[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (for the Prime Minister) moved:
That, on Monday and Tuesday, March 10 and 11, instant, government notices of motion and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except the debate on the reply to the speech from the throne, and that on Wednesday, March 12, instant, and every sitting day thereafter until and including Friday, March 28, instant, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except introduction of bills, questions and notices of motions for the production of papers, all notwithstanding anything contained in the resolution of this house on January 30.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: I should like to ask a question of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe). I have just received a telegram to the effect that a considerable number of war-time houses in the city of Nelson in my constituency cannot be completed because it is impossible to obtain flooring. Has the parliamentary assistant any information on the subject?


Mr. G. J. McILRAITH (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: The first intimation we had of any shortage of flooring in the war-time housing project at Nelson was received yesterday. An order has gone forward for this flooring, and I understand it will be shipped from Montreal on Monday.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. STEPHENSON (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe). As the minister is not in the house, perhaps his parliamentary assistant would answer for him. An article appeared in the Toronto Daily Star of March 5 stating
that the Port Hope refinery which made uranium for atomic bombs will be moved shortly, or some time in the future, to Deep River. Will the parliamentary assistant state whether this is true; if so, why is the plan* to be removed?


George James McIlraith: I have not a copy of the
newspaper item, but if it contains what the hon. member says it does-I have no doubt that it does-it is founded on rumour only, and is not supported by fact.



TAXATION AGREEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
Minister of Finance if he has yet been able to make the calculation he said he had to make before answering the question I asked the day before yesterday?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: I must offer my apologies to my
hon. friend. I asked my officials to make the calculation, and I have knowledge that it has been made. But due to my defective memory I forgot to ask them to give it to me before I came to the house. I will give it to my hon. friend on Monday or Tuesday. I can give him an approximate figure now but I would rather give him the accurate figure.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. W. MacNaught for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Bracken, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the address has wended its weary way for a considerable period of time, and we are now approaching a vote on the amendments. The amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) is couched in simple terms. It reads:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's present advisers do not possess the confidence of the country.
A subamendment has been moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker

well) which to all intents and purposes is a motion for the establishment of socialism in this country. In the amendment of the leader of the opposition the question of confidence is placed clearly before every hon. member of this house. Every hon. member on this side, without regard to party considerations, has for varying reasons declared a lack of confidence in this government. In my submission, to declare lack of confidence without voting lack of confidence is to be inconsistent.
There may be some who will say that while they have no confidence in the government, neither have they confidence in His Majesty's opposition.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad I have approval of one thing from the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: I did not say a word.


John George Diefenbaker: A little later I shall be saying something which will not gain that same degree of approval. The amendment of the leader of the opposition places clearly before the members of this house the situation of non-confidence. It does not mean the substitution of one government for another, because the Prime Minister has stated that if it is carried there will be an election. We at least know the situation, and we are asking all those who have no confidence in this government to support the amendment of the leader of the opposition.
I repeat that the amendment of the C.C.F. embraces nothing but the establishment of socialism. Anyone who believes in the maintenance of private enterprise to the maximum cannot support that amendment. The time has come when there should be an outspoken declaration in favour of freedom from unnecessary interference with private rights, private property and private industry by those who believe in the maintenance of private enterprise in this country. While the present government gives lip service to the maintenance of free enterprise, and in that regard it goes far, although it is only a matter of degree it does not go as far as the government of Saskatchewan which avows socialism. While the members of the government profess to believe in private enterprise, the business men of this country have been pushed around, not only during the war but since, as though they were enemies of the state. Success on the part of the individual is becoming a subject of deprecation. To many bureaucrats a business man, however honest he may be, is an object of suspicion and in many cases a parasite to be denounced. The honest business

man, no less than the farmer and the worker and other citizens, should be entitled to fair and equitable treatment.
I have no sympathy with wrongdoers or those who would exploit and take advantage of their brothers, but when we ask private enterprise to provide jobs we must at the earliest possible moment remove the controls which prevent business from doing that. The honest business man should be protected against attacks made maliciously and for the purpose of creating political capital. Canada has the right through her people to decide whether or not she shall become a socialist state. Canada cannot exist and prosper under a government which while it avows private enterprise is afflicted with a definite trend toward socialism.
Business will be responsible if it fails to discharge its duty and provide jobs. It is true that business must be supervised, but the spirit that called the peoples of the world to our shores, the spirit of adventure, of initiative and of courage, is the spirit that is needed, not the bureaucratic attitude which is encouraged and fostered by this government and which consists of penalizing business, denouncing it, catechizing it, frustrating it, overtaxing it and at the same time expecting it to provide jobs. The danger to our economic future lies in the fact that the business man, however honest, if harassed by snoopers will find that the incentive to expand and to produce has been destroyed by excessive taxation, unnecessary interference by bureaucracy and the maintenance of unfair and unjust controls.
While bureaucracy was not the creation of this government, it has been expanded by this government to the point where the bureaucrat has developed the psychology of an autocrat, independent by being above the courts. First the bureaucrat passes an order in council or a regulation. Then he decrees what shall be done under it. Then he prosecutes those who infringe it. Finally, having made a determination on the question behind closed doors, he denies the right of recourse to the courts. Canadians should no longer be required to dance like marionettes under the untrammelled control of bureaucrats appointed by and responsible only to this government.
Some will ask what difference there is between those who believe in private enterprise and those who believe in the socialist form of government. There is one similarity between this government and those who profess socialism in this country. Both operate under and through the instrumentality of a bureaucracy which carries out the will of the cabinet and which denies the right of appeal

The Address-Mr. Diejenhaker
to the courts on the part of those affected. In Saskatchewan-and the government of Saskatchewan is in no worse position in that regard than this government-compulsion has become the order of the day. Insurance must be taken out by all public institutions or by recipients of grants from the government in the government insurance company. Trappers must sell through government boards. Fishermen dispose of their catch through government agencies. In the lumber business the government is in competition with private business, and it has this advantage over them, that it does not have to pay taxes.
What about the government of this country preaching the doctrine of free enterprise and the rights of the individual? It enjoys monopoly control over wheat and rubber. It has extended its interests into shipping, air and land transportation, housing, mining, moving pictures and public information. How serious the trend is may be indicated by a return brought down in the legislature of Saskatchewan the other day in reply to a Liberal member who had asked the government how many crown corporations were operating in the province. The answer was: Twelve federal crown corporations, as against eight established by the government of Saskatchewan, under a socialist government. There is the situation in this country today.


Mr. TUCKER:: Are you against the Bank of Canada? Are you against the industrial development bank? Are you against the wheat board? Why don't you say where you stand? Are you against the C.N.R. and Trans-Canada Air Lines?


Mr. GRAYDON:: The hon. member for
Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) is a super-socialist.


Walter Adam Tucker: Answer the question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is without reluctance that I answer my hon. friend. The Conservative government set up the Bank of Canada.


Walter Adam Tucker: May I make this correction, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I would remind hon. members that the member who has the floor should not be interrupted without his permission.


Walter Adam Tucker: On a point of order, sir, the hon. member spoke of the Conservative government having set up the Bank of Canada. They set it up as a privately-owned institution.


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member will please not interrupt the hon. member who has the floor, without his permission.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, do you count out time for this?-because I find that I never get much more than about twelve minutes out of my forty.
I do not wish to be understood as criticizing the civil service. Canada needs and has an efficient civil service. But Canada does not need and must fight against the type of bureaucracy that is today controlling this country. When a government which depends to be in favour of private enterprise goes as far as this government has gone in the matter of export controls and other legislation introduced at the present session, then private enterprise becomes merely a phantom, a dream, a nebulous memory.
The Progressive Conservative party demands the maintenance of freedom. It stands opposed to privilege. It stands opposed to a coercive society, but it believes in maintaining a maximum stimulus for the productive activity of the individual without permitting detriment to others. It believes that the individual is entitled to a fair reward and a fair return for what he does. It is opposed to monopoly, whether that monopoly be by private greed or under the principles of Marxism.


Mr. MITCHELL:: You are talking like a Liberal now.


John George Diefenbaker: Like a Liberal used to be.


Walter Adam Tucker: Like a Liberal of fifty years ago. You have just caught up with them.


John George Diefenbaker: It is difficult to understand my hon. friend, because the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in his western tour made a statement-when he was in the house he said to the C.C.F.: "You are Liberals in a hurry," and now the hon. member for Rosthern says that he is a Liberal of fifty years ago.


Walter Adam Tucker: No; I said you were.


John George Diefenbaker: We of the Progressive Conservative party take a stand for minimum interference by the government in business. We believe that the government exists for the purpose of preventing abuse, but that it is not a function of government to engage in competitive business. For these among other reasons we cannot support the subamendment of my hon. friends to the left.
Sometimes people ask me what is the difference between those who believe in Socialism and those who believe in Conservatism. The answer was given in the course of a speech delivered by the Right Hon. Anthony Eden at Blackpool, England, in October, 1946. With-
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker

out any argument about the sincerity of those who have one belief or the other he pointed out the difference between the philosophy of Socialism and that of Conservatism, in these words:
Socialism says to a man:	"You are a unit in
the state. Work hard for the state as the state thinks best and the state will provide you with what it thinks you should have." The Conservative party says:	"You are an individual.
Choose your own way of life and seek to develop to the full your own talents. If you do this and if you are prepared to accept the obligations that are essential to life in an ordered community then we regard it as the duty of the government to see that out of the fruits of your labour you can build a life of your own for yourself and your family and at the same time feel the satisfaction of sharing in the common purpose of a free society."
Then he went on to say:
I call for a way of life for the people under which industry may prosper and men be free. Man should be the master of his environment, and not its slave. That is what freedom means. It is precisely in the conception of ownership that man achieves mastery over his environment. Upon the institution of property depends the fulfilment of individual personality and the maintenance of individual liberty.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Where is Anthony Eden now?


John George Diefenbaker: He went down fighting the battles. When he stood in the house near the chair in which the Clerk now sits there was nobody even to my left who asked: Where does Anthony Eden stand?


Walter Adam Tucker: I thought the hon. member was a member of the Progressive Conservative party, not the Conservative party.


Mr. ROWE:: The hon. member for Rosthern is not even progressive.


John George Diefenbaker: I now pass to another subject which I hope will be just as favourably accepted by my hon. friends opposite as were the remarks I have just made. I shall deal with the question of dominion-provincial relations only for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to clarify certain statements he has recently made.
In August, 1945, negotiations began on what was called a "scientific" proposal worked out by the experts under which each province was to receive a capital grant of $12 per capita in lieu of certain taxation rights subject to increases in the event of an increase in population, and also on the basis of gross national production. Then came the conference of April, 1946. By this time the federal government had arrived at a new figure of $15. The discussions throughout the conference centred

around the minor taxes as the grant of $15 was all-inclusive. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) indicated that if the provinces wished to retain any of the minor taxes the amount thereof would have to be deducted from the grant.
On June 27, 1946, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley), then minister of finance, in his budget speech set out the situation whereby the grant was to remain at $15 per capita, to which was to be added a special 5 per cent corporation tax. The budget offer was duly accepted by certain provinces and agreements were signed. In November or December the premier of British Columbia, having held back, the matter was again up in the air. Finally in January a further offer was made under which a material increase and change was made in the offer of the federal government. The Winnipeg Free Press had this to say:
The dominion has been compelled by the resistance of various provinces greatly to increase the price offered for these taxes. The taxation agreements of 1941 cost the dominion treasury annually $86-2 million, to this should be added $14-4 million statutory subsidies and $23-9 million collected by the provinces. The total is $124,900,000.
Then it goes on to say that the last offer- that is the January offer-was $100 million in excess of the original proposal of 1945. Gradually the dominion raised the amount as resistance continued. Finally in December of 1946 or January of 1947 the offer was $12.75 plus half the revenue collected in the province in 1941 for income and corporation taxes, plus statutory subsidies, together with the release of the gasoline tax. In May, 1946 the federal government took the position that it could not hand back the gasoline tax and could not pay statutory subsidies. What change took place during that period which permitted in December, 1946 or January, 1947, what could not be done in May, 1946? What happens to social security now? I should like to hear from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in reference to this matter.
Under the original scheme, without taking into consideration health insurance, some $600 million was to be provided for. Having increased the amounts paid by way of rental, how much do the federal government intend to provide for in the matter of social security? Apparently they have changed their point of view. Having increased the amount given to the provinces they will require the provinces to take over a larger measure of social security than ever before. I have read the dominion-provincial correspondence since the budget was brought down in 1946 and I find that throughout the year the attitude of the

The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker
dominion was that social security measures to be provided by the federal government would remain the same. There was to be no change; the position in that regard was final and definite. I wish that the Minister of Finance were in his place, because I intend to ask a specific question. If all the provinces accept the new offer, how much more social security are they to be required to provide than they would have provided under the offers of June, 1946, and of August, 1945? Do any of the provinces who have signed today know to what extent they will be required to contribute more for social security than they would have contributed under the original agreements? The question is a simple one.
That there has been a change in the attitude of the government is revealed in a speech which the Minister of Finance delivered in Toronto on January 27 last. These were his words at that time:
I wish to make it quite clear that I am not going to forecast tax policy for 1947 in advance of the budget. But I wish to make it equally clear that the over-all commitments of the dominion are not being increased. As a result of increased rental payments from the dominion, the provinces will be able to assume, and must expect to assume, a somewhat greater financial responsibility. The dominion government will be able correspondingly to reduce some of the burden it was prepared to assume for a public investment and social security programme.
What does this all add up to? The amount of the rental to the provinces was increased, but what are the provinces expected to provide in the way of additional social security measures because they have received that increase? As a matter of fact originally it was intended that the social security scheme would stand intact. In his several letters which are published in this document to which I have referred, the then minister of finance took the stand that social security proposals would not be changed; but the present Minister of Finance has said that there are changes; that the provinces will have to take over a larger measure of social security. Surely, sir, we in this house and the premiers of the various provinces have a right to know the extent to which, having accepted the additional rental in the December proposal, the provinces will be expected to add to the social security legislation which they have. Is the final offer a means by which the government gets out of its responsibility to bring in a larger, more comprehensive and more reasonable measure of old age pensions? There is some reason for the delay in the introduction of old age pensions legislation which is being continued under the order in council as an appendix to the omnibus bill.
A\ liy is this issue not faced ? Is it because the provinces are receiving an increased rental in return for the fields of taxation that they give up, and will be required therefore to take over a larger measure of old age pensions and other security measures? I should like to know what the Minister of Finance advised the premiers in this regard. It is difficult to know what passed between the provinces because, as one reads over these letters, one is struck by the fact that some of the provincial representatives were men of few words, and those few were sometimes capable of ambiguous interpretation. There I leave that matter, but I wish to find out what social security measures will have to be carried out by the provinces by reason of the increase.


Walter Adam Tucker: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? I want information.


Gordon Graydon: You need plenty.


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes, on this I need a lot. What is the position of the hon. gentleman and his party in regard to Premier Drew? Do they support his position or not?


John George Diefenbaker: That is a good question-


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: Answer it.


John George Diefenbaker: -but charity begins at home, and-


Walter Adam Tucker: It is hard to answer it.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, there is no difficulty about it. I am placing the government in a position to answer so that I in turn shall be in a position to know the degree to which-


Walter Adam Tucker: Don't you know yet?


John George Diefenbaker: Surely, sir, my hon. friend can contain himself in silence. He is talking all the time in Saskatchewan.


Gordon Graydon: Who supports Tommy Douglas out there?


John George Diefenbaker: Having asked these questions, when I get an answer-because I am not going to be in the position of some of the premiers of the provinces who do hot yet know whether they got a pig in a poke-as to the extent to which the original proposals on public investment and security legislation will be upheld by the federal government in accordance with its original offer, I will answer the question. Some of the provinces entered into agreement, with approval and found out later that somebody else had got a better deal, and then they came back for a second chance. The federal government having secured signatures of some provinces to the last agreements and the Minister of Finance having thereafter

The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker

made the declaration that the provinces will have to assume a larger share of social security, the provinces still do not know what they got, or what they have undertaken, or what their additional responsibilities for social security or public investment will be in the matter.
There is one other matter to which I wish to make reference. In the speech from the throne the following words appear:
My ministers are also following with interest the activities of the united nations with regard to the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms and the manner in which those obligations, accepted by all members of united nations, may best be implemented. It is the intention of the government to recommend the appointment of a select committee of members of both houses to consider and report upon these matters.
I do not wish on this occasion to discuss the arguments in favour of a national bill of rights for Canada. Last year when the matter was before the house the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) undertook to give consideration at this session to the introduction of a measure to ensure the preservation of the rights and constitutional freedoms of our people. The means adopted to that end is apparently the setting up of a committee from this house and the senate to discuss the terms of an international bill of rights. But what in common is there between an international bill of rights and a national bill of rights?
An international bill of rights must represent the consensus of some sixty nations with varying constitutional backgrounds and varying systems of government. What would be suitable in an international bill of rights would not meet the needs of the people of Canada, since we possess one of the highest forms of democracy in the world. An international bill of rights is being drafted at the present time; I believe the work has almost been completed under the chairmanship of Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt-


Mr. MARTIN:: Just started.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Canada is not one of the representatives.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Canada is certainly a member of the united nations.


John George Diefenbaker: There are eighteen members on the organization.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the committee. Canada is a member of the united nations.


John George Diefenbaker: I realize that perfectly well, but Canada has no representative on that committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Canada is a member of the united nations. My hon. friend knows it.


John George Diefenbaker: I can understand my hon. friend's position on a bill of rights, because last year he said that Canada did not need it, and the Minister of Veterans Affairs finally admitted that it did, so that there was slight cleavage there. I presume now that this is a means taken to prevent the people of this country from having a bill of rights of their own. This is a means taken to get around the need for a declaration of our constitutional freedoms in Canada.
Last year the argument was that it was not within the legislative competence of parliament to pass such a bill of rights, that it came within the purview of property and civil rights and as such was a matter of provincial jurisdiction. I would ask those who are interested in the problem to read the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Alberta statutes reference, which is cited in the Supreme Court of Canada reports, 1938, beginning at page 71. I may say that this reference was one respecting certain legislation passed by the government of Alberta which it was alleged had the effect of restricting the freedom of the press. When the matter came before the supreme court it was argued that the provinces had the right to interfere with freedom of the press, one of the fundamental freedoms under our democracy. It was argued that only the province could do that because primarily it concerned the matter of property and civil rights, and this is what Chief Justice Sir Lyman Duff said at page 133:
The right of public discussion is, of course, subject to legal restrictions; those based upon considerations of decency and public order, and others conceived for the protection of various private and public interests with which,_ for example, the laws of defamation and sedition are concerned.
Then he goes on:
We do not doubt that (in addition to the power of disallowance vested in the governor general) the parliament of Canada possesses authority to legislate for the protection of this right. That authority rests upon the principle that the powers requisite for the protection of the constitution itself arise by necessary implication from the British North America Act as a whole (Fort Frances Pulp & Paper Co. Ltd. v. Manitoba Free Press Co. Ltd.); and since the subject matter in relation to which the power is exercised is not exclusively a provincial matter, it is necessarily vested in parliament.
Then he goes on to say:
But this by no means exhausts the matter. Any attempt to abrogate this right of public debate or to suppress the traditional forms of the exercise of the right (in public meeting and through the press) would, in our opinion, be incompetent to the legislatures of the provinces, or to the legislature of any one of the provinces, as repugnant to the provisions of the British North America Act, by which the parliament of

____________The Address-Mr. Breithaupt
Canada is established as the legislative organ of the people of Canada under the crown, and dominion legislation enacted pursuant to the legislative authority given by those provisions.
In other words under that authority the dominion has power to legislate in regard to the maintenance of the freedoms incident to the maintenance of our democracy, under the British North America Act. Having regard to what has taken place in recent years, I suggest that in this parliament, supported as the need is by a large majority of the press of this country, a committee should be established including members of the House of Commons and of the Senate, with representation from the provinces, to the end that through conference a bill of rights may be established which will assure the people of Canada their constitutional rights, and further assure that no government in future will ever be able to endanger those rights without the approval and consent of parliament.
You have indicated, Mr. Speaker, that my time is up.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


John George Diefenbaker: An international
bill of rights cannot meet the needs of our people in Canada. It would be like a convoy the speed of which is regulated by the speed of the slowest ship. A bill of rights satisfactory to all the nations of the earth would provide for a lesser degree of freedom than Canadians have a right to expect. I may not have the opportunity of speaking to this matter on private members' day, because that is gradually being done away with, but I do make tins appeal to the government. Let us consider this matter as members of parliament without regard to party considerations, and build the future of Canada upon the foundation of a declaration of our rights which will assure the maintenance of the priceless rights in which we believe and for the preservation of which ninety thousand Canadians gave their lives in two world wars.
Mr. L. 0. BREITHAUPT (Waterloo North): Mr. Speaker, even at this late stage of the debate I wish to pay my compliments to the mover and seconder of the address. This may be customary, but it is none the less sincere. No doubt by this time the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacNaught) will have had all his potatoes moved into the export market, and certainly the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cournoyer) is rapidly becoming acquainted in this house, and is demonstrating to all hon. members that he is a worthy successor to that great Canadian, the late Hon. P. J. A. Cardin.
83166-72J
In an analysis of the speech from the throne and an interpretation of its legislative forecasts one definitely finds much in the way of encouragement. I believe there is justification for hoping that substantial reductions in taxation may be in the offing. In spite of the fact that no definite assurance is given in the speech from the throne itself it is entirely reasonable to infer that our amiable and agreeable Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) will have some good1 things to tell us in this connection in due course. A general reduction in taxes is surely in the cards. When one ponders the large and mounting government surplus and considers that the speech from the throne itself points out "that the estimates will disclose substantial and gratifying reductions in expenditure", surely something of this kind should be forthcoming.
That being so, Mr. Speaker, I wish to put in a strong plea for consideration of the just claims for a reduction in taxation of the oft overlooked and neglected so-called1 white collar group, which forms such a large part of our population and is such an important element in our democratic institutions. When it comes to raising money for the Red Cross, for crippled children, for community chests and all that sort of thing, no greater support is given than by this great group of which I speak. An analysis of the 1945 tax tables shows the total number of taxpayers to be
2,365,000	persons. Of these some 1,677,300 received $2,000 per annum or less, while 478,200 received from $2,000 to $3,000. In other words ninety per cent of all Canadian taxpayers were in the $3,000 and under bracket. To encourage this group I suggest an allround reduction of taxes and further simplification of present methods enforced in their collection. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), I may say, has made great progress in this direction, and it is to be hoped that further simplification will be achieved. I am sure we would all like to see some real progress made along these lines, which would permit those in this great group to retain a larger share of their income than has been possible during the war years.
Realistically speaking, incentive has been lacking for many to turn in their best work and to stay on the job. It is important not only that as many as possible should be employed, but also that those employed should be as productive as possible. This objective cannot be achieved as long as there is widespread uneasiness and bad feeling with regard to actual take-home pay. It seems quite evident that a reduction in personal income tax will lead more people in all groups to actually put their backs into their work, with a very
The Address-Mr. Breithaupt

beneficial effect on production, and in the long run government revenues themselves would greatly benefit.
What applies to the individual also applies to business. Now that the war is over greater incentives for production and employment should be the order of the day. The excess profits tax may have been sound in war time, during the period of non-competitive business; but now, with the need for a greater volume of export trade, full production and full employment are more than ever essential to our welfare. So, not only should the excess profits tax be eliminated entirely, but the high personal income tax should be eliminated also. Two great exporting nations have already abandoned the excess profits tax, and I think it is high time Canada did the same-and I mean not for 1948, but for the current fiscal year, 1947.
It is to be hoped that in the budget speech of the minister its entire repeal for the current business year will be announced. If we are to compete in export markets so earnestly striven for by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon)-and I should say, so effectively-then certainly industry should no longer be fettered by this impost.
I wish to compliment members of the treasury board for the realistic approach they have taken in the matter of reduction of government expenditures in all departments. Their record, to date, is impressive, when one studies the estimates for the coming year. Where services are no longer necessary, I think every hon. member will agree that they should either be discontinued entirely or materially curtailed. We cannot reduce taxes on the one hand and maintain unnecessary services on the other.
I note with some concern, as most hon. members on this side must have done, that opposition members while advocating strict economy and reduction of taxes have not up to now, so far as I have seen, shown any marked tendency to assist the government in practising what they themselves preach. While I am a strong believer in bringing the tax structure down for all groups, so that greater incentive may result, I feel all Canadians should realize we cannot get anywhere unless we stay on the job.
I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said:
Friends and neighbours, the taxes are indeed very heavy, and if those laid on by the government were the only ones we had to pay, we might more easily discharge them, but we have many others and much more grievous to some of us. We are taxed twice as much by our idleness, three times as much by our pride and four 
times as much by our folly, and from these taxes the commissioners cannot ease or deliver us.
Obviously conditions have not changed much since Benjamin Franklin wrote this. To prosper we must humbly and wisely work, but most of all we must work.
As hon. members will agree, perhaps in this debate more than in any other a member is justified in referring as briefly as possible to the problems of his constituency. The riding of Waterloo North, which I have the honour to represent, is the one which first sent its most illustrious native son, our distinguished Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to the house. It is most diversified, and contains more contented and happy people than any other riding in Canada.
Even so there are some problems which concern my people back home from time to time. With your consent I feel it is my duty to refer briefly to these, and at the same time perhaps suggest some remedies. My farmers are looking for some upward price adjustments.
I was pleased to notice that one of these adjustments was made this week in respect of better cuts of beef. This will have the ultimate effect of returning a higher price to cattle producers and increasing the flow of livestock to market. By the same token I would like to see a reasonable upward adjustment made in butter prices, which would have the dual effect of encouraging dairy farmers in my riding as well as in other parts of Canada, and it would automatically also increase the supply for the benefit of all Canadians.
December 1946 statistics indicate that whereas manufactured goods have advanced 9-6 per cent since December, 1945, farm products have only advanced 5-4 per cent during the same period. This indicates some consideration might well be given to the request from farmers that butter and other farm commodity prices be reasonably adjusted.
Two other matters which are at present disturbing the agricultural section of my riding are the shortage of feed grains and farm labour. I am pleased to note that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) has taken effective steps to provide a further supply of freight cars to relieve the former situation. I hope that so far as farm labour is concerned, actual conditions will be studied further by the government, and that the department of labour will take necessary steps to provide this very necessary labour.
There is no shortage of good living quarters on the farms in my riding. Therefore I hope that everything will be done that possibly can

The Address-Mr. Breithaupt
be done to encourage young fellows to stay on the farms, where there are good farms and where, according to present statistics in agriculture, financial returns were really never greater than they are today.
Turning to industry for a minute; on behalf of the luggage industry I should like to suggest that now that the war is over luxury taxes be eliminated on luggage. Employment in this industry, while it has been at a high level, is now in grave danger of being seriously affected if early relief is not forthcoming. A large percentage of factories in Waterloo North employ female labour, particularly shirt and footwear factories. Income tax regulations regarding female married personnel have reacted very adversely and have still further accentuated serious shortages existing in shirts and shoes. It is to be hoped that in the forthcoming budget some adjustment can be made which would permit married women, where possible, to remain on the job if they so desire, and assist in necessary production at least until the shortages are alleviated. Every hon. member in the house must realize that what I have said, particularly with regard to shirts, is true. I do not believe there is a place in Ottawa today where one can buy a white shirt.
Now a word about wartime controls. It will be recalled that in the speech from the throne it was stated that the government planned to keep-
-only such price and commodity controls as may be required to protect consumers from a sudden and drastic rise in the cost of living and to ensure the fair distribution of essential goods and services which are in short supply.
At the same time it was also stated that- -many of the controls and restrictions during and immediately after the war are no longer in existence; others have been considerably relaxed; controls over wages and salaries and over many prices and commodities have been removed; other controls are being removed in an orderly manner.
Just how rvell this job has been done is well illustrated in a recent Canadian press dispatch from Montreal:
Statistics show that over-all cost of living figures in Canada have increased less since 1937 than in 16 other nations surveyed. These were released by the International Labour Office.
Other hon. members besides myself will probably have vivid and bitter memories of what happened after the last war, how prices suddenly collapsed and we went through a wave of liquidation. Most people had nothing left but debts. Conditions existed such as this country had never seen. Many firms, through no fault of their own, went out of
business and into bankruptcy. No one was happy. There was a general state of disorganization, uncertainty and unemployment. That is what we would like to avoid now, if we can. I believe the government has made the proper plans to avoid a recurrence of this condition. True, we on this side of the house are not perfect. Mistakes have been made by the wartime prices and trade board and by us all. To err is only human. I maintain however that our record of price control is very good. It is good in comparison with what happened a year or two after the last war, and it is good in comparison with what has been happening in the United States during the past year. There have been a number of press items recently telling of falling prices in the United States. From our point of view this is all to the good. The sooner and the farther they fall, the sooner our price controls can and should be done away with, without any sudden jump in prices here. People should not be misled by these newspaper stories into thinking that conditions are entirely satisfactory in the United States. I took the trouble to look up the latest figures on price movements in this country and in the United States since their price controls cracked wide open at the end of last June. I found that between that time and around the end of 1946 the average United States wholesale prices had gone up twenty-six per cent and their cost of living had gone up fourteen per cent. In the same time our wholesale prices and cost of living had each gone up only three per cent. In other words, United States prices have still a lot of falling to do before they are back in line with ours.
I certainly would not want to perpetuate controls or carry them on for one month beyond the time when they cease to be necessary. No one in his right senses would. However I am satisfied that Donald Gordon, chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, and his able staff have by and large done a very good job. May I say that it has been a thankless one in many quarters. They are still doing a good job. The government should be given the necessary powers to finish the job in an orderly and efficient manner as long as world shortages and dislocations exist. I have noted, as have other hon. members, that sometimes the biggest beneficiaries of the sound policy that the government set up in connection with price controls are the biggest belly-achers when it comes to giving anybody credit.
As I say, I think controls should be continued as long as world shortages exist. One thing is sure, if the present policies are con-
The Address-Mr. Breithaupt

tinued any recession which might take place in the United States would not have as serious an effect here because of our relatively sounder position in which we are well cushioned against precipitate price declines across the border.
I wish to say a word at this time in connection with immigration. Canadians received with much interest the announcement made in the house a few weeks ago by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) that immigration regulations had been relaxed to provide much needed labour for agriculture and Canada's basic industries. It is gratifying to know that, while this step is now being taken, further important changes and improvements in the immigration regulations are to follow. The minister's announcement was received with much relief by farmers in my riding and by basic industries throughout the country. There is a shortage of help in certain fields.
While I am on the subject of immigration, I should like to suggest that because of the importance of this portfolio in our present economy the minister in future should be known as the minister of immigration as well as the Minister of Mines and Resources. My constituents, and no doubt yours, Mr. Speaker, find it confusing when you tell them to get in touch with the Minister of Mines and Resources in connection with their immigration problems. This is just a little suggestion as I go along.
I wish to say just a brief word on dominion-provincial relations. I am not going to discuss this contentious question bit by bit or blow by blow because I do not know enough about it to be an authority to the extent to which some of my legal friends in this house are. But I do know that people throughout the country whom I have been in touch with, and particularly those in Ontario, feel that the time is not far distant when some satisfactory solution must be arrived at so that the people of our province-I can speak only for those of us who come from Ontario, but I imagine our friends from Quebec feel the same way-will not be faced in the near future with double taxation, provincial and federal.
May I say a few w'ords about Canadian business. To listen to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) it would appear that business generally and employment were suffering severely from the policies of this government. Personally I cannot subscribe to his theory of "cry havoc". I have gone to the trouble of looking up some independent statistics as well as those provided by the Department of Trade and Commerce, and at this point I should like to place them on the record. I am glad the hon. member for
l Mr. Breithaupt.]
Lake Centre brought up this question because it ties right in with what I had prepared for delivery to this house during this debate. Sometimes when one listens to some of the political pessimists who are members of His Majesty's loyal opposition one is likely to become discouraged, sell Canada short and move out unless one knows the facts in connection with the actual state of the nation, but as a matter of fact Canada is one of the last countries in the world that anyone in his right senses would want to leave. In my opinion there is no better place in the world to live and work in than this same Canada of ours.
Here are some facts worth pondering which I obtained from the "Year End Review" issued by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), Canada is now the third largest trading nation in the world. There are more people employed in industry now than at any time in the history of the country. Canada's exports during 1946 rose to a total value of S2,312 million, or more than two and a half times as great as the five year pre-war average from 1935 to 1939.
As convincing as these statements by the Minister of Trade and Commerce are, and in case some opposition members wish to have further information in connection with Canadian business conditions, I have pleasure in quoting from a neutral source, the report of the Bank of Nova Scotia, dated February 19, 1947. which states:
All time records for construction contract awards were again broken in January for a further three per cent rise in the index.
A general year end review by the Canadian Bank of Commerce notes:
Canada's present working force of nearly 5,000,000 exceeds by a million that of 1939, and not only have these million workers been absorbed; but nearly three-quarters of a million veterans and half a million war workers have required to be reestablished in peace-time occupations since the summer of 1945.
Total sales of all retail stores during 1946 were almost fourteen per cent higher than in 1945.
What is the matter with business? I quote again:
The first month of 1947 was generally the most active industrially since October, 1945, when of course, a considerable volume of war work was still in process. The bank's industrial activity index number rose in January to 152-
The 1937 figure is taken as 100.
-the highest point for civilian goods ever reached.
The twelve months under review, 1946, though irregular and not measuring up to all economic opportunities were, on the whole, the most active

The Address-Mr. Breithaupt
in Canada's peace-time history. In fact, the production of certain commodities was greater than in some war years.
But that is not all. I have here another authority, the Canadian Executives' Digest, of February, 1947, published by the Thomas A. Edison Company of Canada, Limited, of Toronto, and coming out of Toronto it must be pretty good. Speaking of Canada's mineral production, it says:
Value of mineral production of Canada in 1946 has been estimated at $493,840,000. The value for 1946 was $4,915,000 under that for 1945, but was higher than any peace-time year in history.
It has this to say of cheques cashed:
Total value of cheques cashed in Canada in 1946 at $69-3 billions was greater than in other years, exceeding the previous 1945 high by 1-3 per cent, and 48 per cent higher than 1929 (culmination of the previous major economic cycle). The 1946 total was about two and a quarter times the 1938 figure.
And on newsprint it says this:
Both from a production and financial point of view, the year 1946 will go down as the best to date in the history of the Canadian newsprint industry; all records were broken with a 4,143,392-ton production figure. The industry realized $300 millions gross revenue, it is reported.
Surely that is not an indication of bad business in Canada under government policy. It goes on to speak of radio manufacturing:
In spite of shortages, the Radio Manufacturers Association of Canada production figures indicate that more radio receivers were produced in Canada in 1946 than in any previous twelve months in the history of the Canadian radio industry. If current production is maintained, a new annual record of 550,000 sets will be set.
Then it goes on to give the impressive record of car loadings:
Loadings of railway revenue freight for the 52 weeks in 1946 at 3,681,699 cars were higher than for any of the war- years and exceeded the 1945 total by 1-3 per cent, according to figures recently released.
Now I want to say a word about life insurance sales. Mr. Finlayson, dominion superintendent of insurance, informed me yesterday morning that new life insurance issued in Canada for the year 1946 broke all records- It reached the imposing figure of one and a half billion dollars, or half a billion dollars more than the sales for 1945, which I understand was the previous record year.
I think the review of Canadian business and employment conditions which I have just given provides proof positive that the country is far from going to the dogs under the Liberal administration of our great leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I believe that those who are fair enough to take a realistic and politically unprejudiced viewpoint must admit in spite of themselves that
an excellent job is being done by the government of the day, not a forty per cent job as was charged last night by my friend the hon. member for Vaneouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt). Surely he could not have meant what he said to be taken seriously.
I agree fully with the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Heon), when he said in the house the other night that a general election under these circumstances is certainly not necessary. I wish to add on my own account that there can be no doubt that the Liberal party has delivered the goods as advertised in the brochure to which he referred and displayed, "Programme for Canada". I think we have lived up to the promises contained in that brochure, at least ninety-five per cent, and certainly, until any other party has anything better to offer this country, there is no need of going to the country. It would be a sheer waste of money; and the results after the next election, whenever it comes, will no doubt be a more emphatic mandate than ever to the Liberals to continue their good work.
I am voting, Mr. Speaker, against both amendments submitted by the right and left groups, and against any more that come in from them, and I am supporting the safe and sane middle-of-the-road policy of the government. I am voting for the main motion, to support the government.


Mrs. GLADYS STRUM (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon will long be remembered by hon. members of this house. We were privileged to witness one of the most delightful spectacles of the session. To see the leader of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan on his feet defending government enterprise was indeed a treat, and I hope he keeps it up when he returns to his native province. To see the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) refusing to allow the Liberal party any credit for establishing perhaps one of the most useful and important of these government enterprises, the Bank of Canada, and insisting that the Tories be given credit for it, indeed marks a milestone in our political history.
My quarrel, however, is not with government enterprise but with the lack of government enterprise in implementing its promises to the old age pensioners of this country. The other day the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) gave us impressive figures of our contributions to the stricken countries of Europe and the part that Canada had played in winning the war. He pointed out that there was no such thing as partial participation in the war, that it was all-out participation or defeat. Canada has not been niggardly in her participation in relief
The Address-Mrs. Strum

to the stricken countries of Europe and of the world, but I submit that in Canada, the government's price decontrol policy and its social security measures result in only a partial participation in social security. It is a policy that is responsible for untold anxiety, humiliation and actual suffering in thousands of cases for Canadians in the lower income brackets who are struggling unsuccessfully to make ends meet, and particularly those who are trying to survive on the miserable dole that we know as the old age pension.
Again I do not wish to belittle the war achievement. We are all proud of the part that Canada played in the war, and I am sure we are all proud of the figures quoted by the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Breithaupt). We do want to go on living in Canada, and it is because we believe that Canada could be much greater yet, greater in justice and mercy as well as in industrial output, that we believe that changes should be made. It all depends upon where you find yourself in Canada. It depends upon the particular income bracket in which you happen to operate. If you are a person who has extensive investments and are paying heavy income tax, you will not have much difficulty except with the Minister of Finance; but if you are trying to get along on a small fixed wage; if you are trying to live on a small annuity, if you are trying to exist on a pension for the blind or an old age pension, you will experience the greatest difficulty and humiliation. As the late Judge Emily Murphy said:
There is only one thing worse than a guilty custom, and that is a guilty acquiescence.
That is why we must raise our voices in protest against the treatment of these dependent people.
The first recognition of rising living costs was made in 1943. Canada had been at war almost four years when the government saw fit to recognize this and make an adjustment in old age pension. On August 10, 1943, an order in council was passed authorizing the making of agreements with the provinces governing old age pensions. P.C. 6367 says in paragraph 1;
Under war-time conditions it has become desirable and necessary to provide additional assistance to old age pensioners and blind pensioners.
This order allowed the pensioner to receive a special supplement not exceeding $5 a month, which brought the pension up to $25 instead of the original $20, and on the original basis, with the provinces bearing 25 per cent of the increase and the federal government putting up 75 per cent. Out of the original
	'* j
$20 the federal government had supplied $15. It now supplied $3.75 of the $5, so that actually the federal government has never and is not yet paying more than $18.75 a month for the support of these aged poor. Of course some provinces have done certain things, and I think they should be given credit for it. They have raised the individual pensions and provided medical services, drugs, hospitalization and other services. These provinces are to be commended because they have done so without assistance from this government. They have taken it out of their limited provincial budget; they have taken some measures to relieve the suffering of these aged poor. But we, the members of this federal house, have it within our power to do much more than the limited provincial legislatures of the country, and I hope that at this session we shall do something worthy of this country and this parliament.
The means test, still in effect, limits the income of old people in spite of the almost daily rise in the cost of living, and it has imposed untold hardship on these innocent people. Many old people have been able to take part-time employment. During all the years of the war there was a steady demand for all kinds of labour, skilled and unskilled, full and part-time. Old people found to their surprise, and learned to their sorrow, that a few dollars earned in honest and useful employment resulted in only one thing, in having their pension suspended by the inspector at the time of his next visit. This means that the government is guilty of a double crime, first of imposing compulsory poverty on this helpless and innocent group by limiting its contribution to only $225 a year, and second by denying any remedy to the individual and imposing a penalty if the pensioner sought to better his condition through his own effort.
Further the whole policy of the government in regard to old age pensions is a contradiction of its own avowed Liberal principle. In its proposals to the provinces on reconstruction on August, 1945, at page 27 the government sets out this policy. This comes under "Social Security," a brief on "Reconstruction, proposals of the government of Canada." Here is what the Liberal government said:
The Economic Argument for Social Security.
Reference has been made to the effect of large-scale social security measures on the economy of the country as a whole. This need not and should not be the prime consideration in adopting health and welfare legislation. But since this aspect of the problem has not received the attention that it merits, perhaps a further reference to it would be in order.
During the war we have succeeded in establishing new high levels of employment. Our

The Address-Mrs. Strum
national income has risen to record heights. Income and purchasing power have been more evenly distributed than ever before. This has resulted in an unprecedented increase in consumer demand.
During the war years we have been obliged to keep this consumer purchasing power under control as far as possible. But as scarcities disappear and wartime demand falls away, it becomes essential to encourage a freer use of consumer purchasing power in order to take up the slack that will otherwise develop. It is in this connection-namely, the maintenance of a high degree of consumer purchasing power- that large-scale social security measures can and do play an important role.
A significant volume of social security payments, flowing into the consumer spending stream, will stabilize the economy of the country as a whole and work against a fall in the national income. Social security payments therefore become, in these circumstances, a powerful weapon with which to ward off general economic depression.
Why then does the government hesitate to carry out its own policy? Speaking over the C.B.C. on January 29, 1947. the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) had this to say:
The Liberals are right when they say that profits which are not required in the business are not your money. They are the money of those who applied their labour to the natural resources of this country to produce wealth, and if you do not or cannot pay them out in wages, local taxes, widespread dividends- share or patronage-to provide services, then we must tax them from you.
The money so obtained must be redistributed through provincial payments to the areas from which the wealth came. Where local authorities cannot, as in the case of family allowances and old age pensions, make the distribution equitably, the dominion government must. Where local authorities cannot stabilize returns to primary producers of exportable products such as farm products, the dominion authority must. The Liberal party is opposed to state ownership and control of all the resources and machines of production but the Liberal party is also opposed to any authority within the state attempting to take unto itself the right to tax the labour of the masses for personal or corporate gain or aggrandizement.
The Liberal party going into this session challenges any of the opposition groups to name one social service which is not already provided for. directly, or proposed through provincial cooperation, which they would make effective if returned to office. The Liberal party challenges any opposition group to advocate that any social service provided for be taken away.
I challenge the Minister of Agriculture to deny that the pension provided is inadequate, shameful, and a contradiction of their avowed policy of redistribution of the national income on an equitable basis. It is useless for members of the government to say that we have provided for increased living costs through price control, subsidies, family allowances, 83166-73
cost of living bonus, and that we have the greatest social security programme in the world.
Canada's productive machinery and her ability to feed the suffering of other countries does not in any way excuse this government in its neglect of our own aged and suffering people. True, we are striving to attain better standards of nutrition, and I think the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) did an excellent job as minister of national health and welfare. I think the programme of education carried on through lectures, films, publications and advertising releases of all kinds is a part, and a very important part, of a programme aimed at better health standards. The one disturbing aspect of this, and the thing which nullifies the effect, is the cost of food and the size of the pensioners' food budget. I hold in my hand the recommended programme for nutrition. In this booklet Canada's food rules read as follows:
These are the health-protective foods. Be sure you eat them every day in at least these amounts. (Use more if you can.)
Milk: Adults, one-half pint. Children, more than one pint. And some cheese as available.
Fruits: One serving of tomatoes daily, or of a citrus fruit, or of tomato or citrus fruit juices, and one serving of other fruits, canned or dried.
Vegetables: In addition to potatoes, of which you need one serving daily, two servings daily of vegetables, preferably leafy green, or yellow, and frequently raw.
Cereals and bread: One serving of a whole-grain cereal and four to six slices of Canada approved bread, brown or white.
Meat, fish, etc.: One serving a day of meat, fish or meat substitutes, liver, heart or kidney once a week.
At least three or four eggs a week.
Eat these foods first and then add other foods as you wish.
These are the basic essentials of an adequate diet, and I got a list of the costs of these items from my grocer at noon today. These are the things which people are supposed to eat, as set out by our department of health, and these are the prices we have to pay for them:
For one raw tomato, 5 cents; orange, 5 cents; banana, 5 cents; carrots, 3 cents; rolled oats to cover the cereal, 2 cents; six slices of bread, 3 cents; one serving meat, 14 cents; one egg, 3 cents; one potato, 2 cents; one pint of milk, 9 cents; cheese, 5 cents. That adds up to 56 cents for a day or 83.92 a week, or 815.68 a month. If we are to take the advice of our department of health and welfare we should not spend more than 25 per cent of the budget on food, so that with food at today's prices we need more than $60 a month if we are to have any kind of adequate diet.

The Address-Mrs. Strum

There is something else to which I wish to call the attention of hon. members. I think the greatest curse of this house is that we live in paper estimates and paper files. You want something and you send to the bureau of statistics; you want something else and you send to some other place. But if you want to know what it is like to live on $25 a month, go and see how an old age pensioner does it. If you want to know what it is like to find money for a room, or even to get a room, cut an advertisement out of your newspaper and telephone the people advertising. I did that today, and I can tell you it is difficult indeed to find a room where you have cooking privileges. Of fifteen rooms I found listed in today's paper, do you know what the rents are? Fifteen dollars a month for the lowest, and $32 for the highest, and one had grill privileges while another gave you the privilege of using the kitchen.
Where are our people to live? A single room is the cheapest accommodation there is, and if one tries to get a suite or an apartment or a house, the rents are of course much higher. The rents ran $15, $16, $17, $18; three at $20, one at $22, one at $25, one at $28; two with two rooms, one for $35 and the other for $42.
Where is the old age pensioner to sleep? If he eats according to Canada's food rules, the food which the minister's government in its wisdom advises people to eat, it will cost far more than the pensioner can afford to spend for that purpose, and still he has nowhere to stay. He has nothing to wear, he has not utensils to cook with, he has no bedding, he has no money for haircuts, no money for any of the things that make life half decent.
I advise hon. gentlemen again, as I did last year, to take $25 and try to live on it for a month. And let them try wearing cast-off clothes for a while and see what it feels like. Or they should try living as unwanted guests among relatives. If they really want to learn humility, let them go to an institution where old people are crowded together several in one room, where there is no consideration of the need for privacy, no consideration of the right of a person to be alone sometimes, or to have friends in or to entertain anyone. If all hon. members would do that, we would be amazed at the speed with which we could do something about the old age pension law. After a month of that we could put through $100 a month at the age of sixty, although I would not advise it.
Coming back to the inadequacy of food, here is one of those papers I referred to a while ago. This is statistical proof of the fact that the food dollar has shrunk. It is from
	I
the Department of Trade and Commerce and is as of this week. In it the Department of Trade and Commerce tells us that prices of food have advanced, from the base of 1935-39,
47 points. That is to say, taking the outbreak of war as 100, the food index stands at 147, which means that the food dollar has been cut in half, so that the old age pension buys a little more than half what it did in 1939 when the war broke out.
We who talk about our financial statements and industrial output from our factories and granaries, and of our kindness to the suffering in other countries, are still contributing only $18.75 a month from the treasury of the nation to our old age pensioners.
Some hon. members last year had the privilege of listening to Doctor Tisdall, and I wish all hon. members had taken advantage of his excellent address on nutrition. Those who were present will remember he told us that he had been responsible for the nutritional aspects of the rations of the Royal Canadian Air Force.
It will be recalled that he told us about experiments in feeding Canadian flyers. He said that the original ration of milk was 10 ounces a day, which was considered not bad. The men however were having difficulty with their eyesight. The glare of the sun over the Atlantic was giving almost every flyer eye trouble. All the men had this difficulty, so they considered it a normal condition. Eye strain was regarded as part of a flyer's bad luck. After a while however they tried an experiment in the use of milk and obtained the- most surprising results. I am going to quote Dr. Tisdall. I will give his own words, which will be found in this book, which I hope all hon. members will consult when they get back to their offices. It is an excellent publication called "Health" and in the September-October issue will be found the article to which I refer. This is what he says:
We gave them additional riboflavin and, in- * side of two months, the vast majority of these men had such a marked improvement in their eyes that it wasn't necessary to take photographs to see the difference. They said themselves they could see better, and one of the publicity boys found that just at that time the number of submarines sunk increased very markedly. Of course, it could not be published.
He refers to the need for milk in the diet, and he has this to say:
We believe that riboflavin is most important for health and unless you take a reasonably good amount of milk-at least a pint a day-you cannot get enough riboflavin. That is why the ration of milk for the Canadian armed services was increased from 10 ounces of milk a day to 20, the largest milk ration of any service in the world. Just a few months ago it was again increased to 24 ounces.

The Address-Mrs. Strum
Then he tells of an interesting experiment carried on in Newfoundland by a group of scientists from Great Britain and the United States. We are all familiar with the very low incomes and nutritional levels common to Newfoundland. We are not so familiar with the physical results and the damage that poor feeding does to the human being. Doctor Tisdall said, referring to the survey made among the people of Newfoundland:
One thing that struck us all was the early ageing of the people. Time and again the first few days one clinician would call another over to look at someone and say., "How old do you think this person is?" Time and again he would guess from fifty to sixty, and the person would be in his early thirties. Recently Doctor Sharman of New York has done a study in which he gave experimental animals a diet consisting of one-sixth whole milk powder and five-sixths wheat. He found that those getting a larger amount of milk retained their youthful appearance longer, retained their period of adult vitality longer, and prolonged their period of life by ten per cent. We saw the same thing in Newfoundland-early ageing-and their records indicate they don't live as long as we do here where we get more milk.
This article by Doctor Tisdall is just one of many appearing in the medical journals every month, pointing out that senility could be arrested and the useful and active period of a person's life could be extended if older people were able to enjoy proper nutritional standards. A meagre and inadequate diet, the only one possible under the old age pension, brings on premature senility and speeds up ageing. This, combined with the means test, which puts a penalty on activity and selfhelp, can only have one result-that is, a lowering of vitality, a sense of helplessness and frustration, and the hope for a speedy end to it all. You know, there are some who might say this was a definite attempt on the part of the government to save money, but I would not accuse the administration of deliberately planning to reduce the number of old age pensioners. I think it is the result of complacency and callousness rather than deliberate cruelty; nevertheless I submit it is cruelty and sheer social waste.
The government's policy in regard to milk has been met only in part by family allowances. The experiment with the flyers proved that milk could greatly improve vision. If this is true of a selected group, it becomes an established nutritional truth and milk becomes a national necessity for people of all ages, not just those under sixteen covered by the family allowance. If it is true that the use of milk can combat age and preserve youth and vitality, then milk becomes a national asset in building up the pool of goods and services 83166-73*
which is the only real wealth of a country and the basis for all spending, private and public.
The removal of milk subsidies, effected in two stages, raised the price of milk to the consumer in Ontario and Quebec, where there is the heaviest concentration of population, from 10 cents to 15 cents a quart, and to a slightly lesser degree in other provinces. This jump from 10 cents to 15 cents in the cost to the consumer represents an increase in the cost of milk of 50 per cent. We are told by the department of health that every child must have a quart of milk a day. At 10 cents a quart thirty quarts, for thirty days, will cost the mother $3. At 15 cents a quart the mother can buy only twenty quarts for $3, so we have cut the monthly intake of the child by ten quarts, on the same expenditure of money. To that extent we have destroyed the chance of building good vision, resistance to disease and vitality, and we have shortened what might have been the life expectancy through the use of an adequate diet and the provision of milk for each child. If we are to choose between reducing the consumption of milk and the granting of income exemptions and other incentives to the corporations of Canada, it is a shortsighted choice on the part of the government to decide against the health of the Canadian people; and to say that we have covered the milk situation by the family allowances is just so much rubbish. The family allowance has been credited with being an umbrella over the head of the Canadian people to provide for education, health services, nutrition, crop failures and anything else brought forth by the imagination of the speaker on the stump at the moment. Again let me say that I am in favour of family allowances, but they are only a small part of over-all security and should be considered in the light of reality rather than as an excuse to avoid thinking about the people who are not covered by family allowances, and on whom they have no effect except that they must help pay the $260,000,000 voted this year to meet the expenditure.
I did not expect a government such as this, elected on the cry "defeat socialism" to bring in a policy such as the C.C.F. would institute; but the C.C.F. recognizes the practical value of the proposals set forth in the brief on reconstruction, and the validity of family allowance payments as a means of underwriting consumer spending in Canada. The C.C.F. programme, and the recent decision of the national council of the C.C.F. which met in January, would pay old age pensioners $50 a month, lower the age to
The Address-Mrs. Strum

sixty-five years, and eliminate the means test. The national council also recommended the payment of invalidity supplements, cost of living supplements, and free medical, hospital, dental and optical care to old age pensioners.
What would it cost to do this? Well, the costs are worked out, too. The cost of the plan after 1948 would be 8559,800,000. That is not such a staggering sum. To give a pension of 850 to all persons sixty-five years of age, and remove the means test, would merely be extending the principle now being followed in connection with family allowances. The family allowance payments this year will be made to all families in Canada, regardless of income, and the seLoff will be taken care of under the income tax. That is, the payments will be considered as income, and all couples receiving more than 81,500 will be given family allowances and an additional exemption for each child. This we believe to be a sensible and sound arrangement and a useful technique from the standpoint of simplifying administration. To give 850 a month to all old age pensioners at the age of sixty-five would cost the government, it is estimated, 8459,000,000 on the basis of the 1941 census; but this sum is 82,000,000,000 smaller than the amount we gave in mutual aid. According to the figures given by the Minister of National Defence appearing in Hansard of March 3, our mutual aid amounted to 82,471,000,000. If we take off the 82,000,000,000 and retain the 8471,000,000, that is still more than we would pay out in one year to old age pensioners. True, it is more than we now pay in family allowances; but the payments made to children, while a very good investment, have no off-set in production or earnings. They are paid on behalf of dependents who are immature and incapable of adding to Canada's pool of goods and services. There is much that an adequately nourished population of sixty-five years and over could do and would be more than happy to do as part of the nation's work.
In closing I merely wish to say that the record of a nation must not be judged by its guns and tanks nor by its grain elevators, the value of its exports or its bank balances. The real test of a nation's character comes in its regard for moral values. That nation is greatest that has the greatest care for human life and welfare. Let us not only talk of mercy and justice in the international field. Let us be worthy of our great wealth and our great trust:
For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required; and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum). She is worthy of the highest commendation for the eloquent way in which she has presented her case.
There is one matter which should be pointed out to all members of the house and all people of the country, and particularly to our C.C.F. and Progressive Conservative friends, and that is that there is no disagreement among the different parties as to what we want. Every heart in the house throbs in accord and in sympathy with every word the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has spoken. Any hon. member would have been happy to make that speech.
It is when we come to the question of how to finance all these things that the difference develops. I believe that matter should be faced sincerely and frankly by every hon. member. And I would appeal to hon. members of the C.C.F., when they are out talking to the people: For goodness sake, tell the people there is no difference between you and other hon. members in the house with respect to what you are aiming at. The whole question is as to how you are to get the money to do these things. That is the matter to bear in mind.
Technically, Mr. Speaker, we are now discussing the amendment offered by the C.C.F. as it is recorded at page 73 of Hansard for February 3, 1947. The essential passage of that amendment, I take it, is the one I now quote:
And further that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to introduce comprehensive measures for the socialization of the financial institutions and monopolistic industries of the country, and thus have failed to plan the full and proper use of our natural resources and our currency and credit in such a way as to provide for full production and a rising standard of living for the Canadian people.
It will be noted by every member in the house that the assumption is made in the amendment that if the government nationalizes or socializes-whatever is meant by the expression-the financial institutions of the country, and the country's industry, then immediately we shall be at the beginning of the solution of our problems. To that stand I take a diametrically opposite view. That would, not necessarily produce the results Canadians wish.
The immediate question with which we as members of the house are faced, is this: Shall we vote for this C.C.F. amendment? Should I, as one member in the house, vote for it?
Let us for'a short time examine this C.C.F. amendment with some care. In the first place, may I point out to all concerned that it is next

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
to impossible to tell what the C.CJF. leader means by his amendment. It calls for the socialization of the financial institutions and monopolistic industries of the country.
What does he mean by the socialization of financial institutions? Does he mean government ownership, or does he mean the socialized use of those financial institutions? Right here may I point out that a great deal of confusion which is being talked and scattered throughout the country by C.C.F. people arises from the fact that they lead people to believe that what members of the C.C.F. have in mind is a sort of socialized use of the financial institutions, rather than government ownership; or, if when government ownership is accomplished, a plan that automatically entails	the socialized	use of financial
institutions.
There is no justification for that propaganda at all. This kind of thing, as I have said, is contributing to the confusion in men's minds throughout the country. Does he mean what I have indicated, or does he mean government ownership together with a particular financial policy, a special method of employing the financial institutions? I submit that, unless there is a special method of employing those financial institutions, mere government ownership of financial institutions in this country will have no more beneficial effect on the economy of Canada than had the government ownership of the Bank of Canada-which amounted to practically nothing.
Mr. LOW; Utter futility.


John Horne Blackmore: That ought to be
Faced frankly. May I say this word now to my good friends of the C.C.F. I do not know of any group of people I honour more than I do C.C.F. people. At least they are aware that something has to be done, and they are sincere and earnest in their desire to do something which is necessary. They ought to be very careful to see that they are not barking up the wrong tree. I believe they will find they are, if they will examine carefully what is in the amendment and in the speech of the leader of the C.C.F.
Does he have in mind, for instance, a method of distribution through the financial institutions, a combination of techniques for the financing of consumption, something more or less closely resembling social credit proposals? Does he have that in mind?
In my constituency C.C.F. people have gone around saying, "We believe exactly the kind of thing that social crediters are advocating. Look at this, and this, and this,
that we have moved." Well, why not be honest with everybody and make that quite clear in the amendment, so that we shall all know what we are talking about.
Or does the C.C.F. leader mean merely the government ownership of banks, with no effective change in policy? Who knows? N ot an hon. member in the house, even including those of the C.C.F., can tell from reading the amendment what it means.
A change of ownership of the financial institutions, without certain fundamental changes in financial policy which would bring about financing consumption in this country, would be of no more value as an aid to the Canadian economy than was government ownership of the Bank of Canada.
Suitable fundamental changes of policy could be made without government ownership or socialization of financial institutions. This is the next important thing for every member in the house to keep in mind. It is not necessary for the government to have ownership of any of the financial institutions in order to bring about fundamental changes in the financial policy of the country which would enable the country to finance consumption. Let that clearly be remembered.


Mr. GILLIS:: Explain.


John Horne Blackmore: I	can explain it.
However I have not the time to do so now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: A lot of silly laughs come from the C.C.F. They ought to have sense enough to know, because they have been here long enough, that a member's time can be used up by things of that sort. I think that is what they want.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Why take your time
to criticize the C.C.F.?


John Horne Blackmore: I will take time
later on to go right to the mat with the best C.C.F.'er in the group. I am ready for them. Social Crediters desire such fundamental change in financial policy as would make for distribution, or consumption, that is, the marketing of Canada's production of goods and services.
The C.C.F. amendment does not call for such fundamental change. It may imply it, in the minds of members of the C.C.F.; but, so far as other hon. members in the house are concerned, there is no way of being sure what it means. Social Crediters would look at that matter before they decided how they would vote.
What does the C.C.F. leader mean by the socialization of monopolistic industries? Does he mean government ownership of such indus-
The Address-Mr. Blackmore

tries? And what constitutes a monopolistic industry? Is it industry that has become a monopoly, or is tending to become a monopoly? There is nothing in the wording there to show whether he has in mind one that is a nation-wide monopoly or one that is a monopoly in a community, such as a dairy in a small town. As far as the wording is concerned, there is no indication at all. Does the C.C.F. amendment mean that the C.C.F. would have the government assume ownership of Canadian industry, even down to the dairy in a small town if that dairy happens to be supplying all the milk being used in that town? Social Crediters can see neither need for, nor any advantage that would be derived from, socializing industry. Social Crediters can see in government ownership and the socialization of industry a serious danger to Canadian prosperity and freedom. Therefore they will take that matter into careful consideration before deciding how they will vote.
C.C.F. speakers, like other socialists, contend and argue that private enterprise has failed. I turn now to a general discussion of the whole point of view the socialists seem to take in this regard. Almost every member of the C.C.F. who has risen to speak has said that private enterprise has failed. But has private enterprise failed? That is the question which the house should face, including all members of the C.C.F. as well as the Social Credit group.
To answer the question as to. whether or not private enterprise has failed, we must consider several aspects of the economics of our day, nationally and internationally. Time forbids that I discuss the matter internationally, but I will give a little thought to it nationally. First, what is economics? Economics is the science and art of producing and distributing goods and services. I think all will agree with that. As I go on, my C.C.F. friends can decide whether or not they agree with the statements I make. I think there will be no disagreement on their part.
This means that the economy of a state such as Canada or the United States has two great functions to perform. First, it has to manage to have goods and services produced or obtained by trade. Second, it has to manage to have those goods and services consumed or distributed. I think we can all agree on that. It is very pleasant for us to agree; after we are working together on this thing we shall find out exactly where we disagree.
Production is the first thing to consider. If Canada's government brings about conditions

in Canada so that Canadian farmers, fishermen, lumbermen, miners and manufacturers can and will produce enough food, clothing, shelter, educational services, cultural services, health services and other services to give each family in Canada, say S3,500 worth in a year, then the Canadian government thereby makes physically possible in that year a standard of living and prosperity equal to $3,500 per family. I think we all agree on that.
Consumption or the distribution of goods is the next consideration. If the Canadian government is able so to manage the Canadian economy that, after the $3,500 worth of goods . and service per year for every family in the country have been produced, they can be got into the hands of those people so that those people can consume them, then the Canadian government has performed the function of distribution or consumption. The government may be held responsible for both of those functions today. Is there any disagreement by my hon. friends of the C.C.F. on that point?
It is our problem, first of all, to consider our economy from the point of view of production; then to consider our economy from the point of view of consumption. As we go on to consider private enterprise, let us see what bearing private enterprise has, first upon production and, second, upon consumption, so that we may see wherein it has or has not failed, either as a means of production or as a means of consumption. We shall then be considering this matter in a scientific sort of way, which I know the C.C.F. like to do.
It has been often said that mankind has solved the problem of production. I believe our C.C.F. friends will all agree with that. It is commonly suggested, and I believe it is accepted by them, that we have solved the problem of production in Canada and the United States. That has been done by private enterprise. There is no doubt in the world about that, because private enterprise is the system we have used up to the present time. Mankind must now solve the problem of consumption or distribution.
Private enterprise is being blamed largely because up to the present time it apparently has not been able to distribute goods. We shall have to examine the matter to see whether we have any right to expect private enterprise to distribute goods. That is the first point. Let us consider that frankly. Unquestionably production has succeeded; that is obvious. Consumption or distribution has more or less failed. Everyone agrees with that. I do not think the C.C.F. or anyone else will disagree with that point. What

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
we want to find out is why distribution has failed, why consumption has failed, what private enterprise has to do in each case and what to do in order to remedy the difficulty.
Where does private enterprise fit in? To what extent is private enterprise responsible for the success of mankind's production? To what extent is private enterprise to blame for the failure to distribute those goods? Let us -try to clear away the confusion in men's minds as regards private enterprise. I myself have heard C.C.F. speakers-doubtless they were not speaking with party authority-point out the fallacies of our consumption system, and then say that therefore private enterprise has failed. In the light of the facts, such a conclusion is utter nonsense. That is merely blind people leading blind people farther astray. Let us see whether or not that is so.
Let us first try to define private enterprise. Funk and Wagnalls new standard dictionary defines enterprise as follows:
The act of engaging, or the disposition to engage in difficult undertakings; boldness, energy, and invention exhibited in practical affairs, especially in business.
That is the definition of private enterprise. Have we any lack of that kind of thing in Canada? Are these splendid lads who are coming home from overseas manifesting any lack of initiative, boldness or courage in going into business? All you have to do is to come in contact with a few of them to know that they want to go into business. Many C.C.F. people have never taken the trouble to find out what private enterprise means. If it has failed it is because of conditions under which private concerns have made their efforts to carry on.
Will any one in this house argue seriously that in Canada there is any lack of boldness, energy and invention in attempting to establish and maintain practical business undertakings? I do not think the C.C.F. or anyone else will. There can be no doubt that there exist in Canada plenty of citizens ready and eager to undertake to produce goods such as wheat and other foods, or services such as trucking, flying, repairing and all other manner of services. The only deterrent these boys or girls run up against when they seek to go into business is: first, the question of security of tenure-are thejr going to be able to hold their jobs?; next, the adequacy of income, and, then, the opportunity to Tise.
There is no lack of private enterprise. There is thus far no fault with private enterprise. It is a fact that there is a lack of security, but that has nothing in the world to do with private enterprise. There is a lack of surety of adequate income, which again has nothing
to do with private enterprise. The lack of the opportunity to rise is only indirectly related to private enterprise. The adverse circumstances which face our people when they undertake to go into private business is a matter over which the government has the power to exercise control. If the government does not have that power, then the government should seek it.
To state that private enterprise in that sense has failed is to tell a falsehood-let any one challenge that statement-and to slander the splendid Canadian youth. Will any C.C.F. member attempt that? Or any other? In this sense private enterprise has not failed, is not failing and will not fail if it is given the ghost of a chance. The only difficulty is prices and markets and taxes, purely matters of government policy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: There is a lot of laughing by silly, superficial people, but let me point out that these matters are important. The government has that power, and the C.C.F. have shown that they believe so, by rising in their places and declaiming against the government because it has not an adequate price and wage policy. Surely they realize that the government could have control over prices, markets and taxes. In other words, the government has responsibility for the conditions under which private enterprise must endeavour to make good.
If private enterprise fails, it is the fault of the government and of the government's financial system. Why not be honest and face up to that? Then we shall know where we are going. The fault is a matter of government financial policy. The financial policy of this government has failed miserably and despicably, and that is true also of the United States. It is not the fault particularly of the men occupying governmental positions but the fault of the outmoded, useless financial system under which they are trying to operate. Why not be frank and face up to that fact? I call on the Progressive Conservatives to face up to it. Why give the people the idea that if you were on the government benches you could make the old car run any better than the present government is doing? What nonsense! There is a species of dishonesty about this which must be cleared away. We must face the facts, find the ball and follow it through until we get a solution. Surely this house was sent here by a despairing, suffering people to find solutions, and not get up here and play politics.
But when the C C.F. use the expression "private enterprise has failed" they appear to
The Address-Mr. Blackmore

have in mind private business, such as farms, sawmills, machine factories, textile mills, steel companies, coal companies. The C.C.F. do not seem to have in mind the desire on the part of Canadian youth to go into business, but rather they think of some business that is established. If I am wrong they can correct me. Very well. Let us consider these factories we have in Canada and of which we can be very proud. They are great, splendid, efficiently run concerns ready to produce in superabundance and in high quality almost everything that Canada needs.
In the first place, for an example of private enterprise let us fix our attention on a coal mine. A coal mine is a producer. Remember we have two functions to perform: we have to get production, and we have to get consumption. Can you hold a coal mine responsible for consumption? Its business was never to consume or to cause consumption, but to produce coal, and if it produces coal in sufficient quantities and of a high enough quality at a reasonable price it has succeeded. If there is any failure to distribute its product, that failure is to be attributed to the government and the government's financial policy and to no other possible factor. Let us get that perfectly straight. We can hold the coal company to blame if it fails to produce abundantly and economically goods of fine quality. But we have no right to blame the coal company for a failure of consumption of its goods. The coal company may lay off men; and for every man it turns off it destroys a certain amount of wages and a certain amount of consuming power, so that when the coal company turns off a man who is no longer needed and thereby economizes it is defeating the object of consumption. Let that be borne strictly in mind. The more efficient the coal company becomes as a producer, the less efficient it becomes as a distributor of consumer purchasing power.
One of the causes of confusion lies in the fact that the C.C.F. seem to blame the coal company because it does not distribute enough purchasing power to purchase the coal it produces. There could not be a more monstrous fallacy. Let us face up to it fairly and squarely. It is utterly absurd to blame the coal company for failure to distribute. It is just as absurd to blame the coal company for failure to distribute as it would be to blame a hen because it does not give milk or to blame- a cow because it does not lay eggs. Hens were not made to produce milk and cows were not made to lay eggs, and a coal company was not made to distribute purchasing power. What purchasing power it does dis-

tribute is only incidental, accidental, and unavoidable or inevitable. It distributes just as little purchasing power as it possiblly can, and it has to do that in order to be efficient as a producer.
Let us bear in mind that industry is part of the productive mechanism of Canada, and not a part of the consumptive mechanism. The people of Canada and members of parliament must keep these two functions, production and consumption, constantly in mind; for otherwise disaster will face us, and frustration and misery, depression, and all the other ills which we fear so much will be our lot.
Consumption has to be taken care of by some other mechanism than by industry; it has 'to be taken care of by some sort of financial mechanism. The C.C.F. appear to commit the colossal blunder of blaming industry for failure of the consumptive mechanism of Canada, and because of the failure of that consumptive mechanism they say "private enterprise has failed." The leader of the C.C.F. party, in his speech on his amendment, talked of the failure of private enterprise to produce houses. What is the reason it cannot produce houses? It is that private enterprise knows from bitter experience that the more it puts money into housing, the greater its taxation will be; it does not matter a particle whether the houses are rented or not the taxation will still go on. The first thing you know the municipality will have the house. Is that giving private enterprise a fair deal? To blame private enterprise because houses are not built in this country is a monstrous species of dishonesty. We have to face the facts and be realistic in these matters.
Let us turn now to consider government ownership. It is proposed that the government should own this coal mine we have been talking about. Could the government-, by taking over the coal mine, increase the production of coal? Second, could the government, by taking over the coal mine, increase the consumption of coal? If the answer must be "no" in both cases it must be obvious that the proposal that the government take over the coal mine is purely futile, if not mischievous. Would government ownership increase the productive capacity of the coal mine? It is very doubtful. The vast proportion of our ^private industries, when given a chance, produce magnificently, efficiently and in superb abundance goods of a very high quality, and no one is honest who will question that statement. If the government took over the coal mine it would not increase the production or quality of the coal. It might have

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
the very opposite effect. Government ownership as proposed by the C.C.F. amendment could not aid production.
Could it aid consumption? It is very doubtful if the taking over of the coal mine by the government would increase consumption. If the government were to increase consumption by taking over the coal mine it would have to put more money into it; it would have to put in two men to do the work of one.


An hon. MEMBER:: Put in machinery.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member who suggests that without having thought it through fails to see that if the government put in machinery it would have to lay off a lot more men and thereby decrease consumption. That is quite obvious, is it not?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


John Horne Blackmore: It is obvious, is it not? If a government mine put in more machinery it would put men out of work. That would decrease consumption. The government, if it were to increase consumption through the coal company, would have to raise wages. Would a C.C.F. government propose to raise wages in a mine and thereby increase the cost of the coal? I hardly think so. No! The government, by taking over the coal industry, could not economically increase the consumption of coal by any means whatsoever. Therefore I think we would be safe in assuming that the proposal in the C.C.F. amendment that the government take over the means of production as a means of increasing either production or consumption is simply futile, will not do any good at all-and may do harm.
Let us come to the socialization of financial institutions. Let us assume that what is meant is government ownership of the banks. Probably our C.C.F. friends will not object to that. Why would they want to nationalize the banks? Banks are private enterprise. Would you nationalize them because they have not lent enough money to produce goods? Have the banks recently neglected to lend enough money to produce goods? How do you account for the fact that there has been such a tremendous increase in the production of goods whenever there has been purchasing power among the people? If the banks had not been willing to lend money would there have been such tremendous production in the past? There has been no recent refusal on the part of the banks to
lend money for any sound enterprise, and surely a C.C.F. owned bank would not lend money on an unsound enterprise.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: I think you are wrong there.


John Horne Blackmore: Maybe they would, but they would soon repent. Have we the right to expect our banks to do any more than lend money for the production of goods? That is the point. The private banks are lending money necessary to produce goods. Have we the right to expect them to do any more than that? Banks lend money for production. Let us face facts. Inane remarks will not solve the problem at all. Let us get down to the facts. The banks lend money for production. Is that not right? Banks cannot lend money for consumption. How long would a bank last if it began to lend people money to buy goods like coal for consumption? It could not do so. Even a C.C.F. bank could not do that. Banks cannot give for consumption either. Imagine a bank which began to give to people who needed money; to old age pensioners and others! Imagine a bank in a community giving money for that purpose! How long would it last as a bank? You cannot expect banks to finance consumption. They were not made to do that.
Let us go back to the coal company illustration. If a bank lends money to that coal company on a suitable amount of interest and time, then the bank has discharged its function and cannot be said to have failed if we are to be honest and face up to the situation. Banks are part of the productive system. I think there is a lot of cloudy thinking abroad in this country on this point-many people and politicians imagine banks are part of the consumptive or distributing system. Banks are part of the productive system. If anyone can prove that is not so, let him do it. Banks lend money for production; they do not, they cannot issue money for consumption, only indirectly. That is true both in Canada and in the United States. What good then would government ownership of the banks do? How could government ownership of banks help in consumption? If private banks refuse to lendi on unsound propositions, do you suppose the government would lend on such propositions? A government might be a bit more lenient but I doubt it very much. No government owned bank would or could give money for consumption. No banks could lend for consumption or give for consumption and keep it up.
The Address-Mr. Blackmore

Consumption might be financed through the Bank of Canada, but I just wonder whether the C.C.F. would so modify the policy of the Bank of Canada. If they would do so, they have never indicated their desire to do so by anything they have ever said in this house.
Now the Bank of Canada is already government owned. What would be the object in having it owned any farther? It is socialized far enough; the C.C.F. proposal would produce no improvement at all.
If the government desired to have the present privately owned banks lend on propositions that they are afraid to lend on, the government could remedy the matter by guaranteeing the banks' loan; it does not need to own the banks. If the government is not satisfied with the interest rates that the banks feel they are obliged to charge, the government can subsidize the banks and thereby lower the interest rate. There is no need at all for the government to own the banks. In connection with the socialization of banks, I must confess, and I believe every hon. member who faces the facts will agree that the C.C.F. proposal is simply utterly worthless as a means of solving the problem of consumption, which is the real problem facing Canada.
Let us turn for a few minutes to the tremendous success of private enterprise during the war. It is said that private enterprise failed. I will challenge anyone to prove that private enterprise has failed in any of the essentials for which private enterprise can be primarily held responsible. Let us see what happened during the war. I hold in my hand the Bank of Canada "Statistical Summary, 1946 Supplement". If one turns to page 64 he will see just what happened during the war-and remember private enterprise was canying on in Canada all during the war! On page 64 we find a table headed: "Gross national product at market prices". The market prices were as follows: In 1938, 85-1 billion; in 1939, 85-5 billion; in 1941, $8-3 billion and, in 1942, $10-3 billion. In 1943 it was SIM billion; in 1944. $11-8 billion and, in 1945, $11-4 billion. If it be argued that private enterprise was failing to produce in 1938, what can be said of the same private enterprise in 1944 when production increased to S1T8 billion? Someone will say, "Oh, yes, but you are supporting private enterprise". What I am doing is supporting Canada. I am anxious to keep a' system in Canada which will produce an abundance of goods.


Angus MacInnis: Will my hon. friend say that war is a part of private enterprise?


John Horne Blackmore: No, it is not.


Angus MacInnis: That to which tlie hon. member referred took place during the war.


John Horne Blackmore: The war was something which came and which forced the government to adopt a change in its financial policy; that is all. It forced the government to buy the goods and distribute them. If the government had bought Canadian goods and distributed them in 1933 there would have been a tremendous output of goods just the same. That is the point. Should the government proyide the money with which to buy the goods? That is the whole point.
What is the reason why we have had relative prosperity in 1946? What does the president of the Bank of Canada say? He says that the reason that we have been able to sell so successfully and have such a high degree of prosperity is that we have been lending abroad. He says we cannot continue to lend abroad to keep up our market. What are we to do when we no longer lend abroad and no longer buy the goods to send away? What is to happen then? Is private enterprise to be denied markets? If so, surely private enterprise will not be able to produce the goods and services. It will not be private enterprise then which will fail, but government policy, because it is the government's policy which will determine the purchasing power. That has been obvious during the last five or six years when there has resulted the tremendous increase of production in this country.
May I turn to the United States. I hold in my hand a book entitled "Tomorrow Without Fear", by Chester Bowles. He was head of the OPA in the United States. I think I am safe in saying that he is one of the best informed men in the United States. He gives some figures on what happened in that country. There was a situation there completely comparable with what was happening in Canada. Private enterprise prevailed there. At page 21 he says:
Between 1923 and 1929 output per man-hour in the manufacturing industries increased by aproximately one-quarter-24 per cent, to be exact.
Private enterprise did thatl
Mr. Speaker, I think my time has just about run out; therefore I shall give no more evidence to support what I was saying.
I will say that Canada as well as the United States needs a new system of distribution, a new system of finance. It needs debt-free money. This Social Credit group has contended for debt-free money ever since it came to the house. I submit to hon. members in the house it will surely be impossible to solve the problem which faces us, that of increasing consumption in the country, without debt-free

The Address-Mr. Zaplitny
money-debt-free money in accordance with the amount of goods which can be produced in the country.
I warn the members of this house that if they do not work towards the adoption of some such proposal, then the country will go into depression and there will be only one group of people in Canada responsible and that will be the gentlemen who sit in this house on the other side.
The C.C.F. amendment offers no hint of a solution. I therefore intend to vote against it.


Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: I rise to speak because what I have to say bears on the amendment before the house, and I wish to discuss that before the vote is taken. I should like to refer specifically to that part of the amendment moved by my leader, namely, the first paragraph, which refers to price control and a planned economy:
We respectfully submit, however, that in the opinion of this house Your Excellency's advisers have shown a readiness to return to the policies of uncontrolled and unplanned private enterprise which resulted in the depression and unemployment of pre-war years.
I realize there is a difference of opinion on the merits or otherwise of a planned economy, but I do not think there is any difference of opinion on the fact that, unless the government takes certain steps, there is great danger that we are going back on the road to depression and economic crisis. The words of the amendment I have quoted are that the government has shown a readiness to return to the system we had before the war, and in my opinion they are an understatement because the government has shown not only a readiness but almost an eagerness to get back to what some members here have called normal times.
In that connection I wish to refer to the speech made the other day by the member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart), in which he said, as reported at page 1060 of Hansard:
For goodness sake, let us get back to normal. Let the law of supply and demand hold sway.
That is a statement of policy and I presume the members sitting around him concurred in what he said. If I had not thought so, then I would have thought so today after hearing the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) speak. The official opposition, the Progressive Conservative party, have definitely come out for what they call normal times, the doing away with controls, and the return to what they term free enterprise; and as the hon. member said, so long as these opinions are held sincerely and in all earnestness there is no reason why we should attack each other because of them, except to point out fallacies where they exist.
On the question of controls, and particularly price control, I think we should at this time try to hammer out a policy which is suitable to the nation, regardless of what our particular philosophies may be, and it would be valuable to go back a little and trace the history of controls as such to find out whether they are really of such a terrible nature as some people hold them up to be.
I have here an excerpt taken from the royal commission on price spreads, which, as hon. members know, was appointed during the administration of the Bennett government and which reported in this house in 1935. No one can say that that commission, which was first set up as a committee, was by any stretch of the imagination a socialist commission. The majority of the members of that commission were of the Conservative party of that time and, when they reported, they brought out some interesting statements which I should like to place on the record. I quote from page 248:
At no time in history have economic activities ever been completely free from social control. For centuries its has been recognized that there must be some state mechanism for supervising contending economic rights and interests.
There is a statement by a commission which had gone into the question of price spreads, which had taken evidence, and which had eminent counsel to advise it. They came to the conclusion at that time that controls as such are a part of our present economic civilization, so to speak. They quote from another eminent economist. They say:
As the great master of English classical economists, John Stuart Mill, whote in 1893 "that principle (laissez-faire) like other negative ones, has work to do yet, work mainly of a destroying kind; and I am glad to think it has strength left to finish that, after which it must soon expire . .
That was fifty-four years ago. John Stuart Mill at that time felt that laissez-faire, which he called a negative system, the system of allowing things to balance themselves or work themselves out, leaving full sway to the law of supply and demand, was needed in 1893 and a period of time after that, but in his opinion its work would soon be done and then it would have to expire. We find, more than half a century later, members of parliament rising in this house and saying in effect that we need more laissez-faire, that we need to have the law of supply and demand in full control and that we must get rid of government control. Surely, if we are going forward instead of backward, what was predicted half
The Address-Mr. Zaplitny

a century ago as being of a temporary nature, something that must soon expire, a temporary expedient, cannot now be held to be anything progressive.


Mr. JACKMAN:: John Stuart Mill might have changed his mind had he lived during the intervening years between the time he made his prediction and the present day.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I would not be surprised to learn that a gentleman who does not now live could not change his mind, but I am surprised that people now living cannot change their minds. Let me go farther. Here is the most telling sentence in the whole report of the commission, to be found at page 249. _ I wish to emphasize that this was not a socialist commission. It was a commission set up by the government in 1934. I quote:
Under present conditions, then, the question is not intervention or non-intervention but merely the nature and extent of intervention.
They came to the conclusion that the state must intervene where the interests of its citizens are at stake.


Mr. KUHL:: They did not know much about Social Credit at that time.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: When the house rose at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was discussing the question of controls; and, if I remember correctly, I said it was no longer a question of whether or not we should have controls but rather a question of who should control, and for whose benefit. I believe it is quite well established now that whenever the interests of the people of this country are at stake the government which is charged with the responsibility of looking after those interests must intervene. In that regard I might refer to something said in this house the other day by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) in discussing the waste of man-power in connection with the wartime prices and trade board. The hon. member was quite incensed and indignant about it; perhaps his experience put him in that frame of mind. I looked up his words as reported at page 1060 of Hansard, and found that he advocated the use of a sawed-off shotgun to get rid of gentry of that kind. I do not believe anything so drastic is necessary; and while I am not here to defend any official of the wartime prices and trade board I would say that the gentlemen charged with the responsibility of administering price control in this country are only

carrying out their duty. They are civil servants and are not responsible for the policies they are required to carry into effect. If any sawed-off shotguns are to be used I believe they might be more properly used on the people who pass the laws-not that I am suggesting this-because in my opinion it is useless to pour that kind of invective on people who are only endeavouring to carry out regulations which are laid down for them. I might also remind hon. members who talk in that way that the wartime prices and trade board was set up by this whole parliament; and, if I remember correctly, there was no opposition to it at that time.


Gordon Graydon: I do not remember its being set up by this parliament. I understood it was set up by order in council.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: This parliament gave the authority to set up such a board, and it amounts to the same thing.


Gordon Graydon: It is not the same thing, just in case that goes on the record.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The point I wish to refer to particularly is the question of this waste of man-power. I agree that man-power should be conserved as much as possible and used as wisely as possible, but it is an open question whether putting a few hundred or a few thousand extra men at work in this country hewing down the forests or doing anything else would be of more value to the country than having a price control administration. I want to reinforce that statement by again quoting from the report of the price spreads commission, where they said:
We are convinced that certain forms of intervention are likely to be less expensive than the wastes of goods and of life that (would result from) the collapse of our economic system.
In other words, it is a question whether we want an economic system which will work in the interests of all the people, or whether we are concerned only with dollars and cents. These days we hear a great deal about cutting down government expenditure. I say we would be making one of the greatest mistakes possible if we were to go on a spree or crusade of cutting down government expenditure on necessary projects at this time. It is not a question of how much it costs to administer a certain law or set of regulations. The question should be whether that law or those regulations are good or bad. If they are good for the country, no expenditure should be spared to see that they are justly and fairly administered. If they are not good for the country, then even one cent is too much to spend on them.

The Address-Mr. Zaplitny
What is the present trend of the government? What I have said so far leads up to this question. Is the government taking the advice, in the matter of decontrol, of our lion, friends of the official opposition to my right? The government have a perfect right to take their advice if they wish, but in my opinion they should be very careful, because the line of action they have been following since January 1, 1946, in going ahead with their decontrol policy, has not been in the best interests of the Canadian people. It may be that my hon. friends to my right are quite sincere and quite convinced that what they are advocating is the right thing, but the best of intentions will not help if the results are such that the people of this country must suffer. Let me give an illustration of what I mean. It is easy enough for the official opposition to say the government must go ahead and decontrol as quickly as possible, but they are not in a position of responsibility, and the results of such a policy will not be their responsibility. I have before me a clipping from the Toronto Globe and Mail, dated March 7 of this year, and the heading is: "Liberals jittery when decontrol ups living cost." It goes on to make this interesting and pointed statement:
Liberal party members are pressing on the cabinet the necessity of braking the price board's decontrol programme and continuing present subsidies for a longer period than is now con-templayed. Some of those who six months ago were chafing at the government bit and urging more rapid removal of controls are now getting worried at rising costs of living and suggesting that the line be held even if subsidies have to be increased rather than curtailed.
What does that add up to? It simply means that the wave of propaganda this country saw last year and the year before apparently had some effect upon the government and forced it to carry on decontrol before the country was ready for it. Unfortunately some of the rank and file members of the Liberal party fell for that line, too, and urged upon the government a programme of decontrol. Now apparently these same members, having found what it did to the cost of living, and having heard the reaction from their constituencies, from the housewives in their areas as to the cost of living today, are beginning to change their minds, are urging the opposite policy upon the government. That shows the danger of taking advice from those who have not positions of responsibility in that respect.
I want to go ahead from there and point out how a decontrol policy such as the government is carrying out, is affecting different parts of our population. Let us begin with the farmers. As has been so eloquently said on this side of the house, it is well known that the
farmers of this country were carrying the load of price stabilization during the years of the war, and are continuing to carry that load.
The government has made a wheat contract, under which the farmers are to receive SI .35 a bushel up to 1950. Those farmers who are engaged in wheat farming are expected to live out of that $1.35, less what it costs to deliver the grain to the lakehead. The farmer knows now he will not receive any more than that, except what he might get out of participation certificates. The farmer has his income fixed; yet every day he picks up a newspaper, finds that the prices of the things he has to buy, manufactured products, are being decontrolled and going sky-high.
What will be the effect? What has been the effect? We have been told from different quarters of the house that the production of live stock, including hogs, has been decreasing. This is not because the farmer does not want to produce. Perhaps at the present time it is not even a matter of price. But if the farmer is to see his way clear to carry on the production of live stock, grain and other products for the next four years, then he must see some stabilization of prices of the things he has to buy. But there seems to be no prospect of that. The programme of the government is apparently one of a down-hill rush toward decontrol.
I state frankly that I am very much concerned and disturbed, however, by the trend which has been apparent since the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has taken over. Very early in this session-or it might have been just before the session opened-I heard a speech over the radio by the Minister of Finance, when he addressed the Toronto board of trade. I tuned in after the minister had started, and was not sure as to who was speaking. But before he had gone very far I was quite sure that it must have been one of my hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative party who was talking about decontrol. And, judging from the applause he received from his good friends there he seemed to have won the hearts of at least some of them when he had finished.
I have great respect for his ability; but let me say to him that if in that speech, he won the hearts of some of the people in the board of trade of Toronto, I am afraid that by the same speech he did violence to any ambition he may have of being the next Prime Minister of Canada, because the people of this country are getting a rude awakening today. All one has to do is to talk to someone on the street or to the people who are riding up and down the country in railway trains. Talk with anyone of them and the conversation will be
The Address-Mr. Zaplitny

about the increase in the cost of living. Today it is only a whisper; tomorrow it might be a gale, and then will come the hurricane. And the Minister of Finance will find himself caught in the vortex of that hurricane, because the people of this country are and always have been ahead of the government.
Today the people of Canada are beginning to see what will happen if the present policy of decontrol is followed any faster or farther along the lines it is now going. We are going to have a period of inflation such as we never had before.
When I mention inflation I should like to quote something that appeared in the Manitoba Co-operator of November 1, 1946. This is an interesting article by Edna Jaques, a well known author, and is entitled "I am Inflation.." She states:
"I am inflation."
Thousands of people never recognize me. True, I have an ugly mug but I disguise it under a thousand different forms of camouflage. Here is my favourite one, it always goes over big with the men.
More money to spend.
I chuckle every time I pull that one, it's old as the hills. I've been using it for hundreds of years. Every time there's a war I pull it out of the bag, and it works every time. The catch in it is that in war there are fewer civilian goods on the market and people are willing to pay more to get what they want.
From then on it's in the bag.
Then it goes on to give us a few reminders.
Remember after the last war when Canada's cost of living went to 192 per cent, in July, 1920.
Then she goes on to say:
In 1920 farmers were paying $8 to $12 for boots $60 to $100 for a suit of clothes, $7 and over for a bag of flour and so on.
And so it goes on.


Humphrey Mitchell: Would my hon. friend go a step farther?


Angus MacInnis: Give him time.


Humphrey Mitchell: Just a minute; you fellows play both ends against the middle. Would my hon. friend go a step farther and say what the industrial worker paid for food in 1919 and 1920?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Let me go on with what I am saying.


Humphrey Mitchell: You can't answer that.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: to certain things that are going on in this country. I was quite amazed to hear that-the Liberal government had gone socialistic and that apparently the C.C.F. was having some effect on government policy. It does not look that way to me from where I sit, but perhaps the hon. member has a better vantage point. As I look across western Canada, especially from the great lakes west, I find that the very opposite seems to be the case.
If we start in British Columbia or in Manitoba we find that in those provinces it is not the C.C.F. and the Liberals who have formed a coalition, who are now locked in an embrace; it is the Conservatives and the Liberals who have formed a coalition. I am just pointing that out to show that the hon. member was pretty wide of the mark when he attempted to throw the C.C.F. and the Liberals in the same bag, so to speak, and call them all socialists.
We do not object to the Liberals going socialist; we do not object even to the Progressive Conservatives going socialist if they so please, but let us keep the record clear. If we go to other provinces in western Canada, such as Alberta, we find there again that the C.C.F. is the only opposition. On the other side of the house you have the Social Credit group and whatever independents may be there, or a small number of Liberals and Conservatives combined. There you have a situation quite different from what the hon. member tried to imply. In Saskatchewan, for example, there would probably be a coalition of Liberals and Conservatives. One-half of the coalition is missing, but that does not mean that they are not trying to get together, because, according to the Slar-Phoenix:
Regina, March 3 (CP).-A meeting of "representative citizens," including both Liberals and Progressive Conservatives, resolved at a week-end meeting here that "concerted action by all citizens is desirable to supplant the present C.C.F. government by a democratic one," it was announced today.
It goes on to say:
Approximately 40 prominent Reginans met to form an organization with plans to support at the next provincial election, two candidates "who will uphold democratic principles."
"The plan of the new movement is to work with existing political constituency associations in ousting the present C.C.F. government."
That looks a little strange in view of the shadow boxing today between the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) and the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). Apparently they should go back to Saskatchewan once in a while and see what their boys are doing. At another meeting to draw up a

scheme for a united front against the C.C.F. government, one of the Liberals said, according to the Star-Phoenix:
This is not a meeting of Liberals; it is a meeting of inferiority complexes.
He did not like the idea of the two old parties getting together to do nothing but grumble against the C.C.F. government.
The Progressive Conservative association also had a meeting, and the question which came up there was that of nominating only one candidate in the constituency of Regina at the next election. This question was referred to the executive, with power to act on the matter. Those are wide powers, as the hon. member for Lake Centre would say, to hand over to an executive, to determine whether a Liberal or a Conservative shall be the opposition candidate in Regina. In view of all this, I think a great deal, if not all of what the hon. member said today about a so-called socialist coalition between the Liberals and the C.C.F., can be discounted because it does not stand up to the facts.


Mr. LOW:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny), who has just taken his seat, a question, because he made a statement which I think should be clarified. Did the hon. member say that in *Alberta the only opposition was the C.C.F.?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The statement I made was that the only opposition to the Social Credit government in Alberta was the C.C.F., because all other parties were in practically the same bag.


Solon Earl Low: I should like to correct that statement for the record. There are only two members of the C.C.F. and, if they are the only opposition, then there is none in Alberta.


Mr. MAURICE BOURGET (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to avail myself of the opportunity provided by the dbbate on the address to discuss a few points which are of national import at present.
Before doing so, however, I would like to join previous speakers in warmly congratulating the mover (Mr. MacNaught) and the seconder (Mr. Coumoyer) of the address on the splendid manner in which they performed their duties.
(Translation):
A few of the measures advocated in the legislative programme mentioned in the throne speech appeal to me particularly. Representing as I do an urban constituency, peopled mainly by the working classes, I have considered it my duty, during the past seven years which have given me the opportunity of establishing

The Address-Mr. Bourget
closer contact with them, to try to understand them better, to look into their needs and to analyse their claims.
If I have been helpful to them in any way, and if, through that cooperation, we have succeeded in obtaining for them certain privileges, I am most happy indeed. I can state that our workers, and especially those of the Quebec district who are better known to me, are conscientious and honest people-and it is to their credit-who, in their respective fields, want to cooperate with their employers in the development and the progress of Canada, that it may become a still greater country. They understand that they have rights to defend, but they are also aware that they have duties to fulfil. They will only be able to protect those rights by becoming members of the union of their choice, a union in which they will have confidence, and by choosing leaders who will prefer to protect the workers rather than indulge in politics. No party may claim to be the sole defender of the working classes. I would even suggest that some union leaders, while too prone to exalt a political group and to censure the government in power, are neglecting their responsibilities and harming the very people whose interests it is their duty to protect. Consider for example what is happening in the United States at this time. During the November election, the political action committee of the C.I.O. supported the defeated party. We realize today, from the legislation introduced in the American Senate and Congress, that the workers are the sole victims of their leader's blunder. If those bills are passed they will lose many hard-won privileges.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the interests of the working classes must remain above those of any party. Thus, the claims of labour will always be better received and understood by the government, and no doubt, we shall have fewer strikes on our hands. I don't mean by that that union leaders must take the blame for all strikes past and present, but I do mean that conditions might be very much better if they were politically impartial.
At the same time, workers will better live up to their obligations if they feel that their efforts and the interest they take in their jobs receive better recognition. They want to share in the success of the business, but expect appreciation in return. It seems that far too many industrial leaders fail to understand the changes that took place in capital and labour relations, especially in the last war. They have to realize that the worker is no longer to be looked upon as a slave, an underling, to be ordered about at will, but a valued partner worthy of regard
and sympathy. Nothing must be left undone that will improve working conditions and the worker's safety. And when company finances allow, he should be given adequate increases without his having to strike for them. I am sure employers would thus eliminate the . many industrial conflicts that must follow, unless these steps are taken to avoid them.
For example, has there ever been such a depressing condition, so much opposed to the national interest, as the strike that held sway, for a period of three months, at the Noranda mine? Would it not have been feasible to settle this labour dispute at the outset, with a measure of charity, good will and, especially, common sense? Thousands of workers were jobless because the company refused to grant the check-off or optional collection of dues, on which the union insisted. I feel that the company should have complied with the union's demands or, at least, agreed to a vote being taken among the workers.
Last year, at the meetings of the industrial relations committee, this matter of the checkoff was discussed and I cannot recall that a single member was opposed to the acceptance of this union security measure. I was astonished, the other day, to hear the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Caouette), whose friends in Quebec endeavour to build a reputation as defenders of the working classes, say that he was opposed to the check-off because this measure, in his opinion, aimed at depriving the workers of their freedom. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how could this optional collection of dues ever be an obstacle to individual freedom? Are not the workers themselves asking that the deduction be made on their salary? That being so, how can it be said that their freedom is being curtailed? Mr. Speaker, I believe that if my honourable friend realizes how important it is for the workers to organize themselves into a labour union and if he really has their success at heart, he will raise no objection to that form of union security being granted to them. I also think that some good will and cooperation on the part of the company would certainly have had the effect of preventing that disastrous strike.
However, past experience shows that if the protection of both parties is to be ensured and harmonious relations established between them, governments must necessarily intervene and enact appropriate labour legislation.
Last fall, all the labour ministers of this country met in Ottawa. They unanimously agreed to a resolution recommending the enactment of uniform legislative measures for the settlement of disputes between capital and labour. A short time afterward, the dominion
The Address-Mr. Bourget

department of labour submitted to each of the provinces the draft of a national labour code, requesting them to consider it and make whatever convenient suggestions might be necessary under the circumstances. As yet, we do not know what the answers of the provinces will be, but I for one sincerely wish that the ministers concerned may closely scrutinize that ' report before improving the existing legislation; moreover, I feel that they will cooperate with the dominion labour department in the drawing up of a code which would apply throughout the country. The various provinces could themselves enforce such a labour code, which would afford protection to those among them who are so touchy about their autonomy. Uniform legislation of that kind would, in future, do much to redress the wrongs which the workers are now suffering in the province of Quebec, especially in connection with the salaries they receive as compared with those given to workers in other provinces for identical work, because it must not be forgotten that they have to pay the same taxes as their fellow-workers and pay the same prices for the things they need.
It is my belief that the labour ministers from all provinces will generously contribute to that task, so that we may find the required solution which will put an end, if not to all, at least to most of the disputes which might occur in future between capital and labour.
(Text):
Since I am dealing with labour, I believe it is my duty to draw the attention .of the house to a section of our .population which is performing essential services in the economy of our country, even if this section is not great in numbers. I refer to scientists, architects and engineers. Since I am a professional engineer, I may be in a better position than many of our people to understand the role played by the members of these professions before and during the last war, and the great task which they will be called upon to fulfil in the future. But for the information of hon. members and for the public in general, may I quote an extract from an article which appeared in the Institute Journal of December, 1945, and which is entitled, "Scientists in Government Service", by C. R. Twinn:
The British and United States governments have publicly expressed their comprehension of the tremendous importance of science in the modern world. In a white paper dealing with the scientific civil service presented to parliament in September, 1945, by the chancellor of the exchequer appeared the statement:
"The governments are deeply conscious of the contribution made by scientists toward the winning of the war. They are equally conscious of the contribution which science can

make during peace to the efficiency of production. to higher standards of living, to improved health and the means of defence."
In November, 1944 the President of the United States, impressed with the importance of scientific research in the national life and concerned with its continuing future in that country, requested Doctor Vannevar Bush, director of the office of scientific research and development, to make recommendations on a number of points related thereto. Doctor Bush, in reporting to the President in July, 1945, had this to say:
Without scientific progress no amount of achievement in other directions can insure our health, prosperity and security as a nation in the modern world.
Nobody can deny that men who merit such magnificent praise are at least entitled to recognition from their respective governments of the service which they render to society.
The following is an illustration of the way in which many professional men are paid in the civil service and this situation is not peculiar to the federal civil service. I believe it is even worse in the provincial field. In an article that appeared in the November, 1945, issue of the Engineering Journal at page 718, I read the following under the heading, "More About Civil Service Salaries":
For a long time the Engineering Journal has been pounding away at the salary scale paid to members of the profession by the federal civil service. It was very encouraging to see, recently, in the Ottawa Citizen an editorial on the same subject. Under the heading "Why Men Leave Home" the Citizen lays bare the situation in Ottawa all of which will be of more than passing interest to the Department of Finance and the treasury board.
The editorial quotes half a dozen cases that to the casual reader would seem almost too fantastic to be true. Here they are. One of these is a B.Se. of British Columbia and an M.A. of McGill who receives a salary of $3,180 after 19 years' experience. Another is both a B.A. and an M.A. with four years' experience and an $1,800 salary. A third is a graduate of Manitoba with an M.Sc. from Cornell; he has had three years' service and he receives the munificent sum of $1,620 a year. One man with a
B.A. from McGill and an M.A. from Wisconsin and a D.Sc. from-Edinburgh, with fifteen years' experience, draws a salary of $3,180, and there is another with a Ph.D., B.A. and an M.A., who has had six years' experience and receives from His Majesty's loyal government the sum of $2,160.
I have before me recent civil service application notices and I find, for instance, according to one, that the public service of Canada requires architects and engineers, class 1 and class 2, at salaries ranging from 32,100 to 33,120. I might also cite the case of a chemical engineer who holds a diploma from a recognized Canadian university and also the

The Address-Mr. Bourget
degree of Doctor of Chemistry from a European university. He has to his credit twenty-one years' experience and is working for a federal department and earning the enormous salary of $2,860 a year. In view of this, is it surprising that governments are having difficulty in retaining valued employees after they have worked under these unsatisfactory conditions for a few years? Will our governments not realize that they will lose employees whom it will be impossible to replace? Will our governments not realize that such loss will cripple the public services of which we should be so proud. I believe that in some quarters it seems that a sense of proportion has been altogether lost. I hope that, since war-time restrictions are abolished, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and the treasury board will do their best to remedy these wrongs.
May I ask fair-minded members of this house, whatever may be their political creed, to support me on this issue. This is not a political issue. I should like the public at large and the federal and provincial governments to recognize that those whom Doctor Samuel Smiles rightly called "the makers of modern civilization" are entitled to a salary commensurate with the great services they are rendering.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, another matter of national import which gives rise to serious controversy is that which deals with the dominion-provincial tax agreements. At present, six provinces have accepted them while three have turned [DOT] them down, for the time being, at any rate. They object to these agreements on the ground that acceptance of the proposals would jeopardize their autonomy. Mr. Speaker, we have not yet heard any of the six provincial premiers who accepted the agreements complain that they had sacrificed the slightest particle of autonomy; still, and this I should like to emphasize, these premiers are not all friendly to the present government.
On the other hand, we are still awaiting one argument from the refractory provinces to convince us that those proposals imperil provincial autonomy. Some have endeavoured to prove it, but upon analysis, we find that their arguments can be easily refuted. On February 6 last, speaking on the address, the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) stated:
Is it not true, however, and does history not prove that the dominion government never returned the provincial rights and prerogatives it had taken over although many of them were surrendered only temporarily?
Well, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will refer to sections 51, 52, 91 and 92 of the British North America Act, he will find that
the dominion government had complete authority to that effect and therefore did not encroach upon the autonomy of the provinces. I shall gladly give him, upon request, the subsections applying to each of the said acts. No, Mr. Speaker, the dominion government has no intention of encroaching upon provincial rights and does not ask that the constitution be modified or amended.
Their only wish is to secure a tax agreement for a definite period of time. My hon. friend and the premier of my province may rest assured that no Quebec Liberal member will ever tolerate any infringement of provincial autonomy. We prize our rights as highly as they do and we are determined to fight for them. We go about it with less fanfare and histrionics, but with greater logic and sincerity. We realize full well that such agreements, while respecting individual rights, will ensure prosperity throughout the nation. It is generally admitted, I think, that prosperity is indivisible. We must, therefore, use every effort to spread it in all provinces. These agreements are designed to provide the provinces with a fixed income to avoid overlapping and inequality of taxation and to protect trade within the country. There is no doubt but that their acceptance would make it possible for the various governments to stabilize their financial position, improve their social legislation and prevent the recurrence of unemployment. I have given my reasons for hoping that the premier of our province will assent to the proposals. I hope that he will stop playing petty politics and if he thinks our rights are being trampled on, let him show us in what respect they are being ignored and let him bluntly refuse to sign an agreement. If, on the other hand, our autonomy is unimpaired, let him come here and take up the matter with the federal government so that we may know once and for all what he does want. No further conference need be held to thresh out the matter. We have had two already, both ending in failure. Besides, by the very principle of provincial autonomy, any province is fully entitled to enter into tax agreements with the dominion without in any way affecting the rights of other provinces. Mr. Speaker, while the Canadian people were disturbed for a time by such appeals to impaired autonomy, they are getting to understand just why certain governments turned down the agreements, and the time is at hand when they will pass harsh judgment on those genuinely responsible for the failure of the conference.
Before closing, I wish to ask the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), who must now be getting ready for the forthcoming budget, to keep the taxpayers in mind.
The Address-Mr. Bourget

During the war, all Canadians generously accepted the sacrifices necessary in such circumstances, but they all realize today, that they cannot indefinitely assume the present heavy burden of taxes. I believe the time has come to grant important reductions, especially to wage earners and heads of families. It does not seem essential to me that the total cost of the war just ended be paid entirely by the present generation. I feel that future generations should be called upon to pay part of that expenditure, as they may possibly be the first to benefit from the sacrifices made by the present generation in order to ensure a happier future for their descendants.
(Text):


Mr. HEON:: Mr. Speaker, according to a written agreement which will last for the duration of this session, I was paired with my very distinguished friend the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. La-palme). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. GAGNON:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Lake St. John-Roberval (Mr. Dion). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment.

The Address-Mr. Low
(Text):
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I should like to have just a few minutes to deal with the position this group takes with respect to the amendment proposed by the Progressive Conservative party and to place our position firmly before the members of the house. It is true that this is the second time I have spoken in this debate, but I make no apology for doing that because-the rules of the house forbid me, in the succession which is arranged, to move an amendment. I may wish to do that before I finish my address tonight.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nonsense.


Solon Earl Low: It cannot be any more nonsensical than my hon. friend looks. There are two aspects of the Conservative amendment which I think require considerable attention before the vote is taken. On the negative side I should like to ask certain questions. Do the Conservatives claim that the government has lost the confidence of the people because, during its regime, centralization has intensified, taxes have increased many times, the national debt has mounted to staggering proportions, and bureaucracy and regimentation have proceeded to lengths that are unbelievable? If so, then we agree.
Do the Conservatives claim that the Liberal government no longer enjoys the confidence -of the people because of the manner in which the government has been introducing socialism while at the same time giving lip service to Liberal principles? If, so, then we quite concur. Do the Conservatives, the movers of the amendment, believe that the flagrant violation of the promises which they made, particularly to the men of the fighting forces in regard to the post-war period, contributed to the loss of confidence in the government? If so, then certainly we agree. Finally, do the Conservatives claim that the government has lost the confidence of the people through its failure to preserve and vitalize true democracy in Canada and because in its neglect it has allowed conditions to develop which encourage the growth of communism and other forms of totalitarianism to the extent that they have become a distinct danger to the security and welfare of Canada? If so, then we agree. These are objectionable policies which the C.C.F. party would intensify in their efforts to introduce the socialist state in Canada.


Mr. COLDWELL:: That is your opinion, but it is not correct.


Solon Earl Low: We shall let the hon. member show that it is not. Those are the negative
aspects of the matter. By implication the amendment before the house suggests that there is some party or there are some alternative policies in which the people do have confidence. I think we must rule out any possibility that the people's confidence rests in any political party. It is my opinion that political party machines have never been quite so much in disrepute as they are at the present time in Canada. Therefore it must be that the Conservatives believe there are policies which would command the confidence of the people. There can be no question that this is the case. So I put it squarely to the Conservatives who are sponsoring the amendment: Do they concur that these policies which they claim that people have confidence in are as follows:
1.	That full and unfettered freedom shall be restored to the people of Canada-I mean all the people of Canada, not just some of them.
2.	That as one of the means to the restoration of freedom, all unnecessary controls, domination of the individual citizen by a growing state bureaucracy, and the increasing centralization of power by a multitude of regulations, orders in council and restrictive legislation shall be brought to an end.
3.	That the present burden of crushing taxation shall be reduced by at least thirty per cent immediately, and within reasonable time by at least sixty per cent.
4.	That every Canadian shall, as a right of citizenship, and so long as he assumes his responsibilities as a citizen and cooperates to the full in keeping up Canadian production, be entitled to a social security income, in addition to his earned income, if any, which will render him independent of state charity or economic coercion and will enable him to live in decency and security. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that nothing less than this will confer on him economic freedom; and without economic freedom he can have no freedom in any real sense of the term.
5.	That the .paralyzing restrictions on agriculture and industry shall be removed to give full rein to the country's productive efforts, and immediate action be taken to divert the necessary effort and materials so that private enterprise and existing government agencies might together provide an adequate housing programme to meet the national requirements.
6.	That farmers and other primary producers, together with manufacturers and merchants, shall be assured a fair return for their services in an expanding market in which consumers will at all times have sufficient purchasing power to buy the available goods and services.
The Address-Mr. Low

7.	That there shall be established stability of wage scales and incomes generally, with a downward revision of prices without loss to any individual.
8.	That the parliament of Canada shall be made responsible to the will of the Canadian people at all times; and that the necessary constitutional changes shall be made to establish every Canadian in his legitimate rights as a citizen of this great country.
These policies in almost every respect are the opposite of those being pursued by the present government and of those being advocated by the C.C.F. and communist parties. Yet not only do these policies represent what the overwhelming majority of the Canadian people want but, with our vast national resources, they are entirely practicable.
If these are the policies to which the Progressive Conservatives give their support as the alternatives to the policies in which they claim the people have lost confidence, the Social Credit group would like them to make it very clear, by declaration in this house, so that we shall know what to do about the amendment they have proposed. We like as a group to be faced with positive proposals when making our decisions. We are determined to do what is best for Canada, and we do not want to be guilty at any time of political manoeuvring. To the very best of our ability we will do what is best for Canada so far as it is possible for us to see what is best.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is a good deal of merit in the old saying, "I'd rather have the devil I know than the devil I don't know."
In order to clarify the whole situation, I wrish to move an amendment to the Conservative amendment. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore): That all of the w'ords in the amendment following the word "Excellency's" be struck out, and the following be substituted therefor: "Ministers ought to have advised Your Excellency that they would introduce in the present session measures providing for:
A.	The return to parliament of complete and effective control of Canada's financial policy.
B.	The use of the national credit to meet at least some of the financial requirements for essential services; and, as a guarantee that this country shall not again be subjected to financial depression, to make available to each and all Canadian citizens a proper portion of purchasing power which shall not first pass through the usual channels of industry, this on a basis calculated to maintain a balance between effective purchasing power in the hands of consumers and the aggregate of the prices of goods available for sale.
C.	Removing the discouragements to the production, and sale in Canada, of building materials of all kinds; and, the providing of finan-

cial assistance required, so that an all-out housing programme can be initiated to meet the needs of the Canadian people.
D.	Redefining and clarifying the constitutional rights and responsibilities of dominion and provincial governments together with the adoption of scientific formulae for allotting to the provinces sufficient revenues to enable them fully to discharge their responsibilities without increasing the tax burden already borne by their people.
It has been widely claimed that the social crediters have turned away from their monetary reform efforts. I suppose this claim arises from the fact that during the war years we did not press so strongly for monetary reform as we did before the war. We did not emphasize this phase of our programme for two main reasons: (a) for patriotic reasons. We were in a war that required the combined efforts of all Canadians to win, and we did not think it desirable at that time to press too strongly for changes while we were engaged in a life and death struggle; (b) but much the more important reason is that the chronic shortages of purchasing power disappear during war time when a big part of our production is being given away free to our enemies or being destroyed in battle. In fact, as the war reached its climax, there developed a situation where we had more money than consumer goods to be bought. Social crediters realized that, and were not such fools as to press for more money to come into existence at that time. The fact that we did not has been misinter-' preted to mean that we have dropped our demands for financial reforms. Nothing is farther from the truth.
Amongst those who make the claim that we have abandoned monetary reform efforts are many who say they have made a careful study of social credit and that their studies have convinced them of its fallacy. I doubt very much that they have made these studies because these same people charge that social credit is merely a monetary reform scheme; in fact many of them say "a fumy money scheme". Let me tell them in no uncertain terms that they have not studied social credit at all or they would know that social credit is a complete philosophy of life, a way of living which concerns itself with every phase of the political and economic welfare of every human being within our borders; if they had made a study of social credit they would know that our financial reform proposals are simply a means to an end. What is that end? Establishment in our country of conditions under which every individual may have an opportunity of developing his own personality to the farthest possible extent of his capacity,

The Address-Mr. Low
together with the fullest freedom to live his life as an individual and not as part of a regimented group.
Every observant Canadian knows that before and during the war years the social credit organization was the spearhead of the movement to save Canada from communism, fascism, or any other totalitarian "ism". We have led constantly in the effort to preserve the right of private enterprise in this country, because we are convinced, as the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) so well demonstrated this afternoon, that individuals develop and expand toward perfection best under such a system, private enterprise.
It is common knowledge that social crediters have consistently pressed for lower taxes, reduction of debt, the abolition of restrictive bureaucratic control and the introduction of a Christian democracy in this country. We have never relaxed for one moment in our demands that parliament set out at once to unlock the door to abundant living for every Canadian. Social credit contains the three keys by which these doors can be opened wide. The first of these keys is personal freedom, which is the key to political democracy. We have been the champions of political democracy and of personal freedom. The second of these keys which is involved in the social credit philosophy is financial reform, which is the key to economic democracy. Unless we have economic democracy which carries economic freedom to every citizen, those citizens cannot be said to have freedom in any sense. The third key which is contained within the social credit philosophy is a sane policy of international relations, which is the key to peace.	,
The shooting war is over. Canada should soon be giving full rein to productive effort; in fact we should have been straining much harder these past years to open wide the floodgates of production to meet the dangerous situation which had developed with respect to the possibility of inflation. As we remove the restrictions to full production we shall very soon begin to pile up unsaleable surpluses of goods and services; surpluses not above what che people want and can consume, but so-called surpluses above what the people can pay for with the meagre amount of money in their pockets. Within a few years at the most, unless some basic reforms are made to prevent it, Canada will once more face a condition of unsaleable surpluses and poverty amidst abundance. I say with all gravity, Mr. Speaker, that if that condition is ever allowed to develop again in this country I very much fear that nothing can possibly prevent tragic disturbances and upheavals which might be
the signal for the communist world revolution that is still in the course of active preparation.
Let me say right here that the government has shown some evidence-and I recognize that evidence-of an awakening to the situation. It has introduced some measures designed to bring up internal consumption in Canada, but it has steadfastly refused to get right down to the real causes of periodical depression. The government seems to prefer putting crutches where a surgical operation is needed. In the light of modern knowledge of economics, does it not appear stupid to hon. members, stupid, let us say, to distribute money for family allowances and then turn around and, by hundreds of hidden ways, steal it back by taxation? Who benefits from such a thing?
If one examines into the situation he will find that the beneficiaries are mainly the hordes of bureaucrats who administer these acts of extortion. Has not anybody the gumption to see that if more of the products of his labour is left in the hands of the rightful owner, namely, the citizen who produces them, there would be infinitely less necessity and reason for the people becoming dependent upon a paternal state?
I said that financial reform is the key to economic democracy. The need for financial reform arises from two basic faults or weaknesses in our financial structure. The first is that Canadian governments of the past have allowed a private monopoly to control the issuance of over ninety-five per cent of our money. This monopoly issues money as a debt owing to itself that must be repaid with interest. I do not intend to spend time on this phase of the weakness just now.
The second weakness arises from the method which we use of putting money into circulation, that results in a chronic shortage of purchasing power in the hands of consumers. I should like to say just a word about this one, because it is the one upon which the proposals for reform made by the social credit programme rests.
There is general agreement among economists of the world that purchasing power finds its way into the hands of consumers through the productive process; that is, through the process of making goods, paying salaries and wages, dividends and profits and compensation to the workers in enterprise and in industry. I believe, too, that there is general agreement that if a large-scale productive system is to serve the needs of this century and of the people in these modern times, it must be matched by large-scale consumption. What we need is a nation of good customers, but this cannot be unless we set to work now to remedy the basic faults in our method of
The Address-Mr. Low

distributing purchasing power. Is it true that the productive process itself fails to generate and distribute enough money to enable the consumer to buy back the whole of their produce? I think it is a matter of common observation that the productive effort fails to distribute amongst consumers enough so that these consumers can buy back the products of industry.
I shall draw this to the attention of the house as a common observation. Periodically in this and in every other country we come into a condition which operates on the same type of financial system, where we have built up unsaleable surpluses of goods, goods which the people want and can use and would use, but they cannot get at them. We saw in the - thirties in this country a condition where the merchants had their shelves loaded full, where people were starving and could not get at these goods because they did not have in their pockets the money with which to buy them. That is a situation which has to be explained if we are ever to get at the root cause of our financial difficulties.
I ask again-and this is a matter of common observation-why was it that for 200 years Britain was able to maintain a favourable balance of trade without any wild deflation? The only answer to that is that in the heyday of her imperialistic efforts Britain did build up a tremendous productive capacity, but she found that she could not distribute the total of what she produced with the money that was generated in her enterprise through the productive effort, and she had to send abroad the surplus above what the people could buy with the money they had in their pockets. She maintained this position for 200 years. There was no wild deflation. Why? Because what they were sending out equalled almost exactly the surplus of the production above the money the people had.
Another matter of common observation is reported by Arthur Dunn, an economist, and a lawyer. I have in my hand a book which he put out, called "Arithmetic or Revolution'. Mr. Dunn is a noted author and lives in the United States. In this book he has made a complete and detailed analysis of the situation as we now face it, with respect to finance in its relation to our economy. I should like to quote briefly from what he has to say on page 35. This follows what I have been trying to say about trade. He says:
The science of buying power, when learned, must be utilized in all mechanized countries if the machine age is to yield its possibilities. It must also be applied in the exchange of products between nations, as well as within nations. For foreign trade is mostly an exchange of products 
of one country for those of other countries. As pieces of paper are used to effect exchanges within countries, so are pieces of paper used to effect exchanges between countries. We term the latter bills of exchange and the former money. The difference between them is that money represents products generally whereas bills of exchange represent only the specific products listed in the bills. The people of every country seek to export the excess unconsumed at home. If they knew better how to distribute among themselves the goods they produce, there would be less surplus for export . . .
And therefore less pressure to get goods that embarrass the economy into the channels of world trade. Then at page 34 I quote Mr. Dunn, as follows:
George N. Peek, made for President Roosevelt an analysis of our foreign trade from 1895 to 1935. Mr. Peek shows that from 1896 to 4933 we-
He is speaking of the United States.
-sold to the world goods in the amount of $121 billion (I use round numbers) and had bought $84 billion worth, placing the world in debt to us by over $36 billion. Part of this was paid to us by services (carrying freight and so on), but the balance still owing us up to 1934 was over $22 billion. This sum included war debts for goods shipped by us to our allies, and will undoubtedly never be paid. Also huge amounts due our private citizens are uncertain. So, up to that date, we had actually given away billions of dollars' worth of commodities abroad, for we had received nothing in return except these pieces of paper, that is, promises to pay.
When we analyse Mr. Peek's figures we make an astonishing discovery:
. . . that it is better to produce and give part away than to reduce production. For ,18 years (from July 1, 1896 to June 30, 1914) the amount owing the United States from abroad increased only $1 billion, or an average of $56 million per annum; but from July d, 1914 to July 1, 1929, the increase was over $21 billion or an average of almost $14 billion per annum. From 1930 to 1933 there was no increase at all in the principal of foreign debts. In other words, in the years of our greatest national prosperity we produced enormously and gave away, that is, in the sense that they were not paid for, over 26 times as much as in the years of moderately good times.
What is the answer to that? The whole thing can be summed up in this way, that the productive enterprise in the United States in those years failed to distribute sufficient purchasing power in all forms among the people of that country to enable them to buy back the goods they produced; therefore they were in the position of having to send abroad large quantities of their goods in order to keep the remainder within their own country, and they were determined not to receive in payment for those exports of theirs any imports because, if the imports had been brought back in payment for their exports a situation would have been brought about which would still be

The Address-Mr. Low
embarrassing because of lack of purchasing power among the people. Some figures have been obtained from Washington and I quote from the National Bureau of Economic Research Reports, No. 2, pages 242 to 248:
American industries paid out in ,1918 $45,548,000,000 in wages, salaries, dividends, bonuses, pensions, compensations and consumer purchasing power, and at the same time consumer goods were produced to the value of $60,366,000; in other words, there was an excess of production over purchasing power generated and distributed among the people of approximately $15 billion.
If that is so, one would find in the records of the United States for that year an export surplus for favourable balance of trade of approximately S15 billion, or a combination of favourable balance of trade and increase in the national debt amounting to $15 billion. An examination of the records in the United States will reveal exactly that. Their national debt plus their favourable balance of trade for 1918 amounted to approximately $15 billion. That is evidence that there is not sufficient purchasing power, generated and distributed in the process of producing goods and services in any country, to enable the people to buy back those goods and services.
I call attention for a moment to one or two other works that are available to students who wish to follow the question more closely, and I would exhort hon. members to familiarize themselves with these, because it is important to the future of this great country that we know. I refer now to a little booklet called "Banking and Industry" by A. W. Joseph, B.A., B.Sc., A.I.A., of Birmingham, England. This booklet goes into a logical and forceful discussion of the causes underlying the failure of the productive effort to distribute sufficient purchasing power.
Mr. Joseph outlines three causes in particular. The first arises from the way in which we have to finance the production of capital goods. He calls that one the double circuit, meaning that there are certain costs which have to be recovered from the community of people, the consumers, which costs were never put into circulation. This in itself causes a shortage. No one has yet to my knowledge produced an effective rebuttal of Mr. Joseph's argument.
The second cause, which he discusses and demonstrates clearly, is the matter of public saving, which continues to build up an expanding economy of production with a lag in the distribution of purchasing power, that creates a very bad situation periodically, a situation which people in the past have been in the habit of calling "the business cycle." That is the old laissez-faire term for it. Well, it is time we got away from laissez-83166-74
faire, and established something like a decent organization of the financial structure so that we may prevent these tragic periodical occurrences.
The third cause he deals with is the time lag in the cycles of production. I commend this book to hon. members, and would suggest too, that if they cannot find one handy they go to the banking and commerce committee's report for the session of 1939. It is here in the library. They will find at page 613 the important part of this little pamphlet written by Mr. Joseph, who is a chartered accountant and a student of economics.
I should like at this point, and before I close, to refer hon. members for further evidence regarding the shortage of purchasing power to the American magazine of July, 1946. In an article written by Senator James E. Murray, beginning at page 38-1 have it available for hon. members if they wish to see it-I quote the following:
Congress has enacted-and the President has endorsed-legislation designed to plan for permanent prosperity. Furthermore, any action taken under the law will be taken within the framework of our own free enterprise system and through our existing democratic processes. This new law is a crucial first step toward enduring prosperity, just as the San Francisco charter was a crucial first step toward a world organization for peace. Both need to be implemented.
Then I go over to page 106, where the article continues. I read this part of the act, which is heartening to those of us who understand just what the basic weaknesses are in our financial arrangements:
The congress hereby declares that it is the continuing policy and responsibility of the federal government ... to coordinate and utilize all its plans, functions, and resources for the purpose of creating and maintaining . . . conditions under which there will be afforded useful employment opportunities-
Note that; useful employment opportunities, not useless ones.
-including self employment-
That is, the right to turn in leisure time to things you have wanted to do for so long but have not been able to do.
-for those willing, able, and seeking work, and to promote maximum employment, production, and purchasing power.
Then he says:
That, in a mouthful, is the goal. You will note, in the last clause, that congress recognized it is futile to expect everyone to have jobs unless our industries have a full supply of orders and. unless all our people have enough money in their pockets to buy all the goods our farms and factories can produce.
I say it is most heartening to realize that some thinking men are coming to see and

The Address-Mr. Low

understand the basic faults in our system of finance. That is heartening, because I believe they will now begin to turn to the remedies, and those remedies ought to be quite obvious to hon. members.
I should like to refer to just one other authority on this point. Professor C. E. Ayers, head of the economies department of the university of Texas, recently published a book which he entitled, "The Divine Right of Capital." In that book he makes an incontrovertible case for what he calls one of the great discoveries of this century. The discovery to which he refers is that the total productive effort in any country operating under the financial system used by Canada, Great Britain, the United States, and in fact most countries of the world, fails to distribute to consumers enough purchasing power to enable them to buy back the goods and services they have produced. This serious defect is the same one discovered and exposed by Major Douglas twenty-six years ago. Professor Ayers does not take credit for discovering the basic fault. He claims that discovering the truth of the chronic shortage defect is what constitutes the greatness of the discovery in these modern times. While one cannot totally agree, perhaps, with the remedies suggested by this professor, at the same time he has correctly divined and has built up an incontrovertible argument for the shortage of purchasing power generated in the productive effort.
I do not wish to weary the house with any further discussion along this line. In closing, let me simply say this. Surely our observations, our common sense, and the words of great economists of this day who have gone into it, ought to be enough to cause us, as the custodians of the safety and security of the Canadian people, to get down to work and discover for ourselves exactly what the defects are that we face in our great process of distributing the tremendous production which the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) showed was possible in this country. If we are to prevent recurring depressions it is necessary that we apply remedies. What those remedies should be I am going to leave for my colleagues, who may follow me in the discussion of this amendment, to deal with. Suffice it to say that it cannot be questioned that the reasons have now been established for the fault or weakness in our financial structure. The sooner we get at remedying that fault, the sooner we get on the right track toward the life abundant, the better we are going to be.
I have just one word in conclusion. I hope the speakers from the Progressive Conservative ranks who will follow will make clear their

answers to the questions I have asked, because the position taken by this group on their amendment will be largely guided by what is said, the declarations made, and the vote taken on our own amendment.


Mr. W. GARFIELD CASE (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel I should presume to accept the invitation of the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low) and speak for the Progressive Conservatives in any sense of the word. It will be my endeavour to make my own views clear on what I consider to be the pressing problems facing the Dominion of Canada. As many hon. members know, not so long ago I was in perhaps the same position as the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), who has been quoted as saying he was a Liberal looking for a party. I am sort of ahead of him, because I have found a party. I must say I have been very happy and contented and my association has been extremely congenial. Yet you may notice that I am sitting about as far to the right of my leader as it is possible to sit. I suppose that is in order that escape might be possible and easy.
What I should like to discuss tonight has something to do with the various levels of government. I do not want to introduce or discuss any new system. We hear so much about the new things that might be done, but I should like to discuss a formula which I believe would make the present system work; and I think that is all we need. I have in mind now the municipal governments throughout Canada. As hon. members may know, I have a background of municipal experience, having served my municipality in various capacities, including that of mayor. That brings to mind the problems faced by men charged with the responsibility of administering our affairs, at any level whatever. In that sense I am not going to be too critical. I would rather seek to appreciate, if I could, how those problems might be solved, and offer criticism of a constructive nature.
I might say, however, after listening to the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) and his fear of the removal of controls that, so far as I am concerned, one who expresses the opinion that he is fearful of the removal of controls has lost entirely confidence in his fellow man. I cannot imagine that any great degree of chaos would result in Canada if controls were removed. There are always two-parties to a bargain, and surely the great mass of the people can be given credit for using some degree of judgment, and that they would not let prices run rampant. I can understand, of course, that in the matter of rentals there

The Address-Mr. Case
would have to be some controls, since there is not sufficient accommodation to go around. But the attempt to control many of these commodities results in the setting up of black markets, and means whereby people can short-circuit normal procedure, whereby they will pay prices beyond the ceilings. When they do that they are breaking the law; and when people break one law, it creates disrespect for other laws.
As one who believes in free enterprise, it is my view that the government has been overcautious in its desire to serve the Canadian people by instituting wartime housing and housing enterprises, and by creating priorities whereby those people have the advantage in what otherwise might have been a free market. I believe that, had private enterprise been given an opportunity, not only would it have built better houses, but it would have built more of them, built them in a satisfactory manner and in locations which might have been selected by those who were likely to occupy them.
However I do know that in my own municipality, where we were hard-pressed to find suitable accommodation, we welcomed what the government sought to do. I suppose it is easy enough for me to stand here tonight and be critical of something that has already taken place. In my experience in public life I have never sought to impute improper motives to my fellow man. I prefer to feel that he is acting in good faith. I might even pay some compliments to the C.C.F. socialists, even though I detest the means they seek to employ to attain their end.
My concern today, more than anything else, is the plight of the municipality. From coast to coast in Canada these municipalities are the creatures of the provincial legislatures. They are governed by certain fixed statutes. They must raise their revenues from real property; that is their tax base. All the time, the people residing in these municipalities are demanding expansion of services, services which must be paid for by the real property owners.
There is more than one way to bring about state socialism or even communism in Canada. One method commonly employed is that followed by the C.C.F. socialists when they stand on a public platform and advocate state control and state ownership, or even when they include those principles in an amendment, as they did in their amendment to the amendment to the address in reply.
But the other and more subtle method is to increase the burden of taxation to a point where the ownership of real property ceases to become attractive, and the property owner, the real backbone of the country, will throw 83166-74J
in the sponge and ask himself why he should seek to carry on when he is being asked to carry the burden for the whole community.
Canada has long prided herself on being a nation of homes. Her real objective should be that of a nation of home-owners; because I believe that when a man has a stake in his community, or owns property, he is not one who will be easily persuaded to follow socialism, or any other ism which has been tried and has resulted only in regimentation and the loss of personal freedom and liberty.
In support of my reference to the municipalities, I should like to refer to something which His Worship Mayor Lewis is reported to have said while addressing a public meeting in Ottawa. The Ottawa Journal of February 20, 1947, reports His Worship the Mayor in this way:
There are no spare beds in the hospitals; there are no spare places for persons suffering mental illness. We are keeping people in our county gaol because there is no room for them in the proper mental institutions. Our reformatories are filled and our gaols are filled. There is no place left in all Canada for incurables and for the aged.
Then he went on to say:
During the war years all eyes were focussed across the ocean, but the time had come to concentrate on affairs at home which were in a serious state. We should not lose sight of our local problems which are more serious and more complicated than appear on the surface. One of the main problems was making ends meet, giving to the people the services they demanded, and yet keeping taxation within reason. By existing laws the city was required to raise each year an amount of money needed to cover its expenditures, and it could not spend more than it could raise. Civic services were increasing rapidly in cost while ways of raising money were decreasing. This was true not only of Ottawa but of every municipality in North America.
I have known His Worship Mayor Lewis for a great many years. For some five years he was president of the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities. To my knowledge, he has been secretary of the Ontario mayors and reeves association since its inception. So I had an opportunity during two years, while I was president of that organization, to learn to appreciate this man as an outstanding municipal authority. Let me quote some figures relative to the city of Ottawa, so that hon. members may know how great this problem really is.
According to the Ottawa Journal of February 20, 1947, reporting the mayor's speech:
The fire department of Ottawa in 1917 spent $130,700; in 1946 it spent $489,607. Social services in 1917 cost this city $13,029, while in 4946 they cost $70,865. In 1917 playgrounds cost $3,000, and in 1946 $135,031
The Address-Mr. Case

Then, we come to snow clearance. I know something about that problem. Trains have been travelling late these days. As a matter of fact a lady told me the other day that she boarded a train in one of our northern towns, carrying a child in her arms. When they started out she did not have to pay any fare for the child; but before she reached her destination, a distance of about a hundred miles, they charged her half fare.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: Joke, that is.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I continue to quote from the Ottawa Journal:
In 1917 snow removal cost $24,000; in 1946 it cost $337,595. The children's aid society cost $1,400 in 1917; in 1946 it cost $179,000. Hospitals cost $41,000 in 1917; in 1946 they cost $108,000.
Hon. members will note by the morning paper, the Globe and Mail of March 7, that Mayor Saunders is seeking to have the provincial government pass enabling legislation to permit them to levy an amusement tax which the mayor of Toronto hopes will raise $1,000,000 in revenue.
Realizing that there is no chance to expand the municipal tax base, I am going to suggest a method that might be employed and which I believe would help this country immeasurably and would guarantee plenty of employment for many long years to come. We know how the cost of education has increased. I think it is commendable that the province of Ontario has assumed fifty per cent of the cost of education. However this has been done at a time when salai'ies of teachers are being raised of necessity and therefore the municipal taxpayer has not benefited greatly, although he has not had to pay out what would be a substantial amount.
I have always taken the view that a dollar which is not earned has no value. I believe the only money that has any value is the money that is earned. What I intend to propose is a method which could be used to give effect to that which already exists. July 1, 1938, was an important date in Canadian history. If we were to make comparisons I think it would be about as important as the beginning of confederation in 1867, because it was on that day that we obtained complete control of the Bank of Canada which gave us control over the issuance of currency and domestic credit.
Let me make a comparison. Back in the olden days a dollar had some relation to gold backing and bonds were redeemable in gold. That put the bondholders in a position where they could question the ability of a country to
IMr. Case.]
pay off in gold. That was evident at the time of the bankers' crash in the United States in 1932. Since that time there has been no gold clause in our bonds and there have not been the same fluctuations in value. A stability of value is maintained because the people have confidence in the resources of the country, even though they had no confidence in the volume of gold.
What I propose is a new charter for Canada, a means whereby we can employ the credit of the nation to assist the municipalities. It may mean rewriting the constitution, but surely we are capable of coping with the things we have to deal with. As I said, a dollar that is not earned has no value. We pay $35 an ounce for gold, which just about represents the cost of production. Sub-marginal mines cannot make ends meet even at $35 an ounce. The real value of gold is in the neighbourhood of the cost of production.
If, then, we apply that same rule to other physical assets we could employ labour to create durable capital goods and durable capital construction, and I would include those things that are bearing so heavily upon the municipalities today. I would reserve to them and to all levels of government complete autonomy and legal title to property, but I suggest that public buildings of a non-revenue or non-profit making type should be built and financed with currency issued through the Bank of Canada. Every dollar would be a dollar earned because it would employ labour in the construction of buildings of a durable nature. We would be creating an asset for every dollar we spent and we would not create any more public debt.
You may say, "Where are we going to get off at?" Someone may ask whether there will be overbuilding. I am going to suggest that the public buildings constructed should be schools and educational institutions of all kinds. With proper education a child becomes an asset to the nation. I suggest, further, that hospitals should be built. That is the closest I would come to what might be considered revenue producing buildings. Certainly very few hospitals are profit producing. Surely the care of the sick should be a charge upon the nation's resources and not necessarily a charge upon the municipality or any one part of the nation. We need hospitals; we need schools from coast to coast, and1 we need other educational institutions. We need mental hospitals, because our present hospitals are a disgrace to organized society. These unfortunate people, victims of circumstances over which they have no control, are overcrowded in these hospitals.

The Address-Mr. Case
This burden is too great for the municipal taxpayer, because there is no method by which that tax base can be expanded. The real property owner can bear no more than he is bearing at the present time. The same principle could be applied to the federal or national field and harbours, national highways, canals and certain types of cargo vessels for the merchant marine could be built. After all, we are an exporting nation and means must be found whereby we can carry our goods to the furthermost parts of the world.
A moment ago I asked a question whether there would be overbuilding or overexpansion, and I am going to suggest means whereby that could be kept in check. I said that I would preserve complete autonomy to all levels of government. Once these buildings are built and equipped with heating and sanitation facilities, I would suggest that the municipality be charged with the responsibility of furnishing them with movable furniture and staffing and maintaining them. There would then be no advantage in a municipality seeking to overbuild, since there would still be continuing charges upon the local taxpayer.
In the matter of social services I would recommend that these be paid for by the federal authorities. Old age pensions, mother's allowances, unemployment insurance on a contributory basis and family allowances should all be a charge upon the federal taxpayer, as at present. I am not advocating lowering the age for old age pensions. I am always fearful of anything which tends to discourage work. I think a man's initiative and ambition should be encouraged, but as far as I am concerned that is a matter for the taxpayer to decide. If he would like to step up the old age pension to $50 a month at age seventy without a means test, then there may be some justification for it. Since the bill will have to be paid by the taxpayer it would become a revolving fund, and since everyone would be entitled to it much of it would come back into the treasury immediately in the form of taxes.
I would also be in favour, not necessarily of lowering the old age pension age, but of instituting a disability pension for anyone twenty-one years of age or over who was incapacitated from providing for himself. Such a pension should be strictly on a means test, and it would not start in at anything like $50 a month. The idea of a disability pension is sound, but it is remarkable what handicapped people can do for themselves when they have an incentive. I have been reading reports recently of cases of handicapped men who have taken employment and given more satisfactory service than those who were not
physically handicapped. Such a pension could be granted on a sliding scale, so that the maximum amount would be received by the disabled at the time it was probably needed most.
What shall we do with the present mammoth debt of this nation? I should like to see this nation debt-free. I suppose someone may suggest that I am proposing to take a short-cut. But it is a natural objective to want to be debt-free, and that applies to a nation as well as to the individual. But constantly in all my years of experience I have seen the public debt piled upon debt until now the national debt has reached mammoth proportions. The shadow of socialism lengthens and the dark clouds of communism hang over us. The way to dissipate them is by giving the people that which they are seeking. I do not think we need fear communism or socialism provided that we can satisfy the Canadian people that we recognize our responsibilities. I do not believe that it is necessary to keep on piling up the national debt. We made a great discovery when we found that the nation-and the same thing may be said of practically all nations-now has the right to regulate its own credit and currency. I am not critical of the financing methods employed by the government during the war, because then there was a vast expansion of credit and a limited amount of consumer goods available, and we could not afford to have such a huge volume of spending power constantly pressing against the limited production; we would not have been able to hold price ceilings at all. In war time it would certainly seem proper that the government should borrow from the people and take away from the market some of the purchasing power. That also has the advantage of accumulating savings for the individual to be used for future expenditure. Furthermore, after the terrible conflict through which we have just passed, I think it is only fitting that posterity should make some contribution for the right to their freedom which has been won in that war. But, as the bonds mature, I think they should be retired by some method, perhaps such as I suggest for a public building programme. If it were possible to separate capital from current expenditure, certainly the capital cost should be retired. But of course we must keep faith with the bondholders. Nothing drastic should be done in seeking to remove this mountain of national debt, but no one could reasonably argue that he has a perpetual claim on the resources of this nation. Are we to develop into a nation of coupon-clippers? Rather should we not get back to where capital will be seeking investment instead of investment seeking capital.
The Address-Mr. Case

Today industry needs capital and the farmers need capital, but we are constantly driving them to do business through sources which formerly they did not have to employ and we are denying them the advantages which they would otherwise enjoy.
It has been said that we should use tariffs as an instrument to promote trade, and with that I agree. We cannot afford to let Canada become the dumping ground for any other part of the world. But surely our trade commissioners can seek to bargain for us in other lands to which we can ship our goods and where Canada's name may become even better known than it now is. We must encourage increased production. Statisticians today would have us believe that there has not been in six thousand years overproduction throughout the world. In the dark lean years which most of us recollect only too well, while we had an abundance of foodstuffs, there were millions of people in dire need and thousands starving in other parts of the world, and so it would seem that the challenge to us is to discover some means whereby we can distribute the fruits of the earth to the farthermost corners of the globe. As a producing nation, we can indeed afford to do everything we possibly can to stimulate production and increase trade.
A word on immigration. I do not doubt for one moment that people in distant lands have heard of this great country of ours and would be only too pleased to come here if they felt they would not be burdened down with taxation, and1 thousands of our own would return to their native land. But, as it is today, taxation has become a threat to our democratic way of life. In glancing over the estimates the other day, I found that this government have not yet applied the yardstick of economy to its expenditures but rather are on a spending spree, in a full-out effort to create the impression that they are the leaders of the nation and that the provinces will have to fall in line. I am always concerned when it comes to the relations of the dominion government with the provincial governments. Many people have no doubt been frightened by the thought of multiple or dual taxation. But for the life of me I cannot see how the same amount of money will not have to be raised for the needs of the nation, whether it is raised by the dominion government or by the provinces, or by them both together. The great danger is that in granting subsidies you are giving the provincial governments money to spend which they were not responsible to their own people for raising. The theory laid down by Sir Wilfrid Laurier is sound, that it is not good practice for one administrative

body to spend money that it is not responsible for raising. It seems to me that we may be embarking on a rather dangerous practice. There may be a great deal more money spent in the provinces than they would otherwise spend if they had to tax their people to obtain it.
I appeal to the house, to the leaders of public policy, to give consideration to the plan I have sought to outline in a limited and sketchy way. I believe it has merit. I am not as ruthless as a socialist labour leader in Britain who said, "work or starve." The opportunity to work will be here and, since working means living, the incentive to work will certainly be there. I am not in favour of dividends being passed out indiscriminately to take from our people the desire to work. I do not know how those who are working steadfastly and earning money upon which the government depends for its taxes are to meet this situation, considering that we have approximately a debt of S17 billion on which we have to raise $480 million a year to pay interest alone. The costs of government are great; the costs of administration are greater still. That is the place where I believe we can exercise a degree of economy. This government can well afford to go carefully over their departments and find out how much they are overstaffed. I know the tendency is to find work for all for whom it is possible to find work. If one may judge by the number of vacancies which have been advertised, copies of which advertisements come to my desk, it would seem that there is still plenty of room in the civil service for others to be employed.
It would appear that this nation will bear the heavy cost of social services, soldiers' pensions and things which we are definitely obligated to provide. The soldiers who fought and won and guaranteed to us this freedom will now have to bear their share of the terrific tax burden. Therefore I again offer the suggestion by which we can make our real natural resources work for us. A tree in the forest has no value of itself. It is an asset in the form of a tree, but it is of no more value to Canada than the crown jewels unless it is processed, which means labour applied to it to turn it to useful articles or to use it in the construction industry where we shall have an asset to show for it.
What about the future of gold? I would say that the future of gold would be more secure than ever before. I believe we should seek to do everything we can to encourage our gold mines, particularly our sub-marginal ones, to take this precious metal from the rocks and build up a strong gold reserve with which we could adjust international balances, because

The Prime Minister
gold is a durable article. It does not take a great deal of space. It is said that a 14-inch gold cube weighs a ton and is worth over a million dollars. Therefore it is a very handy medium which can be employed to balance exchange.
I am not critical, but there is something I should like to mention. I believe we made a fatal error in putting our exchange on a par with United States dollars. I often wonder where the pressure came from, because we enjoyed a preferred position. Citizens of the United States who came here found that their dollar was worth SI .19, while the Canadian dollar was worth only ninety cents in their country. Just consider the constant drain which is taking place at the present time; our reserves of United States dollars are constantly shrinking. If wTe compare wheat at SI a bushel with an ounce of gold at $38.50 we find that an ounce of gold will purchase 38^ bushels of wheat. With gold at $35 an ounce it would purchase only 35 bushels of wheat. Hon. members can therefore understand the advantage we had compared with our United States neighbours in the export of grain, which we grow for export.
Since Macdonald and Laurier-and with all due respect to the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King)-we have never had a man who has earned his place in history by introducing a great national policy. The government has been carried on, on the administrative level. We have had social services and other things as a result of the pressure of public opinion, but where is the great national policy of those who pioneered and gave stability and a democratic form to the government of this country? You cannot build prosperity on the wreck of humanity, and our much-vaunted freedom is nothing but an empty farce if our people do not enjoy some sense of economic security. It is up to this level of government to provide the leadership, to write a new charter, to rewrite the constitution, to invite all our people to join in a cooperative effort to make this a land of promise.
Three or four years ago, during the dark days of the war, I heard the Prime Minister refer to a new heaven and a new earth. We who are in public office today are the ones who are charged with the responsibility of making Canada that land of promise, a land of which all1 Canadians can be justly proud.
On motion of Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Monday, March 10, 1947