anything about the government, then certainly they prove that those who are responsible for preparing the forms do not understand the position of western farm people, nor do they understand the conditions through which these people have passed.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

They do not care; that is the main thing. They just do not care.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CCF

George Hugh Castleden

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

Mr. CASTLEDEN:

In studying this matter I would ask hon. members to recall what western farmers went through for about fifteen years prior to the war. If anyone will look at the record issued by the bureau of statistics he will see that they became indebted to the extent of about $680 million. That was the burden of debt carried by the farmers, part of which was levied against the municipalities.

That was the result of work and hard labour by people who had gone on year after year under a condition wherein the cost of production was not covered by the price of the commodities they sold. The mortgage indebtedness of that part of the country was terrific.

The first opportunity these people ever had of showing their heads above the debt line came with the slight increase in the price of the commodities they sold during the war. We maintain that, in fairness and in justice to those people who did so much for Canada- so much, indeed, that if they had not carried on, despite the debt under which they operated, Canada would not have had the machinery with which to produce the food and sinews of war. They should not now be confronted with this form. On those farms was equipment which permitted them to continue their work and to do their job well.

What did they do with their money, as soon as they got it? They paid off their indebtedness out of money which they received largely in 1944, 1945 and since. Now they find that no allowance is made for the payments they made on their previous debt. We maintain that, in all fairness to these people, the farmer should be allowed to deduct from his income any money which he pays off on debt incurred prior to 1940 at the end of the depression. Surely that is not too much to ask. The farmers have been loaded down with debt. A good many paid what they owed out of their incomes in 1942, 1943 and 1944, even before they had any idea that they would be taxable for income.

The farmers during the war were asked to produce, and did produce, and often they did not get the cost of production. When we were sending gifts of food to Britain the farmers were quite willing to make their contribution. Wheat was bought from the farm at fifty cents a bushel, which was below the cost of production, and was sent over to Great Britain as a gift. Why was the farmer not allowed at least his cost of production? Manufacturers of tanks, guns and other war equipment were guaranteed profits on their production. They went on strike at the beginning of the war and got cost-plus contracts.

In 1942 the farmers in the west got a crop, but the government quotas prohibited them from delivering their grain in 1942, and they had to build bins on the farm and store it.

I think the regulations allowed the delivery of five bushels per acre. The same regulations were in force in 1943, and the farmer again had to store his grain in bins on the farm. In 1944 the government said: Deliver all your grain.

The farmer did so. He delivered the grain

The Address-Mr. Castleden

that he had stored on his farm in 1942 and 1943, and now the income -tax collectors come along and say: "Where is your permit book

for 1942 and 1943?" The income tax collectors are not interested in costs of production in those years, and the farmer finds that the grain which he had stored up on his farm in 1942 and 1943, and which he sold in 1944, is added to his income for 1944, thus bringing him up into a higher bracket. The more grain he had stored on his farm in 1942 and 1943, the higher the income bracket into which he goes. He was not allowed to deduct his expenses in 1942 and 1943 when he grew that grain. As a matter of fact, some farmers actually lost money, so far as cash income was concerned, in 1942. But when the grain grown in that year was sold in 1944 he was allowed to deduct only the expenses of growing his 1944 crop. After considerable protest by myself and others in this group, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson) finally agreed to do something about it. And it was provided that every farmer who could show that he lost money in 1942 or 1943 would be able to carry his loss over to the other year. That was done, and it afforded some measure of relief, but only a small measure. In 1945 the income tax branch said that the farmer could spread his costs over a couple of years, and in 1946 the three-year average was started, but the farmer was not allowed to spread his income over 1942 and 1943.

With conditions as they are; with agriculture being such a hazardous occupation, with the likelihood of many areas having no crop for three or four or five years perhaps consecutively, the three-year period or even a five-year period is inadequate.

There should be a spreading of costs over a longer period to take care of the type of agricultural production we find in western Canada with all its risks. Some farmers have lost money for five years in a row; and some farmers have had no crop for five years in a row. A three-year average is of not much use to that man. Now he finds that he is not even allowed to claim as an exemption from income the debt he incurred in those drought years.

The farmers are also seriously concerned too about the method of collection. I came in contact with a farmer who in 1945 bought $5,000 of farm machinery and claimed exemption for depreciation in 1946. But the income tax collector said, "We are going to charge you income tax because you must have got "$5,000 in that year." The farmer said, "I did not earn it off the farm." "Where did you get the money?" the income tax collector asked; "you must have made it off your farm." "No, I did not," the farmer said. The

income tax collector said, "You are going to pay income tax on it anyway." The farmer came to me personally and I went out with him and interviewed the tax collector, who told me -exactly the same thing that he had told the farmer, that he bought the machinery in that year and must have made the money off his farm. I said, "No, he did not, and you are not allowed to tax him on that under the act. All you can tax is the money he made that year." The farmer finds it difficult to understand why there is n-o tax on th-e money a man makes on, say the Winnipeg grain exchange, but that if he and his wife and children work on a farm, his wife looking after the chickens and his children perhaps in grades 2 and 3 milking the cows -and feeding the hogs, the income of the family is taxed. Finally I pointed out to the income tax collector that the farmer had this $5,000 left to him by his mother. He was not inclined to take that into consideration at all at first but, after considerable argument, he finally admitted that it was not taxable. That made a difference of $1,000 in the tax that farmer would have otherwise paid.

The farmers of western Canada are wondering when the government will give a clear explanation to them of w-hat is capital on the farm and what is income. That needs to be made perfectly plain. For a good many years there has been no clear definition of "basic herd." One set of departmental regulations which the farmer knows nothing about will say one year: This is the basic herd. Another year it will be something different. The farmer is allowed exemption one year and the next year he is not. The basic herd idea should be clearly explained to the farmer, so that he will know that it means the average stock he possesses. It should be considered as capital. It should apply to the horses, hogs, poultry and other farm stock, as well as cattle.

The farmer's family all join together in earning the income from his farm. It is entirely different from the way in which an ordinary business is conducted. A man in town may work at a departmental store for a few dollars a week and his wife may make a little extra money working at something else, while the boy of the family may make a few dollars by delivering telegrams. Their combined income is not taxable like the income is which the farmer and his wife and children earn. When the farmer and his wife and children find that at the end of the year they have earned just over the minimum and the tax collector comes along and takes away all the money that the wife earned from her poultry and eggs, it just takes the heart out of these

The Address-Mr. Castleden

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

James Joseph McCann (Minister of National Revenue)

Liberal

Mr. McCANN:

Nobody has ever said that he could be taxed on the increased value.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CCF

George Hugh Castleden

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

Mr. CASTLEDEN:

Another incident which has been brought to my attention is that of a man seventy years of age who had paid for some of his indebtedness by the crops he obtained during the war. He was too old to continue to work, and not knowing he was liable for income tax for those other years he built himself a little cottage in the towni and had a few dollars left for his old age. When the income tax inspectors came into that town they brought this man in and told him how they were going to tax him. The man became so seriously flustered and upset about the whole thing that he became violently ill. He was taken to the hospital in Yorkton and died about a week later.

These farmers do mot understand that they are taxable in these years. What the farmers of this country need is a simplified form of taxation. They do not want this complicated thing that has been set before them. They are sincere. I have heard farmers one after the other, after the farm income tax people were there and told them what the taxes were, say, "What is the use of our labouring early in

the morning and late at night if that is the result. I am selling my milk cows and hogs;

I am going to quit production; I am not going to milk cows at this rate; I am going to leave this farm and move into town, I will rent out my farm, or I shall operate it as a mechanized farm." You have done more to break the morale of the farmers and producers of western Canada by this farm income tax than ini any other way. If you want to know why butter and hog production is down and why the farmers are leaving these farms and living in the towns let me say that is the basic reason. These people have suffered for a long time; they went through fifteen years of drought and hardship; they went without proper food and clothing. Many of them have worked too hard because the young people were away at war and the older people carried on. They now find, as a result of their toil, that this is what is happening. It is just not good enough. The whole thing must be further reviewed. The whole thing needs a complete revision. I would advise the government to call in some representatives of the farm organizations, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and representatives from the pools and other organizations throughout the country to talk over this matter and, along with the advisers of the department, to deal with this matter. I would be remiss in my duty if I did not make this protest in the house at this time. If the government does not do something about it at once the farmers will.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
SC

Robert Fair

Social Credit

Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):

Mr. Speaker, speaking on the amendment to the amendment on the address in reply to the speech from the throne on February 26 last I raised objection to this income tax form that was put out all across the country. At that time I had only a few letters. Since that time I have received letters from farmers violently objecting to the form itself and, in particular, to page 5. In addition, the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) has brought this matter to the attention of the government. I hope the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) will remember getting hot under the collar because of the remarks made by the hon. member for Acadia. Since that time the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) has brought the matter to the attention of the government on different occasions and so has the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. McKay).

I feel I should be remiss in my duty if I did not raise my voice in objection to page 5 of the form. We have been bombarded by different sections of the country, even by the

The Address-Mr. Pouliot

government, with literature demanding that communism be ruled out of the country, and I do not know of any better method of helping the communists than for the government to proceed with the present income tax form. We have pointed out on many occasions that farmers have had a portion of their income actually confiscated by the government's agricultural program. On Saturday last we had an announcement again of the international wheat agreement, by wdiich our wheat will be turned in at a particular price regardless of the cost of production, and we find that our taxation is to continue. It would seem that we have in our set-up somewhere people who are interested in the communist program for taking away from farmers and other workers of the country. Again I protest against page 5 in particular of the income tax form.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
IND

Jean-François Pouliot

Independent Liberal

Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):

I have just one thing to say before the debate is over. We must take a lesson from the Argentine. Everybody knows about the deal between the Argentine and the United Kingdom. They got a market for their meat and they were paid, not with United States dollars; they were paid by a remittance to the Argentine government of British-held railway stock and security. Therefore the Argentine has got something for what it is delivering to Great Britain, while we get absolutely nothing, because we are told we are tied up by the scarcity of United States dollars in this country.

How many times have I said the brain trust that is guiding the destiny of this country has no imagination at all. This is an example. A country to the south of us is gaining something from a deal with the United Kingdom, while we are continuing to make sacrifices for nothing. When shall we get something from the United Kingdom? When shall we get something tangible?

The United Kingdom has given concessions to the United States in Newfoundland, Labrador and elsewhere. This government has given concessions for the road that leads to Alaska, and wre get nothing in return. Years ago I suggested that we should have something-the Bahamas, Trinidad, Bermuda, the West Indies. Get something in return. We have no tropical climate; why should we not get our share?

I remember that during the war the minister of naval affairs refused to accept two cruisers that were offered* to us by the United Kingdom. He did not want to get anything for our war effort. Everybody is getting something, and Canada, the country that did the utmost for the United Kingdom, is refusing everything. When shall we have common sense to follow the example of practical countries like the Argentine, the United States and other nations?

No. We are colonials and will remain colonials. What has struck me in the speech from the throne is the appalling statement made in the first paragraph. It was read on December 5 but it is forgotten by everyone now. It is time to read it again:

Conditions throughout the world continue to be difficult and disturbing. The dislocations resulting from the ravages of war have become increasingly apparent. In Europe production has made only .a partial recovery. In Asia, over large areas, active fighting continues. Shortages of the necessities of life, particularly of food, are still acute. In many countries, political and soci-al unrest is serious. Failure to agree on peace settlements with Germany and Austria is preventing the recovery of Europe.

This is not a picture to be proud of, and this is what has been achieved after two years of discussion at the united nations. Then in the third paragraph there is the following:

Support of the charter of the united nations remains an essential feature of Canada's foreign, policy.

I cannot conceive it. The world is in a mess; Canada has been attending conferences; nothing good has come out of it. What did we get from the security council? General McNaughton has been presiding at the security council for some time, and what has happened? We have heard something about Kashmir. Well, India is out; so much so that the King of England cannot call himself Emperor of India any longer.

There is trouble in Palestine, in Greece, all over the world, and now we see British battleships going to Honduras and the Falkland islands to show the might of the British Empire. Is it not ridiculous? We are tied by the policies of the united nations, the policies of Russia, the most important nation, because she is the only one that has made progress, and if we look at the map that is known to everyone, which is published at times in the press, we can see what Russia has gained since the end of hostilities: Poland, Czechoslovakia, Roumania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Albania, Finland and the Baltic States. Russia is gaining all the time. The United Kingdom is losing all the time, and we still stick to the United Kingdom and boast of belonging to the British commonwealth, which is doing positively nothing for us. And we have to pay for our own trade with them.

There are some people who are deeply colonial. They may resent what I say now, but who has ever heard a trade policy like the one we have with the countries of Europe at the present time? We have not the backbone. We are having a Marshall

The Address-Mr. Pouliot

plan of our own and we get nothing in return. We are ready to swallow everything, provided that it comes from an outsider.

I still believe, sir, that it is high time to preach a Canadian sentiment among the people. Patriotism is not a dishonour; patriotism is a virtue, and patriotism is the love of one's land, the land we live in. The Englishman who is hete and is proud of his country may not be a Canadian. He may be a good British citizen. His heart is not with us; his heart is with another country, and he fights hard for that country. He deserves respect. But when a Canadian who lives in this country has no regard for this country at all and no regard for the people who live here, and thinks only of utopia, thinks only of promoting the importance of the united nations at the expense not only of Canada but of the British empire as well, and at the expense of the peace of the world, that man cannot call himself a Canadian at all.

But, sir, I am not going to vote against the address. I regret very much the wording of the speech from the throne. I regret it because it is a true picture of the world condition at the present time. I will not impute the responsibility of it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent); but I will say it is my deep conviction that it would have been better if, instead of sending other people, he had been at Lake Success and at the other conferences, bringing to bear the weight of the influence of a man who is in the dominion government and whose job it is to look after the external policy of Canada; I believe he might have achieved more success than any one of those to whom Canada has given power of attorney. I do not say that to depreciate him. I have high regard for him, and I have known him for a longer time than have many other members of this house. I believe the Department of External Affairs should not be guided by London or by the united nations, but rather that it should be guided by the love of Canada. I have decided not to make a long speech about the matter. I regret to the utmost extent that all the sacrifices which Canada made during the war -sacrifices of money, food, but mostly of men and women-have served no useful purpose. We were told at first, "Make these sacrifices to bring peace again to this world." The sacrifices have been made and the condition is still worse than at the end of hostilities. Of course, there are some dreamers who still believe in utopia, while our ears are ringing with the broadcast that sooner or later-and rather sooner than later-we shall again have war. What a calamity! Some people find it normal that the youth of this country should

be exposed to destruction every ten years. How is it? We may have war; we may not. I hope not. God forbid that we should have another war for many years to come. I hope that we shall not. I hope that our country will go back to the old tradition of patriotism, of love of country, and the policy that charity begins at home. Then we shall have no reason to complain, and it will probably be not only the best way to serve Canada but also the best way to serve the British empire as well as the whole world.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

William Ross Macdonald (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):

I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted for .the motion.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Lewis Elston Cardiff

Progressive Conservative

Mr. CARDIFF:

I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

John William Maloney

Liberal

Mr. MALONEY:

I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland, Ont. (Mr. Drope). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
SC

James Alexander Marshall

Social Credit

Mr. MARSHALL:

I was paired with the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Melvor). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.

(Translation):

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Joseph-Arsène Bonnier

Liberal

Mr. BONNIER:

I was paired with the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Robinson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.

(Text):

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink

March 9, 1948