Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-Saguenay):

Mr. Speaker, I feel called upon to say a few words on this budget.

First, I must say that, like at least 90 per cent of the Canadian taxpayers, I was deeply and painfully shocked to realize that as I shall presently show-this budget is but a further indication of the anti-family and antisocial policies which have victimized us for so long.

Honest and conscientious citizens are all the more disappointed in finding that this anti-family policy, which is becoming more and more apparent in our legislation, is but an offshoot of an economic system managed by an irresponsible bureaucracy which seems bent on destroying or at least weakening the family sole basic unit of a well-organized society.

I know that many hon. members to your right, Mr. Speaker, watch the developments of this policy with fear; I realize that many of them eagerly wish for more human legislation that will be kinder to families. I know what many of them think of this budget but, unfortunately, party discipline compels them to vote for it though they would like to disapprove and censure the government's policy in this instance.

Surely, I need not speak at great length to prove that the existence and expansion of the family are essential to social life.

To confirm my statement I need only quote the late and lamented Cardinal Villeneuve.

During a week to social studies, in 1923, Cardinal Villeneuve, at that time Father Villeneuve, said, in Montreal, in reference to the family considered as social unit:

Thus family, not the individual, is the social unit; it is a simple body in society, made up of elements so numerous and so different. To understand social order, one has to begin with the family. Political society is superimposed upon organized families, without however destroying them.

And further on:

Public legislation, therefore, ladies and gentlemen, should take scrupulous and constant care not to crush or break up the family, a cell in the social structure. On the contrary, according to Antoine, it is the great and peremptory duty of the legislator to recognize, protect, and strengthen the fundamental rights which the family has received, not from the state, but from God, author of nature.

4484

The Budget-Mr. Dorion

Social organization aims today at protecting, apparently at least, through an abundance of texts, the individual, his fortune, his political rights, his outside relations with his neighbours, but it holds nothing or practically nothing, it destroys all, or nearly all of what is left of old legal traditions that could protect the family against so many undermining assaults. It kills rather the principles of life, the organic ties which sustain the family, and through the family it affects society, and through society human happiness. Neither the authority of the father, nor the primacy of the husband, nor the subordination of the son and the servant, nor the vital indissolubility >and the exclusive unity of the matrimonial tie are preserved, rather they are surrendered for the sake of peace, often quite gladly.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that to a certain extent that statement contains a criticism that applies to the budget we are now discussing. Indeed, one of the anti-family aspects of this budget is the fact that, against the hopes of everybody, the wishes of every taxpayer and the request of every family head, no tax reduction has been announced.

There is no doubt that in view of the huge surplus announced by the minister, he should have raised to at least S2,500 the taxable minimum of the married taxpayer. I shall not take time to go over all the reasons already given in support of that request, but there is no doubt that such a change is absolutely necessary because of the increase in the cost of living.

The government should at least have granted relief to heads of families by increasing the exemption to which he is entitled for his children. It is astounding to see how, through this income tax measure, parents are penalized for wishing to give their children the care and education they require. It seems that none of those responsible for the present state of affairs have the slightest notion of what it means to support a son or daughter who wishes to continue his or her studies. There is another objectionable feature in the present Income Tax Act. That is the deduction at the source irrespective of the type of employment. In my constituency, for instance, and in others too, there are quite a number of logging-camps which for part of the year hire only farmers, sailors or fishermen to work in the woods during the off-season.

Were the wages paid these loggers put on a yearly basis, they would be liable to income

tax; so the employers have to deduct it at the source.

Now, at the end of the year, those people have to file returns and produce receipts which are often mislaid, and afterwards they have to wait nearly a year before being refunded what has been deducted from their salary. That system causes much inconvenience and trouble, in addition to considerable administration expenses. What is more serious, those taxpayers are generally in urgent need of that money, which is theirs anyway, and as often as not their families have to suffer.

Why does not the government eliminate all those difficulties by deciding, for instance, that the salary of certain seasonal employees will no longer be subject to such a deduction? Since a distinction is made between seasonal and regular employment in other legislation, for example in the Unemployment Insurance Act, why should it not also be done in the case of the Income Tax Act?

In this connection, there is also another matter which I should like to point out. It so happens that quite a number of young people who, during the war, had left their homes to work in industrial plants have gone back to their rural communities. They have settled there, have married and have resumed an occupation which pays less than their wartime jobs, their income being, at times, barely sufficient to provide a living for their new families.

Now a great number of these new heads of families are at present receiving from the Income Tax Division certain claims for balances owing for 1943, 1944 and 1945. I know of many cases where these young bread-winners have had to deny their families the necessities of life in order to repay the revenue department.

This makes for social unrest. I would therefore ask the government to cancel all claims of less than $500, against heads of families, for income tax levied during the war years. The total of those claims would certainly not be very large and it would mean a great relief for those young families.

Mr. Speaker, the government has been swamped with requests for special consideration to family men. The bishops' request for higher exemptions is significant. They had given it much thought and they were surely not looking after their own interests. I agree

The Budget-Mr. Lacombe

that during the war every Canadian without exception was expected to contribute fully to the war effort. Perhaps it is necessary to impose unduly high taxes during tihe war, but I contend that the government is violating the rights of the family by keeping the taxes at the same level in peacetime.

I was particularly impressed by the fact that the minister did not deem it advisable to grant tax reductions, although he encouraged night clubs, places of entertainment and similar organizations, by abolishing the tax formerly levied upon tihem. It is admittedly a strange attitude. I remember that on the day following the budget speech, newspapers were filled with advertisements from places of amusement, night clubs and so forth, soliciting young people's increasing patronage.

Taxes still fall heavily upon the shoulders of the family man, while habitues of night clubs and other places of amusement are encouraged to patronize such places which certainly do not help bring the family closer together.

As most of those who seek this kind of entertainment are single, everything seems planned to entice them away from their family.

Mr. Speaker, if our legislation were imbued with a more Christian, a sounder moral spirit, there would be no need to fear the menace that is now hanging over society.

It is useless to pass social legislation if we give it the anti-family character found in so many of our enactments such as the Family Allowances Act with its decreasing rate, the various housing acts that promote the building of two and three-roomed apartments and many other pieces of legislation. Such enactments can never be effective; they will give maximum results only if based on the interests of the family rather than on those of the individual.

(Text):

Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):

Mr. Speaker, the budget produced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) will greatly deceive the taxpayers in the low-income brackets. The burden of taxation is still too heavy for the average wage earner with dependents. A government cannot proclaim a surplus and at the same time leave under the burden of taxation and excessive cost of living those who work and toil in the interests of their families and of society.

Everything can be bought at a ransom price because the administration could not or did not want to foresee the present situation. Family allowances have become null and void because the government allowed trusts to accumulate shameful profits at the expense of our families. In these difficult times the good elements still remaining in democracy should unite against the profiteers who sooner or later will ruin it in favour of communism.

The time has come to hand out to the diplomats and public men, responsible for the communist invasion which is now threatening civilization., the treatment they deserve. Many times I have raised this issue in this chamber. I have pointed out often enough the inherent danger of the government's attitude toward communist Russia and its satellites, and I believe I can free myself from the responsibility for the impending danger which will soon destroy the civilized world.

So far as I am concerned, I cannot support the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) when he asks for appropriations for the carrying out of a blameable policy. For a long time, when he was Minister of Justice, he refused to outlaw the communist party in Canada. Why, then, did the minister show such haste in appointing an ambassador to the government of Yugoslavia, a renowned persecutor of bishops and religion? Why manifest this open sympathy toward the deceiving and communist government of Poland? Why mobilize the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in order to locate property which belongs to the church and which the Polish government wished to misappropriate and steal in communist fashion?

Why tolerate in Canada the hatred and treason of the Labour-Progressive party, while refusing to appoint an ambassador to the Vatican, whose supreme appeal to charity, justice and peace is the only hope in these extremely difficult times?

The nations refused to receive the illustrious pontiff's appeal to charity, justice and peace. Because they ignore the only logical advice, the allied nations won the war twice and lost peace twice within thirty years.

What has happened to the war aims of the united nations? Christianity was sacrificed to the communists by the very people who claimed they were defending it. In the

The Budget-Mr. Lacomhe

underworld of international diplomacy Poland was sacrificed with the shameful co-operation of the Canadian government, this same government which declared war when the German hordes were dominating that country, which was invaded and dismembered many times in history.

What did our rulers do? When Poland was agonizing in devastation and ruin, they officially recognized the usurping and communist government of Lublin. As servants of Soviet Russia, they came to terms with the invertebrate people of Yalta in order to impose upon Poland the communist bandits who are now presiding over the destinies of that country.

This hypocrisy has gone far enough. Nobody will believe that an atheistic government was instituted in Poland without the connivance and co-operation of the present government. Tomorrow we shall see the government imposing compulsory military service in order to stop communist Russia, which only recently our government was cherishing, feeding, equipping and arming on behalf of the great principles of the Atlantic charter, which never even existed. This is national and international life. Insidious propaganda, condemn-able concealments, lies-everything is used in order to deceive the people. The government proceeded gradually when it imposed upon the population its policy of participating in the war, its mobilization and conscription.

Stalin also proceeded gradually in his policy of invasion. The government of Canada and the Secretary of State for External Affairs freely opened the door for him by recognizing the satellite of the Russian dictator as the communist government of Poland. We shall soon be called to the colours. Once more Canada will sacrifice its blood and its economy through the error of the government, which contributed to installing communism in Poland first, and then in the other satellite countries of Russia.

The war which is threatening the world will be more horrible than what we have yet seen. Whole countries will be destroyed by infernal inventions whose power will be irresistible and frightful. Death germs will be scattered everywhere. Those responsible for this calamity will pose as crusaders. Nobody will refuse to defend Canada if this country is attacked. But I know some people upon whom history will cast a slur because unconsciously they gave away our country to communism. These people will still require the obligation to serve. Since it is easier, but less noble, to vote other people's death rather than one's own, once more they will vote the sacrifice of our sons.

Hiding in remoteness, they will be awaiting fearfully a guiding light in the night into which their disastrous policies have plunged the world. Because they could not prepare peace, they are now preparing wTar. In this twentieth century in the Christian era, we are reverting to barbarism through the selfish interests of predatory nations. We are being led to the abyss by military and financial imperialism. The true doctrine of charity and love was trampled upon. The solemn warnings of the Vatican were ignored by Canada as well as by other countries. As an illustration, I only wish to quote the following excerpt from the Vatican organ, L'Osservatore Romano:

Si vis pacem, para helium . . .

Vatican City (PA)-The Osservatore Romano, the official organ of the Vatican, stated today that the world is reverting to the times of the old principle "Si vis pacem, para helium", "if you want peace, get ready for war."

Before the Christian civilization, this was the only valid principle. But Christianity has changed this principle; it proclaims: "If you want peace, prepare for peace."

According to certain Vatican sources, this editorial was written by Count Guiseppe Della Torre. It also contained this sentence: "If we are compelled to replace faith by strength, even in a defensive manner, it is because Christianity is far below its object." Is it not deplorable to witness what is now going on? Let no one eulogize democracy, a corrupt and corrupting regime. As we know it today, it is not worth while fighting for it. When governments instil into it the dose of Christianity which it requires to survive, then and then only will it deserve our protection.

The best way to combat communism is to solve the problem of slums and replace them by dwellings worthy of the average man and his family. In this twentieth century is it decent to tolerate in our midst, all these shacks and slums? The housing problem is a national one. It is up to the federal government to solve it. Let the government take money wherever it can. Economic liberalism has lasted too long. It is the source of the worst infringements. The Canadian people are fed up with this laissez-faire policy of the government. The average families are shamefully exploited by the ruthless trusts. Some high-class robbers are controlling certain companies which dominate our Canadian politics.

One of the most disgusting instances can be found in the profits accumulated on the sales of butter by Canada Packers. During a short term of eleven months, this company made more profits than during the previous twenty years. And this disgraceful robbery goes on under the eyes of a servile government

The Budget-Mr. Lacombe

which reserves all its sympathies for these trusts which are essential to its electoral organization. The exploitation of the people by trusts is the life source of communism.

To this add the co-operation of the government when Poland was betrayed by the most powerful nations on earth, in favour of communist Russia, when they officially recognized the impostor government of Lublin, and then you have the lamentable picture of the leadership of communism in the world.

Czechoslovakia was sacrificed at Munich by five statesmen who were branded by history: Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Daladier and Chamberlain. Since then, that country seems to have lost all faith in the great nations which then were at the maximum of their power. It was the same Stalin who stabbed Poland in order better to dominate it. Poland had to undergo the shame of treason; her political leaders are now the victims of the communist gestapo.

Smaller nations were misled by the lies and hypocrisy of powerful democracies and proud dictatorships. Their leaders were not up to their duties, since they were bound by the selfish interests of financial imperialism which has been dominating history and governments for many years. They bear the responsibility for the present situation. Even here in Canada, for many years the motto of the government is the same as Talleyrand's: "Governing means dissimulating." The same situation exists throughout the world. Truth, charity and justice have been replaced by a policy of falsehood, persecution and hatred. The Vatican, where Pope Pius XII is reigning, is the greatest power in the world, because this illustrious pontiff is always preaching a doctrine of charity, peace and love. I have often asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs to appoint an ambassador to the Vatican. The minister does not seem to be interested in the Vatican. He answers by appointing an ambassador to Marshal Tito, the persecutor of the primate of the church of Yugoslavia. This is an insult to five million Roman Catholics in Canada, and an insult to Christianism. The minister and the government do not like me to bring forth this most important matter. They turn a deaf ear to it; but some day they will wake up facing a situation beyond remedy, in Canada and in the rest of the world, for which they will be responsible.

When will political leaders have enough courage to assume their responsibilities and squarely face events? From that day Canada

will not be called upon to sacrifice her sons and her economy every ten or twenty years in disastrous and useless wars.

Finally, may I mention a regrettable event which happened recently. The United States refused to consider as persona grata a certain diplomat recently arrived from Czechoslovakia; and our government readily accepted the same individual as consul of his country in Canada. One would think our country has become the refuge of all communist miscreants intent on promoting revolutions and causing trouble.

If a member of this house introduces a bill to outlaw the communist or the Labour-Progressive party in Canada, immediately an endless debate starts, while it would be preferable to remain silent so that the bill could go through. Eventually we shall be convinced that communism is well protected in this country. Such an attitude is not new. During the 1936 session the Liberal party voted the repeal of section 98 of the criminal code, which prohibited all unlawful associations and all associations whose purpose was to undermine lawfully constituted authority in Canada.

We have no use for all these communist agents. The government and the Secretary of State for External Affairs should be extremely firm and should send back to their own countries these communists with doublebreasted suits, since among this underworld they are the most affluent and the most powerful. Then only will the Canadian people know security under the protection of the free institutions which Canada won through sacrifice and struggle.

Is he a true Canadian who allows and tolerates the formation of communist cells in our country, and then preaches a crusade throughout the world against this obnoxious doctrine? Such a degree of cynicism is beyond me. I have seen so much treachery during the twenty-five years I have been sitting in this house. I have seen so many solemn pledges violated and trampled upon. I have been a witness to such deceitful and insidious propaganda that I do not hesitate to state that one needs courage to witness the political somersaults of certain politicians who are always prepared to sacrifice Canada in the defence of theories which they themselves created and strengthened by helping atheistic and godless Russia at the expense of small but courageous Christian countries which are now agonizing under Stalin's heel. Let these politicians bear this formidable responsibility.

Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):

After consulting the leaders of the opposition parties, I desire

The Budget-Division

to move the following motion, seconded by the Secretary of State (Mr. Gibson), which seems to meet the wishes of everyone:

That the house shall not adjourn this day at eleven o'clock pun., and that standing order No. 7 be suspended in relation thereto.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Is the house ready for the question?

And Mr. Speaker having put the question.

Mr. JOHNSTON:

Mr. Speaker, before you take the vote I should like to say a few words.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I am sorry, but I put the question to the house: Is the house ready for the question? No one rose, and I have read the question. The question is on the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. DIONNE (Beauce):

Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec (Mr. McLure). That is why I refrained from voting.

(Text):

Mr. JOHNSTON:

I was paired with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver). Had I voted, I would have voted for the subamendment.

Mr. QUELCH:

I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Leger). Had I voted, I would have voted for the subamendment.

Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):

I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against the sub-amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON:

Mr. Speaker, I should like to adjourn the debate.

No.

Oh, oh.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Mr. Johnston, seconded by Mr. Blackmore, moves that this debate be now adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?

No.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Those in favour will please say "yea".

The Budget-Mr. Johnston

Yea.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Those against will please say "nay".

Nay.