PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege concerning the orders of today. On page 3 is a special order which reads:
No. 1. March 10-Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. MacNaught for an address to His Excellency the Governor General, in reply to his speech at the opening of the session,'and on the proposed amendment thereto to Mr. Bracken, and on the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Low.
I wonder if the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Low is to the proposed amendment to Mr. Bracken? I think the record should be corrected, because it is an insult to one of our colleagues to have him amended.

Mr. R. R. KNIGHT (Saskatoon City):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of personal privilege in regard to an incorrect report in a Canadian Press dispatch of March 5, of a speech I made in this house on March 4, about the Hudson bay route. The dispatch, as used in certain western papers, notably the Regina Leader Post and the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, quotes me as saying that there never had been any suggestion that the port handle any products other than grain. I have never at any time said anything like that. Not only did I plead in general terms for exports and imports through Hudson bay, but at pages 1007, 1008 and 1010 of Hansard I specifically
named certain commodities other than grain that I considered: suitable as exports, among others wood pulp, cattle, poplar wood, feeds; and as imports, woollen goods and coal from the maritimes and diesel engines from England.
This is an unfortunate error; the fact that the speech was not mentioned here in the east and that the reports of it were garbled before being sent to the west might give rise to suspicions not justified by the facts. I hope it will be corrected.



PRESS REPORT ATTRIBUTING TO POSTMASTER GENERAL SPEECH OF MEMBER FOR TERREBONNE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: I wish to make a correction. On March 6 the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Lionel Bertrand) made a very good speech in French and it was commented on by the Ottawa Citizen. That paper attributed the speech to myself. I wish to give the hon. member for Terrebonne full credit for his good speech.



CORPORATION TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance, of which I have sent him notice? Will the five per cent corporation tax to be imposed byi provinces with dominion-provincial agreements apply to cooperatives?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: Yes, it will apply in the same way as the dominion Income War Tax Act applies to them.



TAXATION AGREEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) asked the other day to what extent the estimates would have been increased had they included an amount necessary to carry out the offer which has been made to the provinces. I assume he meant if all the provinces accepted the offer made. The amount for 1947 would be in the vicinity of
8157.000,000, on the basis of preliminary estimates of population and gross national product.

Inquiries of the Ministry



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister, of which I sent him notice earlier in the day? Will the government give consideration to the possibility of setting aside some time soon in order that the house may have the opportunity to discuss Canada's part in the London trade conference, and the implications of the proposed reimposition of imperial preferences next June?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my hon.
friend's question gives me an opportunity to touch on an even larger matter, namely the business of the house, and how we are tc get through with it.
As hon. members know, at the beginning of the session the government indicated that it wished priority given to all measures relating to the extension of the national emergency transitional powers, and if possible to have the debate on the address postponed for a short time on that account. The first two weeks were taken up with a discussion of the emergency measures. Then the debate on the address was continued. That debate thus far has taken altogether, I think, two weeks. There was a request, similar to the one which my hon. friend the member for Rosetown-Biggar has made, by another hon. gentleman, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Gray-don), that time be allowed for the consideration of Canada's participation in the making of the treaties with Germany and Austria. That took up one day. We are now faced with the fact that we have a very short time left between now and the end of the month at which time the emergency transitional powers act ceases to be in force. The government must in every way seek to protect the situation it is faced with in considering how these powers can be extended for the time that in the public interest is absolutely necessary. For this reason, after very careful consideration, the cabinet has come to the decision that we must ask the house to allow us to give precedence and priority to this emergency legislation, that it must have the right of way and from now on be considered before everything else because of the appalling situation that would arise should it happen that some of the powers that are needed to run on into the new fiscal year had not been secured in time.
Yesterday a question came up about the Easter recess. Since that time the whips have met together and I understand that all parties in the. house wish to have a longer rather than a shorter period for a vacation. I believe there are individual members in some of the parties who prefer it otherwise, but I am told that the majority in every party would prefer to have the Easter recess from April 2 to April 14 rather than for the shorter period. In deference to the wishes of all parties in the house I would now ask the Clerk to have a resolution placed on the order paper that when this house adjourns on Wednesday, April 2, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, April 14. That means that the early part of April will not be available for the discussion of these emergency measures. That will bring us to the middle of April before that discussion could be proceeded with. In these circumstances the Minister of Justice (Mr. Usley) before the end of the present week will have to indicate to the house how he hopes to be able to make sure that the necessary legislation will be enacted in a manner that will, as I say, protect the whole situation.
The government is anxious to have as many subjects debated as possible and questions will arise from time to time which will be important, but if this session is to be concluded before the autumn, we shall have to clear the decks of emergency legislation so that we can get on with the other business of the session. I am sure that more progress will be made [DOT]in the end if we take this one important matter of emergency legislation and stay with it until we have cleared the slate of the various measures relating thereto. For this reason the government wishes to have the house proceed from now on-and I will have a word to say about the word "now" in a moment- with the emergency legislation.
I have said, from now on. There was an agreement among the leaders of the parties that an effort would be made to bring the debate on the address to a conclusion today. It was an agreement made of course with the understanding that no leader can speak for his whole following, that unless the following is willing to fall in line with an agreement of the kind it may not be possible to carry it out. I am told that there are a number of hon. members who still wish to speak in the debate on the address, that up to the present there are twelve whose names have been handed in, and there may be more as the debate proceeds. That means that if we are to get through with the debate today in accordance with the agreement, the speeches will have to
Inquiries of the Ministry

be short. Should they run beyond the hoyr of eleven, perhaps the house would give its consent to sitting until twelve this evening to see if we cannot finish by that time, with the understanding that the vote itself would be postponed until tomorrow but would be taken tomorrow afternoon. If, however, the debate is not concluded today, if the house does not give its consent to having the debate concluded if necessary by continuing to sit until midnight today, with the understanding that the vote be taken tomorrow, we shall just have to proceed tomorrow in accordance with the agreement made some days ago among the leaders of the different parties, and continue with the emergency measures, allowing the continuance of the debate on the address to stand over to another time.
In the circumstances I hope it may be possible for hon. members to find some way to accommodate the wishes I believe of the house as a whole by bringing the speeches in the debate on the address to a conclusion today. In this connection may I point out that the United Kingdom parliament has found it necessary to adopt two practices which up to the present at any rate we have not adopted in this house. One is the use of closure. As applied in the parliament of the United Kingdom, closure has come to be regarded as a natural and necessary method of proceeding to get through with the amount of business that has to be transacted. In this parliament we have sought to avoid the introduction of closure, and I hope it may not be necessary for some time to come.
The other practice is that with respect to debates that are likely to take any length of time, no matter how important they are, there is an agreement made between the leaders of the parties as to the number of days the debate shall take. The number of days having been agreed upon, the amount of time to be allotted to the different parties is also agreed to. It is then left to the whips of the parties to arrange among the parties themselves what particular speakers are to have the preference or to speak for the party in the time which is allotted; but the minute the time agreed upon is reached, speaking in the debate ends. We have not adopted that practice as yet. If we can get agreement among the leaders, and have the followers support it, for a definite time for a debate, then we may not have to take the further step, but if we cannot reach these matters by agreement something will have to be done in the way of amending the rules so as to make possible the conclusion of debates on particular subjects within a definite time.


Mr. GRAYDON:: May I suggest to the Prime Minister that he take into consideration the possibility of taking some of the work from the overburdened Commons and giving it to the other place, which seems to be able to take a week or so off from time to time? We are not quite so fortunate in that respect. I make that suggestion with the idea of expediting the work and bringing about a better balance. I think the senate itself would welcome the suggestion, as well as hon. members of the Commons.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that his remarks would apply to the general business of the house, but with respect to this emergency legislation I think he will recognize that it must be initiated in this chamber. With regard to other matters, it has been arranged in so far as we can to have a number initiated in the senate. Where-ever possible and advisable, that will be done.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice, of which I have sent him notice. Can the minister say whether vigorous steps are being taken to implement the Archambault report, particularly the recommendation which deplores the mingling of youthful and first offenders with hardened criminals?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Put it on the order paper.


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice):: It is difficult to give a full answer to such a question on the orders of the day. I think I shall have to leave the discussion of penitentiary matters until either the estimates come up or legislation is introduced. There will be a bill introduced.



SALMON FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries, of which I have given him notice. Does the government contemplate any changes on the international salmon fisheries commission so that organized fishermen shall have direct representation?

The Address-Mr. Belzile


Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries):: I suggest that the hon. member put his question on the order paper, and it will be answered in due course. I cannot see that at the present time it is of an urgent nature.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 10, 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. Low.
(Translation):
Mr. GLEASON BELZILE (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, the election in Pontiac brought great hopes in the hearts of a little group of men forming what is called the Union of Electors. At long last, a voice expressing their beliefs was to be heard in this august chamber of the Canadian parliament. Every one was living in impatient and joyful expectation.
In the first days of the session, a rumour spread in parliamentary circles. The hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Caouette) was to speak on the speech from the throne and woe to the Liberal party.
Eventually, he did address the house. His first speech caused some sensation. He had selected from his electoral speeches those passages which had attracted most the favours and the applause of his electors. The speech was clearly meant for the hustings. The hon. member had nothing original to offer; he repeated well known themes and he had the rare merit of being called to order twice in succession. After all, one should not expect too much from a maiden speech.
Then some of his most fanciful statements having been challenged by the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand) it was once more rumoured that the hon. member for Pontiac was to speak, this time on the social credit amendment. He spoke once again last night, but I doubt very much that this time his speech, adorned with a picture of the hon. member on the title-page, will be distributed throughout the province. He reiterated these doleful denunciations of the past and made dire predictions for the future. The remedies boil down to empty suggestions and impractical generalizations. He has taken up ODce more the social credit gospel, pointing out the lack of purchasing power as compared with production. On March 10, however, the 83166-80
leader of his party agreed that during the war, our purchasing power far outstripped our productive capacity; this situation still prevails and has given the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) many a nightmare.
It w'ould have benefited the hon. member for Pontiac to read his leader's speech so as to agree with him on that point.


Mr. CAOUETTE:: You know our potential production.


Gleason Belzile: Like his leader, however, the hon. member for Pontiac stated that his party advocated an economic theory, a doctrine and a philosophy which fulfilled the aspirations of the human individual.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Gleason Belzile: His leader had said-
(Text):


James Horace King: I would again ask hon. members to moderate their voices. I should like to repeat what I said last night. I do not think the house needs loud speakers so much as it does silence.
(Translation):


Gleason Belzile: His leader had said: "Social Credit is a complete philosophy of life."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!


Gleason Belzile: That is reported at page 1146. I am happy that the discussion should have been raised to such a level.
Social Credit is therefore based on unity of theory and practice.
We must examine that question from its doctrinal aspects and I shall therefore deal with it from the philosophical and economical points of view.
Philosophically speaking, the Social Credit doctrine is primarily and fundamentally materialistic. This is in no way an insult to the Social Credit party, since its members deliberately say so themselves. They do not however accept any kind of materialism, but claim to offer a delicate epicureanism. They want m the first place to satisfy material needs. It is the same old story :
People live miserably in a land of plenty. The bankers who control money and credit are responsible. Social Credit can produce abundance for everyone by reforming the monetary system and controlling credit.
All those denunciations of capitalism tend to prove that the latter has not succeeded in bringing good living and leisure to everybody. It is evident from the arguments of its supporters that those are the basic elements of the economic and social problem.

The Address-Mr. Belzile

Such materialism does not make abstraction of the spiritual factor; on the contrary, since it contends to be a complete philosophy of life; first it aims to satisfy every physical need and the spirit fulfils itself in physical surfeit.
This distinguishes their materialism from ordinary materialism which denies the existence of the soul; it is even more dangerous since it is less crude.
According to the concepts of social credit, society is primarily dependent on the, economic fact of consumption; man is essentially a consumer of the products of his labour. It is that activity which distinguishes him from other creatures of nature.
All his other activities not only presuppose consumption but they are entirely dependent thereon. It is consumption which determines those activities including purely spiritual pursuits. Consumption is achieved by means of purchasing power, by means of money. The hon. member for Pontiac expressed himself as follows:
For the Canadian people and for any one of us, having security and freedom means having buying power. When we have money we also have security and freedom. Without money we have neither.
It must be noted that this is a direct cause to effect relation. Purchasing power, that is money, determines not only the economic relations between human beings but the fundamental relations of social life. Like any epicurean, social credit abhors work and seeks by every possible means to reduce it to the bare necessity. I wish to refer in this connection to the speech delivered last session by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Kuhl) in which he denounced the obligation to work.


Mr. POULIOT:: He is telling us.


Gleason Belzile: Because Social Credit would saddle the state with full responsibility for the people's welfare, it advocates a national dividend for one and all.
And there, Mr. Speaker, we have a whole set up of errors and half-truths which make Social Credit a perilous philosophy. It rests on man's baser needs and appeals directly to his digestive system.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Gleason Belzile: It could be briefly described as the philosophy of the belly.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!


Gleason Belzile: It can only lead to a social order based solely on the material needs of man, and thus, paves the way for the soviet.


David Réal Caouette: Just take a good look at the Quadragesimo Anno encyclical; then you shall know.


Mr. LESAGE:: One should understand what is being said before venturing any remarks.


David Réal Caouette: That's it; let us follow the example of the hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage).


Gleason Belzile: Here is how John Lewis put it, on page 8 of his book "Douglas Fallacies":
(Text):
In so far as he (Douglas) convinces people, often those whom socialist propaganda cannot get near, that capitalism has broken down and must be scrapped, bis influence is all to the good.
(Translation):
This theory overlooks the fact that work is the first duty of man as well as a factor of social evolution because of the spiritual qualities it presupposes.
In this connection, I wish to quote from a book by Ferdinand Cavallera, professor at the Catholic Institute of Toulouse. Its title is Precis de la doctrine sociale catholique and the following is an excerpt from page 199:
God has made work the means by which man must attain to his full development. Of course, God has placed in the world all elements necessary for the conservation and development of the human race, but He has decreed that through wmrk and work only must man secure those goods, some of which are indispensable, others useful, but answering in the aggregate to all intellectual and material needs of mankind. Any society unmindful of the law of labour is on the road to collective suicide. In some regards, the history of civilization is nothing but the history of labour and its achievements.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!


Gleason Belzile: The Social Credit tenets
also overlook the real part to be played by civil society and which is to promote not individual interests but the common good. To show this, I shall again quote Cavallera. Here is what he said on page 316:
The object of civil society is to promote the general well-being of its members, not of the individual, not of each of its members taken separately, but that which is a necessary accompaniment to the normal development of their activities and on which all the rest is dependent. Although society is not called upon to ensure the happiness of the individual as such, by entrusting him with certain functions rather than others, it is nevertheless interested in the useful and efficient discharge of all functions and must be anxious to inaugurate and maintain a regime where security and the wealth of resources and services may encourage the establishment of general prosperity.
From a purely economic standpoint-I am keeping the discussion on the doctrinal ground

The Address-Mr. Belzile
-it must be said that the distribution of a national dividend is impossible outside a communist system.
No permanent control could be established at any stage of private enterprise, without the necessity of introducing further and 'more numerous controls in connection with all phases of the national economy.
The establishment of a permanent credit control by the state necessarily implies the control of domestic and foreign trade. That is such an obvious truth that the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) admitted last night that in the absence of a national dividend the state should, as an alternative, impose a compulsory discount on sale prices, which is tantamount to permanent control of prices. The control of trade necessarily implies the control of production. This government made such an experiment-a very hard and difficult one-during the last war, solely through the use of temporary controls. The state control of the economy is the communist system. This leads to the paradoxical situation where a group of people are promoting, no doubt unwittingly, the establishment of the communist system which they have bound themselves to fight.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: You have gone a long
way in that direction.


Gleason Belzile: For two fundamental
reasons, moreover, the supporters of the present day liberal doctrine cannot grant the state a credit monopoly.
First, the state, should it become the sole dispenser of credit, would thus have at its mercy the whole economic life.
Second, the lack of competition would do away with the possibility of adjusting any mistaken credit policy which the state might advocate.
Such is the opinion of the Reverend Albert Muller, S.J., Doctor of Political and Social Sciences, Professor at the Institut superieur de Commerce Saint-Ignace, in Antwerp, as stated in page 320 of the second volume of his book Notes d'Economie politique, where he sets out and refutes, I believe, the whole economic doctrine of Mr. Douglas. We may have the opportunity of dealing with this again.
In conclusion, I think it fitting to recall, with reference to Social Credit, the opinion of His Eminence Cardinal Villeneuve, quoted in the Quebec Semaine Religieuse of November 24, 1938.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hearl 83166-80i


David Réal Caouette: You awaken quite late!


An hon. MEMBER:: That hurts!


David Réal Caouette: No, it is harmful to you.


Gleason Belzile: The Church has no objection to Social Credit as a political party, but it is a different story if it contends to be a social doctrine and to create a monetary system. Social Credit is merely a lay organization which has not yet received any commendation from ecclesiastical authorities. There cannot be any question of celebrating mass on the occasion of the Social Credit League's congress.
One of the Social Credit's publicity agents having asked further explanations from His Eminence regarding that statement, his secretary replied as follows. I quote from Le Droit of December 13, 1938:
''Regarding Social Credit, His Eminence sums up his opinion as follows:
(a)	Alberta's experience, in itself, is not conclusive.


David Réal Caouette: Blame the Liberal party.


An hon. MEMBER:: Try to understand.


Gleason Belzile: (b)	The Church is not concerned in Social Credit as a political party;


David Réal Caouette: Blame the Liberal party.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: And we are proud of it.


James Horace King: Order!


Gleason Belzile: (c)	If Social Credit wishes to bring about social reform, that is of a moral character, His Eminence is of the opinion that it is insufficient and ineffective.
(d)	As far as the monetary system is concerned, the Church leaves it to experts to express an opinion. However, the Church feels that it should warn the faithful that Social Credit is not a cure-all for present economic evils.


Mr. LALONDE:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: Which has been advocated by the Liberals.


Gleason Belzile: I must therefore conclude that the Social Credit doctrine is dangerous in theory, impractical and leads directly to communism.
For the above mentioned reasons, I shall vote against the subamendment.


David Réal Caouette: Here comes the crisis.
(Text):


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Perhaps I shall be able to start, Mr. Speaker, when my friends from "Little Chicago" get through congratulating the last speaker. When the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Caouette), who is the newest member of this house, tried to interject a little question to my friends, there was the usual "Little Chicago"
The Address-Mr. Hansell

rabble cry. Two can play at that game. If my friends immediately opposite are going to form a "Little Chicago", a gangster club, somewhere over here we might form a "Little New York" and perhaps we shall have a feud some time.


An hon. MEMBER:: We will accept the
challenge.


Ernest George Hansell: We will accept the challenge, my hon. friend says. I will give my hon. friend the challenge. I listened to the hon. member for Rimouski, but owing to the fact that I do not know the French language, I did not understand very much of what he said. But I will guarantee that I understood as much of what he said as he himself did. My friends opposite have apparently come to life since the hon. member for Pontiac took his seat in the house. Let me say that my hon. friends are not coming to life just for the fun of it. They are not answering the social credit speeches now, after twelve long years, just for the fun of doing it. Social Credit, Mr. Speaker, is on the move.


Maurice Lalonde: Backward.


Ernest George Hansell: I will also say this: my friends opposite too are on the move.


Maurice Lalonde: Forward.


Ernest George Hansell: The difference is that
social credit in the province of Quebec is on the move in and my friends opposite are on the move out. The thing which is worrying my friends is not the philosophy of social credit or the monetary technique that is proposed by this group. It is the possibility of losing their seats that is worrying them.
The hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Belzile) attempted to explain a few things with respect to social credit. May I say to him that it is not social credit he does not understand, although apparently he assumed that he did when he tried to explain what was wrong with it. What he does not understand is the function of money under the present system. My hon. friend is an intelligent man, or at least he appears to be intelligent; and I take it from the Parliamentary Guide that he is intelligent. But there is one thing I would ask him to tell us. How would he propose to distribute to the people of Canada, Canada's great production? That is all I ask.


An hon. MEMBER:: Use the railroad.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: That is a good answer.


Ernest George Hansell: That is the kind of
answer we get from my friend. He says to use the railroad.


Mr. KNOWLES:: And no increase in
freight rates.


James Horace King: Order.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, that is
the height of my friend's intelligence.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about yours?


James Horace King: Order. I would ask hon. members to be quiet and listen to the hon. member who has the floor. He should be allowed to continue his speech without interruption.


Ernest George Hansell: From 1930 to 1939. Mr. Speaker, this country was plugged tight with all sorts of goods and services the people could not buy. My challenge goes out to my hon. friend: let him prove his intelligence by telling us why his government was not able to distribute those goods to the Canadian people. That is all I ask him to do.


Maurice Lalonde: The Tories were in power from 1930 to 1935.


Ernest George Hansell: I did not intend to start my speech in that tone, Mr. Speaker, because I did not know I was to follow my hon. friend; but I have so started. I desire to be constructive in what I have to say; in fact the amendment that has been proposed by the group sitting in this corner of the house is designed to put forth constructive proposals. I should like to keep our debates on that high plane if possible. I think there is perhaps a little too much of knocking the government without at the same time offering some adequate proposals which they might at least try. I saw a little poem in the Canadian Social Crediter which expresses my view. It is entitled "The Quarrelsome Trio", and goes like this:
When you hark to the voice of the knocker; As you list to his hammer fall.
Remember the fact that the knocking act Requires no brains at all.
The second and third stanzas deal with the growler and the kicker, and since we want to get through by twelve o'clock tonight I shall omit those. The last stanza reads:
The knocker, the growler, the kicker,
Fault finders large and small;
What do they need for each day's deed?
No brains, no sense-just gall.
I believe the vote on the amendment we have proposed will show where each party in this house stands in respect to the financial position which has developed in Canada over the years. I wonder where the Liberal party stands in respect to a financial policy, or in respect to anything. The other day the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made a



IX, 1947

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Hanse.ll
speech, I think to his own party, in which he said he was going to follow a middle of the road policy. Evidently he stands in the middle of the road. A short time before that I read several times in the press that the Prime Minister had declared himself against third parties. I want you, Mr. Speaker, to put together those two suggestions by the Prime Minister. He wants to stand in the middle of the road, yet he does not believe in third parties. Well, even though he only believes in a second party, where is that second party to stand?
It is all right for the Prime Minister to say he is following a middle of the road policy, but I am certain history will prove that is not the case. Sometimes he is on the left side of the road, and then suddenly he moves to the right side. The hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley) says he must be tight. Well, I don't know about being tight; all I know is that he wabbles from one side of the road to the other whenever it suits his political convenience. I wish the Liberal party would declare once and for all where they stand. They are either following the proposals of one world philosophy, communism, or they are following the only other world philosophy, democracy. It must be one or the other. There is no middle of the road today; let us not fool ourselves on that; you are on either one side or the other. So let the Liberal party declare openly whether they are for one philosophy or the other, and act accordingly.
Since our amendment was moved, one or two press articles and news dispatches have been sent out concerning it. One news article states that the amendment is rather nebulous, following our nebulous theories. Let us look at it again; surely it cannot be so hard to understand a thing of this kind:
A.	The return to parliament of complete and effective control of Canada's financial policy.
There is nothing nebulous or vague about that, and surely it is desirable.
B.	The use of the national credit to meet at least some of the financial requirements for essential services . . .
Certainly there is nothing nebulous about that.
. . . and, as a guarantee that this country shall not again be subjected to financial depression...
Surely there is nothing wrong with that, and nothing nebulous about it. It does not take more than a grade 4 or grade 5 standing to understand it.
. . . 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 . . .
Nothing hard to understand about that, is there?
. . . 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.
Is there anything difficult to understand about that? A man comes along with a balance. On one side he places a pound of butter, on the other a pound weight. Is there anything hard to understand about that?
An hon. MEMBER:: Where did he get the butter?


Ernest George Hansell: It need not be butter; take something else. There is nothing hard to understand about that. So if we say you put your total production in terms of prices on one side of the scale and the total amount of money required to balance it on the other, is there anything hard to understand about that? That is what the resolution says. What we claim is that there is not sufficient purchasing power coming out of the usual courses of production to buy back all the goods. What we want is an additional amount of purchasing power. There is nothing hard or difficult to understand in that.
Another article suggested that it was our usual pie in the sky amendment. I am not going to say very much about pie in the sky; all I am going to say is that the pie we have is right here on the ground, right here on earth. I challenge that gentleman to write an article proving that our amendment is pie in the sky-


An hon. MEMBER:: He was pie-eyed.


Ernest George Hansell: -and that he was not pie-eyed.
I said a little while ago that there is a need for every hon. member of this house to understand a few things in respect to the present system of money. We hear it said quite often that they do not understand social credit. What they do not understand is the present system of money management. The other day when the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) was speaking I listened with a great deal of interest to what he said. It would not have been so alarming if he had confined his remarks to his own responsibility, but he said, and I quote from page 160 of Hansard:
We of this group are convinced that the only way in which we can obtain and maintain a higher standing of liviflg in Canada is by higher production and more equitable distribution. Until we take the necessary steps to obtain that higher production and more equitable distribution we cannot hope to raise our living standards.
The Address-Mr. Hansell

I am not finding fault with that, but he went on:
Our whole policy is designed for that purpose.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: That is the C.C.F.


Ernest George Hansell: That is the C.C.F. party. The hon. member continued:
Today we see evidence of the failure of free enterprise to do these things. Let me quote to you, sir, from an editorial in the Winnipeg Tribune. "With $3,477 million tied up in savings deposits Canadian bankers are able to get only $1,438 million out at work in tile form of ^current loans."
Apparently our free enterprise system has lost its enterprise. It has come to the point where it is dependent more and more upon government, upon protection, upon other forms of subsidy, to make it not free but very much under control.
What the hon. member was saying is that as there is a certain amount of idle money on deposit in the banks, the banks have not lent that money. He assumes at the outset that the banks lend their depositors' money. He does not know, and apparently that would carry through to his group, the way the present money system works. Evidently they do not know the rudimentary principle that banks do not lend their depositors' money. The money that is lent by banks is freshly created money, money that is created by a stroke of a pen, money which becomes an expansion of credit, which goes out in the form of loans and which becomes the depositors' money. Sometimes even intelligent people get the cart .before the horse. Some years ago I was debating here when an hon. member on the Liberal side of the house rose to ask a question. I said to him, "Will my hon. friend tell me where money actually comes from?" The hon. member said, "Oh, well, I earn it". That was his answer to my question as to where money comes from. He was a member of parliament. Of course I know that it does not take brains to become a member of parliament, but I suppose the people of the country think that members of parliament are of average intelligence. Yet this member when I asked him where money actually comes from said, "I earn it". He must still believe what my leader said, that storks drop babies down the chimney.
Not long after that I was talking to a medical doctor. I think it can be assumed that a medical doctor would have considerable intelligence, because he probably went to university for a number of years. My friend who said that railroads distribute our production is a doctor, and he must have some intelligence. I asked this doctor that very same question: "Where does money come from; how does it get into existence? How

is it born? Where does it come from?- because you do not pick it out of the air." He said, "Oh, well, I have a wheat field out here; that is money." I said, "Do you mean that dollar bills grow on the ends of the stalks?" "Oh, no," he said, "of course not; I sell my wheat and the grain buyer gives me the money." I said, "Where would the grain buyer get the money?" He replied, "Oh, well, well, well, well." That was his answer.
I remember asking another man this same question. He was not a member of parliament and he was not a doctor; he was just a farmer who was reaching the old age pension age. He used to say that he did not know very much because he had gone only to grade four, that all he had ever learned was learned when he was ploughing behind the horses or sitting on the tractor. I said to that old gentleman, "Where would you say money comes from?" The old fellow closed his eyes and said, "Well, let me see; I guess the banks must make it." That farmer was closer to the truth than was the member of parliament or the doctor.
Coming down on the train the other day I met a man in the parlour car. We introduced ourselves and I discovered that he was the head of a million dollar corporation. He asked me about social credit in Alberta, and it was not long before I found that he thought that the banks lent their depositors' money. One of the first principles we have to know is that money is a creature of law. The law permits the merchant or chartered banks to issue that money from the end of a fountain pen. Some hon. members may still think that this is just so much nonsense. I refer them to the report of the proceedings of the banking and commerce committee of 1939, when Mr. Graham Towers, governor of the Bank of Canada, was on the stand and being questioned by Mr. Landeryou. Mr. Towers replied to a question-I shall not read the whole thing- by saying:
A government can find money in three ways: By taxation, or they might find it by borrowing the savings of the people-
As was done by way of victory loans, raising money that was already in existence.

or they might find it by action which is allied with an expansive monetary policy, that is, borrowing which creates additional money in the process.
The only way in which money can possibly go out is by way of loans from the bank, which is a fresh creation: and conversely, when a bank loan is paid, the money is destroyed, wiped out of existence-believe me. Now I turn to page 238 of the same report. Again Mr. Towers is giving evidence, and I quote

The Address-Mr. Harwell
him because surely he should know what he is talking about, and he does. I have listened to him.
Q. Now, if the government went to the bank with $1,000,000 in bonds there would be an increase of $1,000,000 in the amount of money in the hands of the people in the form of deposits? A. Assuming that no other change had taken place in the bank's position at that time, yes.
Q. In other words, when the $1,000,000 worth of bonds is presented to the bank a million dollars of new money or the equivalent is created? A. Again assuming that there is no decrease in its other investments or loans.
Q. I mean at the time, at the moment. A. Yes.
Q. It is a fact that a million dollars of new money is created? A. That is right. Of course, governments should not always go to banks in that connection; they should sell their bonds to investors.
Q. Yes. Now, the same thing holds true when the municipality or the province goes to a bank?
A. Or an individual borrower.
I skip some for the sake of brevity, and quote from a little further down on the same page:
Q. What is the proper way? Is the proper way this, that when I borrow $100 from the bank as a private citizen the bank makes a bookkeeping entry and there is a $100 increase in the deposits of that bank, in the total deposits of that bank? A. Yes.
I will give just one other quotation, from page 287 of the same report. Mr. Towers is being questioned by Mr. McGeer:
Q. But there is no question about it that the banks do create that medium of exchange? A. That is right. That is what they are there for.
Q. That is what they are there for and that is what they do. A. Yes, they do.
Q. And they issue that form of medium of exchange when they purchase securities or make loans? A. That is banking business, just in the same way that a steel plant makes steel.
Q. So that we are clear on this point that our merchant banks do create and issue 88 per cent of the money medium of exchange in common use in Canada today? That is correct, is it? A. Roughly.
"Roughly" does not apply to whether the practice is right or not, but to the figure 88 per cent. It is well for us to understand that one thing or we shall never understand the present financial system, let alone social credit proposals. When I go to the bank to borrow $100, I give my signed note to the banker, the teller puts $100 in figures in my bank pass book, I walk out of the bank and there is $100 more in existence than there was when I walked in. We cannot solve the problems of the day if we do not understand the function and operation of money.
We have heard a great deal in this debate about the need for a planned economy, and I want to deal with that for a moment. My
gorge always rises a little when I hear that term "planned economy." I should like to know in the first place who is going to do the planning.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who does it now?


Ernest George Hansell: The point I am trying to make is that in a free society the less planning we have the better. I am saying something more. When we talk about planners making plans, the principle carries with it the absolute necessity of people having to fit into those plans. Suppose for instance, that a section of our country says:	We are not going
to have the planners tell us what to do; we do not agree with this plan. What would happen then? I heard a prominent speaker, the leader of the C.C.F. in Alberta, in a radio broadcast in that province, attack the premier of Alberta simply because he was not in accord with this constant eager clamour for planning. The leader of the C.C.F. in Alberta said: Look at General Montgomery, look at Churchill', look at General Eisenhower-they had to plan to win the war-how would we ever win a war if we did not plan? That was an excellent illustration, but it was a dead give-away. The only reason why Montgomery and Churchill and Eisenhower and the rest were successful when they planned, was that they had armies, air forces and navies at their command, made up of men who had to obey I heir orders.


Mr. IRVINE:: And the only reason why we never wron the peace is that we never had anyone to plan that.


Ernest George Hansell: What we are saying is ' this, that individuals in the aggregate will do their own planning. They do their own planning now by having sufficient money to buy our goods. I had a school teacher come to me once and say:	We have to plan production. I said, "What do you mean, plan production?" I said, "Here is a furniture manufacturer; does ne have to plan anything?" Does he? In a free society he would not; in a free society he simply offers his goods for sale, and people with money buy them. If they do not like one kind of chesterfield, they will buy another. That is the planning. Therefore the manufacturer says, "I will have to manufacture certain types of goods, because that is what the people want."


An hon. MEMBER:: That is planning.


Ernest George Hansell: It is the money tokens which determine our production. I say, Mr. Speaker, that planning becomes effective only in so far as the people are willing to submit to the plan. But I might say that some of
The Address-Mr. Lacombe

these planners are not only clamouring to plan out own country and our own lives, but they talk in terms of world planning.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not take in the universe?


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, and rule the Almighty. The greatest plan under heaven is found in the natural order of things, as they were created. Each individual is created a free moral agent. Let the individual plan his own life in peace, in security, and in freedom. This is the difference between social credit and other types of philosophy. Social credit is interested in people, in life and in the individual. The less law, the less control, the less regulation-


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):: Order. I would remind the hon. member that his time has expired.


Ernest George Hansell: Thank you very much. You did not need to remind me; I was going to resume my seat. The less law, the less regulation, the less control, the less planning we have, and the more money we have, the better it will be for the people.
(Translation):


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: Mr. Chairman, the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) includes excellent practical suggestions. The hon. member stresses the importance of Parliament's supremacy over boards that are not responsible to the people. He condemns bureaucracy which, owing to the war, has substituted itself for the representatives of the people. Controls over the production of raw materials required for the development of our home and foreign trades have been imposed by bureaucracy. I wish to be fair and to recognize the useful features of the amendment to the amendment moved by the leader of the Social Credit group. However, like many others, I fear "the redefining and clarifying of the constitutional rights and responsibilities of dominion and provincial governments" as expressed in subparagraph D. of the amendment to the amendment. Indeed, Canada's constitution clearly defines the respective jurisdiction of the provinces and of the Dominion government. Personally. I consider that any amendment to the constitution of the country, in contempt of provincial jurisdiction, would violate rights which have been established and recognized for eighty years. This question of national importance offers more than a financial angle.

It must be borne in mind that provinces have the exclusive right to legislate in matters of education.
Vainly have I scanned this amendment to the amendment for some reservation of this sacred prerogative. Provinces also have the right to legislate when it comes to safeguarding social welfare and, especially in the province of Quebec, when it comes to maintaining our French civil legislation. Let us not forget that confederation itself established autonomous legislature, each with its own jurisdiction which they may exercise within the limits of the constitutional laws governing them. This very law states in what matters provinces may legislate independently from the federal government. Unless some specific reservation is made regarding provincial autonomy, and I find none in this amendment to the amendment, I greatly fear that a new delimitation of powers, without consulting the provinces, or seeking their consent will lead us straight to legislative union. That is a principle I am not prepared to accept. Still less do I agree with the views expressed in this connection by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix). Speaking in this house on March 4 last, he did indeed recommend that provincial governments surrender the collection of succession duties to the federal authorities. Despite all my regard for my hon. colleague's opinions, I say that such a surrender would be a glaring infringement of provincial rights. Furthermore, it would mean relinquishing into the hands of the federal government a jurisdiction which the provinces have assumed since confederation. Besides, the province of Quebec civil code contains a whole chapter on estates and the revised statutes of the same province comprise several chapters on the collection of succession duties. I am opposed to our French civil laws being superseded by federal government jurisdiction. It is supremely unfair to make the provincial premiers responsible for the abuses that might be perpetrated in connection with the estates of rich people. If the safety deposit boxes of the banks hide any degree of dishonesty, the federal government, who have collected income tax since the first world war, should discharge their duty. Indeed, my good friend, the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr LaCroix) admits that the federal government has the exclusive right of supervision over the Canadian banking system. It is therefore the duty of the central government to open these safety deposit boxes to collect any unpaid income tax. Why blame the provincial

The Address-Mr. Skey
premiers for an existing evil for which they are not in the least responsible? I am sorry that extremely unfair statements have been levelled, in this house, at the leaders of the provinces forming the Canadian confederation. What is to result from such conduct? The old proverb still holds true:	He who sows the
wind shall reap the whirlwind.
Canada participated in the last war in order to protect Christianity, the rights of minorities, freedom and justice. Any government willing to trample on the rights of minorities through the violation of provincial autonomy would ignore the heroism of our soldiers and the war aims of the united nations. Let us not add to the affront that is now directed against us by the Moscow conference, in showing contempt for Canada. That was to be expected. During five years. I have constantly told the government that if we relied on the gratitude of Soviet Russia in the preparation of peace treaties, we would be sure to be disappointed. That is the result of our numerous sacrifices on behalf of a country which has showed its gratitude by conducting espionage activities and creating communist cells in Canada. A few hours ago, a priest and a member of a religious order who were on the staff of one of the leading educational institutions in my constituency, the Laval College in St. Vincent de Paul, were stabbed in the very city of Montreal. It is said that the man guilty of that double crime is 30 years old and that he believes in a doctrine which he expounds as follows: "I wanted to take vengeance on all those who practise the Catholic religion".
How can we not dread the election of a communist member in Montreal-Cartier on March 31 next? Drastic measures should have been taken to prevent such an election. The only legal course to follow was to outlaw the communist party in Canada.


Mr. GAGXOX :: Hear. hear.


Mr. LA  COMBE@: The government did not hesitate to take such a stand at the beginning of the war. I then supported them most heartily. Let them outlaw that party. The government will thus render a very great service to honest people, in protecting them against scoundrels of every description. There is a limit to tolerance, especially when it works to the detriment of religion and the nation. Since the amendment to the amendment deals with constitutional rights and the responsibilities of the dominion and provincial governments, I must say that there is another aspect of the rights of minorities which I wish to discuss briefly. Redistribution of electoral divisions was only possible through 83166-81
an amendment to the constitution. In that redistribution we should, in none of the provinces of confederation, take any action likely to reduce to insignificant proportions the representation of minorities, whatever their origin may be. In no province of Canada are there no minority rights to protect. Finally, I wish that my province may increase its representation in the House of Commons, but on the distinct condition that its influence should always be based on truth and justice.
(Text):


Mr. L. W. SKEY (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I am another member of this house who felt that he must rise to speak in the interests of people and of freedom in the same way that my hon. friend from the Social Credit party (Mr. Hansell) has just done. But before I turn to the three questions which I believe concern Canada most, those of taxes, controls and security, may I take the house back to 1945 just to clear up one small point which was left hanging in the air at that time. It is a question that has been before the Canadian people for upwards of two years now. I refer to the manner in which Canada's war assets have been dealt with, and I wish to quote first the words of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) spoken on March 20, 1946, as reported at page 114 of Hansard. Speaking in the debate on the speech from the thrcne, he said:
Rather a significant thing has happened recently. The United States government has tried several methods of disposing of war assets. About three months ago they scrapped all their disposal procedures and set up the exact machinery which we are using in Canada, stating quite frankly that they did so because they thought our machinery worked where theirs did not.
The minister went on to say:
Therefore the disposal agency in the United States is now the war assets corporation, exactly the same name and exactly the same type of organization that we are using here in Canada.
My reason for bringing up that point is that I happened to pick up a United States newspaper a few months ago and I found in it a detailed explanation of how the American people are allowed to buy their surplus war products. This, I believe, is an accurate report of how their surplus products are disposed of in the United States. An advertisement is placed in the press; the goods to be sold are detailed in this advertisement, and their location is given. Then a date is set, allocating a first period of three or four days. During this first period, the first priority, veterans, men and women, of the armed forces, on presentation of their discharge certificates can enter this dump and have first choice, at the

The Address-Mr. Skey

price set, of goods of the United States war assets corporation. Then, when the veterans are disposed of, another date is fixed later than the first when schools, educational institutions, state and municipal bodies can go to the same dump and purchase war assets. A third date is then set on which the general public are allowed to purchase back from the state the goods which they have paid for in taxation.
I should like to contrast that for a moment with what happens in Canada. I suppose every member of this house and many members of the general public as well as businessmen in the country have had the unfortunate and frustrating experience of trying to buy something from War Assets Corporation in Canada. They will know what trouble they must go to and what little they will find in some cases in return, because they find that in this country war assets have sold back to some business organization, or secondary corporation, the goods that the taxpayers have purchased for the use of our military forces. These organizations can then take a second profit from the country on the surplus goods purchased from War Assets.
I wish here today to refute absolutely the statement of the minister of reconstruction as to the similarity between the United States method of dealing with war assets and that of the Canadian government.
I should now like to turn to the three questions of taxes, controls and security. As I see these three, they are to a large extent inter-related. I see them for the most part as a fight between the government and the individual as to who shall spend the individual's money, as to who shall control the individual's destiny, and as a fight by the individual to secure his economic future in this country. If I may give the house one or two illustrations of this, I should like to turn first to taxation.
When the budget was presented last year, as members of the house will remember, there were words in it to the effect that the purchasing power of the people must be siphoned off because there were insufficient goods and high incomes. At that time, Mr. Speaker, you will remember that wo endeavoured to modify the government's taxation policy, because we believed that a less drastic taxation policy would allow corporations and individuals to stimulate business by both production and purchasing. As we have now seen, from the surpluses produced by the budget last year, it was a crushing burden for the Canadian people to bear. With regard to taxation this year, we find that women are no longer seeking employment

in business such as confectionery manufacture, laundries, bakeries, cleaning establishments and any number of other businesses, which are hard pressed to maintain their services and their output of goods because the government has seen fit to pronounce only a $250 exemption for married women. These women who have worked through the war years, who are required now to increase Canada's production, to combat inflation, to help the needy in Britain and Europe, find that their husbands are penalized by the fact that they are at work. I wish to say with all the force at my command that this one clause in the budget of last year must be changed. It is injurious to the economic life of Canada. The taxation exemption of married women must be increased.
This excessive taxation has in other ways made the lot of the white-collar worker exceptionally hard. He has been faced with a fixed income, rising prices and rising costs and is beset by many difficulties. It has also affected the wage-earner in that he has lost much of his incentive because, as soon as the taxation deductions begin to come out of his weekly pay envelope, he begins to wonder whom he is working for-his wife, his family, himself or the federal government.
We have seen many cases where difficulties arose from controls. I am going to quote only one today and I acknowledge that I tread upon dangerous political ground when I speak of rent control; but I would speak especially for one part of our population, namely, the aged people who own property and are unable to obtain possession of it. I know of cases in the city from which I come, in which older people who had rented property at the time of the freezing of rents have for many years been unable to obtain possession of this property. Some of them are approaching the pensionable age. They are living perhaps in one room, cooking over a gas burner, and the small amount of security of a home which they had provided for themselves in their old age is being denied them. I would plead with this government especially for some relaxation of the property controls in the way in which they affect old people and prevent them from occupying the homes they have purchased for their old age.
As an example of what can be done, I should like to cite to the house the case of the compulsory war savings certificates, which were undertaken by the British government during the war in order to obtain the necessary revenue. As a matter of fact, I myself hold compulsory war savings certificates for a few pounds and I do not expect they will be paid within the next twenty years. But the

The Address-Mr. Skey
British government has seen fit to pay compulsory savings certificates to people over sixty-five years of age, because they realize that those are the people who need help. Those are the people who are coming to the time in life when their physical strength is perhaps failing them a little. They want help; they want shelter, and they want to enjoy some of the fruits of their savings. I would say to this government that they must revise their rent controls in some way to take care of special cases. I know it is true that the landlord has been beset by rising costs, heavy maintenance and repair work as well as heavy taxation, and at times he has been saddled with inconsiderate tenants; but that condition we must consider to some extent as an offshoot of the war and one which I hope will soon correct itself.
I should now like to turn to price control for a moment, and deal with one phase of it only. I wish to quote from the headlines of the Globe and Mail of last fall; under dateline of October 29, we have a report, presumably official, from the wartime prices and trade board. The heading is:
Moderate ceiling rises seen for some goods; may not hit foodstuffs
Farther down in the article we find these words:
Only to a slight extent, if at all, however, will any adjustments affect food prices.
Then just four or five days later, Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, speaking on the national network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, said exactly the opposite. The headline reads:
Food price rise certain once controls lifted, Reminder from Gordon
So we have a considerable amount of confusion in the mind of the general public, as is illustrated by just these two quotations. In one case they are told that prices will not rise; then the chairman of the wartime prices and trade board goes on the air and tells them that prices will rise. I recall plainly hearing the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) in this house last summer, tired and harassed as he was by the industrial relations committee, saying time and again that you could not have price control without a measure of wage control. He practically opened and closed that committee with those very words. Well, we have had wage control lifted, and now we are wondering just how long the government will continue to try to fool the people into believing they can actually control prices, because the housewives of Canada know the government have failed in what they tried to do.
83166-81J
Yet they maintain an expensive inspection and enforcement body all across the country. If you talk to the people who spend the money, the women, in spite of Mr. Gordon spending five hours on the air, or whatever time it was, they know that he has failed in his mission. It is about time the government admitted it and did something about it.
I need not read any more quotations in that connection. I feel that this price control farce is one of the worst things that has ever been foisted on the Canadian people. To go for a moment into the realm of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), one bad feature about it is this. The announcements made by the government are confusing and frightening to the marginal people of this country, the men and women who are struggling along trying to raise families, with perhaps a few dollars over one week and a few dollars short the next week. Every time the chairman of the wartime prices and trade board or one of his minions goes on the air or makes these announcements these people become more and more fearful at these repressive measures. I am sure the people of Canada would prefer the facts.
There is only one other matter I should like to mention, and I shall do so briefly; that is security. The men and women of Canada who are being taxed so heavily and controlled and decontrolled by the government in this frenzied fashion, all have in mind their own personal security. If the majority were to pass judgment on this government I believe they would say, "We prefer to keep a larger part of our income and be the arbiters as to how we shall spend it." I think they feel they would rather make provision for their own future security than trust it to the government. One way in which this could be done would be to have started a national contributory pension plan, so that young men who entered an industry which perhaps did not have a pension plan of its own would be able to contribute to a government scheme of this kind. That would relieve the state of the necessity of caring for them in later years as old age pensioners and give them a feeling of security for the future. Further in that connection I should like to quote again, because I desire to have it appear in what I have said today, what was said by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) on March 7 of this year, appearing at page 1114 of Hansard. There the hon. member spoke in support of Canadian businessmen. I have been dealing with these matters on an individual basis, but the hon. member dealt with the case of the businessman much better than I could have done. He said:
The Address-Mr. Tucker

. . . the businessmen of this country have been pushed around, not only during the war but since, as though thev were enemies of the state. Success on the part of the individual is becoming a subject of deprecation. To many bureaucrats a businessman, however honest he may be, is an object of suspicion and in many cases a parasite to be denounced. The honest businessman-
Here I would add the employer of labour, the man who risks his capital, the man who uses his initiative, his brains and his scientific genius.
-no less than the farmer and the worker and other citizens, should be entitled to fair and equitable treatment.
When I began, Mr. Speaker, I took as my main approach the fight by the individual against the government for control of his own life, as long as he does not trespass against his neighbour. I have endeavoured to show that the individual has been denied security because of excessive taxation and hobbling controls. I conclude with the remark with which I opened: that I as an individual, and I know we as a party, stand for the people and their freedom from control by government.


Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to follow the hon. member who has just spoken, except to this extent. He said that, in his opinion, price control was the greatest farce ever imposed on the Canadian people.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: If I may interrupt, I mean at the present time; since the war.


Walter Adam Tucker: If it was necessary during the war I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in the period immediately following the war, while there are many scarcities due to the war, it ts necessary to keep controls in force and not remove them until a reasonable supply of goods is available to the consumer. Otherwise you are going to have a sudden rise in prices and the consumers, particularly the poorer people who cannot afford to pay higher prices, will be penalized. Surely when the hon. member speaks like that and suggests there must be immediate decontrol of all prices without regard to scarcities, he is not-


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I did not say that.


Walter Adam Tucker: -speaking for the Conservative party.


Gordon Graydon: You are just putting up the usual straw man.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Oh, keep quiet.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I said that the government should

take some action to protect the individual, because the government knows these controls have failed.


Walter Adam Tucker: I took down the hon. member's words, and I understood him to say that price control was the greatest farce ever imposed upon the Canadian people. Then the hon. gentleman said he meant present price controls. I suggested that if price controls were removed there would be tremendous increases in the prices of certain commodities, and that these controls could be removed only in an orderly way. That is the policy' of the government, and I take it that is what he is finding fault with. If all controls were removed the result, of course, would bear heavily on the person of low income, and I said I hoped the hon. member was not speaking for his party, which he said wished to be known as friendly to the common person, and so on, because I do not believe that could be regarded as very helpful to the common man.
I do not wish to go into the Veterans Land Act at any great length because this matter was covered very well and completely by the right hon. minister in his presentation to the house. However, some things have been said and, although I have not the time to deal with them in full, I should like to say a few words in regard to the general picture of the small holdings programme.
The part of this programme that has come under criticism in this house comprises something over 2,600 houses which were built by the Veterans Land Act administration pursuant to a request that they make some contribution to the building shortage. In order to try to help out, they negotiated to build a certain number of houses. They have built between 2,600 and 2,700 houses, but that is only a small part of the whole programme. Up to the end of January, 1947, there were settled by the Veterans Land Act administration 12,023 veterans in full-time farming; 10,308 on small holdings; 417 in commercial fishing; 994 in full-time farming on provincial projects, making a total of 23,742 who have been settled by the Veterans Land Act administration up to the end of last January. Of course it will be seen by the house that 2,600 is only slightly over ten per cent of the total.
I think it will be admitted by all hon. members who have visited these small holdings that the majority of the men on them are well satisfied with the homes they have. At least that expression has been used to me in connection with the ones I have visited. These men realize that they are getting homes that cost them much less than they would have paid if they had got them them-

The Address-Mr. Tucker
*elves outside of the Veterans Land Act and 3pent their reestablishment credit. Under V.L.A. there has been a write-off of $1,400, jnd in some cases they have had the benefit Df the write-off of part of a million dollars which was appropriated to cut down costs where they have been raised by unusual conditions. Then they are getting their money at three and a half per cent. Most of them are very well satisfied with the deal they have made.
I fancy that if a careful examination were made of the situation it would be found that no more than four or five per cent of those who got these homes are really dissatisfied which, if correct, indicates that over ninety-nine per cent of the people settled under the Veterans Land Act are apparently well satisfied.


Mr. BROOKS:: Your arithmetic is a little off.


Walter Adam Tucker: I said about four or five
per cent of ten per cent, which is less than one per cent; it is about one-half per cent.


Mr. HARKNESS:: That is all supposition.


Walter Adam Tucker: It is based upon observations which I have made and I am as much entitled to my own opinion as anyone of the opposition.
There has been some criticism of the delay in regard to the Veterans Land Act administration. One reason for the delay was a desire to avoid the mistakes which marked the administration of the soldier settlement department after the first war.


An hon. MEMBER:: You did not avoid
the mistakes.


Walter Adam Tucker: We have gone a long
way toward avoiding them. Again that is my . own opinion. I think most people who have studied the situation will agree that the government have gone a long way toward avoiding these mistakes. Another reason for some delay was the feeling that the boys overseas should have a chance to get back before settlement was started on a large scale. Therefore it was impossible really to start settling on a large scale until the late fall of 1945. As hon. members know, safe settlement cannot be indulged in during the winter when the ground is covered with snow, so that meant it was really the spring of 1946 before work could be started on any scale. It meant also that so far there has been only one season in which to do this work. As I say, there have been almost 24,000 settled already, which I think is not a bad record thus far.
There has been some criticism of the houses, but I would say that one of the reasons for the difficulty is that which has faced anyone who has tried to build a. house, the shortage of proper materials. Builders working for the Veterans Land Act administration in many cases had to work with inferior building materials. It was never thought that ultimately these houses would not be brought up to specifications, but it was felt that it was better to have houses completed and roofs over the heads of a large number of veterans than to stand upon red tape and refuse to let them go ahead with the building.


Mr. IIOMUTH:: That excuse is just as leaky as the roofs of the houses.


Walter Adam Tucker: I wonder that the hon. gentleman says anything in view of his remarks a few minutes ago. That was the attitude in regard to this matter, that it was better to go ahead. It was impossible in some cases to finish the houses to specifications and representations were made that the houses should be opened so that veterans would be able to get shelter. In many cases veterans were permitted to take possession of houses before they were finished and. therefore, before there was any chance to decide what the final cost would be.
I do not know whether my hon. friends would have said that we should have prevented these veterans from taking possession until the houses were fully finished, even though they were habitable and would provide roofs over their heads. I sometimes think they are quite reckless with their criticism.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Nonsense.


Walter Adam Tucker: It may be nonsense to my hon. friend; he may be an expert in nonsense, but in any event the effect of that criticism was that the contractors who had agreed to their houses being taken possession of before they were finished found themselves advertised all over the country as having done a poor job when it was understood that they would have to go back and finish the job. They now do not want to give possession of houses until fully finished because they will be held up all over the country as having done a poor job. The result is the department is having difficulty in getting possession of houses before they are fully finished. There is a feeling now that, in view of the criticism which has been indulged in, the only safe policy is to wait until the houses are absolutely finished before possession is granted.
The Address-Mr. Tucker


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Will my hon. friend permit a question? Will he say that there was nothing wrong with the houses built for the veterans of this country?


Walter Adam Tucker: The government has never said that. If my hon. friend will just contain himself a moment he will hear what I have to say. We had to use inferior materials and surely that fact will penetrate into my hon. friend's head. I just finished saying that at no time was there any thought that this obligation should not be accepted and these houses be finished according to specifications. But I said it was felt that it was important to give these boys roofs over their heads as quickly as possible, and I think that should have been taken into consideration. As soon as materials can be got to bring these houses up to specifications, they will be brought up to specifications. There has been no attempt to avoid full responsibility in regard to bringing these houses up to specifications and doing a good job.


Mr. MILLER:: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not mind questions as long as I am given enough time.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I cannot allow any time for questions being asked. An hon. member is allowed to speak the allotted time of forty minutes, which includes questions.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Do you think you should not be criticized because of your remissions?


Walter Adam Tucker: I said that this criticism should have taken account of what was being done. I said that the effect of criticism which did not take that fact into account, which did not give credit to the contractors for having let people into their houses before they were finished, was making them afraid to do that now. Had hon. members risen in their places and said that they realized the houses were not finished, that they realized the government had let people take possession before the houses were ready; had they asked for assurance that ultimately the houses would be brought up to specifications as soon as materials could be obtained, nobody would have found any fault whatever.


Mr. LOCKHART:: What about the sites?


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not intend to take up a whole lot of time to deal with the question of sites. The very basis of this plan was that it should be agricultural land from which a part of the veteran settler's income would come to sustain himself. It was a land settlement scheme, not an urban housing scheme.

It was never intended in the first place that it should be an urban housing scheme. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt) complained of the drainage on Lulu island. To complain because some water runs onto the land of a man who is supposed to be going into farming is not fair criticism. The drainage there was also under the control of one of the most competent drainage authorities in Canada.


Mr. PEARKES:: Was the same authority responsible for the drainage at Braefoot?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Ducks in the cellar.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. There are too many interruptions. There cannot be intelligent discussion with so many interruptions. Questions can be asked only with the permission of the hon. member who has the floor.


Walter Adam Tucker: In reply to the interjection in regard to Braefoot, in spite of the fact that this administration went somewhat beyond the original intention of the act and engaged in building which was very close to an urban character and actually built at Braefoot, it has not sought to evade responsibility even in that regard. We have said that drainage will be put in as quickly as it can be put in. I am sure hon. members realize that a good job really has been done in providing these 2,700 homes and giving possession as quickly as possible to the veteran. There have been a few defects in workmanship and in materials in some cases, but these defects will be made good at the expense of the public as quickly as possible, and where the contractor is to blame he will be expected to make good. Certainly if that is all hon. members wished to say, they could have said it without suggesting that in some way there had been some terrible breakdown of this whole plan of settlement. There is nothing in the whole plan of which this administration needs to be ashamed. It is wide open to inspection. This administration believes that it has done a good job for a veteran. The veteran who has a house under this scheme knows he is much better off than he would have been had he had to go out like the forty thousand other veterans who have done so and buy a house with his own resources.
I wish to deal for a moment with the question of immigration. I think most of us feel that we are in possession of one of the richest areas on the earth's surface. We are in possession of half of a rich continent, and it is not the proper attitude for us to take, in the present state of world affairs, to say that we

The Address-Mr. Tucker
are going to bar out of that area large numbers of homeless people who would like to come and make their homes here, particularly the relatives of those who came here and laid the foundations for our country, pioneered it and helped to build it up to the country it is today. They now see their relatives in the old lands from which they came in danger of losing their lives, and they say to us that they would like to be able to give them protection and asylum in this dominion. I would say this to the government in that regard. There has been an extension of the terms upon which people can enter this country, and I appreciate that very much, but some of these extensions should, I think, be much, further extended. From amongst the refugees and displaced persons in Europe anybody in this country should be free to bring in a relative and that relative's family. For example, a man might be willing to come to Canada and work as a farm labourer, or he may be needed in mining, lumbering or the logging industry in this country. To say to such a man, you can come here but you must leave your wife and your family over in Europe with its present unsettled conditions, I say that it is not right to offer to take a man in but ask him to leave his wife and family over there. Our government should not be a party to any policy that is based on such a separation of families, particularly the relatives of those who have laid the foundations of our country, pioneered and built it up to what it is today.
In regard to this whole question of immigration it is generally admitted that we shall need immigrants and the we should let them in, but some say that we should go about this in a slow and careful manner. There seems to be the idea that if we go about it very slowly and take in only a few immigrants each year we shall always be able to get the numbers we want, but with conditions as they are in Europe today I venture to suggest that several of these countries from whom in past years we drew some of our best immigrants will not permit their people to leave their shores. I doubt whether the Scandinavian countries will permit their people to leave their shores in any great numbers, and I believe the same is true of Great Britain herself. I am satisfied from past experience that the nations behind the iron curtain, no matter how much those people may want to leave the control of the Soviet, will not be allowed to leave those countries, and let it not be forgotten that we got some of our best settlers from the Ukraine, Poland and some other countries that are now wholly or partly under the control of the Soviet.
So that the situation today is this. There are about 800,000 people, exactly the kind of people who have helped to build up this country, living in camps in Europe today under terrible conditions and they do not want to go back under the control of the Soviet. They are asking for a chance to find a home in the new world, and we urge that when they have relatives here, they should be permitted to come here, even if we have at one time to take in more than we would take in on an ordinary immigration basis. It is a question of either taking them now and saving their lives or they will be lost to us and be forced back where they fear to go. If we take these people in we shall be taking in settlers who have already demonstrated their loyalty and devotion to the cause of freedom. They have picked themselves as desirable immigrants for Canada by virtue of the fact that they are in these camps. The fact they are there shows they are against totalitarianism, against communism, and so on. I urge the government, with all the strength I have, to adopt a policy which will permit a reasonable number of these people to come in as soon as possible. The first step which I urge should be taken is that relatives of those in this country should be admitted at once.
I should like to tell this house about one thing that has pleased me more than anything else since I came to Ottawa to attend this parliament. A delegation waited on the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) in regard to this question of immigration. It showed the good will and the unity which prevails in this country in regard to this matter, which is not only an economic matter and a political matter but a matter of Christianity and humanity. On that delegation on which I had the honour of accompanying the Prime Minister there were represented all the Lutheran churches in Canada. A representative of the Roman Catholics of the prairies, a representative of all the Mennonites, a representative of all the Sudeten refugees, a representative of all the Ukrainians, both Greek Catholics and Greek Orthodox, a representative of the Poles went there in one combined delegation' and said to the Prime Minister: "Our relatives are over there in danger. We ask you, w'ithout regard to racial origin or religious creed, to allow them to come here to their relatives and find a refuge in this great free country." One of these men said to the Prime Minister: "I never cease to remember that but for the action of your government back in 1938 in admitting us I would not be alive today." Another man said: "I never go to bed at night but what I thank
The Address-Mr. Tucker

God for the privilege of living in this great free country and I want the chance of bringing my relatives here to enjoy the privileges that I have enjoyed."


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What did the Prime Minister say?


Walter Adam Tucker: The Prime Minister said that he would give very careful consideration to the matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Walter Adam Tucker: That may amuse my hon. friends. There is apparently some thought in the minds of my hon. friends that I am trying somehow, as they now indicate by their question and attitude-and the question was by a good friend of mine-to put some political bent to it. This is a national question; it is a question of humanity; a question of Christianity; a question on which all parties should join together, and I am making my appeal for the support which all hon. members might care to give to my suggestion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have that. What about the Prime Minister?


Mr. GARDINER:: He will go a great deal farther than any of my hon. friends will go.


Walter Adam Tucker: When he did open the doors in 1923 some of my hon. friends found fault with him for doing so.
I come to another matter which is of interest to us, particularly in Saskatchewan. I am sorry that I shall not have time to run over all these subjects with which I wish to deal; therefore I shall do little more than mention some of the points. In regard to the crop failure bonus on the prairies, I would suggest to the government that every possible consideration be given to making the act more flexible. At the present time, if a township has not the requisite yield to bring it within the act a rectangular block of not less than nine sections may be brought into it if it is lying alongside an eligible township. I suggest that that section should be amended to make it more flexible so that it should not necessarily be a rectangular block, or lie alongside an adjacent township, so long as it is within an adjacent township, and that nine sections are too much. If that were made more flexible it would improve the administration of the act.
In regard to prairie farm rehabilitation, I urge most strongly upon the government its extension to the whole province. It should indeed be extended to the whole Dominion of Canada with advantage to the development of the country.
I also wish to commend the government for getting plans ready to spend SI 10 million to

bring under cultivation a million and a half acres of land which cannot be cultivated today because of lack of water. I urge the government to press ahead with its plans as fast as available labour and supplies will permit. This programme which will bring under cultivation a million and a half acres is not an expenditure of money in the ordinary sense; it is an investment in the future development of the country which will pay real dividends in the development of the human resources of our country. As an example of the extent to which it will make a contribution, may I cite the yield in an area in Alberta of 30,000 acres of irrigated land. On these 30,000 acres the sugar beet growers in 1946 received an average return of $150 per acre. This yield was from land which formerly was practically worthless. On all the crops in that area the average yield was S75 an acre.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Gross?


Walter Adam Tucker: Gross return. In regard to that, all I shall take time to do is to urge the government to proceed with the programme just as fast as available labour and material will permit.
I have already stated my stand in regard to grain marketing. We of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan are behind-


Arthur Leroy Smith: The eight ball.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Walter Adam Tucker: -the wheat board as the best method of marketing wheat. I do not see what is so funny about that. I should like to deal with the laughter but I have not time. I think my hon. friends are masters of that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It looks like it.


Walter Adam Tucker: Perhaps they are. I ask any one of them to tell us whether or not he is against it. If there is a Tory over there I should like him to rise in his place and say that he is against it today. I will challenge him to do so.


Mr. FERGUSON:: I am against it.


Walter Adam Tucker: You are against it because you are in an area where there is no wheat growing as in the west. I should like to see a western Toiy get up and say that he is opposed to it.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: We do not have western Tories.


Walter Adam Tucker: Are you against Trans-Canada Air Lines?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: No.

TTie Address- Mr. Tucker


Arthur Leroy Smith: I think they are inefficient.


Walter Adam Tucker: You are against them.


Arthur Leroy Smith: They are inefficient.


Walter Adam Tucker: I will not take time to go into that.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You cannot.


Walter Adam Tucker: I could do it very easily but my time is running out.
We should like to see the wheat board have control of the marketing of all grains. We are glad to see that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, representing all the farmers of Canada, in its last submission to the government endorsed the present wheat board and the way they are handling their job. Do I understand that some Conservatives representing farming districts are not in line with the representations of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture?


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I
answer the hon. member's question? He wanted a westerner to say something. I am against the wheat board having complete and absolute charge of the marketing of all grains. Is that a straight answer, or is it not?


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes, that is fine. I am glad the hon. member said that, because it helps to put his party a little more on the record, but his hon. friend alongside him has not said that.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Stay with me; do not leave me.


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not want to stay with the hon. member, much as I like him. Charming as he is, he does not represent his whole party.
With regard to barley, the representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture indicated that they would like to see at least $5 paid upon land sown to barley. There have been many arguments about that but I have not time to go into them this afternoon.


James Arthur Ross: Tell us what you are going to do about it. Your constituents would like to know now.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am not a member of the government. All I can do is to make my representations.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Walter Adam Tucker: That may amuse my hon. friends but what is so funny about that?


Arthur Leroy Smith: You have no sense of humour.


Walter Adam Tucker: I should like to say to the government that I hope it will accept the recommendation. I must say I am doubtful whether $5 an acre will be enough to bring out the production of barley which should be brought out to provide the necessary feed not only for the west but for the eastern part of Canada and British Columbia but it will help.


James Arthur Ross: Why accept it?


Walter Adam Tucker: I notice they also suggested that the freight policy be continued. Under that policy, as hon. members know, $79 million were paid out to January 31, 1947, to subsidize cost of freight on feed grain shipped east and to British Columbia, and $25 million was paid on subsidizing feed grain. Of course tiiat has meant that we could grow more feed grains for live stock and a policy of feeding live stock could be built up in the other parts of Canada.
That brings me to another question, the question of freight rates. It is interesting to note that the assistance given to the cost of shipping of feed grain to British Columbia and to the eastern part of Canada ha3 had such a tremendously beneficial influence upon the building up of the agricultural industry in Ontario. It shows what effect high freight rates have on stultifying and holding back the development of the country. One of the things that holds back the development of our country is the large stretch, the unproductive spread between west of the lakes and east of Winnipeg. There is very little production there and our produce has to be hauled both ways over that stretch. Someone has made a suggestion which might do much more good than studying how to raise rates, and that is to treat that area much as you would treat a river to be crossed, where you provide a bridge at public expense, or perhaps where you provide a canal on which you can haul goods, and do so at the expense of the public. The suggestion is made that if the cost of hauling goods across that unproductive area were paid by the state it would increase development not only in western Canada but in eastern Canada as well. It would increase national development amazingly.
I was pleased at the last meeting of the national Liberal federation that they were definitely opposed to any increase in freight rates. They said that if the railroads had to have more money to carry on, some other method should be adopted than raising the rates. I suggest that the question of paying the cost of hauling goods back and forth across that unproductive stretch might be considered.
It operates very much like a tariff. It costs money for us to fetch goods from eastern
The Address- Mr. Tucker

Canada and it costs the people in eastern Canada money to have goods taken to them from the west. In other words, it operates as a tariff does, and our party should give consideration, 1 submit, to the elimination of that brake upon the development of the country. That would be much better than increasing freight rates.
In regard to cooperatives, we know some are doing business in various parts of Canada. Our party in Saskatchewan has suggested that the federal government enact a dominion cooperative act as a necessary step in the complete functioning of the cooperative movement in Canada, as it is being carried on throughout the country. There should be provision for them to get incorporation from the dominion parliament.
As to the Hudson Bay railway, the western provinces set up a technical committee to study this problem and they recommend that, to give this route a fair trial, at least 16.000,000 bushels should be exported through that port this year. If 16,000,000 bushels were exported through that port it would eliminate all the deficits on the Hudson Bay railway; it would eliminate all deficits on the terminals, and it would give a real test to that port. Incidentally, it would save a great deal of extra money to the wheat growers of the country through the saving of over four cents a bushel freight on wheat exported through the port.
I urge the government, with all the emphasis I can exert, to bring pressure to bear upon the wheat board and everyone else involved to see to it that that great port, built, after all, with the money realized from the sale of western lands, shall be given the trial which it deserves and which we in the west believe will demonstrate that it is a workable means of communication not only between ourselves and Europe but between us and the maritime provinces of Canada. I would urge that upon the government.
I am aware that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in his trip overseas a year ago explored means whereby the Scotish cooperatives might take over some of our merchant ships to start trading out of and into Hudson bay. What they feel it possible to do in that regard I do not know, but I hope that everything will be done that can be done in developing that route.
In regard to floor prices, we have, as hon. members know, an Agricultural Prices Support Act. That is designed to put a floor price under farm products to ensure to the farmer an adequate and stable price for his products and to give him a return which will bear a fair relationship to that enjoyed by other

members of the community. We of the Saskatchewan Liberal party say that that should be adopted not only for the transition period from war to peace. We suggest that there should be a floor under farm prices as a permanent part of the economic set-up. There should be stability in the income of the farmer, who has to raise, care for and educate his family just as other people have to. He is as much entitled to stability in income as any other part of society, and we ask that consideration be given to making the Agricultural Prices Support Act a permanent part of the economic set-up.
In regard to income tax, everyone knows how hardly in recent years it has borne on the various parts of the country. Everyone knows it has had the effect of discouraging initiative and has made different people say that they do not want to work such long hours, while others say that they do not care to produce because they are afraid of the effect which the income tax might have on their net income. They think their efforts might not be worthwhile. The same is true throughout our whole economy. The farmer however has felt that the income tax act is one that has borne extraordinarily upon him.
I would point out two ways in which it has done so. Unfortunately there is a tendency on the part of some people, not farmers, to say that the farmer is taking an unreasonable attitude in this matter, but here are two ways in which he feels that the income tax has been unfair to him, and in these respects he would like to see a change made. In the first place, the family on a farm, the wife and children, make a real contribution to the income of the farmer, and yet that is not taken into consideration properly when he makes up his income tax returns. At the end of, say, ten years his financial standing is compared with that of what it was ten years previously and he is considered to have made all the money himself during that time. The farmer is certainly entitled to say that in the making of this money there were others who helped. Several people may help him to make the money because, while he may not pay it out at once to his children when they help him around the farm, he has in mind ultimately paying them by assisting them when they start on a farm of their own. Something definite should be done to take that situation into account and correct it.
The other point is this. In Saskatchewan we had sometimes as many as eight or nine years of crop failure. Men had worked for ten and fifteen years building up an estate for themselves and then had a succession of crop failures. Then they began to go into debt.

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
They put mortgages on their farms and sometimes lost everything they had made during a period of ten or fifteen years. Then with better crops they began to make money again and they want to pay off these mortgages and get into the same position they were in ten or fifteen years ago. But the income tax department says to them, as it does to other people in other lines of work, "We are not concerned about what you lost ten years ago; we are concerned only with what you are making today."
I give the government credit for being willing to average farm income over three years but I still say that something further should be done to take care of that particular situation of the man in western Canada who lost sometimes as many as nine or ten crops.
These are only some of the items that I wished to put before the house in the time at my disposal. I am sorry I could not cover all that I should like to have touched upon, but I thank the house for the indulgence it has shown me.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I am sure the house now regrets that it did not allow the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) to make from the very beginning the kind of speech he ended up with. I hope he will not take it amiss when I congratulate him on the excellent speech he has made in support of the programme which the C.C.F. has been advocating in Saskatchewan for so many years.
The debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne has done at least one thing. It has demonstrated that the war is over and that we are now face to face with all these problems which we failed to solve in the period between the two wars. The debate has also brought into clear focus the difference in policies as between the parties in this house dealing with our social and economic affairs. From observing the government's administration of affairs, and from listening to the speeches by the official opposition, it must be clear to anyone that there is no fundamental disagreement between them in the matter of policy. The chief difference that I see between the policies of the government and those of the official opposition is that the government wants to make an orderly retreat to the pre-war economy and the official opposition wants to make a disorderly retreat to the same ground. Neither party, it appears, has learned anything from the lessons of the twenty years of uneasy peace between the two wars nor, does it seem, have they learned anything from what happened during the six years of war itself, and a great deal happened during those years.
The other party, the Social Credit party, as far as I have been able to observe, believes in nearly all the fallacies and misconceptions on which the policies of the Liberals and Conservatives are based, and it has quite a number of its own fallacies besides. I do not think I am doing the Social Credit party any injustice when I say that it holds to the theory-this is good, orthodox, old-fashioned Liberal theory and I understand my hon. friends over to the right have adopted it-that the welfare of all is best served when each is concerned only with enhancing his own welfare. This philosophy is usually referred to as private enterprise, and my hon. friends have put themselves on record a dozen times during the present session that they are in favour of it. But to be completely fair with the Social Credit party, I must say that, although it adheres to the principle of capitalism-that is, private enterprise-as the best way of life, it also believes that there is a means by which we can avoid and overcome the evils associated with private ownership, namely, by the issue of a liberal supply of greenbacks.


John Horne Blackmore: "Liberal" is not the word; suitable and adequate.


Angus MacInnis: Imagine that, to be suitable and adequate, it would have to be liberal; and I am afraid that the more liberal it would be, the more inadequate it would be. The Social Credit party not only believes that one can have his cake and eat it too, but also believes that one can eat the other fellow's cake and that he can still have it. That is the fundamental basis of their policy.


John Horne Blackmore: Nonsense.


Angus MacInnis: For the first time during the session I agree with the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), that it is nonsense. The C.C.F. believes that the people should own, control and operate the means by which they must live. Not only that; we say that the masses of the people who do not own, control and operate the means by which they live, are not free.


John Horne Blackmore: Farms, too. Put them in also.


Angus MacInnis: Yes; and I put a donkey in the barn.


John Horne Blackmore: You are afraid of that one.


James Horace King: Order.


Angus MacInnis: Any people who do not own the means by which they live must go hat in hand to the people who do own those things
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

and ask for the right to live or the right to work in order that they may live. I should like to point out now that the policy we believe in, that of social ownership of the means of life, is becoming increasingly accepted throughout the world, so that today any man capable of reasoning who will look at the present world situation can come to only one conclusion, and that is that it is no longer a question of capitalism versus collectivism; it is a question today of what kind of collectivism the world is going to have. Shall it be totalitarian or democratic collectivism? The group with which I am associated believe in democratic collectivism; in other words, democratic socialism.
I wish to take a little time, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). I shall also, if I have time, deal with the Social Credit philosophy on which the amendment is based. Before dealing specifically with the subamendment, I wish to refer briefly to certain statements made by the leader of the Social Credit party when he spoke in this debate on February 3. At page 75 of Hansard, he is reported as saying:
Furthermore, I say to you, sir, that it is my belief and the belief of those in this group in the house, that any time the government sets out to achieve as its major conscious objective full employment, social security, or a planned economy, that government is going straight down the road to slavery of the people in the country.
I quoted that short paragraph because I wish to compare it with some other quotations from the hon. gentleman's speech. On page 76 of Hansard, just half a column distant from the quotation which I have just read, I find this:
I was very much disappointed that the speech from the throne made no mention of the government's intention to enter upon a bold, progressive and systematic programme of development in the north, and its colonization as well.
Put the passage I have just read along with the passage that I read first, and this is what you will find. The hon. member for Peace River told the house that any government that set out to achieve as its major conscious objective, full employment, social security or a planned economy, was leading the people down the path of slavery. The next moment he is criticizing the government for not planning in order to improve the standard of living of the people of this country.


Charles Edward Johnston: Two entirely different things.


Angus MacInnis: The only difference is that they were said at different times. I

imagine that any government that was going to enter on a bold, progressive and systematic programme would have to plan that programme. However, perhaps I am wrong.
I should like to quote another sentence from the same speech, on the same page of Hansard. I quote a sentence only, but it is long enough and there is enough in it to prove the point I desire to make. That point is that no matter what the Social Credit party says, or for what purpose it says it, that party believes in planning. This is the quotation:
Among their concrete achievements the Alberta government has recently commenced a vast scheme of clearing and colonization of lands in the Peace River country which in five years' time will result in 200,000 acres of new farms being brought under cultivation and production.
There again you have the hon. member for Peace River, who was criticizing the C.C.F. for advocating planning, who was telling the house that any government engaged in planning was taking the people down the path of slavery, congratulating the government of Alberta upon having done a little planning, a five-year plan if you like, in northern Alberta. So now what can we say of either the sincerity or the integrity of a party leader who condemns government planning when it is advocated by one party, who criticizes another party for not doing it, but who praises his own party for having done it? The C.C.F. believe that in our complex society production and distribution must be planned. What is more, we know it will be planned, for not to plan would be anarchy. The only question to be decided, then, is, will it be planned for the benefit of the country as a whole by the democratically elected representatives of the people, or will it be planned by a few individuals for their own profit? That is the situation confronting us today; those are the alternatives. Plan we must, and we must also accept the economic and social consequences of the kind of planning we do.
I now come to the Social Credit amendment, which would delete the Progressive Conservative amendment of no confidence and substitute four proposals. I am going to read only one of those four, and I shall state my purpose in reading it. The first proposal asks for the return to parliament of complete and effective control of Canada's financial policy. I am under the impression that this parliament now has and always has had full and complete control of Canada's financial policy. Of course it is open to question whether parliament has always exercised the power to make and control a financial policy in the interests of Canada. It is quite likely it has allowed other people to make the policy; but there is no doubt where the power to make such policies

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
lies. In that connection, however, the first prerequisite to the complete and effective control of a financial policy is complete and effective control of the financial institutions through which financial policies are carried out. In the opinion of this party, that implies the public ownership of our financial institutions; for instance, the public ownership of the chartered banks. The Social Credit party, however, is opposed to the public ownership of banks. They believe our financial institutions, along with all the other means of production, distribution and exchange, should be operated for private gain. This is a beautiful example of the contradiction between what the Social Credit party believes in and the results the Social Credit party wants to achieve.
I shall try to put the point briefly and, I hope, correctly. First, they say our financial institutions should be privately owned and, I believe it logically follows, operated for the private profit of the owners. Second, they want them operated for the social benefit of the community as well. I do not believe you can get those two things under those conditions. They fail to see, as so many other hon. members fail to see, that most of the time of this house is taken up in trying to harmonize the welfare of the community with the demands of an economic system that has for its purpose the exploitation of the community.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose for the dinner recess I was about to read section B of the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River. This is the section of the subamendment which contains the meat, if I may apply that term to a fallacy, of the social credit economic philosophy. It reads:
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 saje.
As I said, that is the meat of the social credit programme, the issuing of what they call debt-free money, with the suggestion or the assertion that it will neither add to prices
nor diminish the amount of income that any section of the community may receive. I claim that cannot be done.
I want you to note the phrase, "as a guarantee that this country shall not again be subjected to financial depression." The assumption of that phrase, an absolutely erroneous assumption, is that our depressions are financial. I wish to make the assertion, which I do not believe can be contradicted, that we have never had a financial depression in this country. The financial resources of the country, that is the currency and credit of the country, have always been adequate to distribute the goods and services produced. That is not to say that the goods and services produced have always been distributed to the people who needed them. They have not. But when that was not the case there was always sufficient money to do it. People may be in want wfiien there is a shortage of the things they need because under the capitalist system, which the social crediters support, goods are not produced to fulfil needs; they are produced to make a profit for the owners of the capital employed in producing them. That is the so-called private enterprise to which my hon. friends referred. If they serve the needs of the country, that is incidental. That is not the primary purpose of capitalist production.
The proof of that assertion lies in the fact that if you want anyone to invest in a project or undertaking the question you will be asked is, not what social good will accrue from it, but what profit will it make? If it will not make a profit you will not find investors for it. As long as it makes a profit, it will keep going; when it does not make a profit, the government has to take it over if it is an industry essential to the life of the community.
Prosperity and the amount of money in circulation are not necessarily dependent upon one another. The total amount of money and bank credit in circulation in Canada in 1938 was almost double that in circulation in 1929; yet 1929 was the peak, year of our prosperity and 1938 was a year of relative depression. I have the figures and I shall give them. The total money in circulation and the total bank deposits for 1929 were $2,934 million, while in 1938. as I said a year of relative depression when unemployment was five or six times what it was in 1929. the amount of money in circulation was $4,865 million, or nearly twice as much. Yet we are told that depressions are caused through our not having enough money.
At the present time everyone is predicting a depression, but our bank deposits and the
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

money in circulation are increasing all the time. Just before coming into the chamber I made a note of the savings deposits in our banks on January 31, 1946, and on January 31, 1947, and I found that in the period of one year .the savings deposits in the chartered banks of Canada had increased by approximately $570 million. Yet, as I said, everyone is predicting a depression.
I should like to read a short paragraph from a book that came into my hands only yesterday entitled "A Tax Programme for a Solvent America", by the committee on post-war tax policy. This is as recent as February, 1947, and in regard to money it says: Incidentally it should be noted that there is nowhere a lack of money. Even the stricken countries of Europe and the Orient have plenty of purchasing power, as the term goes. We have been provided with an impressive demonstration of the comparative sterility of money, as such. The great famine has demonstrated that people can starve, regardless of the quantity of money in circulation. Money is worthless in exchange unless there are goods to be exchanged. Whether it be paper money in Hungary, or bank deposits in Japan, the mere existence of purchasing power will not create bread and shoes.
Then they go on to say that what is required today is not money, but goods and the means to produce goods. After we have acquired those, the next thing to do is to provide a means of distributing those goods and services to the people who need them. Then we shall not need to worry about depressions, financial or otherwise.


Mr. KUHL:: Where will you get the money?


Angus MacInnis: We have the money here, but the people who need the money do not have it and the people who have it, cannot use it.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Then you want more taxation.


Angus MacInnis: There is no other way in which it can be done except by taxation, to take from those who have to give to those who have not, of course, unless we increase our total production. You cannot increase your .total production, as long as you are operating under the profit motive, because production is continually being restricted in order to increase prices. Read your cartels report.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: And then we had overproduction in 1939.


Angus MacInnis: That is what somebody told you. I never told you that.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: There were plenty of goods then.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, there were plenty of goods; that is what I am saying, but under the system which you support the people who produced those goods and needed them could not get them. That is what is wrong.
Let me give the house an idea of the amount of money that is available in savings deposits in our chartered banks. As of October 31, 1946, there were savings deposits in our chartered banks to an amount of over $3,476,000,000. The number of separate deposit accounts was 6,063,457, which works out at approximately one account for every two people in Canada. But when you come to classify these accounts you find that a great many people had very little money on deposit and that a very few people had a great deal. Of the 6,063,457 accounts, 5,290,728 were deposits of $1,000 or less, or an average deposit of $170. But when you come down to deposits in excess of $100,000, there were 971 accounts with an average deposit of $376,633.
Those who believe that they can remedy the situation by creating money are just deceiving simple people. I would say again that the struggle for survival in Britain today is another proof of the fact that it is not a scarcity of money that is the trouble. Monetary reform, of course, is an essential part of any programme designed to expand production for a higher standard of living, but as long as you leave the ownership, control and the direction and purpose of industry in private hands you will not accomplish much. For this reason alone, and there are plenty of others, this group cannot support the subamendment.
The hon. member for Peace River, speaking in the house the other night, made the statement that there was a feeling abroad that the Social Crediters had forsaken their monetary reform policy. Their amendment is sufficient proof that that is not the case, and I need not say anything more about it. But although they claim that they have not forsaken their monetary reform policy, I do claim that they have forsaken the basis on which William Aberhart's brand of social credit in Alberta was built up. Mr. Aberhart built up social credit in Alberta, not by extolling the virtues of free enterprise and big business, but by doing just the very opposite namely, attacking big business. I have in my hand a booklet with which my social credit friends, no doubt, used to be quite familiar but with which they have not been so familiar lately. It is the "Social Credit Manual," with the subtitle, "Social Credit as applied to the province of Alberta", written by William Aberhart, B.A., and with the further subtitle, "Puzzling questions and their answers"; and let me say that the answers are just as puzzling as the questions. In

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
stating the basic premise of social credit, this is what Mr. Aberhart says on page 5 of the manual:
It is the duty of the state through its government to organize its economic structure in such a way that no bona fide citizen, man, woman, or child, shall be allowed to suffer for lack of the bare necessities of food, clothing, and shelter, in the midst of plenty or abundance.
But listen to what the leader of the Social Credit party in this house said, speaking in this debate on February 3 last, as reported at page 75 of Hansard:
Furthermore, I say to you, sir, that it is my belief and the belief of those in this group in the house, that any time the government sets out to achieve as its major conscious objective full employment, social security, or a planned economy, that government is going straight down the road to slavery of the people in the country.


John Horne Blackmore: There is no contradiction there.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Aberhart said that it was the duty of the state to see that the people were provided for, but the hon. member for Peace River says that any government which attempts that is taking the people of the country down the road to slavery.


John Horne Blackmore: That is not right.


Angus MacInnis: I have read the actual words and I think I understand English. There is a peculiar phrase used by the hon. member for Peace River to which I would draw attention. He said that any time the government sets out to achieve "as its major conscious objective" full employment, social security and so on. I imagine that if a government only made that a minor unconscious objective it would not be too bad. My social credit friends accuse the present government of socialistic or national planning, but let me tell them that if the government is doing anything of that kind it is of a minor nature and is done absolutely unconsciously.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Not a bad job at that.


Angus MacInnis: My time is nearly up, but I wish to quote just a few more phrases from this little manual on social credit. If social credit were possible it would involve so much control that any control which might take place under the planned economy advocated by this group would be absolute freedom in comparison. The Social Crediters are to have no taxes but they are to have a levy. William Aberhart said in this manual:
Thus the province will be able to collect a levy that will provide the basic dividends to distribute to the various citizens.
The citizens were to get dividends, and then they would pay for them, of course, by a levy, not a tax. Mr. Aberhart goes on to say:
To illustrate this let us take a bushel of wheat say at a just price of sixty cents. Fifty-five cents of this is to go to the farmer and will provide a fair commission on his turnover. Five cents will be set aside for the government levy. The wheat is sold to the miller who grinds it into flour. The cost of grinding will be covered by the shorts and bran and other by-products of the process. This will produce about forty pounds of flour. We will suppose that the flour sells for $1.10, ten cents of which is again given to the government as its levy. The flour is next turned to the baker who makes it into bread which he sells at seven cents a loaf. The forty pounds of flour with the water and other ingredients would make fifty loaves of bread. Suppose the government levy on this bread was a cent a loaf. That would give an additional fifty cents levy. Thus from a bushel of wheat, processing it to flour, the government would be able to collect possibly sixty-five cents.
The original price of the bushel of wheat was only sixty cents! And they tell you that there would be no taxes under social credit. They may say that they have changed their policy and that things would be different, but in reply to one of the questions asked in this little manual, "How long would it take to put social credit into effect in Alberta?" the answer is, "Eighteen months." Well, Mr. Speaker, they have been in power in Alberta for twelve years now and any idea of putting social credit into effect has absolutely disappeared. Indeed, they are so far away from social credit now that the people who were once afraid of the Social Credit government are now the people who are financing it.


Mr. H. R. JACKMAN (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker. I shall not trespass very long on the time of the house tonight, and I was not minded to take part in this debate had it not been for the fact that I must always be conscious of the housing conditions in my own riding of Rosedale, which is very much in the centre of the city of Toronto, a little bit to the east toward the river Don. This morning I received the report of the building commissioner of our city, Mr. Iv. S. Gillies, which gives the total amount spent on construction during 1946 and divides it into the various classes. Before giving the house the figures which the commissioner has outlined, may I say that I am amazed at the complacency of the Canadian people in regard to housing. I was also amazed at the complacency of our people during the depression years and at the way in which they stood the hard times they were up against and their inability to find work during the period when the Liberal government was in power, even though they
The Address-Mr. Jackman

were able and willing to work. May I recall to you, sir, that at that time the chief occupations of many of those who were unable to find work were bricklaying, plastering, carpentering and other house-building activities. There was just no substantial housing, if any at all, being carried on in Toronto at that time.
When I visit some of the people in the areas where housing conditions are bad, see the overcrowding and the number of families living in a single dwelling unit I cannot help avoid feeling that the Indians in Central America and in other countries are better housed than are some of our own people.
Last year I mentioned that I had visited one large old house which had no fewer than fifty-three people living in it. This house had practically no facilities in it. As I remember it, there was one bath with a cold-water tap, and that was all. What has happened to that place? It has been tom down to make room for a moving-picture house. I inquired where the people were. For the most part they have been moved to Stanley barracks which, as many hon. members will know, is a very old stone barracks near the Toronto exhibition. I recall that some thirty or thirty-five years ago it was so old that it was being used as a prison centre for Austrian prisoners of war. Yet that is where we are quartering our own Canadian people.
May I recall here, as my colleague, the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) did recently, the words of Brigadier Douglas H. Storms, building manager of housing enterprises, dated October 10. He said:
Plant extensions, theatres, garages, stores, summer cottages, dance halls and hot-dog stands are under construction. At the same time people are living in the worst distress for lack of housing. On one street of small houses in New Toronto-
That is in one of our newer districts.
-we found each house was occupied on the average by nineteen people.
Last November I made an inquiry of the emergency housing centre where people file their appeals for some kind of shelter, and I found that there were 7.300 unfilled applications for any kind of shelter whatsoever. It was reported to me then that that very night an R.C.A.F. veteran of sixteen months' overseas service, his wife, his daughter of thirteen and his boy of twelve had been picked up in a public park because they had no place to go, and were endeavouring to stay there for the

night. Apparently the man had been staying at a hotel but a veteran's gratuity does not last long at hotel rates.
I would feel that I was trespassing on the time of the house in pointing out the need for housing, but if all hon. members could be taken in the congested areas of some of our larger cities and see the picture as it actually is I am convinced that something more would be done than has been attempted by this government. In 1944-I put this on the record merely to refresh the memories of hon. members-the advisory committee on housing estimated Canada's shortage of housing units at 600,000. At least 300.000 families are doubled up; but what cares this government as long as it can let sleeping dogs lie? What amazes me is the complacency of our people. Why they stand for it when they see so much building of other kinds going on all about them, I do not know. Did the Curtis report not show that there are over 300.000 substandard dwellings? According to the figures of the minister, 60.000 housing units were constructed last year, or not much more than enough to take care of the annual growth plus the wastage, because even houses, particularly temporary ones, wear out in time.
Judged by its actions and its lack of planning, there is good ground for believing that the government does not take the housing shortage seriously. Certainly it does not consider that there is any real emergency but just a comfortable shortage of houses which can be made up when employment is not so plentiful as it is today. Is it possible that the government believes that because the population of Canada is little if any greater than it was in the pre-war years, and since there are certainty no fewer housing units than there were before the war, conditions cannot be very bad? These are true facts which may seem to give rise to the specious conclusion that there is no dire distress as far as housing is concerned. Our population has not grown and we have not had houses bombed, so where is the housing shortage? What the people will put up with, if one would investigate the actual conditions in our city in the way of unhealthy housing conditions, is something which staggers the imagination. Is the government even conscious of the problem? If so, its pain must be so great that it has taken a sleeping potion to lull itself into self-satisfaction and utter complacency.
Let me now come to the figures in the annual report of the building commissioner,

The Address-Mr. Jackman
Mr. K. S. Gillies of the city of Toronto. He says in his little foreword:
Commercial and industrial building formed the larger portion of the year's work while housing took second place.
That was a masterpiece of understatement. The facts as shown in the booklet are as follows:	In 1946-these are actual construction
-the total value of all buildings erected was $22,232,000, while the total value of housing units, including apartments, was $3,291,000. In other words, fifteen per cent of all the money spent on construction in the city of Toronto in 1946 was devoted to housing units and the other eighty-five per cent to a variety of construction projects which had nothing whatsoever to do with housing our people or looking after our veterans who had been away from Canada for five or six years while other people may have been getting a roof over their heads, but who had nothing to go to when they came back. During the year there were 843 permits issued for housing out of a total of 11,242 permits for building and alterations of one sort and another. Therefore we may see what we have to look forward to in 1947. Out of 11,242 permits, 843 permits were issued for housing. What other construction was there in the city of Toronto last year? Commercial and industrial buildings amounted to $17,090,000, or 77 per cent; schools and churches, $399,000, or 1-5 per cent and, miscellaneous, $1,511,000, or 6-5 per cent. With a score of fifteen per cent for housing, that category certainly came a very poor second to commercial and industrial buildings, with seventy-seven per cent of the total amount of money going into that class. May I point out that in the construction of four movie theatres, two garages and three warehouses, taking a total of $2,181,000, that amount for this very small number of units of large commercial projects took up as much as two-thirds of the total that went into housing units in Toronto. The number of new housing units was only 636. probably sufficient to house about 2,400 people; but the number of applications for emergency shelter of any kind was, as I have mentioned, at the first of November, 7,300, and this may be compared with 636 housing units constructed last year.
How are we facing the problem? We are not even nibbling at it at the present time. Is the fifteen per cent for residential construction out of the total building construction in Toronto to be considered normal? After the last war, in 1922, which is as far as the figures in the little book I had at my disposal went, the percentage of housing construction to total construction in the city was
62 per cent. Last year it was la per cent. For several years following 1922 the percentage hovered around 60 per cent. In 192829 it was 30 per cent and from there it continued around 40 per cent until 1939 when it dropped to 28 per cent. Since then, the percentages of residential construction to total construction have been 40, 26, 38, 35, 23 per cent, and in 1947, under the present iniquitous system, 15 per cent, an all-time record low.
The dollar value is pretty much the same. In 1922 and following, residential construction was $22 million; in 1946 it was $3,291,000, or about one-seventh last year of what it was in 1922, as far as housing units were concerned.
The government may well wonder why any member or party who is for freeing business and production from their chains, and who is against controls in general, would advocate building controls. In the first place, the housing situation in Canada, particularly in city ridings such as my owTn, was never good. This government did nothing about building houses in the depression years. No houses could be built in the war years, for good reasons, and there has been an influx of population. The demand for housing so far exceeds supply that rental controls and, perhaps even more so, building controls are necessary. The result of no building control has already been shown. Commercial enterprises have plenty of money and the cost of building is therefore but a small item in their budget. They are not very much concerned with how much they pay for building. The ordinary citizen, however, and particularly the veteran, is very much concerned, because his pocketbook is limited and housing is one of the main expenses in his budget.
Even under proper government supervision the acuteness of the housing shortage cannot be relieved overnight. At the present rate of progress it will take many years to overcome it. and until it is overcome I presume we shall be under the necessity of rental control, which has many bad features as well as some good ones. The Liberal government has refused to accept responsibility for priorities. It has told the municipalities that they can put on their 'own building restrictions. This was entirely unsatisfactory and is entirely unsatisfactory today, because the problem has always been a national one. The reason for that is that if an industry wanted to expand or a new movie was to be set up, it would go to that place or that city where there were no restrictions, and no municipality was willing -and again this is the effect of politics; it is quite natural-to lose the chance of having a new industry established within the confines
The Address-Mr. Jackman

of its own borders, so it took down the bars and allowed any commercial or industrial project to go ahead.
The question of priorities is one which, if it is to be effective at all, must be exercised from Ottawa where a balance can be maintained betwen various competing muncipali-ties for industrial projects which are vital and necessary in some cases and for housing which we know is extremely urgent. The Liberal government refuses to be responsible for the welfare of the people and to control the type of buildings to be erected. It is left to the men or the businesses who can pay the most. As Mayor Robert Saunders of Toronto said:
Our city fathers tried desperately to have the federal government maintain a strict control over all building and see that the many materials in short supply were directed first to home building. It was a problem that only the federal government have the power to control and direct.
Last evening we were given the lumberman's point of view on timber controls when my colleague the hon. member for Victoria, Ontario, (Mr. Hodgson) spoke. If we accept the suggestion that forty per cent of Canada's increased timber cut should be allowed for export-and I use that figure of forty per cent as a rough one because I understand that on the west coats two-thirds of the volume of lumber may be exported and in the central provinces only one-third, and here I may remark it is no wonder that the western lumber people feel that controls are not too unsatisfactory when they can export two-thirds of the output at the rather attractive prices which they get in the export market- if, I repeat, we say that forty per cent of our lumber is to be exported in order to maintain our trade channels and be fair to other countries, so that sixty per cent is left for domestic allocation, then we must make sure that the sixty per cent is fairly allocated among those who are entitled to lumber for building purposes.
If it is left to the present system those who have the longest purse-and that is certainly not the ordinary prospective home owner- are the ones who are to get the lion's share of this lumber. If we had a system of priorities from Ottawa it would mean that sixty per cent would be available to those who had a priority for housing, and for veterans housing in particular. Then, if there were no price controls and more lumber were brought to the domestic market, sixty per cent or greater, we would find that too large a percentage of it or too great an amount would not be used in building, because the amount of lumber

consumed must be limited by the capacity of the building industry and the number of trained building workers.
Furthermore, I do not think that if controls were taken off lumber-not export control but price control-we would find that lumber would go up much in price. The minister suggested that if it went sky-high-I do not know what figure he had in mind, but no doubt a substantial amount-it might add $200 or $300 to each house. Already builders have found price resistance developing in respect of smaller houses which are being built at the present time. The people do have some respect for the purchasing power of the dollar; if they do not get good value they will refuse to invest, and it xyill be found that, instead of its being a seller's market, it will become a buyer's market. At least the scales would be held in balance. So long as we have controls, the controllers will find reasons for continuing their own existence. It is only natural that they should think that way.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that even now if moving picture theatres, dance halls, hotels and bowling alleys were eliminated, the shortage in lumber and many other building supplies and also of labour would be pretty well done away with as far as sufficient to put on a real house-building programme is concerned. The only effect of lumber controls is that the short purse of the veteran and the prospective home builder cannot acquire very much lumber, but the long purses of these moving picture magnates and those who are putting up the other forms of commercial or industrial enterprises get the lumber and get it at a cheap price. Certainly the lumber is not going to the builder of homes. I mention those four classes, moving-picture theatres, dance halls, hotels and bowling alleys, because they are commercial undertakings and not because of any lofty sentiments. I believe that none of those forms of commercial activity creates jobs for any great number of our people. One cannot make the excuse that, by allowing dance halls and moving-picture theatres to be erected, we are providing places where employment will be given to a substantial number of our people in less prosperous times.
May I mention here that I do not know how weighty the consideration is which the minister gave to this vexed problem of bousing, which certainly is not being met in the riding of Rosedale. But on February 7, when he announced a new plan for rental housing, whereby if a man built houses for rent and gave priority to the veteran he would be allowed double depreciation, I asked the minister just how much the

The Address-Mr. Jackman
depreciation was now, so that I could form some estimate of what the double depreciation would be. His words were, "I have not the figures at my fingertips, but my impression is that the present rate is four per cent; if so, the new rate will be eight per cent." I began to figure out just what this might mean to the housing industry and whether or not new rental houses might be constructed. When I checked the figures in Hansard the next day, I found that the four per cent had become two and a half per cent, and double that is five per cent. I am not complaining about the minister's memory, but I feel that when a major policy is announced in this house, some thought should be given to it by the minister, because the difference between being able to write off five per cent over the next few years as against being able to write off eight per cent, is substantial. Of course the five per cent does go for the whole life of the building, until the whole investment is written off.
But the point I am making is this. Everyone feels that if you put up a house today for rental, you are probably putting it up at inflated values; and you are a little bit concerned that, if you have to get rid of it over the next five or ten years, you cannot get your money back. However, if the minister had put forward a real programme of depreciation-not of five per cent but double four per cent, or eight per cent, let us say-it would be found that over the next five or eight years the man who might put up that house for rental would be able to write off enough of his depreciation that he would not have to worry about getting out of it whatever value he still had left in it; whereas at the present time he has to carry it perhaps for ten years or longer, before he may be able to get his money back, because he may have to sell in a market which is not as buoyant as the present one.
I believe that if the government will take the controls off building supplies and put the control on permits for the class of building undertaking which is most needed from the social point of view, and most needed by our veterans, the housing shortage in this country would be ended much more quickly than it will be under the present system.


Mr. HOWE:: May I ask my hon. friend
one question? Will he tell us where in the city of Toronto residential property can be bought in acreage sufficient to put up, say, 1,000 houses?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I am glad the minister asked that question, because I had meant to cover it. I was a little concerned, after I got
the report from the building commissioner, about where all the building was to be done in the city of Toronto, because the report itself confined itself to the actual geographical limits of the city. Within 150 yards of where I happen to live there are two very large spaces where apartment houses could be built. I have consulted with at least half a dozen of my colleagues, and while I do not know where one could put up 1,000 houses as a unit in Toronto, or even 250 houses, nevertheless there are a number of spaces where houses can be put up, particularly apartment houses.
I think the real answer to the question is this. Where these warehouses and moving-picture theatres are being put up one could no doubt put up apartment houses. But more strongly, I think, the answer to my main charge of misdirection of building materials and building labour is the fact that on the outskirts of the city there is considerable housing activity, in the construction of workmen's houses particularly. I am interested in some of them myself. I know the struggle which the manager of the company I am interested in is forced to carry on in order to get bricks, lumber, foremen, boss carpenters and whatnot. The only reason that we are able to put up houses at all is that the company is able to buy and pay cash for materials in the winter time when some other builders are not able to acquire them. We have done a reasonably good job, but it is a struggle all the time. The reason that materials and labour cannot be obtained is that so much goes into buildings which, I shall not say are non-essential, but which, to my mind, have less social priority than housing in the city of Toronto. That is the reason why we are not getting on with the house-building programme as fast as we otherwise might. If anyone takes on a project of 100 houses on the outskirts of Toronto, he will find that it is a tooth-and-nail job-nail in the literal sense as well as the metaphorical one-to get any progress at all. Only the most skilful manager is able to erect houses, because of the misdirection and the lack of control on the part of the federal government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have one more question and this is the last. Am I right in saying that my hon. friend, in giving his statistics for the city of Toronto, left out all the house-building in the surrounding areas to which he is now referring?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I just said that the book I have is confined to the geographical area of Toronto.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Exactly.
The Address-Mr. Shaw


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I forget the total figure for the Dominion of Canada, which is not too pleasant anyway, although it is certainly better than fifteen per cent. I am concerned about my own riding and about conditions there, and I should like to take the minister there. The total for the Dominion of Canada, as given in answer to the question of my colleague the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Eleming) was $383 million of total construction last year, of which $200 million, or fifty-two per cent, was for housing units. But even that is not good enough. When I know the situation locally in my own town, I think I have the right to come here and ask the government to do more for the people, who, to my mind, are much too complacent.


Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, prior to 5.40 o'clock this afternoon it was my intention to speak for only twenty minutes and to adhere strictly to certain previously prepared notes. Thanks to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), I shall be obliged to extend my time and to move away from that previously charted course. This afternoon and again this evening the hon. member for Vancouver East indulged in one of his usual pastimes, that of jerking from their context words, phrases, clauses and paragraphs, endeavouring to convey to this house a definitely erroneous impression. In so doing, he managed to work himself into the usual lather. Before the dinner recess, in referring to social credit he indulged in such expressions or partial expressions as "concerned only with personal welfare," and, as I say, endeavoured to create the impression that the members of this group were concerned only about their personal welfare.


Angus MacInnis: I never said anything of the kind, that any member of this house or any member of any other party was concerned only with his personal welfare. I referred to it as a system; and I do not want to have any implications of that kind.


Frederick Davis Shaw: The hon. gentleman wasted his forty minutes this afternoon and evening; I hope he will permit me to utilize mine. I said the hon. gentleman sought to create an impression, and I stick to what I said. He referred to "an old-fashioned theory." Goodness knows what he had in the back of his mind! He referred to "a liberal supply of greenbacks." He must have been in the pond with the frogs. He made statements like these: "eat his cake and have it, too"; "eat the other fellow's cake, and still let him have it"- such utter nonsense!


Angus MacInnis: I know it is nonsense, but
that is what you are advocating.


Frederick Davis Shaw: It was manufactured by the hon. gentleman himself, and the expression is certainly nonsense. Because certain hon. gentlemen opposite laughed at him-and certain hon. gentlemen opposite will laugh at almost anything-he waxed even more eloquent. He went on to ridicule the assertion, I presume of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) and the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), with respect to the effective control of monetary policy. He asserted in all his dignity that we at present exercise full and complete control of monetary policy; then he proceeded to talk about contradictions, and said the only possible way we could have effective control was to nationalize the Bank of Canada.


Angus MacInnis: I did not say anything of the kind.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Or rather the chartered banks.


Angus MacInnis: Do not misquote me and I will not interrupt you.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Speaker-


Angus MacInnis: Every time you misquote you are going to be interrupted.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Speaker, will you please ask the hon. member to sit down and stay down?	.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, will yop tell the hon. gentleman not to misquote me, and I will not interrupt him.


Frederick Davis Shaw: The hon. gentleman used the words "financial institutions" and I take that to include the Bank of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He said the chartered banks.


Angus MacInnis: It includes more than the Bank of Canada.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Let us say it includes them all; it is still a contradiction.


James Horace King: Order. I would ask the hon. member who has the floor to address himself to the Chair.
Mr. SHAW': I apologize, Mr. Speaker; I thought I was doing so. I noticed that in speaking of nationalization the hon. gentleman did not proceed to give us the excellent illustration that could have been given by dealing with the British policy with respect to the nationalization of their bank. I noticed, too, he did not go out of his way to tell us why the Labour government of Australia and the Labour government of New Zealand have not nationalized their banks. Members of the C.C.F. party usually refer to those govern-

The Address-Mr. Shaw
ments as being counterparts of the C.C.F. party, but at times it is convenient to forget that expression. I noticed, too, that he did not go on and tell us about all the virtues of the Russian system of financial nationalization. There I believe he would find the only existing institution of the nature he describes and the virtues of which it would seem he extols. He also went on to indulge in the expression "'socialization of the means of life," but I noticed he did not go out of his way to enlarge upon that expression. I believe he realizes as well as I do that it includes agriculture, which is one of the basic means of life in this country. When he was asked by an hon. member in this group whether ft included the farms, he made some ridiculous comment about a donkey. Well, I do not think the hon. member for Vancouver East could even convince a donkey that nationalization is essential. Then the hon. gentleman went on to refer to democratic socialism. I say there is no such animal; and he has said, nothing in this house today or at any other time that would serve to convince me and my colleagues that there is. As he spoke this afternoon, an expression came to my mind, a statement which is credited to Lenin; for all I know these may be his exact words: "Social democracy is a politically preposterous term. Under socialism, democracy withers away," and I agree with Lenin in that statement.


Mrs. STRUM:: You and Lenin!


Frederick Davis Shaw: The hon. member for Qu'-Appelle (Mrs. Strum) has interjected an observation which brings me to a question I should like to direct to the hon. member for Vancouver East. Does that peculiar type of democratic socialism go by another name, that of Marxian socialism?


Angus MacInnis: No.


Frederick Davis Shaw: To the best of my knowledge that question has never been answered by my hon. friend.	_


Angus MacInnis: It is answered now to my hon. friend's knowledge, if he has any. It does not.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I did not hear what the hon. gentleman said.


Angus MacInnis: I said, "no".


Frederick Davis Shaw: Fine.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Nobody ever spoke better for Marx than the hon. member
does.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I am sure the hon. member will have some interesting words for the hon.
member for Skeena (Mr. Archibald), who not so long ago extolled the virtues of Karl Marx right on the floor of this house and, I would almost assume, in the name of his party.
I should now like to call certain witnesses in connection with the hon. gentleman's observations respecting social credit. I wish to direct my remarks and my quotations expressly to the backbenchers of the C.C.F. party, since probably some have not had their attention directed to the debates which took place in this house about 1935. I propose now to take them back to that period. I have before me Hansard of March 26, 1935. Those were the days when the skids were under the Bennett government. An election was in the offing. Many people, and especially politicians, may have had numerous nightmares about that time. I hope the hon. gentleman will not attribute these words to a nightmare, because if he was not under the influence of a nightmare at that time he must be under the influence of a nightmare today. At page 2138 of Hansard for that date I find an amendment moved by Mr. George Coote, who, I understand, is now a director of the Bank of Canada, and seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East. This is the amendment:
That the amendment be amended by striking out all the words after the word "Canada" and adding thereto the following: "and would appear to be based upon the assumption that poverty and debt are inevitable conditions within the country;
and whereas the real and potential wealth of the nation, based upon our natural resources and our capacity to produce, is such as to make-possible an abundant provision for all the requirements of our people;
Therefore, this house is of the opinion that the government should take immediate action to ensure the fullest and most equitable distribution possible of our socially-created wealth and that, as a first step in this direction, the measures which may be necessary to meet the pressing needs of the farmers and the unemployed should be financed by the social credit of Canada, thus avoiding a further increase in the debt burden of the country."
The present hon. member for Cariboo (Mr.. Irvine) spoke in support of that amendment to the budget of 1935. I call the hon. member for Cariboo as a witness against the hon. member for Vancouver East, and I should like to quote from page 2323 of Hansard, April 2, 1935, where the hon. member for Cariboo-I do not know what his constituency was then; he has changed quite a number of times-is reported as having said:
I submit at the outset that that remedy is one which will very soon have to be accepted not only by this government but by all governments in the world.
The Address-Mr. Shaw

He is referring to social credit.
I make that prediction because in my opinion there is only one alternative to that, and that is to witness the complete collapse of civilization itself.
Those are the application, of the social credit principles set out by the present hon. member for Cariboo. He went on to say:
We make this suggestion then to the government, and we solicit the support also of the opposition for a policy applied to the only problem in Canada, the problem of distributing the abundance which our natural resources, our skilled mechanics and our technical equipment make possible to our people.
In other words, the only problem is that of distribution.
This proposal assumes that there is enough and to spare of every commodity essential to life, to supply every person indefinitely; but that there is too little money in the hands of the consumers to permit the proper distribution of these essential commodities to be made.
I move on to page 2324, the same speaker:
So much, then, for the assumption that there is an abundance of supplies. As to the other assumption contained in our amendment, that there is too little money, I think the fact that there has been a shortage of money for purchasing power has been very adequately and emphatically demonstrated. I direct the attention of this house once more to the analyses and the mathematical demonstration of Major Hugh Douglas, of London, -who I think has shown more completely and more thoroughly than any other economist of his time the scarcity of money and the causes of that scarcity. But he is by no means the only one who has demonstrated that fact. Foster and Catching have demonstrated it in the United States; Kitson, Keynes, [Right Hon. Reginald McKenna and numerous others have proved beyond the shadow of a doubt to every intelligent student of the question that there is not sufficient money in circulation at a given time to buy the goods on the shelves at the prices at which those goods are marked, and that while that is so those goods cannot be distributed.
I have just one more short quotation I should like to make. I agree with what he said; I have no grievance with the hon. member for Cariboo.


William Irvine: Keep on; you are making a good speech.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I hope the hon. member can convince the hon. member for Vancouver East. I quote again from page 2325:
To make the situation worse machinery is becoming more and more automatic as the industrial process goes on, and the use of solar power, steam, oil, gas, electricity has not only made it possible to produce sufficient goods with a very much reduced number of workers, but has vastly increased production, in some instances far beyond the capacity of the people to consume even if they had the money to buy the goods, which they have not. Moreover the tendency is
[Mr. Shaw.l
towards further mechanical progress, which will still further reduce the number of Workers required and further increase output.
And then again:
Being unable to find markets at home through lack of purchasing power as I have described, the producers of all nations enter into keener competition for whatever foreign market there may be, thus the economic basis of war.
I should like to be able to read all the hon. member's speech because I think it was an excellent one. I think he delivered that speech only after the most careful study. I am sure that when he made the speech he was absolutely convinced, because I am satisfied that he would not have made it unless he were. I come now to the vote on that amendment. Here are the yeas:
Messrs. Coote, Gardiner, Garland (Bow River), Heaps, Irvine, Lucas, Maelnnis, Miss MaePhail, Mitchell-
I will refer to that in just a moment. Speakman, Spencer, Woodsworth.
The Gardiner mentioned is not the present Minister of Agriculture, but the Mitchell referred to is the present Minister of Labour. I say that he, by virtue of having supported that amendment, has declared along with the hon. member for Cariboo that this is the alternative to the collapse of civilization. I should like to go on quoting because I want to show the hon. member for Vancouver East that when it comes to going back into the archives and digging out dusty books we are ready to engage in such a contest with him at any time. I am sure that we shall be able to bring forward assertions and things which are more embarrassing to him than anything he can direct at us.


Angus MacInnis: There is nothing embarrassing yet as far as I am concerned.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Was he having a nightmare, or is he having a political nightmare now?


Charles Edward Johnston: Political jitters now.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Things of this kind remind me that in one of the states of the United States-I do not remember which one at the moment-a professor of pharmacy is working on what I think they call a system of odoriferous advertising, and with a considerable amount of success. After listening to the hon. member for Vancouver East tonight and a.fter watching the developments of their organization over the years, if we apply that newly determined practice of odoriferous advertising, then their programme or platform will smell to high heaven.
I should like to deal now with things more pleasant. During this debate, repeated reference has been made to our war veterans and

The Address-Mr. Shaw
their general rehabilitation. I listened with dismay the other day to the frank and honest admission by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) that things were not all right with all veterans houses. I think it was the honest thing for the minister to do to make that statement on the floor of this house, but I would submit that the defence which I have noticed already in the papers, namely, that there was a lack of suitable materials and competent workmen, does not stand up very well.
If we go outside the activities of certain of these contractors we shall find that, with the same materials and with the same so-called incompetent workmen, houses have been built which are a credit to the builders. I am thinking for the moment of the small holdings set up near the city of Red Deer. Those houses were constructed in an excellent fashion and they are a credit to those responsible for their erection and for the supervision. I say, therefore, that the contractors cannot take refuge in the assertions that they are now making.
. I regret that all the people of Canada-I believe that was the expression used by the Minister of Veterans Affairs-will have to pay the seven or eight hundred thousand dollars needed to put these houses in a state of repair. Possibly that cannot be avoided, but personally I wish to say that the taxpayers of this country are not going to look with any degree of happiness upon that prospect. As I have said, the houses on the small holdings at Red Deer were well constructed. Unless we are extremely careful I am fearful that those veterans will encounter difficulties in paying for these homes. Unless we establish guarantees essential to the economic welfare of these boys, they will find the handling of a $7,000 or $8,000 debt a colossal undertaking.
With respect to land settlement under the Veterans Land Act, at first there was a good deal of criticism with regard to the slowness of the inspections of land which these veterans had applied for, and there were a certain number of complaints with regard to the rejections. But I wish to pay a compliment to those persons in the soldier settlement board office in Red Deer. We live in an exceptionally fine part of Canada. It is one of the finest mixed farming areas between the two coasts, and consequently we have had a tremendous number of applications from exservice men for settlement in that area. Considering all handicaps I think the responsible officials have done an admirable job in handling their inspections and everything else relating to these applications.
We should have learned something from world war I, and I think we did. It is no kindness to put a man on a piece of land that is not agriculturally productive. We saw that happen all through my part of the country after the last war. I think it is wise to guard against a thing of that kind happening again, and generally speaking I believe they are guarding against it in that part of the country. On the other hand, however, unless we are prepared to do something to guarantee a stable price structure for agricultural products, I fear that the majority of these boys will lose their title to their properties after they have fully paid for them and that many of them will never be in a position to pay for them fully. These veterans can certainly be crushed under their debt load just as thousands of veterans were crushed under their debt load after world war 1. The realization of this fact impresses upon one more and more the importance of sections 1 and 2 of the social credit amendment to the amendment.
Finally, with respect to these veterans, may I say that I am pleased with the exceptionally good work done in most of these vocational schools across the countiy. We have one of them in Red Deer and it is functioning admirably. The results that are obtained from the type of instruction given there will never be fully known.
I have spoken favourably about those things of which I could speak favourably. I now have two criticisms to make and I hope they will prove to be constructive. The first has to do with veterans' education, and the second has to do with the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act.
We all know that students, following high school graduation, during the war enlisted in great numbers in the Canadian armed forces. Some of these boys spent five or six years in our armed services and, upon their return, many of them made application for university entrance. After months of delay, many of them were advised that they would have to take certain brush-up tests, and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that they were not given an adequate opportunity of preparing properly for these tests. As a matter of fact, some of them had only two or three weeks in which to prepare to write tests for three days upon all they were presumed to have learned while attending school. That was not fair. A great many of them failed, or at least the results indicated that they would have to proceed to take a course in the veterans high school in the spring. Many of these lads are now in these veterans high schools, where a cramming, jam-
The Address-Mr. Shaw

ming process is going on which I say it is not fair to many of these ex-service men. You cannot expect them to absorb the great masses of material which they are asked to absorb in such a short period of time in order to qualify to enter our universities.
Moreover, our universities are demanding a higher standard from our ex-service personnel than they are demanding from civilians. 1 ask, why? I am not complaining if these veterans are forced to attain the same standard in their examinations as the non-veteran, but they are required to attain a higher standing to remain in the universities. That is the rankest type of discrimination. These boys have benefited in many ways through being in the armed services. They have travelled and associated with their fellow men, which in itself is one of the finest forms of education, and they go into these universities better qualified to take these courses than many civilian boys and girls who are just leaving high school and going into the universities.
Overseas the Canadian army educational services functioned. I do not want to be too critical, but I must draw this to the attention of the minister and ask for an explanation. Many of these boys left high school to go into the armed services, and many of them lacked one or two credits for university entrance. While overseas, they took through the Canadian army educational services what they believed to be qualifying courses to enter a university. Many of them came back as late as last summer and made application for university entrance and were told point-blank that the courses they had taken were not courses which qualified them for university entrance. I wonder how widespread that condition was. I have several personal cases I can bring to the minister's attention.


Walter Adam Tucker: Has the hon. member addressed any of these questions to the department?


Frederick Davis Shaw: I shall not presume to answer that question offhand. I am usually in the habit of directing my problems to the appropriate ministers. Anyway we shall talk that over. I wonder if some of our universities were deliberately endeavouring to keep some of these boys out. I hope they will answer that question. Some of these boys wanted to take medical courses. They are now in veterans high schools and they are being told by the universities, "Why don't you take a B.A.?" A B.A. is, in my opinion, as useful as an O.B.E. when it comes to earning a living The universities should not be endeavouring 
to put pressure on these boys to take the B.A. course when the boys I think of particularly,
are anxious to take a medical course and will make good doctors, and surely Canada is in need of more doctors. I hope the minister will give this matter some consideration.
I should now like to turn to the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act. I am glad the minister is here because this is another example of discrimination. I understand that this act was passed last year but did not become operative until this year; on January 15. someone suggests. Most of our boys came back before 1947. They were anxious to become reestablished and had to grab business opportunities as they came to their attention. Many of them went into business and put all their persona] capital into an enterprise. Some of them borrowed from the banks and other lending institutions on very short terms. Now these lads have come forward and made application to secure a loan under the act to spread what they have borrowed from the lending institution over a longer period of time. They have been told:	No, there is no provision
in the act for that purpose. One of the minister's officials-I do not believe in quoting from letters I have received-did indicate to me that, while certain amendments might be made to the act later on, there was.no possibility of the government looking upon such an amendment with favour. Personally I think he stepped just a little bit out of his proper sphere. After all, I think we should be the ones to determine that as a parliament of Canada, operating in conjunction with the government.
Let me just suggest one case, Mr. Speaker. Here are some lads who put $10,000 of their own money into a newspaper business. This business had functioned successfully for years and years. These boys had to step out and borrow $10,000, which has to be repaid in five years. Naturally that will prove extremely burdensome to them, but they cannot secure relief under this act. I say to the minister that unless there is some extremely good reason for not doing so, the act should be amended to make provision for such cases. The rate of interest w'ould likely not be any lower. The rate of interest under this act is, I believe, five per cent. They are paying the lending institutions five per cent. Let me go on record as asserting that that is altogether too high beause many veterans and non-veterans are borrowing from certain institutions and individuals at rates of interest considerably less than that and the govern-

The Address-Mr. Shaw
ment is also offering lower rates of interest on certain of its own transactions as a government.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that I should move on. I hate to be accused of having taken up my full time just because I am allowed forty minutes. I have enough notes here to go on for possibly four hours, and therefore I believe I would be justified in proceeding for the other seven or eight minutes. I wish to say a word or two about the amendment, not the amendment to the amendment but the amendment itself. We feel that our social credit amendment to the Conservative amendment is necessary in the light of the negative character of the Conservative amendment. We are offering no argument against the Progressive Conservatives' right to offer such an amendment, but I am convinced that a concise alternative to government policy should have been presented.
Since the amendment does not contain an alternative proposal, it must be assumed that I am being asked to vote want of confidence with the suggestion that if the house and the country have no confidence in the government, then they must have confidence in the Progressive Conservative party. I say that that is a wrong assumption. I am not going to vote in such a way as to put myself in a position of being accused of that because, in the light of their declared policy, I for one cannot accept the Progressive Conservatives as an alternative to the Liberal government. My constituents are not prepared to accept them as an alternative, and I am convinced that the people of Canada are not prepared to accept them as an alternative unless they are prepared to add to the policy as we see it, by giving their support, not to a negative amendment, but to a positive one which we have when we take the Conservative amendment amended by ours.
I am satisfied-and I know hon. members across the way will not like this-that this government does not enjoy the confidence of the people. In fact, I would not have to spend much time looking into the crystal ball to satisfy myself that a 1947 election could well result in the virtual annihilation of the Liberal party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I said that was my personal conviction, and any interjections that come from the political wilderness on the opposite side of the house will not change that personal conviction at all. Everywhere in the country the government is being accused of being unable to shake off the war complex. Personally I think that is a legitimate charge.
While most Canadians, in my opinion, recognize the continuing necessity of certain controls, they are charging the government with the maintenance of certain ridiculous controls and regulations which are stifling production and distribution. I believe there is ample reason for arriving at that conclusion. For example, it reminds me of something that took place back home. Here is a great locker system with over SCO lockers. The farmers own these lockers. A farmer butchers his own animals. In the first place, he cannot get all of his meat into his locker. I presume he has to get rid of it by bootlegging it or selling it on the black market. I am not saying he does that, but I am. saying it may happen. The boards will not grant to that institution a slaughtering permit in order that one farmer who butchers more than he requires may sell part of it to another fellow who owns a locker. It reminds me of something I read the other day. It was said that inspectors from the wartime prices and trade board swiooped down on the farmer's house and they said to him, "Where in the world did you get all the meat?" He said, "Well, I found it necessary to butcher the whole animal at one time." There is a lesson in that.
It is asserted by many people in this country that the financial policy of this government has resulted in a national debt of staggering proportions. It takes no imagination to know that. This debt commands an annual interest tribute almost equal to our total national expenditures of ten years ago, and they look upon it as being a tragic situation. That is the reason they will, I was going to say-this is a bit crude-boot you fellows just about as far as you can go unless you mend your ways. I say it is a rather crude expression. I do not like to use it, but I think hon. members will agree with me that it is highly descriptive.
My next reason may be called a subsection of the previous one. The tax burden which has been allowed to pyramid until today it threatens the economic structure of Canada stands as the greatest single guarantee, in my estimation, that more and more Canadians will sooner or later become serfs in what we commonly boast of as a free democratic Canada. All you have to do is to see what is happening. All across the country taxes are going up and up until today property becomes virtually a liability. I should like to give two more reasons why these people across the way will likely be defeated.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.

The Address-Mr. Shaw


William Henry Golding: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Do not boot us too far.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I just have two more points which I think are essential to my argument. Canadians have resented the reluctance on the part of the Canadian government to assist more substantially, or let us say substantially, because there is not much assistance, in the field of public education in order that we may ensure equality of opportunity and the maintenance and development of our public educational services in the country. Do not let anyone say that I am advocating that we take from the provinces control of their educational system. No; these are grants, we say, and that is what the Canadian people are asking for. Canadians resent the fact that this government has failed to establish old age pensions at a level designed to guarantee a decent standard of living and security for our pioneer citizens. In conclusion, is it any wonder that more and more rank and file Liberals across the country are crying, ''Let us return to true Liberalism." Is it any wonder that so many of the Liberal leaders are crying for a return to true Liberalism. I come from a Liberal family.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Why did you
leave?


Frederick Davis Shaw: I could probably devote
another forty minutes to that.


William Henry Golding: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I wish to close with this one sentence. Liberalism, as I knew it once upon a time, was presumed to stand in defence of the individual against the state. Today it is the reverse.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) on his fine speech, and I agree entirely with the last sentence he used. There is something which worries me a lot, namely, the number of people who did not vote at the last byelections. If we take for instance the constituency of Parkdale we find that out of a total of 41,087 electors on the list there were 17,118 who did not vote, and the elected member secured 8,212 votes; meaning by that, that the number of those who did not vote exceeded the total vote cast for him by 8,906.
It was the same thing in Pontiac, where the total number of electors was 49,435 and those

who voted numbered 32,124; meaning by that, if I count the rejected ballots, that 17,002 did not vote, and the elected member secured 11,412 votes, which means that the excess of those who did not vote was 5,590.
In Richelieu-Vercheres the situation was different. The total number of electors was 25,718; the votes cast, 20,263, and the difference was 5,455, while the elected member secured 11,984 votes.
In Portage la Prairie the total number of electors was 16,535 and the total vote was 11,941, including rejected ballots; meaning by that, that those who did not vote numbered 4,594, while the elected member secured 4,805 votes.
To summarize, in Parkdale 17,118 did not vote, or approximately two-fifths; in Pontiac 17,002 did not vote, or more than one-third; in Richelieu-Vercheres 5,455 did not vote, or one-fifth; and in Portage la Prairie 4,594 did not vote, which meant more than one-fourth. The total of those who did not vote in the four by-elections was 44.169.
It is all the worse because these lists were made immediately before the election, which means that these people were not interested in any of the candidates although all the parties had candidates in the field. It is pitiful to consider that, because this indifference to dominion politics is quite alarming. It is as bad as what happened in France. In France the people were saying, "I don't care; it is the business of the politicians. Je m'en fous". "I don't care". The result was communism, social trouble, ruin, famine and despair.
It is important that the Canadian people be informed about dominion politics. They can get information in Hansard, but unfortunately the English press is lacking in that respect. The French press in this country is much more informative about dominion politics than the English press. The might before last I had a conversation with a big newspaperman wTho told me that the people did not care. Of course the people do not care, for a very good reason. They have no information, and they look at the funny sections of the press and read sensational reports about murders and other things like that.
The house has done a very good job since the beginning of the session. The members have worked hard and those who have spoken have done so very well. Some legislation has been passed and I give credit to my colleagues for that, but I find that very often the discussion is purely academic. There are some interruptions at times and some members express loudly their views, which are different from those of the speaker. It is natural. It is just a way of expressing oneself and telling

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
the speaker that one does not agree with him. Although I do not indulge in those practices, I understand them and am quite tolerant of them, and I try to be as kind to the house as the house is to me.
But the Canadian people, even those who are not informed by the press, read Hansard and know to some extent what is being done here, and they have respect for members of parliament individually. But I do not know whether they have great respect for our parliamentary institutions, and it is a question of great concern. One thing that is of great concern is that when they abandon their former political affiliations they try new groups and new parties. I understand that, because when they are not satisfied with the leadership of their party they do, like my hon. friend the member for Red Deer, join another party and try to make the best of it. But I will tell him that the main thing is to try to reform the Liberal party from within or from without, because the Liberal party has a background that is still popular, and the Liberal party can do something for the future of the country if we get rid of the obnoxious elements within it.
I have been very patient for fifteen years, but I cannot understand the idea of being more conservative than the Progressive Conservative party, more socialistic than the C.C.F., and more optimistic than the Social Credit party.


Mr. LOW:: Peptimistic.


Jean-François Pouliot: Optimistic. You know,
Mr. Speaker, there are strange things at times. Is it possible to have a government composed of men who have not the same ideals to govern this country? When that is the case, those who represent the real Liberal tradition have to make concessions to those belonging to another faith. Liberalism has been excellently defined by my hon. friend who has just spoken. Liberalism is the friend of the individual, the promoter of private initiative, and the defender of decentralization. These are all principles of the Liberal party, and, besides that, the policy of the Liberal party is supposed to be 100 per cent Canadian policy. It has not always been so, just because the party was catering to hon. gentlemen who lead the opposition. I fought them since Mr. Arthur Meighen was leader of the Conservative party. I fought them all. I fought Ferdinand the Bull. I was very well received by the house but I had no success. Why not? Because in this country there is a propaganda which is just as bad as the one in other parts of the British empire. In India, the Indians do not have the right to vote 83166-821
as citizens of India. They vote as Moslems or as Hindus. They vote according to their religion. In Palestine they vote according to their race. Here in Canada we have a racial problem. On one side we have those who say that they are British, and of course they see everything from the British point of view; there are others who are like the negroes of the south. No question is considered objectively, and I regret that very much.
What did we gain in the international policies of the world? There were promises made to us. We had the promise that Mr. Pearson, who apparently is an able man, would be secretary of the united nations organization. He was not. But we had compensation. We were told that we would be on the security council. But we were not there. That was another disillusionment. Afterwards we were told we were to dictate the peace to Germany. We were not invited there any more than we were invited to Teheran. As Mr. Cardin so well said, we should not be sorry about it because we had no reason to be there since we were not invited to Moscow. But still we go on, and some members on all sides of the house are offended because we are not invited. We are invited when we have gifts, but when we have no gifts we are not invited.
During the war, and even last year I was often alone in standing against the financial policies of the government; they were absurd policies, destructive of the wealth of the nation. You know very well, Mr. Speaker, that when the tap on the lower floor is wide open, the tap upstairs does not run so freely. We were giving money freely to all the nations of the world-Great Britain, France and other nations-while our own people were still suffering. In front of my office today I saw notice of a meeting of the world health conference. Think of that! Yet in this country there are poor people who are sick and -who have no help at all; but they are Canadians. We wall look after those from other countries first. I am sorry about that, but there is a ray of hope everywhere and the ray of hope is that in the near future I trust the burden of taxation will be so heavy that those who have racial differences of opinion in prosperity will come close together in adversity to oppose that burden. Perhaps that will be the only good effect of the heavy taxation which is being imposed on this country. If it brings good understanding amongst good Canadians it will have served a good purpose. But I am not in favour of high taxation.
The Address-Mr. Pouliot

Something which does not exist in this house but which exists in this country is a strong Canadian feeling, the desire to promote Canada and to raise it from the small country that it is now to one of the biggest countries in the world. That will be done by trade. It frill not be done by ambassadors some of whom are just the butlers of the British ambassadors. It will be done by true Canadian ambassadors who are promoting Canadian interests throughout the world, ambassadors of good will to promote trade; and I do not mean the trade of Santa Claus, exports that we pay for ourselves from the taxes that we collect from the Canadian people, but real bargaining, real trading and perhaps real bartering if the money scheme we have under the Bank of Canada or the one which my hon. friends of the Social Credit party are expounding is without any good results. We must have trade. We must have economic independence; and if it is impossible to have economic independence without political independence, let us have them both and let Canada go forward while Great Britain is on her decline.
We had a sad performance with regard to the Canadian flag. In 1945 I said that it was too soon to have a flag of our own and that if we were a colonial country, as Canada is now, instead of a truly Canadian flag, we should have a union jack larger than the one of standard size. But times have changed during the last year or two, since that was said in the house, precisely on account of the burden of taxation. We see important bodies like the chamber of commerce, boards of trade and other institutions coming to the government and insisting on a reduction in taxes. As I once said to the leader of the C.C.E. party, those who voted for the loan-gifts cannot complain about taxes, but I can. Those who voted against the gift can complain against taxation, but those who voted for it cannot, without being called illogical.
What we need in this country is a truly Canadian flag. We need a Canadian anthem. I am very sorry to see that somewhere in the west some men were arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police precisely because they were calling for "0 Canada" as the national anthem. There was some protest by some friends of mine. I have one here in my hand. How is it that in this country men are put in gaol by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police because they insist on singing "0 Canada?"
I still have hope for the future, but my mind is not satisfied; and I have been fighting

for a long time to try to awaken the government, to try to open their eyes, telling them that the more Canadian the government is, the more popular it will be because of the response of the Canadian people who are eager to see this country the greatest in the whole world.
Mr. SMITH (Calgary West); Will the hon. member permit a question?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Where was it that the people were put in gaol by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police because they sang "0 Canada"?


Jean-François Pouliot: I will read the letter which was sent by a friend of mine, Mr. John R, Spendlove, addressed to the R.C.M.P., "C" division, Place d'Armes, P.O. building, Montreal. The letter refers to civil investigation bureau, divisional file No. 41M269-3518, HQ file No. 41D 269-3D178. I intended to make a shorter speech, but if hon. members desire to have this letter read I will put it on record.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I merely asked where it was.


Jean-François Pouliot: The letter reads:
Dear Sir:
(Inspector N. Courtois)
Your letter of March 7 received, and I was favourably impressed by the way your Constable Racine carried out orders which impress me most unfavourably.
If it is wrong to express a preference for "O Canada" as our national anthem, why do you not investigate and start a file on our world champion skaters, for whom "0 Canada" was played by bands in foreign cities as our national anthem ?
In many cases the mere fact of the R.C.M.P. calling on a person and starting a file on him, would hurt him greatly. In my ease, living at home, it has not injured me.
I am a war veteran, volunteer, and I resent being investigated and having a file started on me for expressing my admiration for two courageous persons who had the audacity, the impertinence, to state that they were Canadian citizens, not British subjects, and that their national anthem was "0 Canada."
I suggest that the person responsible for this crazy order come to Montreal and investigate the theatre managers who play "0 Canada" as our national anthem in their theatres.
In his covering letter to me this gentleman also says:
I had written the R.C.M.P. officer in charge "K" division, Edmonton, asking the address of and expressing admiration for two men, Messrs. Boreen and Henry, who insisted forcibly, that since "0 Canada" was our anthem and that they

The Address-Mr. Hazen
were Canadian citizens, a certain orchestra must play "0 Canada." They were sentenced to a fine and jail. This was some months ago.
You know, sir, this is pitiful. I understand that it did not happen in the city represented by my hon. friend who interrupted me, but this is a disgrace to our country.
I shall explain why I intend to vote against the two amendments. In the first place, I cannot understand the meaning and purpose of the Social Credit amendment at this time, any more than I could on other occasions. That may be a deficiency on my part. I see a lot about production; I see a lot about purchasing, but I do not see anything about distribution, which is the link between production and purchasing. I would say to my hon. friends of the Social Credit party with all due respect that they remind me of newlyweds who, on the day of their marriage, are given a beautiful car by their parents. Some friends attach old cans and old shoes to the back of the car, which make a lot of noise and stir up a lot of dust. These are the theories of the Social Credit party. It is unfortunate, but that is my belief.
If I may be permitted to say a word about * the amendment of the official opposition, my point of view is that, while I have a soft spot in my heart for my Liberal colleagues, the policies of all parties are alike and they all vote together on the main issues. Therefore I do not understand -why any opposition group should run an opposition candidate against a supporter of the government in any by-election or even at the next general election, because they all vote together. I warned them time and again that such policies were dangerous; they all voted for them. They all voted together; they all shook hands. I suffered a personal insult when the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), held out an olive branch to the Liberal party and said we should all come together. Has the Liberal party fallen so low as to be asked to unite with the Tory party? It is an insult, to me; it is a slap in the face, and I am greatly surprised that the matter has not been referred to by anyone before this time. Since all parties have voted together, and since the Liberal party has been wrong in following the advice, the wrong advice, the pernicious advice given by Mr. Hanson and all the leaders of the Tory party, I do not see how the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) can rise in his place in this house and say, "We do not have confidence in you. We have no confidence because you have promoted our policies." This is the reason I have voted against the policies of the government; because they were Tory policies,
policies to appease the Tory leader of the opposition. As a Liberal I stood against them, and I am still against them. It would be absurd for me to support the amendment of the leader of the opposition, any more than I could support the subamendment of the Social Credit party.


Mr. D. KING HAZEN (St. John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in this debate, but in view of certain articles appearing in a New Brunswick newspaper which reached me yesterday, one of which I intend to quote to the house, I deem it my duty to bring to the attention .of the government a situation which has recently developed at the port of Saint John, and which may adversely affect its welfare and is of deep concern to its citizens. I believe this matter is also of importance to the port of Halifax, since it may affect shipping through both these Atlantic ports when the seaports of the St. Lawrence river are locked in ice.
The matter to which I refer is the diversion of cargo ships from Canadian ports, either Saint John or Halifax, to the United States port of Portland to load grain for shipment overseas. A press dispatch from Portland last week announced the diversion of these ships. I know of no better or more succinct way of bringing this matter to the attention of the government than by quoting from an editorial which appeared in the Telegraph-Journal, published in the city of Saint John, under date of last Saturday, In passing, I may say that this newspaper does not support his Majesty's loyal opposition but is independent in politics. The editorial is headed, "Canadian ports must fight this threat", and reads as follows:
The chairman of the port committee of Portland, Maine, announced yesterday that 4,000,000 bushels of Canadian grain would be shipped through liis city in the next month.
A dispatch quotes him as saying that he and the Portland chamber of commerce had offered "to assist Canada in a shipping emergency caused by the box car shortage" and had approached the dominion government, which had; promptly assigned three ships to Portland to load for Europe.
Now. nobody can blame this gentleman and his associates for trying to drum up business for-their own port, but the federal government is to be condemned in the strongest terms for accepting this "kind assistance." The grain that is sent through Portland obviously won't be sent through Saint John or Halifax. That means that Canadians will lose work and wages to which they are entitled-and lose them to the labourers of a foreign country.
We have been through all this before-the rivalry between Canadian ports and those of the United States. In central Canada there seems to have been a long-time conspiracy to deprive our waterfront workmen of a livelihood.
The Address-Mr. Hazen

Our people fought this once, and beat it, and they must stand ready to fight it now and in future if the ports of Saint John and Halifax are to survive. The Portland shipments, transparently disguised as an emergency, must be viewed in their true light as an underhand effort again to divert to United States competitors the trade on which our existence depends.
The threat is serious and real.
If there are box cars to carry grain to Portland, there are box cars to carry it to Saint John and Halifax, The saving in mileage as between Portland and Saint John is too trifling to be considered and certainly does not constitute a valid excuse for the double-dealing aimed in our direction.
At the very hour when the announcement Was being made in Portland, we had ships waiting in our harbour, unable to get grain. They were losing time and money-a situation not calculated to promote increased traffic for this port- and the official explanation was that box cars weren't available to bring grain here.
No box car3 to bring grain here! But box cars to carry 1,000,000 bushels to Portland, where the first of three ships is to start taking on Canadian grain cargo Monday! No situation could be more ridiculous or unfair, and if Ottawa expects us to put up mildly With treatment of this kind it gravely misjudges the temper of this part of Canada.
Back in 1931, the famous English port authority, Sir Alexander Gibb, was brought to the dominion by the federal government to make a survey of national ports. He found that Saint John and Halifax had suffered heavily from "the actual diversion of great quantities of Canadian grain to United States ports."
Sir Alexander said in his report:
"Apart from sentiment and patriotism, there are moral and national, as well as some sound business grounds, for the maritimes claim that the grain trade, which is already in many ways subsidized by dominion funds, should utilize to a greater extent the facilities that have been established for it at a considerable expenditure of dominion money."
The sentimental, patriotic, moral, national and business grounds are the same today as in 1931.
And the dominion government must be compelled to recognize them!
During the war years, when our transportation systems were taxed to the limit no situation of this kind arose, and an explanation is called for as to why such a situation should develop nearly two years after the war in Europe has ended.
When the war was on we heard no complaint of a lack of box cars. Evidently there were enough cars to do the job, and a big job it was. An explanation is needed as to why there is a car shortage at the present time. Box cars must have been built during the war years and in increasing numbers since the war has ended to replace those that were worn out and to increase the number in use. It is not unreasonable to ask how those cars are being used.

If the coal strike in the United States last summer or the seamen's strike on the great lakes was the cause of a lack of grain coming to our elevators on the Atlantic coast this winter, a complete explanation of the matter should be furnished by the government.
The government should give a. satisfactory explanation, if it has one to give, of how grain could be moved from the prairies to Portland, Maine, when it could not be moved from the prairies to the port of Saint John or the port of Halifax. What the people of my constituency want to know is this: Does the dominion government intend to divert trade permanently from Canadian Atlantic ports during the winter season to United States ports? The editorial from the Telegraph-Journal which I have quoted says:
The Portland shipments, transparently disguised as an emergency, must be viewed in their true light as an underhand effort again to divert to United States competitors the trade on which our existence depends.
Is it the policy of the government to divert Canadian trade to United States ports, or is there merely a transfer of three ships to Portland, Maine, to meet an unusual and temporary situation? If this is the' start of a new policy, it will have to be fought. Cana- ' dians must see to it that Canadian goods are shipped through Canadian ports.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) stated, at the conclusion of his remarks, that the reason he was going to vote against the social credit amendment was that he was still unable to understand what was involved in the amendment as well as in the social credit proposals. He claimed that he did not understand them any better today than he did ten years ago. The only remark I would care to make with regard to what he alleges as his reason is that "a man persuaded against his will is of the same opinion still."
I feel that the situation in this chamber as at present constituted is not conducive to the acceptance of new ideas. I think it has been quite evident for many years that, regardless of how sound the proposals are that may be advanced in opposition quarters, it is rarely the case that they are accepted by the government in power. All of which leads me to the conclusion that our political system is due for a change if democracy is to function more effectively. My personal feeling is that, so far as the results to the Canadian people are concerned, what we witness here from year to year is largely a farce. It makes no difference what the government brings down in the way of legislation, we

The Address-Mr. Kuhl
know beforehand the government supporters are going to support it. It makes very little difference how many arguments are advanced by the opposition with respect to what they consider defects or improvements, for very few changes are made. So the conduct of the business of this house resolves itself largely into one of jockeying for political advantage. Consequently I feel that the time has arrived when some radical changes will have to be made before the people of Canada enjoy a genuine democracy. I am gratified personally to observe that there is a movement on foot in this country which, when it reaches full fruition, will, I think, bring about the necessary parliamentary reform. I do not believe that the people of any country can obtain the results which they unitedly desire under a political party system. I feel that the political party system has outlived its usefulness and must be supplanted by a new system.


Mr. MacNICOL:: What would you suggest?


Walter Frederick Kuhl: I intend to suggest an alternative before I conclude my remarks. What I am saying now is in criticism and comment on the remark provoked by a statement by the hon. member for Temiseouata.
It is my purpose to confine my remarks largely to the last section of the amendment moved by the leader of my group, but, before I do so, there are one or two general remarks which I should like to make with respect to the first sections of that amendment. I feel that these sections have been adequately and ably dealt with by my colleagues who have preceded me and anything I wish to say upon them is merely for emphasis and for personal gratification.
I believe that my colleagues have diagnosed the economic ills of this country correctly, and that the remedy which they have proposed is the proper one. Notwithstanding everything that is said to the contrary, I believe that the debate has definitely indicated that our troubles are largely if not entirely confined to monetary policy. All reforms I believe wait on monetary reform. I am quite convinced that the only manner in which the trend toward centralization of power and control not only in this country but throughout the entire world can be halted and eliminated is through monetary reform. The first section of the social credit amendment I believe indicates this fact when it urges "the return to parliament of complete and effective control of Canada's financial policy".
Section 91 of the British North America Act gives the dominion parliament exclusive authority over the matter of money, all money,
in the nation. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) argued that we had complete control at the present time, or at least that the control was vested in parliament but that it was not exercising that control in the interests of the people. On that point I quite agree with him. I consider that the piecemeal surrender of the crown's highest prerogative, that of creating and issuing all the money of the nation, is one of the most wicked deeds that has been perpetrated in this nation of ours. I have previously quoted that great American statesman, Abraham Lincoln, upon the significance of the crown's prerogative of creating and issuing the money of the nation. I wish to repeat what he said, because I feel that it is the most important aspect of our national economy that can be considered. I am positively amazed, I am shocked, to observe the attitude not only of members of this house but of many people outside when one refers to the fact that the government should be the sole issuer of the money of the nation, or that it is advisable or desirable for the government to be the issuer of the money of the nation. Immediately that is suggested, you hear people on every side make remarks about funny money, rubber money, printing press money, and kindred remarks. That is a tragedy to me, because it indicates that we have drifted so far away from what constitutes the rights of the people that we are calling that which is wrong right. Today there are many who look upon the state issuing of money with suspicion, whereas actually the state should be the only authority to issue in the original instance all the money of the nation. But we have descended to the point where today the vast majority of the money, one might as well say all the money of the nation, is created and issued in the original instance by private individuals. I consider that one of the grossest crimes which have been committed in this nation. Abraham Lincoln said this:
The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of the government, but it is the government's greatest creative opportunity. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master, and will become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power.
Surely that is of great importance. I do not think there should be any question whatsoever of the desirability of the government being the creator and the issuer of the money of the nation. It should be taken for granted that
12S4
The Address-Mr. Kuhl

the creating and the issuing of all money in the original instance is the prerogative of the crown. But that prerogative has been surrendered piecemeal- over a long period of time to private individuals, and that should never have been permitted to come about. As a consequence of this betrayal, and I consider it a betrayal, of public trust we have reached the position referred by my colleague the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw), where the people of this country are almost submerged in public debt, public debt which is absolutely inexcusable and unnecessary. I say, sir, that a national debt -in this country is a national lie. It should never have been permitted- to arise in the first place. If successive governments of the past had been faithful to the sacred trust -reposed in them we would never have had to submit to a national debt; for a country, any country, whether it be Canada, the United States or any other which is rich in resources, rich in skill and knowledge on the part of -its people to process those resources into finished products, does no-t require a national debt. The alarming feature in this situation for the future is that some day this inexcusable situation will be made the excuse for depriving the people -of this country of what little liberty they still enjoy.
We saw what happened in the old dominion of Newfoundland as a consequence of that debt-creating policy. At one time they enjoyed the privilege of electing their own parliament. Today they are without a parliament. Their parliament was dismissed and substituted for -it was a financial dictatorship. The reason given was that the people were unable to manage their own affairs. We had an argument similar to that in Canada prior to the war, and no doubt within a few years it will be raised again. There was an argument abroad that we had too much government in Canada. Ten governments were too much, too expensive, a luxury that we could not afford, and there was an agitation to attempt to eliminate the provincial governments and concentrate all control in the central government. That is certainly a totalitarian trend and I am fearful that, if this debt-creating policy is allowed to continue, before long we shall again be confronted with such an agitation.
If the governments of the past had been faithful to their trust and had not surrendered to the private banking institutions the crown's highest prerogative we would not today be witnessing the dominion-provincial controversy which has been going on for some considerable time. I believe that the difficulties which the dominion and the provinces are

now involved in would have been largely obviated, if not completely, if the central government had remained faithful to its trust. So far as the controversy itself is concerned, I wish to make -this comment. I believe that the dominion government is completely in the wrong -and that the provinces are completely in the right. I feel that the dominion is adopting a dog-in-the-manger attitude in the controversy. The dominion government refused to eat the hay which they have themselves; they will not allow the provinces to eat it, and- they are seeking to filch from the provinces what little hay they have. That certainly can be characterized as a dog in the manger attitude.
&o far as any solution is concerned, with respect to rearranging tax fields, I am sure it must occur to any person who reasons logically that there can be no solution by merely rearranging the tax field, because in the final analysis it is the same set of taxpayers who foot the bill whether the provinces collect the taxes or -the dominion collects them. I am not going to make any comments concerning the nature of the tax agreements. I think there are more vital issues involved. What I object to mostly in the arrangements that are being made is the -trend toward centralization in the central government, which certainly means the loss of freedom to the provinces. It is the duty of the dominion government to exercise the crown's highest prerogative not only in the interests of governing the country from the point of view of the dominion government but also in the interests of the provinces themselves.
If the dominion exercised its prerogative the provinces could be kept continuously supplied with all the financial assistance they need to enable their people to enjoy the standard of living which is physically possible. I know that when we speak of the need of national money or the advisability of national money there are those who immediately consider that we are advocating something for nothing. That is totally wrong. We are aware of the fact that our government can no more give something for nothing than the individual can. When the national government or any other government issues money for public services it is doing nothing less than monetizing the wealth of the country. That should be done to the extent that wealth is not monetized through the regular channels of business. That raises the basic contention that we of this group have constantly made, namely that industry does not monetize the whole of the production. There is always a shortage of money with respect to the price value of goods and, consequently, when the

The Address-Mr. Kuhl
national government steps in and uses national money to finance old age pensions or pensions for the blind, or uses it to finance public works it is doing nothing less than monetizing the unmonetized portion of national wealth. As a consequence of so doing, taxation could be reduced; in fact it could be reduced to the point where taxation was absolutely unnecessary.
The last section of the social credit amendment calls for redefining and clarifying the constitutional rights and responsibilities of dominion and provincial governments, together with the adoption of scientific formulae for alloting to the provinces sufficient revenues to enable them fully to discharge their responsibilities without increasing the tax burden already borne by their people. If the dominion government were to exercise its right of creating and issuing all the money of the nation I do not think there would be very much of a problem with respect to redefining and clarifying the constitutional rights of the provinces and the dominion. Nevertheless there are doubtless some things which will have to receive attention; certainly it may involve constitutional amendment. I am not suggesting that they will or that they will not. One thing I am sure of is that if the provinces are to be left with the financial resources that they have under the British North America Act they will be unable to meet the obligations which they are in duty bound to carry out under the terms of that act. It will be impossible for the provinces to discharge their respective responsibilities without some additional aid. That may involve constitutional amendments, and should steps be taken in future, through a conference either of the provinces, or a combination of the provinces, and the dominion to redefine the constitutional position of the country, there are some things which I should like to say about that situation.
I believe that the constitutional circumstances of this country are such that they demand to be dealt with in a far broader manner than is generally suggested by students of constitutional affairs in Canada. I am not at this time going to enter into all the arguments I have presented on past occasions in this house on this particular subject. I do not wish to repeat, but because this subject is coming more to the fore all the time, and will become more important as time goes on, I must once again record my decided disapproval of the present circumstances and indicate what I believe must be done to rectify them.
I think it is quite inconsistent of us to go abroad in the world and preach from the 83166-83
housetops our faith in democratic principles and then come back home and ignore and ride roughshod over the rights of citizens, as has been done for some considerable time in this country. I wish to say, with respect to any clarifying or redefining of constitutional powers in Canada, that the only alteration to which I will give my approval and consent is one which involves a completely new constitution. I believe that the people of the country must be consulted where their fundamental rights are concerned, and in this question I feel that their fundamental rights are being ignored, disregarded and overlooked.
As I said, I do not wish to repeat all the arguments I have presented in the past as to the reasons why I advocate and urge a completely new constitution, but this I must say and repeat, that it is my firm belief that Canada has no constitution. I know that statement is always received with much scoffing, but it is true. I have argued in the past, with much evidence to substantiate the contention, that the people of Canada did not have the privilege, until December 11, 1931, of creating a constitution of their own.
I believe that adequate evidence can be brought to bear to substantiate the fact that the British North America Act was never a constitution but merely an imperial statute used to govern a colony, and it was not until December 11, 1931, through the statute of Westminster, that the control over the Canadian people was relinquished by the British people so that Canadians might establish their own constitution. That was done, I firmly believe, through the statute of Westminster. The provinces of Canada must essentially enjoy their sovereignty before they can consummate a federal union. They were not sovereign prior to 1931 and the statute of Westminster made them sovereign in order that they might federate in the manner that the fathers of confederation intended but were not permitted to do.
Since December 11, 1931, no steps have been taken to consummate an agreement in this country between the provinces, to be ratified by the people later; and, since a federal union is a union of sovereign states mutually agrees ing to adopt a constitution, I assert that there is no federal union and can be no federal union. There is no constitution in this country and cannot be until the provinces sign an agreement which is submitted to the people of Canada for ratification.
I challenge anyone in Canada to produce anything in the nature of an agreement between the provinces, which was ratified by the people of Canada, and therefore I ask,

The Address-Mr. Kuhl

how can anyone assert that the Canadian people have a constitution when they have agreed to none?
I have had the right and privilege, along with my fellow Canadians, since December 11, 1931, to be consulted on the matter of a constitution. I have not been consulted, and I assert therefore, as I have asserted before, that as a citizen of this country, until I along with the majority of my fellow citizens have the right to mark a ballot either in favour of or against the constitution of the country, there can be no constitution.
I am not in favour of a state of anarchy continuing, which I contend is the position legally in this country. I want to see the circumstances rectified in the interests of all the people, and I want to see it done democratically. I have on previous occasions read evidence of the special committee on the British North America Act, in 1935, in which I quoted authorities who indicated how this constitutional position could be rectified. I say that, unless some action is taken, serious circumstances may presently develop in this country.
I have asserted that the only governing authorities with any legal power in this country are the nine provinces, and they have not thus far surrendered their authority. As a consequence of that position, there is developing in western Canada a new movement known as the western Canada federation, which has for its object the setting up of a federation of western provinces. I have here the prospectus which they issued. The president of the organization is John Evans, a resident of Saskatchewan since 1892, honorary president of the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section, who was at one time a member of this house for the constituency of Rosetown-Biggar, from 1921 to 1930. This western Canada federation proposes extending the boundarj' lines of the four western provinces up to the arctic circle. Personally, I do not think it is necessary to go to that extent to get justice on this question in Canada. I do not want to see this country Balkanized or divided up any more than anyone else does; but unless those who are responsible are going to do something to endeavour to straighten out this situation, such a thing will come about. I wish to say right here that if the people of western Canada as a majority desire to do this thing, if they wish to set up a western federation and create their own constitution, make their own laws and operate as a separate entity in this dominion, there is absolutely no legal power in the world, in this country or any-

where else which can stop the people of western Canada from doing that. In>
my opinion they have the absolute legal right to consummate a western Canada federation if thejr wish to do so.
Again I am not saying that I am in favour of dividing the west from the east, but this constitutional controversy is a burning issue in this country. I have done my level best to suggest ways and means by which it can be settled in the interest of all sections of Canada, but thus far there has been very little support in this house. I am satisfied that, as more of the people of Canada become acquainted with the constitutional position in this country, they will demand that appropriate action be taken. As I indicated at the commencement of my remarks, the only clarification and redefining of the constitutional issue to which I will lend my support is that which involves a completely new constitution. Whether that will be along the lines of the British North America Act or any other act is for the constituent assembly to say. One thing is imperative, and that is that the people shall have a voice in creating that constitution and shall be consulted personally and individually. Until such time as such an agreement is reached between the provinces and ratified by the people of Canada I assert, sir, that our constitutional position is a disgrace to an intelligent people.
In conclusion, I merely wish to say this. We have gone abroad in the world to proclaim our faith in democracy, in the freedom of the individual, in the rights of the individual citizen. That is good. But I suggest that, before we attempt to run the rest of the world, before we seek to tell other nations how to conduct themselves, we first put our own house completely in order. Before we complain about the violation of the rights of other people in the world, let us make sure that the rights of our own people are observed. In short, let us remove the beams from our owm eyes before we seek to remove the motes from the eyes of others.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I should like to ask the indulgence of the house in order to deal with two questions of procedure. The suggestion has been made, which I think met a favourable reception that we might not adjourn at eleven o'clock but might carry on until not

The Address-Mr. Irvine
later than midnight. Accordingly, with the expectation that we would very nearly but not quite conclude this debate this evening, and with the expectation of having the debate finished very early tomorrow afternoon and, immediately after that, having the division taken as early as possible, with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, under standing order 45 I move:
That the house do not adjourn at eleven o'clock p.m. today.
Mr. GREEN:: May I ask the minister if it is understood that there is to be no vote this evening, in any event?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. It will be impossible to have a vote, because it could only be taken after twelve o'clock, at which time we run into the terms of the resolution passed on March 7. Therefore we cannot have the vote this evening.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With the unanimous consent of the house, in order to allow us to terminate the debate on the address tomorrow -and this is for tomorrow only-I move:
That on Wednesday, March 12 instant, the debate on the reply to the speech from the throne shall take precedence over government notices of motion and government orders, notwithstanding the resolution passed on March 7 in relation thereto.
This means that the debate on the address will have precedence tomorrow and, when the debate is disposed ol, we shall revert to the terms of the resolution passed in this house on March 7.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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. Low.
William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I had prepared a modest address in which I intended to express my views in regard to the condition of the country and to advise the government what they should do about it. I had no intention whatsoever of entering into an acrimonious discussion with the Social Crediters until I was dragged into 83166-831
it by the references made to a speech of my own by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw).


John Horne Blackmore: And a very fine speech it was.


William Irvine: It was an excellent speech; and if the hon. member for Red Deer had read it all, he would have made a better speech. I hope I do not have to apologize to the house for having spoken to a resolution in 1935 in which the phrase "social credit" was used. Of course at that time it did not have the same opprobrium it now' has. I wish to first explain to the house that when we used the phrase "social credit" we meant something; and what we meant was not a nostrum for everything which might happen to modern civilization. We used it as a social fact, and this is that fact, the credit which accrues as a result of the association of the people working together, or as a result of collective production, is as sound a basis for credit as the capital equipment of a capitalist w'hich he hypothecates at the bank for assistance to carry on his business.


John Horne Blackmore: That is entirely right.


William Irvine: That was the meaning we had in using it. Now, sir, in order to justify the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), and in order also to show that the view's I expressed on the occasion referred to by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) are the views I shall express tonight and the views I have expressed as long as I can remember, here are some quotations from the same speech which my hon. friend omitted to give. I refer to page 2325 of Hansard for April 2, 1935:
Let me turn now, sir, to a brief summary of the economic situation in relation to purchasing power. Goods manufactured and sold at a profit cannot be bought back with the wages paid those who have produced them.
And further:	f
The fact that those who are employed do not receive and never have received sufficient income under the profit system to buy even the necessities of life, much less the entire output, together with the additional fact that machinery is displacing thousands from every industry, thus depriving a large percentage of the population of any income at all. has resulted in vast amounts of goods going to waste unused while millions are in want.
It w-as not because there was not enough money in existence, but because there was not enough money in the pockets of the consumers who would use the goods that had piled up, because the profits they should have used
The Address-Mr. Irvine

to buy the goods had gone into the pockets of those who operated the industry. I now turn to another section:
I am as firmly convinced as that I am in this house at this moment that if we are to attain prosperity we must plan our way, that our plans must be based upon economic truths and facts of the present time, and that such plans must be worked out by the application of established scientific principles.
I have one more quotation which will indicate to the house the circumstance and reason why we thought it would be of value if the social credit, in our interpretation of it, were loosened up at a moment when those who had money were afraid to invest it, and people were starving. We thought that, since they were starving and since they could produce goods, it was the business of the government to provide the necessary funds to put them to work at profitable industry. So we said:
We regard the problem chiefly as one of making available to the consumer enough purchasing power to equal the total prices of all commodities that are for sale, and we regard provision of the required amount of purchasing power as the most advisable next step, since it will bring about the immediate distribution of the goods required to satisfy the wants of the community and thus prevent revolution and give us time to think out succeeding steps in a fundamental economic and social reconstruction.
That was the reason we had such a motion, not by any means to follow the most extraordinary will-o'-the-wisp that has ever been projected into political discussion in this country, which has been advocated by my hon. friends to my left.
Now, sir, I turn to the speech I wish to deliver, and I may have to make a reference to the Social Credit party as I go along. I believe that the criticism or advice hon. members offer this administration should be based upon the actual situation, social, economic and political, which confronts us at the present moment. My first remark in that regard is that in my opinion, the morale of the Canadian people is extraordinarily low for a nation which has just emerged victorious in a great world war. That lower morale is not due to economic distress, because despite the fact that the cost of living is going up and unemployment is beginning to grow, the economic condition is still reasonably good in a comparative way.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Irvine: Well, note the qualifications. A nation needs an inspiration to achieve its utmost, whether in war or in peace, and when war broke out the Canadian people needed a rallying point. I say to you, sir, that capital-
[Mr. Irvine.1
ism was bankrupt in providing that rallying point. I question very much whether the youth of Canada would have voluntarily responded to an appeal to fight for the capitalism which produced the conditions of 1932. So it was necessary for us to find a rallying cry that would call the nation, and "democracy" was that cry. Democracy was the rallying cry, and capitalism accepted it as an expedient. Capitalist leadership, I am convinced, when it adopted the rallying cry of democracy had no intention whatever of implementing democratic policies on the heels of victory. But the public still remembers, though it is not supposed to have a long memory. The public remembers the rallying cry; it remembers the sacrifices made in order that democracy might be made safe. So today the morale of our people is low because they are suffering from deep disappointment. They find that the steps necessary for launching out toward a democratic system of society have not been undertaken; thus they are disappointed.
Capitalist economics is void of the elements of the democratic principle. My hon. friends of the Social Credit party have often argued that we have democracy in industry because the ballots of our consumers, which is the money with which they buy their needs, determine the nature of the market and the kind of goods the system will produce. Well, all you have to notice is the number of ballots some people have as compared with the number of ballots other people have. If in this house we were to suggest that a few hon. gentlemen should have a hundred votes while those of the common herd have one vote each, not very many of us would stand for that sort of thing. Yet in the economic world there are privileged individuals who can mark a thousand ballots in the economic market for every one the ordinary man can afford to use.
I wish to point out briefly what economic democracy means to me as the thing that Canada needs most at the moment and that her people are expecting, because, as I have said, we fought for that ideal. We would not have fought for capitalism; yet now we are seeing capital institutions reconstructed and reinvigorated, without any real- effort to establish the principles of democracy.
Economic democracy implies, first of all, the collective ownership of such means of life as must be used by everybody but which it is not possible for everyone privately to own. However, when the essential means of life of a community are owned by an individual or a corporation, the position of that community

The Address-Mr. Irvine
is one of dependence upon such individual or corporation for its very life. It may be the case that the corporation, without regard for the needs of the community and in order to maintain its profit rate, may deliberately choose to curtail the volume of production. The community then must necessarily suffer. That is the situation today, and that is undemocratic.
Second, economic democracy implies a common purpose to which every basic industry as well as every part of the industrial mechanism must be geared in order that we may utilize the natural resources, man-power, plant and equipment, science and technical skill to the end of achieving full production for peace as we did in war.
Third, economic democracy implies social planning to achieve a collective purpose. Shall we undertake democratically to plan, that is, as a community, just as a corporation now plans for its profits under an economic dictatorship, disguised under the attractive dress of so-called political democracy?
Fourth, economic democracy also implies the finding of the ways and means of distributing the national income more equitably in keeping with the demands of the farmers for parity prices and those of organized labour in terms of a living wage.
Fifth, it implies devising and working out the technique of democratic management so that workers in industry will be permitted to participate in the direction and operations of industry, thus promoting harmonious relations and the exercise of democratic cooperation.
Such a programme is not only one which fits the times in which we live, but also one which is designed to implement the democratic objectives which we hold out for our people. If such a programme were to be seriously considered it would mean that we could solve such problems as housing, as the extension of our railroad building, as the building of highways, as the - undertaking of irrigation and reforestation projects, town planning and all other things necessary for a higher type of life. But of course the question will be raised by the government, as it has been in all my experience, as to there not being sufficient money for any such projects as I have been suggesting would be implied in instituting real economic democracy.
I am suggesting that we must finance peace in a manner similar to that which we used to finance war. The object of financing war was to get the greatest amount of war materials into the front line with the least possible waste of time. The objects of peace are
equally as clear; that is, to get into the stomachs of our people and on to the backs of our people the essentials of life as they are required both in time and in quantity. I know there are big industrialists who oppose financing peace as we financed war, and that is not difficult to understand. In financing war they were doing it at a very good profit. Our war materials were destroyed on the battle lines and nothing was left as a backlog to interfere with the consuming market. Indeed I believe it is right to say that War Assets Corporation has spent much of its time in trying to steer some of these surplus goods away from the consumer market into the hands of the dealers or the trade, as it is called.
The capitalists of our time welcome large loans by this country to other countries which will enable them to buy Canadian made goods because such loans increase or maintain prices at home. But if they were asked how they would feel if we were to finance great industrial projects in Canada by the use of our national credit without interest charges in order to supply our own consuming public at home, they would oppose that because such a process might interfere with their rate of profit.
If the policy which I have suggested were to be adopted we would have to find ways and means of distributing the abundance which would result to the consumers of Canada. We would have to devise a financial mecahnism to be used within our own borders comparable with the lend-lease system which was used internationally during the war to distribute war materials to various nations of the world. That financial mechanism would mean that an adequate income would have to be provided to the Canadian people to buy the output of industry. That income would have to be provided by increased wages and increased prices to farmers. It would have to be brought about by increasing pensions to the old people, to the blind, to the disabled and to the sick, and providing allowances to those who are not in a position to earn their own living. By taking them all together, we might be able to equate our consuming programme with our producing programme and thus carry on a constructive economic system.
To the extent to which the government is implementing such policies, it will be judged to be a failure or a success. Some say that our government is an entire failure. I would not go that far because I do not think any government was ever a failure in everything. I think this government has done many things very well, but I think it has failed to do the big things which, in turn, affect all the little things that go to make up the democratic way of life.
The Address-Mr. Irvine


John Horne Blackmore: The Social Credit party is doing that too.


William Irvine: There is no government that will survive this period unless it can meet the demands of the times; no government will survive this period which has indecision as a method and middle-of-the-roadism as a policy. The times call for definite affirmation and for militancy. There is no future for any government which will condone or encourage capitalist government irresponsibility and cling to policies of privilege rather than to serving the common interests of the masses of the people.
What is the attitude of the other parties? The Social Credit party has committed itself to the profit motive, to free enterprise, to competition. In doing so, it is protecting the very sources of the evils which it is trying to get rid of. It has become the evangelical fundamentalist of economic reaction, and by its
The Address-Mr. Irvine

rampant militancy in this respect has placed itself to the right of the Progressive Conservative party. It agrees, however, that something is needed. It thinks that something is the single simple expediency of monetary reform. I do not believe, of course, that the prosperity and abundance of which they speak are so easily come by as that. The leader of the party owes it to himself; he owes it to his cause; he owes it to the country to bring down a bill setting forth what that particular reform is that he is talking so much about. I want to see nailed down- in legislation the extravagant claims of this propaganda; I want to see it nailed down to specific proposals.
I listened to the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) today. He utters aphorisms about money as if he alone had received the Divine revelation with respect to that. He advocates the simplest self-evident truth with the ponderosity of a hippopotamus climbing a Christmas tree. Just because every loan creates a deposit, which everybody who knows anything about banking or money knows and has known for a long time that by no means proves that all the other tripe which he talked about is true.
Mr., SPEAKER: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


William Irvine: I think you ought to give me five minutes more.


James Horace King: Has the hon. member unanimous consent?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


George Alexander Cruickshank: There must be
unanimous consent. I will give my permission if the hon. member will speak and not read every solitary word.


William Irvine: I have not read my speech.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member has read every word he has spoken tonight.


William Irvine: Here are my notes if the hon. member wishes to see them.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You have read every word.


William Irvine: I want to give a few minutes :o the Conservative party.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I object.


James Horace King: Order. I would ask the hon. member to be kind enough to conclude.


William Irvine: I am going to conclude, but I must mention what I am going to conclude about. The Conservative party, as the official

opposition, should do something more than bark at the heels of the government. It is overwhelming itself by displaying its own weakness, a fatal weakness indeed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Irvine: One which is apparent in its lack of a political philosophy upon which might reasonably be based a counter proposal to that which the government is making.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker-


William Irvine: Basically the policy of hon. gentlemen to your left, sir, is the same as that of the political party which governs the country.
I should like to turn for a moment to the-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Time; I am not going to sit here all night and listen to the hon. member.


James Horace King: I am sorry, but apparently the hon. gentleman has not the unanimous consent of the house.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the opportunity to do this on the main motion or on the amendment of the official opposition.
Mr, HANSELL: Mr. Speaker, I happen to be the hippopotamus that is high enough up the tree to see that my hon. friend has sparse notes and that he is not reading his speech.


Thomas John Bentley: Leave it at that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not read mine.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You do not make one either.
On motion of Mr. Cruickshank the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
Wednesday, March 12, 1947