May 27, 1947

PC

Gordon Graydon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. GRAYDON:

How much is the offer?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: $300,000.

The Budget-Mr. Langlois

Topic:   COASTAL FISHERIES
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   CANADIAN EMBASSY AT WASHINGTON-PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES
Permalink

THE BUDGET

DEBATE ON ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE


The house resumed from Friday, May 23, consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell (Muskoka-Ontario) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.


LIB

J. G. Léopold Langlois

Liberal

Mr. J. G. LEOPOLD LANGLOIS (Gaspe) (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, I shall make the most of the opportunity I am afforded of taking part in the budget debate to discuss exclusively the important matter of relations between the central power and our various provinces.

We have heard several hon. members express divergent opinions on the subject and we have noticed more particularly the objections raised by hon. members who, in line with the principles that their provincial leaders have advocated, stand against the dominion government's policy in this respect.

I shall first point out that those who do not favour acceptance, on the part of the provinces, of the central power's proposals, have put forward no new argument but repeated only those which were stated by anti-confederation-ists during the conferences held by way of preliminary to Confederation. In fact, on October 24, 1864, Mr. E. B. Chandler, of New Brunswick, member of the legislative council, speaking on a motion of Mr. Oliver Mowat, said the following:

We agree to a legislative union.

We set about destroying the constitutions of local governments, thus relegating the latter to the humble status of great municipal corporations.

Mr. A. A. Dorion who, at the time of Confederation, led the anti-confederationist movement in Quebec, expressed similar opinions and claimed that the resolutions passed at conferences were an attempt to establish a centralized federative union, as is shown by the following excerpt from one of his speeches on the subject:

The confederation I suggested was a true confederation, entrusting vast powers to local governments and allotting only a certain amount of authority to the federal government.

He continued:

Such a confederation is very different from the one now suggested to us, for the latter hand over powers to the central government, reserving for local governments the slightest possible degree of freedom of action.

You will recall that Hon. Maurice Duplessis, ever since he came to power in the province of Quebec, has often quoted these two excerpts. Yet, in spite of arguments put forth by Mr. A. A. Dorion and others, including Hon. Maurice Duplessis, confederation has been in effect since 1867 and the provinces have not yet been reduced to the status of great municipal corporations, far from it.

In fact, our Canadian provinces have grown and prospered together with the rest of the nation and have thus contributed to the building of one of the most prosperous and free countries of the world. Our past constitutes a brilliant refutation of the arguments put forth by the opponents of the proposals submitted by the dominion government. However, we must not pause there because the achievements of the past compel us to prepare our future. As the Canadian nation develops, it must solve administrative problems of ever increasing importance.

In 1867, one of the main obstacles to Canadian confederation was the settlement of financial problems. The task consisted in granting subsidies to compensate the loss of revenue incurred by certain provinces entering confederation, on the one hand, and enabling those provinces, by means of subsidies to establish, on the other hand, provincial budgets sufficient to permit the various provinces to meet their obligations towards the people and act as local governments within the framework of the confederation.

Mr. Speaker, a brief study of the expenses incurred by the provinces since confederation under the three main administrative headings clearly shows that the subsidies provided in 1867 are no longer sufficient. For instance, as far as education is concerned, the current expenses have increased in the following proportions from 1867 to 1930:

1867: $2,500,000 or 78 cents per capita;

1896: $8,000,000 or $1.60 per capita;

1913: $37,500,000 or $5.00 per capita;

1921: $88,000,000 or $10.05 per capita;

1930: $119,200,000 or $10.54 per capita.

The maintenance expenses of highways have doubled from 1921 to 1930, increasing from $364,000,000 to $734,000,000. From 1867 to 1937 there has also been an increase from $1,200,000 to $284,000,000 in the budget of those same provincial governments as regards social services and public welfare. The logical conclusion, Mr. Speaker, is that the subsidies granted the provinces in 1867 are no longer sufficient, in spite of the increases obtained since, and especially in 1907, when the Canadian constitution was amended.

The Budget-Mr. Langlois

Is it not a fact that one of the provinces was once on the verge of bankruptcy, while the financial position of two others is far from steady.

Moreover, our country's development since 1867 has increased the scope of the administrative problems of the various governments which make up confederation; those national problems require settlement on a national scale.

The first step in that direction was taken in 1927 by the dominion government when they introduced old age pension legislation in order to help provincial governments who could not afford expenditures on such a large scale. When the act first came into operation, the federal authorities paid only 50 per cent of expenses, but in time they had to raise their contribution to 75 per cent of the total cost. The pension provisions for the blind are another example of federal intervention directed towards helping the provinces in the solution of purely provincial matters. I could also mention the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Family Allowances Act.

Who would dare contend that our country will keep on growing through strict adherence to what was laid down in 1867 by the fathers of confederation? Moreover, the dominion proposals would simply apply to our present needs the principles on which confederation was based in 1867.

Those who oppose the federal plan claim that such proposals are directed against provincial autonomy and are conducive to centralization. The argument with respect of autonomy cannot possibly be serious. Autonomy means independence, neither restricted nor limited, but full and complete even in the financial field.

Economists might say that as long as the family, the municipal corporation and the province are financially independent, so will be the country as a whole. But such autonomy and independence may not be achieved when the contrary is true, as it is unfortunately so at the moment in too many cases.

Is an invasion of provincial autonomy possible, when an amendment to the constitution is not even necessary to authorize provincial legislatures to negotiate with the dominion? Is an attack on provincial autonomy possible, when the legislatures are perfectly free to accept or to reject the federal proposals? Is centralization possible, when the dominion is willing to surrender to the provinces exclusive jurisdiction in the administration of social legislation? Are we threatening the autonomy of provinces, when we provide them with the means of meeting their obligations to the

people? Do our provincial premiers believe that the autonomy of the provinces is better protected when, in order to balance their budgets, they must resort to foreign lenders, as was too frequently the case in the province of Quebec from 1936 to 1939? In the 1930-1935 period, when the central government, under the leadership of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, distributed unemployment relief benefits and contributed 50 per cent of the cost of municipal works, why did the province of Quebec not worry about its autonomy as it does today? Was the fact that such unemployment relief benefits and 50 per cent contributions came from a government wholly sympathetic to the present leader of the Quebec government sufficient to protect her autonomy? I leave it to my hon. friends of the opposition to answer this last question.

The hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleehe (Mr. Hamel) speaking on this matter on Wednesday, May 21, quoted figures that I cannot accept. Indeed, as shown by the record, at page 3309, the hon. member stated:

Even the dominion proposals, however, uphold an intolerable discrimination. Subsidies vary according to each province, here as elsewhere: the per capita grant paid to the province of Quebec will be the lowest in the country. Ontario's will amount to $18.04, Alberta's to $18.64, Saskatchewan's to $19.03, Nova Scotia's to $19.20, New Brunswick's to $19.69, Manitoba's to $19.77, British Columbia's to $21.29 and Prince Edward Island's to $24.31, while that of Quebec will be only $17.29, namely, $2.37 less than the average rate.

My hon. friend seems to have followed the example of the member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) who is reported, on page 1689 of Hansard, as having said:

In the last twenty-five years, when I had to plead cases before the courts of my country, I always made it a point to present facts, and once the facts were proven, draw conclusions.

The hon. member should have added: but only such facts as could serve the purpose of the cases which I pleaded.

That is possibly why, following that example, the. hon. member for St. Mauriee-Lafleche quoted only such figures as enabled him to draw conclusions in line with his opinion on the government's policy in the matter of direct taxation.

I shall therefore immediately demonstrate this serious omission of the hon. member in his summary of the dominion's proposals to the provinces.

I have chosen to outline the proposals made to four of the provinces: Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and British Columbia, i.e., two central provinces, one of the maritimes and one of the western provinces.

The Budget-Mr. Langlois

The proposals were as follows: $12.75 per capita (which amount was offered to all provinces without exception), plus the statutory subsidies guaranteed by confederation; plus 50 per cent of the personal income and corporation taxes as collected in 1940 in each of those provinces, plus the family allowances already paid, and the dominion's contribution to payment under the pensions act for the aged and the blind. The aggregate amounts for the four provinces mentioned are as follows:

Quebec-$42.66 per capita.

Ontario-$38.01 per capita.

Nova Scotia-$44.86 per capita.

British Columbia-$39.84 per capita.

The average for all provinces in Canada is $41.43. It will be seen therefore that Quebec's share exceeds the average by $1.23 per capita, whereas Ontario's will be $3.42 short of the average. Can it now be held that the dominion's proposals discriminate against the province of Quebec?

Family allowance statistics show that, under the act, Quebec is getting $22.24 per capita while Ontario gets only $16.69, British Columbia $15 and Nova Scotia $20.82. According to our estimate of what the province will obtain from the financial agreements proposed by the central government, Quebec, in case of acceptance, would receive a total sum of $63.011000 in 1947, or three times what she collected in 1940 in personal and corporation income taxes, plus $1,511,000. Besides, the central government guarantees minimum subsidies to the provinces and this amount, would be $56,383,000 in the case of Quebec. In addition, the federal government makes an alternative offer of $15 per capita, instead of $12.75 plus 50 per cent of personal and corporation income taxes, to those provinces who had no income or very little income from these sources, in 1940. Each province is free to accept this uniform amount if she thinks that her interests are better served thereby. It seems, however, that Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia alone could benefit by this alternative offer.

Such are the proposals of the federal government to the provinces. They were submitted to them in the best interest of our people as a whole and, to use the words of the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King), on a totally free and temporary' basis.

Mr. Speaker, I have prepared a table which I will be glad to show the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche, whenever he wishes to secure information so that, in future, when he speaks on the matter he may state all the facts without reservation.

83166-222J

In the last few days, Mr. Speaker, we have followed an interesting debate on the legal aspects of the proposals submitted to the provinces. Our so-called nationalists, who have now taken the name of autonomists, claim that the British North America Act grants the provinces exclusive jurisdiction in matters of direct taxation.

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

René Hamel

Bloc populaire canadien

Mr. HAMEL:

Would the hon. member permit a question?

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

J. G. Léopold Langlois

Liberal

Mr. LANGLOIS:

Surely.

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

René Hamel

Bloc populaire canadien

Mr. HAMEL:

Could he tell us who stated in this house that the provinces had exclusive jurisdiction in matters of direct taxation?

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

J. G. Léopold Langlois

Liberal

Mr. LANGLOIS:

The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) speaking on the budget, a few days ago-I cannot specify on what day, but it was last week-

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

René Hamel

Bloc populaire canadien

Mr. HAMEL:

Could the hon. member quote the statement?

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

J. G. Léopold Langlois

Liberal

Mr. LANGLOIS:

The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay' quoted part of a judgment, which in fact was not a judgment, but a statement by' a judge, who was attempting to prove that the province of Quebec, in a special case had obtained a [DOT]favourable ruling from the privy council, granting her not only the exclusive right, but priority, in case of conflict.

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

René Hamel

Bloc populaire canadien

Mr. HAMEL:

Quite so.

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

J. G. Léopold Langlois

Liberal

Mr. LANGLOIS:

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying a few moments ago, we have heard for the last few days an interesting debate on the legal aspect of the proposals made to the provinces and I stated further that oui so-called nationalists-I believe I did hit at least one of them-who assume today the title of autonomists, claim that the British North America Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the provinces as regards direct taxation. I certainly do not share that view, which is at variance with numerous decisions by our highest courts and is not consistent with the way sections 91 and 92 of our constitution should be construed. However, that does not prevent me from respecting the opinion of our friends in the opposition who claim further that our language, our fadth and our most sacred rights are endangered by those they are wont to call "the Ottawa centralizers". I wish, nevertheless, to suggest to those hon. members, whose sincerity I do not question in the least, to face the facts as they are. It is not by voicing protests, and expounding nationalist arguments that they will safeguard our rights and freedoms, should such rights and freedoms be really imperilled, as they claim. Let us suppose, for a moment,

The Budget-Mr. Langlois

that those gentlemen are right and let us ask them if, in the light of existing texts, and especially in the light of the decisions given by the privy council, and finally taking into account the opposite views expressed both in this house and outside, they are justified in taking refuge behind the protests they voice as protectors of their race and as the last bulwarks of our rights and freedoms. I believe that we must rather be realistic in approaching that important problem and that we have no right to harbour a feeling of false security. Moreover, I claim that if we want our rights and freedoms to be safeguarded, we should not merely assume that they are sacred and inviolable, but rather that it behooves us to ensure such inviolability through concrete and definite facts.

My hon. friends opposite must realize that there is now in Canada an important group of socialists whose aim is to establish a planned economy and who do not hesitate, at all times, to prophesy, should they ever assume power, a complete upheaval in the economy and the mode of life until then known in this country. Therefore, are we not justified in dreading the future should those socialists ever come to power ii* Ottawa, because their policy of planned economy and what they call social planning cannot be carried out without encroachment on provincial prerogatives? Would it not be better if, to show its respect for provincial autonomy, the dominion should set a precedent giving further practical evidence of its intention not to take advantage of prior or exclusive jurisdiction in the field of direct taxation?

This precedent is now being set when this government offers the provinces a temporary agreement-and I insist on the word temporary-recognizing provincial jurisdiction and asking the provinces to enter into such an agreement for the simple purpose of avoiding duplication of taxation and costs of collection. The opportunity is given us to set this precedent for the benefit of the future generations of this country as a whole and of each of the provinces. It is a new idea but one to my mind worth trying for it implies a genuine guarantee of our rights and liberties, and especially because I should be extremely loath to let my French-speaking compatriots' future depend solely on the right of veto held by the present Prime Minister of Ontario, as our opponents would have us do. Recent statements by the originator of the famous principle "equality of sacrifice" are still too fresh in my mind.

Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with the concern expressed by the hon. member for St. Maurice-

Lafleche who in a nightmare of nationalist apprehension-I was going to say alarm- sees our racial group ruled with a rod of iron and deprived of its essential freedoms.

In answer to his remarks, may I remind him that it is not by preadhing fear and suspicion to our French-speaking compatriots that we shall encourage them to go on playing the part which they have taken up to this day in this great and wonderful Canada of ours.

I submit that French civilization in America is past the survival stage and is waiting only for the growth of a new generation of bold and proud youths to burst into bloom. I am sorry for my hon. friend, but I cannot conceive of a French-speaking Canadian who takes pride in the achievements of his forebears, wishing that his racial group be confined within the limits of some Canadian reserve.

I have no hesitation in saying that we need have no fear to go forward in Canada side by side with our compatriots of any race or creed. I say also that our French civilization compares with any other. What would have been the point in surviving, if we chose to perish within the confines of self-imposed limitations.

Mr. Speaker, I say also to my hon. friend for St. Maurice-Lafleche that we are not a group of failures who should be segregated in a separate enclosure. We have enough courage and mettle not to surrender our own heritage in order to seek refuge in a narrow and benumbing separatism. My hon. friend might, find a source' of inspiration more in keeping with the aspirations of our fellow countrymen if he borrowed the words with which the Right Hon. the Prime Minister of Canada, during the war, urged French-speaking Canadians to raise the torch of French civilization which had fallen from the hands of agonizing France.

Mr. Speaker, returning to the important problem of dominion-provincial relations, I state that the people of my province do not share the views of their present leader; if the hon. the premier of the province of Quebec has any doubt on the matter I challenge him, on behalf of the French-speaking members on this side of the house, to vindicate his policy by immediately going to the people on this very issue.

Moreover, if he is sincere and if he still claims that our rights and freedoms are really threatened, it is his duty to appeal to the people. I need not have an exceptional amount of courage to challenge Mr. Duplessis and his satellites to fight that issue with us before the Quebec people, because I am convinced that the population of my province still

The Budget-Mr. Argue

possesses enough pride and courage to continue its magnificent contribution to the building of a powerful Canadian nation on the American continent.

(Text):

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

Hazen Robert Argue

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

Mr. H. R. ARGUE (Wood Mountain):

Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members would be happy to see this debate concluded at the earliest possible moment. However, this is indeed an important budget and deserves the conscientious attention of all hon. members. As has been said so many times already in this debate, the most glaring fault in the budget is that nothing was done for that half of Canadians who find themselves with incomes less than the minimum necessary to get into the taxation bracket at all. The government surely has slipped up badly in not having done something to increase the living standards of these people, who are finding it so difficult to get along under present conditions.

On looking over the changes in the amount of income tax for this year, I can see that the reduction for those in the lower brackets has been considerably more than it has been for those in the higher brackets, in relation to what they paid at the beginning of this year. It seems to me that to reduce by 54 per cent something which is unfair is to take away only 54 per cent of the unfairness and still leave something which is exceedingly unfair. I have worked out a little table of my own, comparing the relief granted in the various income tax brackets. I have done this with regard to a single man, but the same thing applies generally to a married man, to a married man with two children, and so on. If one takes the income tax relief in dollars for 1947 as a whole, as compared to the tax at the beginning of this year, and then relates that tax relief to the man's income, one sees that the effective amount of relief has been low in the low income brackets and relatively high in the middle and higher income brackets. If the man with an income of $1,000 should be given tax relief of $10 or one per cent, surely all will agree that the man with an income of $10,000 should not be given relief of more than $100, which is one per cent, the same proportionate amount. The single man, however, with $800 income has been given tax relief in this budget amounting to S3 or -375 per cent of his gross income. To the single man with an income of $2,000, the tax relief is $47, which amounts to 2-35 per cent of his income. Not only is the man with an income of $2,000 already making two and a half times as much as the man with an income of $800, but the government are giving him in tax relief six times as much, on a proportionate basis, as they are giving the man with the $800 income.

The same thing applies going up the scale to the higher brackets, and to a greater extent, until one reaches the $7,500 bracket. A man with $10,000 income is granted relief of $393, which is 3-93 per cent, or more than ten times as much relief as is granted to the man with an income of $800. I say that the emphasis has been placed entirely wrongly in this budget. The only basis for fairness would have been to increase the exemptions far above the present $750 for a single man and $1,500 for a married man.

I note also that a married man with an income of $1,800 pays $36 in taxes and a single man with the same income pays $180. The married man with an income of $1,800 is given, through the income tax laws, an additional net income of $144 compared with a single man earning the same income. Going up to the $10,000 bracket, a single man pays a tax of $2,253; a married man with, that income pays a tax of $1,190. To a married man earning $10,000. the government allows $263 with which to maintain his wife, as compared to a single man earning that amount and as compared to the $144 for maintaining his wife allowed to a man who earns only $1,800. I think that that difference in tax, as between a married man and a single man, should be the same in all income tax brackets. Here is a married man with $10,000 income who, gets $7,767 net income on which to maintain himself and his wife, and he is paying to the government $263 less in taxes than a single man with that amount. r

As 1 said before, the tax relief for a single man with an income of $800 amounts to -375 per cent of his gross income, the magnanimous sum of $3. The married man earning $2,000 gets tax relief in 1947, compared with the present rate, of $24. or 1-2 per cent.. A married man with two children earning $2,000 gets tax relief of $16, or an increase in his income through tax relief amounting to [DOT]8 per cent.

The government through this tax relief is giving to persons in these income tax brackets increases in income anywhere from about one-third of one per cent to 1-2 per cent; and the change in the cost of living index from March this year to April this year amounted to 1-7 points. The change in the cost of living in one month has more than wiped out all the tax relief the government is giving the people in the year 1947. Surely that is not good enough. The government should have given a good deal of tax relief to the people in the lower income brackets, and

The Budget-Mr. Argue

maintained price control, so that the people in those brackets would be able to obtain the necessities of life.

But while the average income earner in Canada is not faring well, we see that the corporations are making very large profits. An article in the Financial Post of April 12 says this:

Caught between high taxes and sharply rising prices consumers are not going to be any more complacent when they learn that company profits have been mounting. A survey of the combined results of sixty companies show earnings almost 30 per cent higher than in 1945.

Then it goes on to say:

The same trend is abundantly apparent in the United States where President Earl Bunting of the National Association of Manufacturers bluntly warns if the constant sudden upward winding of the spiral continues you will see one of the most terrible busts this country ever had.

Corporations are making more money than they have ever made. The government is giving them in addition great taxation relief. And the corporations in return are going to give to this country "one of the most terrible busts".

The Nesbitt, Thomson and Company revised index of dividend payments shows that corporation dividends are on the increase. Taking the index of 100 for the period 1935-39, the following figures will show the upward trend:

January, 1946 131-2

July, 1946 140-2

January, 1947 155-3

March, 1947 156-8

Dividends are going up by leaps and bounds. I have figures here showing the profits of some of the companies which supply goods of great importance to the consumers of Canada. The table is as follows:

Company

Easy Washing Machine Company ..

Building Products Limited

Canadian Western Lumber Company Canada Cement Company

Net Profit After Taxes, 1945

$ 25,496

335,242 459.619 1,080,440

Net Profit Increase

After Taxes, in Profits

$ 50,594 about 100 per cent

1,295,434 286 per cent1,019,428 121-8 percent2,178,523 10,1-6 percent

It will be noted that some of these com-tpanie.- supply building materials. No doubt the great increase in profits is one of the main reasons why houses cost so much more [DOT]today than they did a few years ago.

But the cost of living is not the only thing tthaJt is going up. The cost of production for farmers in western Canada has gone up at a tremendous rate in the last year and a half. A year ago this spring the government removed the subsidy of 45 cents a barrel which was paid on crude oil shipped to the prairie provinces from the United States. At the time of the withdrawal of the subsidy the companies were allowed a two cents a gallon increase in the price of gasoline. That two cents would take care of the subsidy of 45 cents, and perhaps a little more. But the two cents a gallon increase was allowed on all petroleum products sold in western Canada, even including gasoline manufactured from crude oil taken from the Turner valley-. The companies were thus able to make large profits on the increased price granted for all their gasoline, irrespective of the crude from which it happened to be made.

On April 1 of this year the government removed its three-cent wartime tax on gasoline. At the same time it removed the ceiling on that product. The companies absorbed the tax that the federal government was otherwise

getting. It is too bad that the government had not removed the three-cent wartime tax on gasoline before it lifted the price ceiling. Then the people would know that the companies have, in effect, taken over the taxing powers of this government, because they increased their price by- that three cents, or more. In tractor gasoline in Saskatchewan there was an increase of four and a half cents -and that is the most important fuel sold to farmers in that province.

The oil companies did not do so badly in 1945 and 1946. These figures will serve to show the profits:

Net Profit, Net Profit, Company 1946 1945Imperial Oil Limited $17,326,112 $16,6'16,586 B.A. Oil Company ... 3,319,572 3,151,334

McColl-Frontenac Oil

Company 3,218,596 1,464,515

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

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of Veterans Affairs; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE:

Was that a net profit?

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

Hazen Robert Argue

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

Mr. ARGUE:

Net profit after taxes. I am sure that with the large increase in price they are obtaining for their products in western Canada, and to a lesser extent throughout the rest of the nation, these companies will make still higher profits in 1947. Another reason they will make higher profits lies, of course, in the removal of the excess profits tax, which is to take effect at the end of the year.

The Budget-Mr. Argue

A year ago t'he agricultural implement companies got a 12| per cent increase in price. The two Canadian companies made considerably more profit in 1946 than they did in 1945. The profit of Cockshutt Plow Company increased 18-4 per cent. The profit of the Massey-Harris Company increased from $1,588,480 in 1945 to $2,125,570 in 1946, an increase of 29-5 per cent.

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

Robert Wellington Mayhew (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance)

Liberal

Mr. MAYHEW:

Can the hon. member give the profit on domestic business and export business?

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

Hazen Robert Argue

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

Mr. ARGUE:

I tried to get the figures of those companies broken down in that way, and I was told they did not keep their books in that manner. All I am pointing out is that the trend is upward. I venture to say their profit in 1946 was greater than in 1945, and certainly I would be pleased to have the assistant to the Minister of Finance, if he can. bring forward evidence to show that the reverse was true. I 'have tried to find out what were their profits on Canadian business only, but I do not think that is too important because I believe the trend is definitely upward. If that is not so with these companies they are different from almost all other companies doing business in Canada.

The government is claiming to give income taxation relief amounting to anywhere from 54 per cent to seven per cent. It is estimated that personal income taxes for 1947-48 will bring in $625,000,000, or a reduction of $70,000.000 from $695,000,000 estimated for 1946-47. This represents a decrease of about ten per cent in the amount of money the government expects to get through personal income tax in 1947-48 as compared with 1946-47. Then the government estimates that in 1947-48 it will obtain $300,000,000 in corporation taxes as compared with $239,000,000 in 1946-47; but it expects to get only $170,000,000 in 1947-48 through the excess profits tax whereas in 1946-47 it obtained $449,000,000. The total taxes the government expects to get from the corporations of this country in 1947-48 amount to $470,000,000, as compared with $688,000,000 in 1946-47. This reduction in taxation on corporations amounts to more than 31 per cent, as compared with 10 per cent for the salaried men, the wage earners and the farmers. I say this government has fallen down badly; that it is giving tax relief where tax relief is not needed, and that it is not giving tax relief to those who today are suffering through the rise in the cost of living. I have friends in this city; I have friends in western Canada, and in talking to these people I find many of them are actually in dire need

because of the rapid rise in the cost of living. These people were expecting that if the government would not maintain price control at least it would exempt those in the low income groups from the payment of any income tax whatever.

When one reads the daily and weekly press, or almost any magazine, one finds scattered throughout warnings that a depression or a recession is imminent. I think it behooves the government to state in the budget what its programme is to maintain prosperity and see that a depression or recession does not come. I believe one of the most important things it could do would be to take complete control of the banking system of this nation, and there are very good reasons for that. One is that in 1945 the chartered banks of this country had three times as much invested in government securities as they had by way of loans. In that year they had $3 invested in government security for every $1 they had on loan. In other words the governments of this nation, federal, provincial and municipal, are supplying the income of the banks; and I say that when any corporation depends upon the government for its income it is time the government owned that corporation.

The banks, too, have done very well in the last few years. I was able to get the 1946 profits of only a few of the banks. I have here the figures for the Bank of Montreal and the Royal Bank of Canada. In 1945 the net profits of the Bank of Montreal were $3,514,522, while in 1946 their net profits were $4,487,782.91. The profits of the Royal Bank increased from $3,828,143 in 1945 to $4,020,895.51 in 1946. The dividends paid by the Royal Bank increased from $2,100,000 in 1945 to $2,800,000 in 1946. If we are not to experience a depression then we must see that purchasing power reaches the hands of the people who want to spend the money on consumer goods. Banks are willing and glad to lend in times of prosperity, but in times of depression they are not willing to lend and do not lend. It does not matter what steps the government may take to see that the reserves of the chartered banks in the central bank are adequate; if a depression is upon us they do not lend, not matter how high their reserves may be. So I suggest to the minister that by nationalizing the chartered banks the government will obtain a very good instrument for preventing depressions.

Throughout the budget speech of the minister. on one page after another, he refers to our dependence for our prosperity on what happens in the United States, pointing out how

The Budget-Mr. Argue

closely our economy is linked to the economy of that country. According to an article appearing in the Toronto Daily Star of May 15, ten leading economists in the United States, of whom three were former heads of the OPA, believe that a crisis is imminent in that country. The Minister of Finance stated that our prosperity might continue to be reasonably good provided there was not a depression, or a recession as he called it, in the United States. Well. I think it is time we saw to it that we had a measure of prosperity in this country all the time depending upon the resources of this nation, not depending upon what may or may not happen in the United States. I do not believe the United States is following or will follow economic policies that will enable Canada, if our present practices are maintained, to have prosperity; and that applies to all the other nations of the world as well. I do not think the United States is going to admit the imports necessary for foreign nations to have the American dollars they need to buy the imports they require from the United States. The minister pointed out that we were short of American dollars, had an adverse balance of some $603,000,000 in 1946; and an article in the Financial, Post of May 24 states that at the present rate Canada is buying United States goods, and the present rate at which we are selling goods to the United States, this year we shall be short of American dollars to the extent of $850,000,000. The government should take steps to see that that situation is corrected, and I suggest that as they have seen fit to make a contract for the bulk sale of Canadian wheat to Great Britain, they should be willing and prepared to make contracts for the bulk importation into this country of the goods we need from countries like Britain which need our dollars to pay for our wheat.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think that the budget falls short in many respects. The most glaring fault is the lack of a single provision for improvement of the economic position of the majority of Canadians whose income is so small as to keep them out of the income tax brackets.

2. The tax relief granted in the lower income brackets is proportionately much less than that granted1 in the middle and higher brackets. For example, the tax relief in 1947 for a single man earning $800 is $3. This relief equals only -375 per cent of his total income. But a single man earning $10,000 is afforded tax relief of $393, which is equal to 3-93 per cent of his income. This relief is proportionately ten times greater for the man

in the $10,000 bracket than for the man in the $800 bracket.

3. The government's headlong policy of decontrol has resulted in a sharp rise in the cost of living. This trend is shown by the increase in the cost of living index from 121 in April, 1946, to 130-6 in April, 1947, a rise of approximately 8 per cent. This 8 per cent increase in the cost of living far exceeds the tax relief granted in the budget, which for a married man in the $2,000 income bracket with two children, amounts to only -8 per cent.

4. The 1948 income tax for a married man earning $1,800 is $144 less than the tax for a single man earning an equal amount. But not only is the married man earning $10,000 left after taxes with an income of $7,747 as compared with $1,636 for the married man earning $1,800; he is taxed $253 less than the single man with an income of $10,000.

If a married man in the $1,800 bracket is allowed only an additional $144 on account of being married, this amount should apply throughout all the brackets.

5. At a time when the standard of living of the mass of the Canadian people is being reduced, company profits are at a record high. Dividends, too, are on the upgrade from the index of 131-2 in January, 1946, to 156-8 in March, 1947. Profits of the major Canadian oil companies are much higher in 1946 than in 1945 and promise to be still greater in 1947 with the large and unwarranted increase in gasoline prices.

In the midst of all this, the reduction in anticipated taxation revenue from corporate enterprises is from $688,000,000 in 1946-47 to $470,000,000 in 1947-48, a reduction of more than 31 per cent. This compares with a reduction in anticipated personal income tax revenues of only ten per cent.

6. Because of the increasing dependence of chartered banks for income on holdings of government securities, and because of the need to increase the volume of purchasing power in the hands of the public at the onset of a depression, I believe the time has arrived when it is in the public interest that the chartered banks be nationalized.

For all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the budget has failed the Canadian people and consequently I shall be forced to vote against it.

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

Anthony Hlynka

Social Credit

Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):

Mr. Speaker, on his first budget speech the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has been showered with bouquets from all sides of the house. The kind references to the minister are a good indication of the esteem in which

The Budget-Mr. Hlynka

he is held by members of all parties. These references may be taken as a recognition also of the minister's all-round ability. I too should like to join with those who have already congratulated the minister on the delivery of his first budget speech in the house. I should like to add, however, that along with their congratulations hon. members should have also expressed sympathy for the minister in his present position because, as he no doubt knows, he is now the chief target on the government side not only for members of this house but for the Canadian people generally. It is my view that if the minister does become the subject of bombardment from this side of the house it will not be as a result of any weakness on his part but because he has allowed himself to become the spokesman of the old debt-creating system which belongs to the sixteenth century but persists in running Canada's financial policy in the twentieth century.

Whatever the outcome of my forecast may be, I would in all sincerity suggest to the minister that he request the leader of the house to place him on the front benches, as near to the Social Credit group as possible, so that it may be easier for us to get at him. The present seat which the minister occupies may foe convenient for him as he appears to be well shielded, but that seat is definitely inconvenient for the opposition members. What I am saying bears out the contention of the Social Credit members that it does not matter how able or how popular a member may be before he is appointed a minister of finance; he is bound to fail because he is given an impossible task, that of operating a money system which cannot distribute to the Canadian people the goods and services which they require. So we sympathize with the Minister of Finance, but we sympathize even more with the Canadian people.

During the debate thus far, government supporters have lauded many features of the budget, and of course the opposition have criticized it. quite severely on some points. So far as I am concerned I shall undertake to show that this budget does not meet with the requests of the Canadian farmer.

On the 16th day of April, 1947, a delegation of farmers presented a nine-page brief to the Minister of Finance, his deputy and their advisers, requesting that the government do something to assist the Canadian farmers, at least in the west, in keeping the agricultural industry on a stable basis. The delegation placed fourteen recommendations before the minister. Let me read each one and then

express my opinion whether or not these requests were granted. No. 1 reads as follows:

Four year average for income tax purposes.

In parenthesis, the Alberta Farmers' Union states:

We were advised that this was a matter of government policy and would have to be dealt with by the Minister of Finance and his cabinet.

The fact remains that the Minister of Finance and the cabinet have not acceded to this request. Let us take No. 2:

That in case of dispersal sales of live stock, an equivalent number of animals to those owned on January 1, 1941, be considered a capital asset and not subject to income tax.

Has the government granted this request? The reply is, of course, no. In parenthesis, the delegation which interviewed the Minister of Finance, in publishing the report of their visit to Ottawa, said:

. . . would be given consideration and they could see logic in our argument that foundation herds should be established as the year of 1941. They were going to look into this matter and see what recommendations could be made along this line.

Well, so far the government, and I presume the Minister of Finance or his advisers, have had time to look into the matter and either grant this recommendation or refuse it. In his budget the Minister of Finance said nothing on this point, so I take it that the request was not granted.

Recommendation No. 3 read as follows:

That exemptions be raised to $1,200 for single and $2,400 for married persons and proportional increase to dependents.

We all know that the minister did not grant this request. In their report the delegation also said:

This also was a matter of government policy.

Therefore recommendation No. 3 was not granted either. Let us take No. 4:

Allowance for labour of farm families in connection with production on the farm.

Has anything been done in this regard? Well, the reply is obvious. The government has not granted this request either. Let us take No. 5:

No further responsibility for income tax on farm wages.

The reply of the government spokesman was that it would be quite impossible to grant this request because it was felt that the tax should be collected at the source, and the farmer should be expected to collect it the same as any other employer; therefore request No. 5 was not granted.

Let us take request No. 6:

Board of arbitration on income tax cases.

The Budget-Mr. Hlynka

The reply which was given to the delegation was to the effect that this had already been set out in the act, and it was only a matter of time before this board would be appointed. The fact remains that so far the arbitration board has not been appointed; consequently thus far the request has not been granted.

Recommendation No. 7:

That payment of arrears of interest and principal on the home farm, due before 1940 be allowed as deduction for income tax purposes.

After having listened to the Minister of Finance and after having read his speech carefully, I did not find a single reference to this particular request, which is an important one so far as farmers are concerned. The delegation urged that payment on old debts and arrears of interest be deductible for income tax purposes. The government officials stated that they would look into the matter after they had pointed out to them the reasons why the delegation asked for this concession. It was due to the trying times of the thirties when the farmers were not in a position to pay off their mortgages, and a considerable amount of this debt accumulated interest over a period of years. On this question I may point out that industrialists, some of the oil companies and gold mining companies, are granted certain privileges when they begin their operations, to enable them to get the proper start. I commend the government for that, but why should not the same principle be applied to the farmers?

Recommendation No. 8:

Provision for final clearance to all taxpayers within two yqars.

The delegation was told that the government would give immediate attention to this as soon as they were able to get sufficient staff. In parenthesis, the delegation said:

They have had this in mind for some time and consider the taxpayer entitled to clearance and they were hoping to do it within one year instead of two.

The argument there is that the government is unable to do it at the present time because of insufficient employees. What is wrong with our veterans? Why not employ these young men? I know many of them who are qualified and are certainly eager to learn, and they could learn to handle this problem and to do this type of work. Why not ask them to come in to do this work? Surely they are entitled to it. To say at (his time that there is insufficient staff is, to my mind, a poor excuse. The government has not granted this request.

I now come to request No. 9:

No special exemptions to any class but full provision for proper expenses.

We know there are certain types of employment where expenses are not allowed. Hon. members know that until a year and a half ago they were obliged to pay for telegrams and other expenses; that they were not allowed to charge these expenses to the expense of being a member. We are now compensated in another way. It matters little what provision it may be, every taxpayer should be entitled to deduct legitimate expenses when they are connected with the obtaining of income. So far, No. 9 has not been altogether adjusted.

I now come to No. 10:

Simplification of income tax forms.

Everyone who has had to calculate his income tax knows that this year as in previous years it was still a difficult job. Unless one studies the various clauses of the act and the various questions in the form, it is quite difficult even for a man who has had something to do with filling out forms of various kinds. Let us take a farmer. I maintain that it is absolutely impossible for a fanner to know where to begin and what to enter and what to leave out, to know whether to claim exemption or not. So that simplification of income tax forms is one thing the minister should look into, and the government should provide assistance to every person who cannot compute his own income tax deductions. This has not been done so far.

11. In computing net worth statements over the years 1941-1945 the increase in value of live stock and implements, which has come about through the general advance in prices, should be discounted, and an equal amount of this property valued on the same basis per unit for both years.

I might say a word about this net worth system of collecting taxes. I understand that the net worth system is applied in the three western provinces, and in Alberta the income tax officials go as far back as 1941. I understand that in Saskatchewan they go back to 1942, and in Manitoba, in some districts, they go back to 1941, while in other districts they go back to 1942. Why the difference? Surely this government fully realizes that it is unreasonable to demand that a farmer at this particular time should pay for the first years immediately after the outbreak of the war, because the farmers had just got through a ten-year depression. The government were not concerned then with the problem of siphoning back to the farmer a certain amount of purchasing power but now that he is making a little money, they feel that they should siphon it off as fast as they can. This system of computing the farmer's tax is unfair.

I took up several cases with the officials of the income tax branch, and I do not believe, although the officials were very kind, that the

The Budget-Mr. Hlynka

farmers in general felt they were being treated as well as they should have been. They felt that the inspectors simply came around and put down what they thought the farmer's income was and what his expenses were. I feel that number 11 has not been granted them.

12. Uniformity of interpretation and administration of the income tax act. It should not be left to the discretion of district inspectors to vary the provisions of the act.

Incidentally, the officials of the department agree with the delegation on this point, but so far nothing has been done. As a result, this request was not granted. I come now to a very important one:

13. The brushing and breaking of new land should be considered as a current expense.

I have already pointed out that certain companies drilling for oil are allowed, for the first three years, I believe, certain privileges. Why should not the farmer be entitled to the same privilege? So far, however, that has not been done.

14. Money expended in drilling or boring wells or excavating dugouts on the farm, together with all equipment for same, should be chargeable as a current expense.

This is the last request of the Alberta Farmers' Union delegation,, and this request has not been granted.

When we study this budget from the point of view of the farmer we must conclude that it is a poor one, because it has not granted a single request of the fourteen which were submitted by the farmers; and this organization, by the way, is the largest farm organization in Alberta. Other farm organizations have placed before the government similar requests and they have not been granted. In other words, the requests of one-third of our total Canadian population have been ignored, and that is something that I feel the Minister of Finance should review, to see what can be done for this group of citizens who, as we all know, constitute the basic industry of this country. So much for income tax as far it affects the farmers.

When the Minister of Finance made his speech he placed several tables on Hansard and compared the proposed income tax on Canadians with that imposed on United States citizens. I happen to have run across an issue of World Report of May 27, 1947. This publication sets out a table giving a comparison between the taxes paid by Canadian citizens and those paid by Americans.

Let us take the tax paid by a married couple with two children. In Canada, under .the old system, the one still in existence, the taxpayer in the $2,000 income tax brackets, having a wife

and two children, pays $68, and under the new system, $36. In the United States, under the old system, the one that still operates, the taxpayer did not pay anything. Under the new system he will not pay anything.

Let us take next the $2,500 brackets. In Canada, under the old system, the taxpayer would pay S192, and under the new system, $130. In the United States, under the old system, he paid $95 and under the proposed system, $66.

We now come to the $5,000 class. In Canada, under the old system, the tax was $910, and under the new system, $630. In the United States, under the old system, it was $589 and under the new system. $471.

In the $10,000 brackets, in Canada it was $2,646 under the old and $1,930 under the new. In the United States it was $1,862 under the old and is $1,489 under the new.

I think that is sufficient to show that the United States taxpayer does not have to bear the burden which the Canadian taxpayer has to bear; and we all know that the earning power of Americans is greater than that of Canadians.

There are two other things to which I wish to refer. From groups of farmers in my constituency, I have received a number of resolutions and requests in regard to the increase in the price of binder twine. One of these resolutions reads in part as follows:

Members of the Alberta Farmers' Union, local No. 77, wish to draw your attention to the proposed increase in the price of binder twine. In view of the fact that all commodities purchased by farmers have increased tremendously and prices on farm products have been kept under rigid control, it is needless to say that the proposed increase in the price of binder twine would be acutely felt by the farmers, and would tend still further in upsetting the balance of economy in the agricultural industry.

We therefore request your assistance in making a firm stand against any such increase.

I feel that I am justified in placing this request before the government so that they may give it the proper consideration.

The other point I wish to mention is in regard to the refundable portion of the income tax which was collected by the government from Canadian citizens. As we all know, the refundable portion which was deducted in 1942 will be refunded some time after March 31, 1948. I have had several requests from persons all across this country-persons who find themselves in a difficult financial position and persons who have become sick-that their refundable portion be refunded to them on making application at this time. I discussed the matter with the Minister of National Revenue

347S

The Budget-Mr. MacKinnon

(Mr. McCann), and he prided himself on the fact that so far the government refused to refund this refundable portion to a single person, regardless of circumstances. Well, it may be a source of pride to the minister, but it seems to me that it is unreasonable. The government should appreciate the fact that these small wage-earners cooperated with the government throughout the years of the war. When these people find themselves in dire circumstances, if they can produce an affidavit or a medical certificate to show that their health has been impaired or that they cannot earn a living, it seems to me that we could make an exception and refund the entire amount that is due them. I know there are two exceptions. Persons who are sixty-five years of age or over may make application to the Minister of National Revenue and may get the refundable portion which is coming to them. The other exception is with regard to persons who die; they can get the money refunded, but they do not need it then. I should prefer to see the man who is living, and perhaps sick, get this money back so that he can recover. It is less important to pay out the money to whoever shares all his belongings after he is gone. Let us try to prolong the life of the living men. I know a man-he is not in my constituency; he happens to live in Edmonton-who requested that I do everything posible to get this refundable portion for him, because he has been in bed for weeks and weeks and has not a. cent to his name. So far the minister has refused to do anything about the matter. I just wish to remind the government and the ministers concerned about this matter and I would plead with the government to do something along this line. Surely we can make exceptions when conditions warrant a certain change.

I realize that the house is anxious to conclude this debate tonight and take the vote. Therefore I shall not take up any more time on this occasion, and I wish to thank the house for the kind attention it has given me.

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

James Angus MacKinnon (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), in the concluding portion of his remarks while speaking in this debate, referred to the Canadian wheat board. I was in the house enjoying the speech of the hon. member and enjoying the nature of it and admiring my hon. friend's pleasant manner of speaking. That may be the excuse for my not following too closely just what was being said. However, over the week-end , I took occasion to glance over Hansard, as I sometimes do, and I read for the first time that portion of the hon. member's remarks dealing

with the Canadian wheat board. In fairness to him, as well as to me, to the department and the Canadian wheat board, I think I should refer to some of his remarks. He said, as reported at page 3341 of Hansard:

I come now to discuss something of a serious nature, namely the wheat board . . . First I want to say this. There has been no meeting of the agricultural committee of this house, I think since 1942. At no time in the history of the wheat board since 1936 have the audited accounts of that board ever been placed on the table of the House of Commons. I do not want to be misunderstood. I realize that, by statute and in fact, statements have been filed by the board itself, but no audited statements have ever been filed as such and were never filed before any public body in Canada until a few weeks ago when they were tabled in a senate committee.

Later on in his speech, the hon. member said:

This wheat board of ours cost, in 1939, in administrative and overhead expenses, $677,342; in 1942, $842,149; in 1945. $1,592,543. You will remember that this is all handling the same crop. I will admit they did take up some minor things like rape seed and a few incidentals which do not very much restrict or enlarge the picture.

Later, the hon. member dealt with a comparison of salaries, rentals and various other matters between the years 1939 and 1945, showing the difference in these figures in the total costs for each year. I think the hon. member will agree with me that to show a clear and proper comparison the cost should be based on the number of bushels handled in each crop year. However I shall deal with that in more detail later.

The hon. member went on to say:

In the period, from 1936, when it was instituted, to 1945, the end of the crop year of 1944, this board lost in its operations $112 million.

And he stated further:

We in this House of Commons endeavoured to have this matter referred to a committee where there might be an examination of the operation of this board, but we were refused that by the government. May I also say that both the groups to my left, if my memory serves me correctly, voted with the government.

This is a minor point. Although I believe I intimated in the house that the legislation should not, in my opinion, be referred to the committee on agriculture, I do not believe there was any vote on the matter. While there was an intimation from other parts of the house that the legislation should not be referred to the committee on agriculture, no one in any part of the house asked for a vote on that point. There was an overwhelming vote from all parts of the house, including the official opposition, in support of the legislation as introduced.

The Budget-Mr. MacKinnon

Then the hon. member for Calgary West states:

My second criticism is this: here we are paying in one year to a firm of auditors-

And so on. I know every hon. member, including the hon. member for Calgary West, would be anxious to be fair to any business firm which cannot speak for itself in the house. I think it is only fair to point out that this firm of auditors was first appointed in 1935, at the time of the establishment of the Canadian wheat board by the then Conservative government under the leadership of Mr. Bennett. I believe this is a capable firm of auditors, although I have no special knowledge about, them, except by reputation. They have continued down through the years since that time.

Toward the close of his remarks the hon. member said this:

I close, sir, by repeating that I am not making any sign of a charge of dishonesty against anybody. But I say that this business has now cost the taxpayer $100 million odd, aside from what it has cost the farmer.

I know the hon. member for Calgary West was not thinking of making any charge of dishonesty. I know he and many other hon. members know personally the personnel of the Canadian wheat board, know them well and know them favourably. And the last thing they would wish to do would be to cast any reflection upon the wheat board; nor do I think that any such reflection was in the mind of the hon. member for Calgary West.

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

May 27, 1947