[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR REFERENCE OF AUDITOR GENERAl/S REPORT TO COMMITTEE
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if at an early day he will be willing to move that the auditor general's report be referred to the public accounts committee. This committee has not met since the war
Office Economies Control

began, and while perhaps the whole house must to some extent share responsibility for this situation, I believe the Prime Minister and all hon. members will agree that in view of the huge increases in governmental expenditures the country will expect the fullest possible scrutiny of these outlays, in the public interest. In my opinion the reference of the auditor general's report to the public accounts committee should be an annual automatic procedure in the same fashion that the annual report and accounts of the Canadian National Railways are referred each year to the railway committee.	[DOT]


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: My impression had been that every year the auditor general's report has been referred to the public accounts committee. No motion in that regard has been made thus far, but I shall undertake to see that the report tabled this year is referred to the committee.



OFFICE ECONOMIES CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to a press report appearing in last evening's Ottawa Journal, in which Colonel John Thompson, director of government office economy control, is reported to have said that he found it increasingly impossible to cope with all the crazy waste and extravagance, and that evasion, subterfuge and outright trickery are being used to nullify his work. When the public accounts committee is convened I would ask that Colonel Thompson be summoned as a witness.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The words quoted by my hon. friend make it appear as though he were seeking to give information rather than obtain it. However I shall leave it to my colleague the Minister of National War Services to reply to his question.
Hon. L. R. LaFLECHE (Minister of National War Services): I may tell my hon. friend that I did not hear of the subject matter of the newspaper article in question until late yesterday afternoon, when I immediately instituted inquiries. When I did so I had in mind that it would not be fair to take for granted everything stated in the article. The director of economies has already informed me that he does not give statements to the press. I also had in mind [Mr. Graydon.l
that members of the public service of Canada generally would feel that they had been condemned publicly without being given the opportunity to state their side of the case to the responsible officials, or to the ministers of the several departments of government in question.
I also had in mind that the best, if not indeed the only method of effecting economies is to explain new and cheaper methods of administration and to try for cooperation which, in my opinion, is always forthcoming when a reasonable and timely appeal is made to our loyal and patriotic service, known as the civil service body.
It also came to my mind that the government itself, in desiring to practise economy, had been responsible for setting up the directorate in question. I also remembered having offered to give my support to the director to the end of helping him to make a success of what is indeed a very difficult task, due to the very great variety of questions and problems which must be, and are, brought to his attention. It was also borne in upon me that should there be any evasion, subterfuge or trickery the Minister of National War Services should be the first person to hear of it. I also realized that the heavy work of the war-time departments cannot be done without the necessary tools. Modern administrative practice demands certain information, office appliances, equipment, plans, and means of communicating rapidly sometimes, and sometimes to large numbers of persons concerned.
I think the proper objective is to help in such way that the work can be done well, smoothly and at a minimum of cost. I believe I may add that it is well known to the director of economies that if he needs additional staff he has but to ask for it, when I will immediately take up the need with the civil service commission.
On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National War Services in connection with the statement made by Colonel Thompson, the government economies director. I read this for the purpose of asking the minister whether the rather astounding allegation made is in accordance with the facts.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister has dealt with that already.


John George Diefenbaker: It has not been
dealt with and that is the reason I am bring-

Alaska Highway
ing it up. It is the question of setting up the [DOT]committee of public accounts that was dealt with.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, no.


John George Diefenbaker: This reads:
Thousands of dollars had been spent on office *supplies, furniture and equipment, he charged, without the requisitions ever having been submitted to him for approval.
I think the house and the country should know from the minister whether those allegations are in accordance with the facts and, secondly, whether or not a complaint, either verbal or in writing, was ever made to the minister by Colonel Thompson against unapproved or unauthorized expenditures being made.
Hon. L. R. LaFLECHE (Minister of National War Services): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. gentleman was not in the house when I made my statement.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes.
Mr. LaFLECHE: May I say that I have already given an answer to the first question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I think I did.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: No, you just travelled all over the lot.
Mr. LaFLECHE: In regard to the second question, the answer is, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In other words, be covered the ground.



ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the acting Minister of National Defence for Naval Services. I have already placed in his hand a press dispatch covering a debate which took place yesterday in the legislative assembly of Quebec, in which the premier and others took a prominent part. Is the minister prepared to make a statement in connection with the points then raised?


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I looked up the statement, which my hon. friend was good enough to send me. Apparently the matter arose out of something which was said by my colleague the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) in Quebec, and the statement made by the Hon. Mr. Gagnon was
dealing with the statement of the minister. I have therefore thought it would be more appropriate for my colleague to deal with it, since he will be here on Monday. In the meantime, however, so that there mdy be no misapprehension, I wish to say I am advised that the statement the Hon. Mr. Gagnon made is definitely not in accordance with the facts.


Gordon Graydon: Does that apply to the premier as well?


James Layton Ralston: I am speaking of Mr. Gagnon.


Gordon Graydon: Does that apply to the premier of the province as well?


James Layton Ralston: I did not refer to him.


Mr. ROWE:: He made the same statement.


Gordon Graydon: He made another
statement.


James Layton Ralston: I am dealing with Mr. Gagnon's statement.



PRESS REPORT AS TO ANNUAL FEDERAL GRANT TO THE CITY OF HALIFAX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie). Is he correctly reported in today's press, in which it is stated that the sum of money allotted by order in council to improve conditions in Halifax is $30,000? Is this relatively small sum the substantial amount to which he referred last night?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): The sum which will be granted for the purposes specified will be $30,000 a year during each year of the war, and continued one year thereafter. But for the first year the sum will be $45,000, and for the second year $15,000 to assist in the construction of a hospital for tuberculosis.



ALASKA HIGHWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). A press dispatch from Washington published to-day states that Secretary of the Interior Ickes has written a letter to the chairman

International Currency

of the house of representatives committee on roads, recommending the enactment of a bill authorizing the construction of a 125,000,000 highway to Alaska. Apparently this is to be a second Alaska highway, to start at Prince George, and to join the present Alcan highway at White Horse, in the Yukon territory. Would the Prime Minister make a statement to the house concerning this matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member gave me notice of his question, and in reply may I say I am informed that the bill to which the report alludes was introduced in the last session of congress, and was reintroduced in the present session, in January. In each case the bill was introduced by interested members, and there is no indication that it has been looked upon as an administration measure. In each case it was referred to the appropriate congressional committees.
The Canadian government has received no intimation that the United States government is anxious that the proposed road should be constructed at this time. I cannot of course say what the policy of the United States is with regard to such matters, but I assume it is the same as the policy of the Canadian government. That policy is to build such roads as are required for the successful prosecution of the war, but not to divert a single man or a single machine to the construction of highways that are not required for this purpose.
There has been no indication either through the defence board or through diplomatic channels that the United States government considers the construction of a road from Prince George to White Horse necessary for the prosecution of the war.



INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY


[Stage Direction]
-QUESTION AS TO CANADIAN PARTICIPATION
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. JACKMAN (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) arising out of a Canadian Press dispatch dated March 3, as follows:'
Important conferences on post-war currency and other financial problems "of common interest" are proceeding in London, a treasury announcement said to-day. The statement said one conference has "just been held". It was attended by finance ministers of allied countries with headquarters in London and representatives of the United States, Russia, China, the Dominions and the Fighting French.

I would ask this question: Was Canada represented and, secondly, if so who was the representative ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A day or two ago the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) asked me a question with regard to a similar report, and I replied as follows:
The information I am in a position to give is that there has been no exchange of correspondence. Informal discussions on post-war economic and financial questions have taken place from time to time between Canadian officials and experts from the United Kingdom and the United States, and these discussions will doubtless continue. No commitments have been made by the Canadian government, and no commitments are likely to be made in the near future.
I notice that in the communication my hon. friend quoted the word used1 is "conference". I am inclined to think that some of these terms are used without attaching to them the significance which may be attached in, the minds of others. There have been discussions, but so far as I know there has been nothing in the nature of what one would call a formal conference.
The high commissioner in London, I believe, has discussed informally some of these matters with representatives of other countries. One or two officials have gone from Canada to the United Kingdom and have, I believe, on occasions discussed informally financial questions. But there has been no formal conference, nor am I aware of our having received any official communication which would indicate that anything in the nature of a conference in these matters had been or was being held.
My hon. friend will understand and the house will no doubt appreciate the fact that there are frequent informal discussions on all matters pertaining to the war, and to post-war conditions, among officials of different governments of the united nations. But they are exploratory and informal, and not to be construed as in any way binding the governments concerned.



SOCIAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the appointment of a select committee to examine and report on a national plan of social insurance.
Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the people of Canada

Social Security
will welcome the long overdue decision of the government to set up a special committee of the house to study the problem of social security. In my opinion this committee should be called the parliamentary social security research committee because its primary task will be research. The government should be congratulated upon having recognized the need for taking this step in the right direction. I only hope that this mountain of plans does not give birth to a mouse. I shall therefore leave any further commendation and congratulations until the results start coming in.
If I understand it correctly, the purpose of the committee is to explore all fields with a view to formulating a plan to free our people from want. This freedom from want appears to me to be the most ambiguous of the four freedoms enunciated by the President of the United States, particularly in view of the fact that this problem of want exists in the midst of plenty. To my mind that is something which is really phenomenal. Is it not strange, when science has progressed so far in every field of endeavour that the people of the world can hardly keep up with its inventions and benefits, to find that the science of government is lagging behind everything else? The people themselves must wake up to the fact that they must do their part if they want democracy to function properly. The people of this country must realize that unless they force-I use the word "force" advisedly- the governments, provincial and federal, to bring about the results which the people want, then they themselves will have to take the blame.
I see no earthly reason why the people of Canada should have to exist-they are exists ing, not living, because they are living a life the people of this rich land should not have to live-for a number of years under the poverty line. There is no physical reason for that situation in a country such as Canada. The motto of this group is that what is physically possible must be made financially possible, and I think that is a valuable motto to follow. We notice that the government has been concerned greatly over the various ceilings that have been in force during war time. That is rightly so because many of those ceilings are essential. But when we are discussing the setting up of a committee to study post-war reconstruction, we must see to it that one of the recommendations to be brought in by that committee shall be the providing of a floor which will protect our citizens who are climbing up the ladder of life so that they will not fall into the basement of poverty, degradation and other evils which no human being should have to face. Let us build a hole-proof floor, accommodated
with springs, which will help to raise our people to the level they should be on in order that they may live as human beings. Let us build a floor upon which the poorest and the humblest may stand in dignity, leaving to them the sky as the limit for their advancement and initiative.
In my opinion there are five main requisites or requirements which we must guarantee to our people in peace time if we want this nation to advance among the nations of the world. In any social security measure which the committee recommends after it has studied the whole field, provision should first be made that no person in Canada shall go hungry. Food is something we have too much of in Canada.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Not at present.


Anthony Hlynka: Even at the present time we have more food than we need, and more than any other nation in the world. The first requirement, I say, is that no person in Canada shall go hungry, and the problem we must solve is to distribute the food we have.
The next requirement is clothing. There is no reason in the world why our people should go around shabby and shivering in the cold weather when we have all kinds of clothing rotting in the stores right across Canada. There is no reason in the world why our people should not have the clothing that is proper for any man who wants to preserve his dignity.
The next requirement is shelter, and here-I want to quote from an item which appeared', in the Ottawa Journal of May 5, 1942. L should like hon. members to note that what'. I am going to read happened in Ottawa, the; capital city of Canada. This is what the Journal says:
x^ieven more nomeless children found shelter with the Children's Aid Society late Monday as bailiffs, executing delayed eviction orders dispossessed additional low-income erouo families.	15 K
For one family, the situation was desperate. Bailiffs arrived at one dilapidated tenement to enforce an eviction order, and were reported to have found that the father of a family of five had barricaded the door. Behind it he stood armed with an axe, ready to use it, he warned them. They retired with their eviction, order which a welfare agency reported had been issued so that the dwelling could be demolished.
Within were five children and his wife, who was being confined for childbirth. The woman was removed to hospital and neighbours took in the five youngsters.
Welfare agency officials said heads of the dispossessed families were either soldiers on active service, veterans or men with extremely, low-paid jobs.
Social Security

Those conditions are typical of conditions which have existed and still exist in certain parts of Canada. There is no physical reason and no justification whatever for our people having had to live under the housing conditions which they were forced to endure for at least the last two decades. We had, during peace time at least, all the raw materials to provide the housing our people needed. We had all the bricks, all the lumber, and all the labour that was required, and yet our people were forced to live in one-roomed huts in a country like Canada. That certainly was no compliment to any government that held office during that period.
I come to the fourth requirement which is necessary for any adequate social security measure, namely, medical care. We all know that for at least ten years in Canada many doctors were on relief, while at the same time our people were dying because they had no money to provide themselves with the remedies for all sorts of ailments which arose because they had to live below the level of subsistence. There is no physical reason whatsoever why our people should not have all the medical care they need.
The fifth and last requirement is education. 1 have not heard any lion. member include .education in the field of social security, but I [DOT]would certainly include it. There is no reason -why every citizen of Canada should not be given all the education that we can possibly give him. All education should, in my opinion, be absolutely free. If a young man or a young woman wants to go on through a university, that opportunity should be provided. We must educate our people so that they may enjoy the life to which they are entitled and develop themselves along the lines for which their aptitudes fit them. We must, therefore, see to it that all the people of Canada are provided with an adequate education. In passing, let me say that about a year ago I noticed pictures in the newspapers glorifying the idea that at last Canada was providing an education even for its adult people, and of course it was free. When I saw those pictures in the newspapers I felt ashamed that we should endeavour to pull the wool over the eyes of our people by attempting to prove that we were so progressive because we gave adults an education to which they were really entitled in their teens. That was the time they should have received their education, and that was the time we failed. Now we attempt to cover that up. Certainly we should not advertise it. As a matter of fact, we were priding ourselves on giving adults of forty and fifty years of age an education that they should have had
,
long ago. I trust that education will receive the serious consideration of the committee.
I come now to the problem of the aged people. I intend to discuss this matter when the old age pensions estimates are brought down. Even though I wish to devote only a few minutes to the discussion of this problem at the present time, I feel that I cannot do too much to bring it to the attention of the committee which is to be set up.
This is the story of any one hundred young Canadians who, at the age of twenty-five, are strong, healthy and hopeful. Forty years later thirty-six of them are dead; one-only one-is well-to-do; four live comfortably; five are gainfully employed, and fifty-four are entirely dependent upon relatives and friends. In other words, the statistical information which I have been able to obtain shows that over half of every hundred men we have in this country will eventually land in the undignified position of having to beg. That illustrates clearly the fate of many of our men. Let me read at this stage from an editorial which appeared in the Edmonton Bulletin of March 12, 1942. The Bulletin, one of our Alberta dailies, is one of the most progressive if not the most progressive newspaper in our province, and at all times it has been a champion of the cause of the aged people. Here are a few sentences from this particular editorial:
Canada has neglected the one object which requires more generous treatment than any other.
Canadians lag behind every member of the British commonwealth of nations and behind the United States in providing social security and social justice for our own aged, distressed and worthy pioneers.
It goes on:
At this session of parliament

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that this was written early in the last session.
-we must add to our present unemployment insurance those further measures of health insurance and an adequate retirement allowance which will give at least thirty dollars a month to our aged people at the age of sixty, without the present cruel and unjust regulations.
The concluding paragraph states:
There is no question of money involved because the old methods of orthodox finance have disappeared in the necessities of war, and properly so.
I believe that we should provide a pension for every man who has reached the age of sixty and whose income is not sufficient to maintain him at a proper standard of living. In addition it is my conviction that our women, the mothers of Canada, should be granted a pension at the age of fifty-five.

Social Security
The reason why I favour the mothers is that any woman who has gone through fifty-five years of her life and has brought up a family deserves a compensation from the country; she deserves to share in the heritage which we all should have, a part of which we all should enjoy. Unless our mothers are taken care of, there will be a repetition of the condition which was depicted in this house last night, when it was pointed out that in the four years 1932-35, 33,000 mothers died in childbirth and 70,000 children died under one year of age. During the last war Canada lost 60,000 men in four years, but during the four-year period 1932-35 103,000 infants and mothers perished. That is a fact we should consider and take to heart.
Let me read an extract from a letter which appeared in the Edmonton Bulletin of January 12, 1942. It is written by an elderly man expressing his sentiments on this subject:
I am sixty-two and not able to get a job owing to my general health and age. I am within eight years of the age now, but by the time I am seventy years old I won't need the pension. I often wonder where my next meal will come from and to go and ask for relief is like signing a death sentence to get anything.
He goes on:
How many are there that live to be seventy that ever enjoy his or her old age pension? ... So if we get the age pension at sixty we may enjoy a little of it.
I came here in 1900 and before Edmonton was very much of a town I helped build up the country and now it is hard to get a living out of it.
That man is only sixty-two, but he feels that by the time he would be entitled to the old age pension he will not be here. Of course that is the prospect of most of the older people. Imagine, they have to wait until they are seventy before they get what is coming to them! Our old age pension regulations are not a gesture of kindness; they are a gesture of inhumanity. Why could we not include the people who are physically incapacitated?
Right in this city of Ottawa, when I got off the train on one occasion, I saw an old man playing a violin near the Chateau Laurier hotel when the temperature was about ten degrees below zero. Surely that poor old man could not have produced a melody had he been paid a thousand dollars for it, because he was too old, and his hands were cold. He had an old cap that someone had thrown away and that he had probably picked up out of a garbage can. The poor man had to play the violin so that someone would throw him a penny. I appeal to every hon. member this afternoon to see to it that we take these people off the streets and
give them a pension. Let them be medically examined, and if they are found to be totally incapacitated they should be given a pension whether they are thirty, forty or fifty years of age. In almost every Canadian city we find men who are minus both legs sitting on a cement pavement with the temperature at forty degrees below zero and trying to beg for their living. I suggest that these men who are given certificates to be allowed to beg should be taken off the streets and given proper care and food and clothing, and at least some of them might be able to do a little for this country. I want to emphasize that particular problem. I feel ashamed when I see these men minus their legs sitting on a cement sidewalk in front of a building when the temperature is forty degrees below zero. That sort of thing should not exist in Canada. This man should not be playing the violin in order to beg, when the temperature is below zero. Let us not be a nation of beggars, let us try to solve some of these problems. It reminds me of an incident when [DOT]one poor man who had lost both legs was sitting in front of a big department store in Edmonton holding out two hats. A chap going by said, "What's the idea, holding out two hats instead of one?" Well, the poor fellow was miserable, he thought he might collect more by stretching out both hands. He said, "Well, business is so good- I am branching out!"
Let us tackle these problems properly and solve them. There is no excuse for not looking after our aged people, the pioneers of this country. I know scores of people in western Canada who went there and cleared the land of stones, cultivated it and made it almost a garden, and what have they to-day? The mortgage companies came in and foreclosed and those people were thrown out. If they apply for old age pensions, some clerks who do not even understand what life is all about will order these old pioneers away, these men who should be treated with courtesy, to whom we should extend a helping hand and say, This is your share of our heritage, something which you deserve. But they are cut off the old age pension if it is found that they have a dollar or have someone to whom they can go and perhaps sleep in the basement.
While I am on this subject let me make a plea to the committee to be set up, also to the government and particularly to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). There is one thing that has been overlooked for many years.- I believe there are not many hon. members who see it in the light that I see it. We have in western Canada many of these pioneers who settled in blocks. This is not-
Social Security

the situation in the cities, but these pioneers who come from Ukrainian or Polish or perhaps German stock have settled together in certain blocks. They had no opportunity to learn the English language. When they apply for citizenship or naturalization certificates they are refused because they have no knowledge of English. It is not their fault. We must realize that they had no opportunity to learn They have lived in this country for ten or fifteen or twenty years and their sons and daughters are Canadian bom.	Surely the
mother of a son who is perhaps serving this country in the army should be compensated and able to apply for a pension. To-day I have in my office scores of letters from such mothers. They are appealing to me to do something for them. One old mother about seventy-five years of age had one son. This son is married and his assigned pay had to go to his wife and children, so that he could not help his mother. The mother had to go on relief, and the municipality gives her $5 a month. What can one do with $5 a month? She cannot apply for an old age pension because she is not a citizen of Canada even though she has lived here for forty-two years. This is something that should be solved.
I am told I have only five minutes left, so I hasten on to mention some of the matters that have been in my mind for quite a while. I hope in all seriousness that tire purpose of setting up this committee is not in order to draft a charter for an election. I should like to see it a charter for social security, but so many of these measures that are framed appear to be devoid of everything but perhaps a catch for another election. I say to the government, that it has all the freedom. it wants, let us see that this problem is tackled in a proper manner, forgetting about elections. If they have to come they will come; if not, so much the better for the country during war time. This measure must not be a charter for a new election; if it is, the people of Canada will resent it.
In conclusion, I would suggest a method by which we may approach this problem of social security. I spoke of food; why not take the same provision which is now made for our men in the armed forces and say that this shall be used to supply our old people and those who are in need of food. Immediately after the war substitute one for the other. We talk about clothing; why not say that the item which now appears in our budget for uniforms and clothing for our people in the armed services will be used in peace time to provide clothes for those of our people who have not the proper kind of clothing? We are manufacturing aeroplanes, guns and all sorts of {Mr. Hlynka.)
materials for war purposes. Why not say that we are going to continue to use the appropriations we have devoted to these purposes in order to meet the needs of our people in regard to education, health and so on. All that is necessary after the war is to select a few of these things and substitute the new demands that will come upon us.
In my opinion neither this nor any other government should look for any commendation or congratulation for having attempted to deal with this problem. I think this action is long overdue; and, if I may say so, if this government did not wish to take this step of its own volition, it would be forced to do so by public opinion, for this question of social security is now very much in the air. Let us then face this problem squarely and deal with it on a humanitarian basis so that we may hold up our heads in dignity, instead of doing as some hon. members would have us do, promise too much and then of course be unable to carry out our promises.


Mr. A. R. ADAMSON (York West):: 
Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, it is a long time since I last addressed the house, and on this occasion I do not intend to make a speech. I shall try rather to make only a few random remarks.
First of all I should like to pay humble tribute to all those who have made and are making their contribution to Canada's great and splendid war effort-the armed forces, the merchant marine, their wives, mothers and sweethearts, the fishermen, the war workers in industry, and, last but not least, the farmers of Canada, to whose natural hazards have been added the handicaps of shortages of labour and materials. Theirs was a voluntary effort. With
Social Security

the rest of the empire Canada did not wait for the invader's boot, because it did not need' the spur of invasion.
The other day an hon. member sitting opposite said in the course of his remarks that he could understand what the Conservatives and the Progressive Conservatives were talking about; he could understand what the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation were talking about; he could understand what hon. members to my left were talking about, but he utterly failed to understand what members of this group mean, and what they discuss. I am not going to say that that hon. member was speaking for all members of his party; I happen to know he does not. I believe however that there is a large element of truth in what he said, and to me the reason is fairly obvious, because all other parties believe more or less in the same thing, and, I may say, their objectives are more or less the same. For instance I believe most members of other groups in the house, except this one, would agree that they believe in the creation of employment for all. They would agree on a planned production. I believe they agree on centralization. I have heard several hon. members sitting opposite speak favourably of internationalism, an international bank and an international police force. I think most hon. members, with the exception of those in this group, are in favour of more and more taxation, and most of them seem to believe in the removal of tariffs.
I think that situation is more or less crystallized in Alberta; for in that province you see two parties to-day, namely the Social Credit party and the so-called Independents. The Independents are made up of Liberals, Conservatives-that	is, Progressive and
otherwise-and Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.


Mr. MacINNIS:: No.


Norman Jaques: They sit in opposition.


Angus MacInnis: You are in opposition but you are not in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.


Norman Jaques: They are in agreement in their criticism.


Angus MacInnis: Oh, no, they are not.


Norman Jaques: The leader of the independents was a former Cooperative Commonwealth Federation member of this house.


Angus MacInnis: He is no longer the leader.


Norman Jaques: 

Social Security
to the enemy, we had turned around and paid it to ourselves? Is there any limit to the prosperity we might have had? There would be no unemployment except of those who were incapacitated.
Since I have mentioned pensions I should like to make a plea in that regard. Whether or not we wait for twenty-five years to implement the Beveridge report or something similar, I would make a plea that we should not wait, I was going to say for twenty-five minutes, but certainly we should not wait for one day to augment the pensions that we are paying to the aged and the infirm and the war widows. They do not even have the cost of living bonus. They are living, many of them, on from ten to fifteen dollars a month. Then we talk about the new order we are going to have. I say, in-conclusion, that if we cannot look after the aged and the infirm at the present time I do not think there is much hope for a new and better world after the war.


Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of participating in this debate but in order to keep the record clear, I think that in view of the attitude I took earlier in relation to unemployment insurance I should make a few observations.
Members may recall that on March 24, 1941, I brought in a bill, No. 21, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. I explained on that occasion that the purpose of the bill was to provide that the unemployment insurance commission created by the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940, should cooperate with other authorities in the dominion and the provinces for the purpose of collecting information concerning any plans for providing medical care or compensation in cases of ill health. I should) like to read just one paragraph from part V of my bill, under the heading "National Health":
The duties and powers of the commission under this part of this act shall be exercised, so far as may be found practicable and expedient, in cooperation with any department or departments of the government of Canada, with the Dominion Council of Health, with any province or any number of provinces collectively, or with any municipality or any number of municipalities collectively, or with associations or corporations.
It shall be the duty of the commission (a) to assemble reports, publications, information and data concerning any scheme or plan, whether a state, community or other scheme or plan for any group or class of persons, and whether in operation or proposed, in Canada or elsewhere, of providing, on a collective or on a cooperative basis by means of insurance or otherwise, for
(i) medical, dental and surgical care, including medicines, drugs, appliances, or hospitalization, or 
(ii) compensation for loss of earnings
arising out of ill health, accident or disease;
I shall not trouble to read the rest of the proposed amendment but, because there has been some misconception on the part of certain members of the house, it is only right to state at this time that I understand the department of national health has undertaken what I proposed, namely, the gathering of information upon which they purpose drafting a bill. I must agree with that, and am pleased to agree that they have taken, in my judgment, the best possible course to ensure that the bill, when it does emerge from the committee, will not only represent the judgment of the members of the committee and the members of this house, but will receive the support and cooperation of the members of the medical profession;
I might recall to hon. members that when a similar bill was introduced in the legislature of British Columbia some few years ago, it was not done after cooperation and agreement with the members of the medical profession; and as a consequence, although it became the law of that province, it has never become operative. It will be clear to all, I think, that to make any scheme of health insurance operative the most important people to be considered, who will have the responsibility of carrying out such scheme are members of the medical profession; in fact it cannot function at all unless they assist in making it function. The method which has been adopted of gathering information during the last year or so from all interests concerned, particularly the medical and dental professions, will put us in a position to know what their judgment is in regard to the various phases of the bill which it is proposed	should	emerge	as aconsequence of	the sittings	of this	select
committee.
Before that committee, I take it, all interests may be represented and will be heard and consideration will be given to any presentations which	they	make.	I hope	that,after that has taken place, at a very early day a measure will emerge and be placed on the statute	book.	It is	long overdue.
I hope it will be possible for the government to bring forward legislation and have it passed before this session concludes.
I might just add, to make the record complete, that being only a private member my bill did not get very far. We have no private members' days, so that it disappeared when we went home for the recess. It was suggested to me that I might make progress if I had it brought forward in another place. As a consequence I had' it submitted as Bill

Social Security
E-3 in the other place, where it had its first reading on May 27, 1941. It did a little better over there than here, because it got through its second reading, but was then defeated. I then submitted it again, on November 6, 1941, and it disappeared with the closing of the session. On February 2, 1942, I reintroduced it and it had its first reading. It will be clear from all this that I favour some such legislation as is proposed at the present time.
It has been mentioned here that this bill requires an amendment of the British North America Act. I wish to refer for a moment to something which has interested me for a number of years. We have in Canada ten departments of health, all doing or trying to do the same job. My belief is that there should be only one department of health and that that should be the department of health of the national government; and in each of the provinces we could very well have branches of the federal department of health which would carry out the decisions of the national body. This in my opinion would save a great deal of duplication of services which are costly, and in a small country such as ours we should always consider the question of cost. Great Britain gets on very well with one department of health, and that country has a population four times as great as ours. You may say that Canada is larger geographically than Great Britain. That is true, but the problems of health are exactly the same. Communicable diseases do not confine themselves to provincial boundaries. Take, for example, influenza; if it starts in British Columbia it will soon be heard of in Ontario and spread speedily to the Atlantic coast. So that what measures of health are necessary in one province are necessary in other provinces. Some local conditions may vary in the different provinces, but these can be dealt with and adjusted effectively, in my judgment, by a federal department of health operating through a branch in the province. So that if it becomes necessary to have an amendment of the British North America Act, I suggest to the government that it take into consideration obtaining authority to develop a national department of health for the whole of Canada instead of the system which prevails at the present moment.
I mentioned a moment ago that this is a question of social security which is long overdue, and I am glad to be able to tell the house that I believe a majority of the medical profession throughout Canada will support a measure of health insurance.
I should like to make a distinction, for the assistance of the members, between health 72537-64}
insurance and what is spoken of as state medicine. The fact that the profession approves the principle of health insurance does not mean that it approves state medicine. By "state medicine" is meant a system of medicine which is entirely under the state: the state would bear the full cost, and all doctors, nurses and others giving their care would be on salary provided by the state. The hospitals would become state owned. This is entirely different from what we mean by state health insurance, which means a cooperative plan of contributory insurance operating with state assistance and under state supervision, which provides for its members certain benefits in case of illness. We believe that such a plan should provide the highest standard of health service for all the people.
I do not think that at this time it is desirable or necessary to discuss any phases of the bill which may emerge, because we shall have plenty of .opportunity of doing that in the committee. I therefore look forward to the meetings of this committee in the anticipation that the work which has been carried on over a period of months will bear fruit and that ultimately there will be put in the statute books a health insurance bill acceptable and advantageous to all our people.
I want to make just a reference to the question of venereal disease. I believe it is a fact that venereal disease is about twice as prevalent amongst our Canadian forces as amongst the white forces in the United States. If this be true it is desirable that something very radical be undertaken at an early day to improve a deplorable situation.
Mr. MANLEY J. EDWARDS (Calgary West):	I have listened with the utmost
attention to the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Bruce). What he said appealed to me most strongly, because I know that he is a man of outstanding ability and attainment in his profession. He has approached the subject from the point of view of the medical practitioner. Being a member of the legal profession I naturally look at the resolution from the point of view of its legal aspects and connotations. Quite frankly, sir, I have many doubts and misgivings as to the tangible results in the immediate future, of the proceedings and deliberations of this committee, because of the constitutional difficulties involved in implementing any charter or resolution such as. is contemplated by this resolution.
Let me say at the outset that I am wholly-in accord with the spirit, the thought and the ideal which bring this resolution before us at this time. Knowing the humanitarian ideals
Social Security

of charity and Christian brotherhood which he entertains in his heart I for one hope that the vision which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has entertained in this regard might, like the Unemployment Insurance Act which he envisaged twenty years ago, be realized by him at this session or in this parliament, or at least in his lifetime. I am disturbed in this regard, because it took twenty years of effort on the part of not only the present Prime Minister but the leader of the Conservative party, not forgetting my predecessor from West Calgary, Mr. Bennett, to overcome the constitutional difficulties and barriers raised by the provinces to the establishment of a national unemployment insurance act. In this respect I am reminded that the last province to give its consent to a national unemployment insurance act was Alberta. Hon. members during this brief debate may have followed the remarks of the hon. members who come from Alberta and represent the Social Credit party. If the Social Credit members truly reflect the considered opinion and wishes of the government of Alberta, then the fine objectives which are set before us in this resolution and which I think are universally held by the other groups in this house will go unfulfilled because of the constitutional difficulty involved in the British North America Act. One need only read the provisions of the British North America Act, our charter of confederation, to see that the respective fields of provincial and federal legislation are limited. It is not sufficient merely to read the words of the act to appreciate fully the difficulty involved; one must have recourse to the judgments of the various courts which have been called upon to interpret and apply the terms of that act to particular constitutional problems which have arisen in the short life of this country. I hope it will not take twenty years more before this country has at least a national health insurance act, but let no one assume that the Beveridge plan can be readily transferred or transposed to and made applicable in this country.
In common with many others in this house I am concerned lest the people's mind be diverted from the immediate and paramount problem which confronts us all, namely, that of winning this war.
I do not think we should be unduly concerned about our safety or security here at home when the best of our manhood and womanhood are throwing security to the winds. Security is the last thought that enters their minds in their struggle with the enemy and their fight to defend the one

thing that we in Canada value most highly- individual freedom and liberty. In common with many others I have doubts and misgivings lest the so-called planners and economists may in fact destroy individuality, the one thing that we as Canadian citizens prize most highly. The thing that distinguishes us is our individuality. The good Lord made no two of us alike. There never was one like you before; there is not now and never will be another you. I think the most significant fact about life and living itself is not that we are here to make a living but that "we are", and we are here to develop and make manifest that thing which I call me and which you call you, to make of them the best of which they are capable. Life has no significance for me aside from the fact of individuality, and I am much afraid that this resolution may fail of its objective by reason of that very characteristic of Canada and Canadians individually, provincially and sectionally.
Nevertheless I believe this is something upon which we may be able to find common ground in the interest and for the sake of those individuals who are less fortunate than we are, who through no fault of their own find themselves unable to keep pace with their fellow men, so that they may be provided with the essentials of that decent standard of living which should characterize our people from coast to coast. But let us not think and let us not give the impression that this is the beginning of easy days, that life in Canada will be easy or that it will not be necessary in any field of endeavour, be it physical, mental or spiritual, to do other than work hard to make the most of this fair land of ours and to make the most of our individual and collective selves. In other words, let us not do what the people of Germany did, willingly or otherwise, namely, surrender our individuality for the sake of security. It is quite true that in a time of depression the people of Germany were not as vocal and were not allowed to magnify their differences. Why? Because they had sold their right to liberty and individuality for the so-called safety and security ordered by the state. Mr. Hitler capitalized on that, and as a result there came into existence what I hope we shall never see in this country, the age of bureaucracy and dictatorship.
The men and women who built this country, whom we delight to honour in this house and throughout the length and breadth of our land, .the individuals who have made the finest contributions to our commonwealth, have been those who were least secure and who on account of that very fact put forth their best of muscle, mind and

Social Security
spirit. To their sterling work and their example we owe the characteristics which we are proud to believe distinguish us as a nation. Independence and self-reliance are the things we must encourage; free enterprise, in consonance with the rights of others, is what we should be thinking of. We delight to honour the brave lads who are flying over Germany, over conquered, fallen France and elsewhere throughout the world to-day because they have cast security to the winds. They do not ask for security; they are the daring spirits. All they ask, and the only thing on the lips of our boys to-day, whether they are here in Canada or in Britain, is that they be given an opportunity to display their skill and to match their wits with the best the axis forces can put against them. In a recent issue of the Times-Herald, of Moose Jaw the editor sets forth views with which I am in hearty accord, and which I think we should keep in mind when considering this problem. In part he says:
The Printed Word defines security as "a condition of freedom from danger," and says: Armed forces of the united nations are expected to eliminate the danger from the gangster powers, but economic -security which is being promised so glibly apparently is something which can be obtained by legislation. As well say that money will win the war.
Security must be paid for. It can't be paid for by casting votes or issuing cheques on a bank, even a state bank. Someone, somehow, must produce useful goods. Back of all usable wealth is work of individuals, even though individual production is greatly enhanced and multiplied by machines, by the practical application of scientific knowledge. Nature helps, but even windfalls must be gathered before they can be put into a pie. When an honest, able-bodied man says he wants security, does he not mean rather that be wants a steady job? He wants w-ages that will meet his current requirements and enough left over for contingencies. He would strive to have something for his wife and dependent children in event of his early death, and if he is thoughtful would like to think he would not have to accept public or private aid when his earning days are done.
That is not security in the sense of to-day's political speeches. It is rather self-respecting independence. The people who are entitled to security without working for it are children and others who because of physical or mental infirmity, are incapable of contributing to production. The problem of post-war prosperity will not be solved by paying people for not working, paying for not producing. It will be solved, however, if in a postwar world every able-bodied and mentally competent person has an opportunity to produce goods and services that are useful.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: What is the machine for? What about the machine?


Mr. EDWARDS:: I have but one concluding thought along this line. Economics are unavoidably and inextricably bound up in this
matter. I had one suggestion to make which might more properly have been expressed under the preceding resolution. I suggest, however, that in our post-war planning the committee might very well regard Canada from the point of view of economic units rather than from the political or geographic point of view.
I am not unmindful of, and I should like here and now to pay tribute to the present government in Alberta, who have sensed what is a very acute problem, in so far as Alberta, and at least the western part, if not all, of Saskatchewan is concerned. We are an economic unit, far removed from that section which finds its centre Ontario, and those districts which are contiguous to the great lakes and the St. Lawrence river. In order that we may go forward, I believe there must be developed and encouraged an economic unit embracing Alberta and Saskatchewan with a measure of industrialization we have not heretofore had. Fortunately or perhaps providentially-no credit to us-we have in Alberta a wealth of coal unexcelled, as far as quantity is concerned, in any other similar area on the earth's surface. We have flowing down from the mountains powerful but undeveloped streams, all of which are potential generators of electricity. We have in Alberta the second largest-and potentially the largest -oil field in the British empire, if not in the world. But we have no industrial production; and perforce our goods must find their way all the way across the mountains, or across *. continent.
I believe there must arise somewhere in' those foothills an industrial development to take advantage of the natural resources found there or, if Canada is to continue to develop with its industrial centre in the east, ways and means must be found for bringing us closer together

closer together economically, not geographically.
As I have looked at the map of Canada in the railways committee room certain thoughts have occurred to me. I hear about the scarcity of agricultural products in the east; and when I realize the dearth of manufactured articles and the high prices we must pay for them in the west on account of the high cost of transportation, it seems to be taken for granted by all parties that that is a necessary evil which we -must continue to endure for all time to come. Is this so? The early pioneers in Canada were not satisfied with portages around the waterfalls and rapids; they constructed a canal system which now enables some of the largest, if not the largest oceangoing vessels to go from the ocean to the head of the lakes there to load our produce and
Social Security

take it to the markets of the world. This was made possible as a result of a canal system built by the Canadian people. I am informed that all vessels pass through those canals without charge or expense, and that no additional freight charges are added to the cost of the goods handled in that way. Looking at the map I have wondered if it would not be possible to bring Manitoba and Ontario together by eliminating that thousand-mile stretch of competing railways running through what is now a barren and unproductive land, by nationalizing, taking over and making a national railroad canal do what is done by our water canals when they circumvent Niagara falls, and use the water highway from Montreal and Quebec to Port Arthur.
Let the government take over and operate that railway canal at public expense. Make it serve as do the canals on our waterways. Let the people of Canada assume the expense of operation. Eliminate the charges for that part of the haul from the cost of goods from western Canada to the east, and from eastern Canada to the west. This is a thought which I believe is worthy of earnest consideration. If we are to keep our people united, let us think in terms of economic rather than geographic consideration and those means which :san bring us closer together.
One other thought, and I shall have finished. The economic security of our western plains is being menaced. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) is a much-travelled man, and one who is certainly aware of most physical and geographical problems confronting our country. Everyone appreciates his interest and his recognition of the necessity of developing the natural resources of western Canada.
I should like to direct the attention of the house to something that has happened as a result of the transfer of the natural resources of Alberta and Saskatchewan to those provinces. If you will look at a map of Canada you will observe that the great rivers which water our plains have their origin on the east slope of the Rocky mountains. Prior to the transfer of the resources the dominion government carried on an excellent and extensive programme for the preservation and protection of the forests on the east slope of the Rockies. As I say, it is on this slope that the Saskatchewan, both North and South, the Red Deer, the Bow and numerous other rivers have their source. On account of financial reasons Alberta has not been able to maintain the same organization for the preservation of these forests, and the result has been that in the intervening years thousands of square miles of forest growth have

been burned. These slopes are being denuded by recurring forest fires, and the flow in these rivers, instead of being a blessing, is becoming a menace. I am advised that each year the water-table under these great plains is becoming lower and lower. I earnestly recommend to the committee on reconstruction and post-war problems that they consider the advisability of having the government enter into some arrangement mutually agreeable to Alberta whereby this government may again obtain control of the east' slope of the Rocky mountains. We would thereby ensure that the forest growth which acts as a reservoir for these rivers will be maintained as an economic measure to make sure as far as possible that our western plains will not become in fact a dust-bowl.


Mr. A. H. BENCE (Saskatoon City):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to restrict my remarks as much as I can because I think if it is at all possible we should complete the work of setting up this committee this afternoon. I do not propose to reiterate any more of the remarks that have been made in this debate, except to say that the work of the committee on reconstruction is inextricably interwoven with the work of this committee. I agree with other members who have said that full employment across the whole of this country is a necessary premise to any effective system of health insurance or other security measures.
I have no fear, as far as employment in this country is concerned, with respect to the period immediately after the war, especially in those parts of the country which have been highly industrialized. It must be obvious to all that within a very short time after the war these districts will be working at a high peak in order to meet the requirements for consumer goods which will be in effect at that time. But there are other parts of the country which will not have the advantage of supplying the badly required consumer goods, and it is in connection with that problem that I wish to say a few words. It seems to me that unless we first establish proper conditions under which we can provide employment for all who are able to work, we shall not be able to have an effective social security system. I discussed this matter at considerable length during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and I shall not go into the facts and figures I presented to the house at that time.
In my opinion the greatest obstacle to the setting up of a balanced economy and the bringing of prosperity, not only to Canada

Social Security
but to the nations of the world, is the lack of goodwill and understanding between the people of this country and the peoples of other countries. If we are to implement the spirit of the Atlantic charter we must commence now to do something about developing a feeling of goodwill. It is all very well for President Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill to formulate the Atlantic charter, but if the spirit of that charter is not engendered in the hearts and minds of the peoples of the countries of which these men are the leaders, then we cannot have very much hope of implementing it in the future. Great men as they are, they will soon pass from the scene, and unless they leave behind them leaders and people who have the same spirit, then we have no hope of bringing about the aims and objectives set forth in that charter.
The same thing applies in connection with our internal problems. It is essential that the people of Canada develop a spirit of goodwill and mutual helpfulness toward each other before we can hope to bring about that measure of prosperity which we all believe is the due of the Canadian people. After all, we are not only citizens of Ontario or Saskatchewan; we are citizens of Canada. I am sure that when we sit down to consider the matter we shall realize that simply because we happen to live in Ontario, where the resources are vast and where they have been developed, we are not entitled to a greater share of the goods and the prosperity of this country than we would be if we lived in another part of the. country which has not been so highly developed. As has been said in this and other debates, eastern Canada cannot long be prosperous, cannot long be happy unless the other parts of the country are in a similar state.
The greatest obstacle to bringing about an equal sharing of opportunities by the people of this dominion is a lack of understanding. One of the first things we should do is to undertake the development of goodwill among our people. If we can persuade all of our people to regard this matter from the viewpoint of the application of the golden rule, then I have no doubt we shall be able to establish in Canada a state of which we shall all be proud.
Something that concerns me greatly is the attitude of mind which has been evidenced in the United States of recent days, particularly since the globaloney speech of representative Luce a short time ago. I am concerned also over that type of mind which endeavours to convey the impression that one province is the milch cow for the rest
of Canada. It is that attitude of mind that we must try to eradicate in this and other countries if we are to bring about a feeling of goodwill and understanding. Unless we develop that feeling of goodwill and understanding we cannot hope to have anything but distress, ill-feeling and resentment on the part of those people who are not obtaining a fair and reasonable share of prosperity.
I take the stand that whether we come from this province or from the maritimes or the prairies-and I am proud to represent a constituency in Saskatchewan-we should feel with respect to each other that it is necessary to bring about a state of mutual aid. I suggest to the people from the more settled and more highly industrialized parts of Canada that their part of the country was built up in the days of our forefathers when people in the central and eastern provinces had the advantage of having industries set up, very often with government help, which government help reacted to the detriment of the part of the country from which I come. Apparently, however, it was necessary to use this means to establish those industries there and to build up prosperity in that part of Canada. But when persons coming from one particular part of the country speak of that part as being entitled as of right to whatever they happen now to have, I would remind them that after all many departed from that particular part in order to pioneer and develop other parts of Canada. Unless this state of mutual aid and mutual understanding is brought about, the people in the other parts of Canada will almost inevitably return to these older parts, and if we sit down and consider the matter carefully I am sure we would not want that state of affairs to be brought about. The pioneers went out from Ontario, for example, and established their homes in western Canada, and if they should return to their old homes in Ontario they would become Ontario citizens and be just as much entitled to share with other Ontario citizens in the prosperity in this part of the country.
I suggest most earnestly that it is a matter of urgent necessity that this administration take immediate advantage of the opportunity, which is presented to-day on account of the fact that we are at war and have such a tremendous volume of employment in Canada, to ensure a balanced economy so that when the post-war period arrives we can put into effect a proper scheme of social security which I am sure no one in this house will deny is absolutely imperative if we are to bring about the new order for which we all hope. I wish to give an example of what I have in mind.
100S
Social Security

I think this happens from mere thoughtlessness rather than anything else. I do not believe there is any intention on the part of individuals in any section of Canada to be selfish about the country's economic outlook. I think it arises from the fact that they have not all travelled throughout the country and do not understand the problems that exist in other sections. I ran into this example. It is only a small one, but it shows an attitude of mind. An officer in one of the services was canvassing the possibility of setting up in a particular city a service establishment. It had to do with storage and that kind of thing. He and some of his fellow officers suggested various cities, Toronto, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Windsor. One individual who happened to come from western Canada spoke up, "Did you ever think of Winnipeg, or Edmonton, or Saskatoon?" The officer in charge replied, "No; as a matter of fact I did not." It finally turned out that they established their base in a city in western Canada. But it had never occurred to them before that such an establishment might be set up out there.
I have another example of the sort of thing which develops ill-feeling, quite unintentionally, I am sure. There may be a perfectly good explanation for it, but I point this out as an example of how there can be brought about misunderstanding which, with a little forethought and planning, could be avoided. There have been a great many construction projects in this country in the last few months. An extensive naval establishment is being erected in the province of Quebec at the present time. According to an answer that was made the other day in reply to a question I had put, this establishment at St. Hyacinthe, Quebec, will cost S2,624.000. Another large naval establishment is to be constructed in the city of Hamilton, but I have not the exact figures on that. So far as I know both these establishments are perfectly proper and may be required in those places. At the same time, we in the city of Saskatoon are proud of the fact that we have there a very able and effective recruiting establishment of the R.C.N.V.R. They carry on effective training and develop fine sailors.
May I digress for a moment to pay tribute to Lieutenant Commander Frank Campbell, the commander of the Canadian corvette that was destroyed in the Mediterranean a short while ago, who went down with his ship. He is a native of Saskatoon. I went to school with him and have known him for many years. He took all his naval training in Saskatoon, except for certain periods when he was allowed to go out to the coast. We have had many other outstanding gallant sailors who have come
. 
from our city. At the present time we badly require a new naval establishment, which will cost approximately $100,000.
We were told in December by Captain E. R. Brock, who is in charge of the reserve divisions of the R.C.N.V.R., that on account of shortages of material and labour, there was no hope of anyone getting new construction. I give this as an example of the type of misunderstanding that may arise. Then we read in the newspapers of large sums of money, many times the comparatively small amount required for our establishment, being spent on constructions in other parts of the country, and we cannot understand why there is a lack of materials and labour for our part, while all this work is being carried on in other parts. I point that out only as an example. It does seem to me, and I offer this as a suggestion to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that in order to make our reconstruction and social security measures work it is necessary to take advantage of the situation which has arisen to see to it that the war effort is spread across this country in such a way that we can have a balanced economy, and thus put the country in a proper position to carry out the necessary measures of reconstruction after the war is over.
I conclude by saying that I am convinced that the administration does not by any means discharge its full responsibility with respect to either reconstruction or social security simply by the setting up of these committees. The government of Canada was elected by the people of Canada to assume the responsibility of putting certain things into effect which the administration felt were for the good of the country, and it seems to me that the administration should do something positive as quickly as possible with respect to reconstruction and social security. I urge the government as strongly and as earnestly as I can to take advantage of the situation which has arisen to ensure that we have a balanced economy across Canada.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed greatly the remarks made by the various members who have contributed to this debate. I wish to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and to express my appreciation of his having in his introductory remarks left the field open for a wide discussion of the whole subject matter, an opportunity of which hon. members have availed themselves with, I believe, good results. I think we have had no debate more profitable than this one. People have had a chance to express their views.

Social Security
Before going on with what I had thought to say with respect to the Prime Minister's suggestions, I will refer briefly to the words of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Edwards). I have a great deal of admiration for this 'splendid young man from. Alberta. I would under no circumstances endeavour to find fault with anything he says if I could possibly avoid it. I just want to point out to him, with respect to the possibilities of putting people to work after the war, that, according to figures given, by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) the other evening, two* million of the best effectives Canada has will be available for reemployment in productive industry when the war is over. It will be necessary, according to the hon. member's figures, to spend $4 billions in Canada to enable the people of Canada to buy the $4 billions of extra consumer goods which the present producers of Canada must produce if they transfer their efforts from war production to peace-time production. Let the hon. member do a little arithmetical figuring and determine, if he can, how much of that $4 billions will have to be spent by every family in Canada in order to enable them to consume the $4 billion worth of goods. It seems to me that so much of the talking of hon. members utterly misses the point of these two essential facts. If there is to be $4 billions' worth of production brought about merely by the use of the people who are now at work in Canada, how many more billions of dollars worth of goods does the hon. member suppose will be produced in Canada when the extra ten millions of effectives go into action producing consumer goods?
It may be argued that we shall sell these goods abroad. But let it be borne in mind that, except for payment of debts and things of that sort, every bit of goods we sell abroad must be paid for with goods which come in. So that the balanced effect of it all will be that the $4 billion of goods will be here in Canada to be consumed; if they are to be consumed the families of Canada must consume them, and if the families of Canada are to consume them they must have a considerable income to enable them to do so. Where are they to get that income, and if they do get it, how are they to be in poverty? Let every man just face that set of facts.
May I turn for a short time to the remarks of the Prime Minister. He is reported to have said-Hansard, page 934:
What social insurance seeks to do is to find a means whereby these inevitable hazards will be met in some part at least through the action of the state and through action prescribed by the state.
These words are completely true. Let me make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that there is no disagreement between the members of our Social Credit group and the rest of the house, including the Prime Minister, on that essential fact. What we all want to know is the device or the technique by which this result is to be achieved. As I said the other night, the astounding thing to me is that during the whole of this debate the only hon. members who have undertaken to give even a hint of what that technique may be are members of my own group. Others have talked about ills; for instance, the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) gave us a beautiful speech last night setting forth the ills and the evils from which the country from end to end is suffering. Everybody agrees with that. But when it came to the method of solving the problem, he was discreetly quiet. We shall never solve problems in this house, and we shall never give this committee one hint which is worth talking about, if we do that sort of thing. We must find some device for distributing this tremendous amount of production which is to be brought into existence in Canada in the post-war years. If we are unable to consume the production, we shall be unable to put the men to work. This should be completely clear.
May I now turn in some detail to the remarks of the Prime Minister. I may be, I am going to be, frankly critical; I trust I can be courteous, as he always is considerate. But there are some things which have to be said, and said very pointedly and straightforwardly so that there shall be no question of the meaning. The Prime Minister made this remark, "We must render aggression impossible after the war."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: "Seek to"


John Horne Blackmore: Yes; we must seek to. That remark is being made all over the Anglo-Saxon world. Why not go about the problem this way: "We will seek to render aggression unnecessary after the war"? How it can be that two hundred and forty-five members in this House of Commons can so successfully delude themselves as to the cause of this war, and continue prattling away, as some hon. members do, as to what seems to be the cause of this war, quite neglecting the real cause of war, it passes my comprehension to understand.


Angus MacInnis: All the two hundred and forty-five members do not delude themselves, surely.
Social Security


John Horne Blackmore: I hope they do not. In this respect the Prime Minister has fallen into the error I pointed out to him the other night. When he was talking about the formation of new parties he undertook to blame the fall of France on the formation of new parties. Now, the formation of new parties in that country was owing to a cause which existed in France which ultimately resulted in the fall of France. If we can cooperate so as to render aggression unnecessary we shall have no difficulty with aggression. If we were not in war I should talk a great deal more plainly, with a great many more facts; for I could give them.
The Prime Minister very wisely and benevolently spoke of international cooperation. That is right. I agree with international cooperation. But what he has in mind when he speaks of international cooperation is not by any means clear. Could you get finer international cooperation than we are having at the present time among the united nations in the conduct of this war? Yet there is no great powerful committee or governing body or supranational authority which can coerce the members of the united nations into cooperating. They are voluntarily doing it. Why? Because they are in pursuit of a great objective. They will do what is necessary of their own accord if they know it is the right thing to do. May I suggest that gifts from the various nations which are possessed of rich resources, gifts into a great pool from which can be drawn assistance for the less fortunate nations, would be a form of cooperation which could be voluntary and which would be very effective? I fail to see why it is that so few people seem to have noticed the fact that gifts can be made. During the last thirty years there have been great numbers of vast loans to various countries on the part of Britain, the United States and other nations. Most of those loans have never been repaid; they were practically gifts. Canada's gift of a billion dollars to Britain illustrates the kind of gift which under a sound economic system could become characteristic of our ordinary behaviour. What I am saying may sound strange; but let us bear in mind that we are in a new world and things that seem new and strange to us must be listened to and given consideration and understood if we are to be worthy of the trust reposed in us in these critical times. The idea of gifts must be recognized as a possibility of international cooperation.
The Prime Minister spoke of a serious cotton famine causing an international situation of difficulty. I readily grant that; we all do. What confounds me is the fact that

an abundance of cotton has caused that kind of thing. If the world had a cotton crop failure we could understand that all those engaged in the manufacture and transportation of cotton would be thrown out of employment; but imagine the same sort of thing happening when we have more cotton than we know what to do with. It is that situation, which is completely outside the orbit of the Prime Minister's suggestion, which must be faced by this generation.
We are in an age of abundance, when the nations of the world collectively can produce more goods than all the people of the world can possibly consume. Especially is this true in view of the marvellous discoveries which have been made since the outbreak of this war. That is the situation we must face.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before my hon. friend goes on to his next point, would he allow me to interrupt him for a moment?


John Horne Blackmore: Gladly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that there are to be no further speakers this afternoon except myself. I close the debate. It is, I think, the wish of this house to get through with the establishment of the committee on social security this week and not to have the debate go over for another week. If I am correct in that I would ask hon. members if they would grant permission to have the house sit for a short time after six o'clock. I think I can promise that what I may have to say will not take long. Not adjourning at six would enable us to get through with the appointment of this committee to-day.
I might point out that it is quite within the power of the government to have the house continue to sit at eight o'clock to-night. There is no rule requiring the house not to sit on Friday evenings. It is by mutual com-sent that we adjourn at six o'clock on Fridays. I assume hon. members will be content to continue if we do not sit too long.


Mr. STIRLING:: Can the right hon. gentleman assure the house that this is the last speech?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If there is any other speaker, if he will rise, I would be able to say in a moment what we may expect.


Angus MacInnis: It was my intention to say something. I do not want to prolong the debate. Most of what has been said on it should not have been said at all, but I am getting tired of being lectured at the end of every debate, and I think I might reply.

Social Security


John Horne Blackmore: What do I understand? That we shall close at six o'clock and go on at eight, or that I continue a certain length of time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carry on.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think it is the wish of the house that we should sit beyond six o'clock.


John Horne Blackmore: May I turn now to the Prime Minister's statement that the government has a policy, as set forth in the speech from the throne. I point out that the expression of that policy is nothing more than a vague meaningless platitude such as is altogether too much the custom nowadays and can mean almost anything. I am going to ask this question pointedly of the Prime Minister: Will the government permit the committee to study fully and impartially the social credit proposals for the establishment of a new order? The ministers of the crown are supposed to look into all possibilities. Up to the present time every committee I have had contact with either directly or indirectly has steered clear of social credit as though it were poison. If this committee is not prepared to examine impartially and in detail the proposals of social credit, then the committee is simply not sincere.
May I just refer to one passage in the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) the other night-a most appropriate passage in this connection. As reported on page 931 of Hansard the Minister of Finance said:
No country goes bankrupt in this way; no country goes bankrupt by increasing its production and devoting part or all, or more than all of that increase to a supreme cause.
Without knowing it the Minister of Finance expressed the social credit concept almost perfectly. If we in Canada can devote our ability to the production of all the goods that Canada can produce for the people of Canada and will devote that production to raising the standard of living in Canada, there is hardly any limit to the degree to which we can raise the standard of living, andi that means the standard of everybody.
Will somebody tell me how that can be achieved without giving everybody more than a dividend of $25 a month? I do not propose to discuss that. But I am going to ask one or two things regarding the minister's statement. I am going to ask hon. members, if they believe that the production of Canada can be stimulated as the minister said it could and as the war has proved it can, and devoted to the cause of raising the standard
of living in Canada, can that be done by taxation only? Can it be done by decreasing the purchasing power of the people? But that is the proposal at the basis of the Beveridge report. When hon. members answer that question they will be on their way. The government is now buying the goods we are sending across to Germany to the extent of billions of dollars, and giving them away. Yet when we propose, as the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques) did a short time ago, that some goods be given away to the Canadian people, we are regarded as the champion simpletons. Men have to do a great deal of serious thinking along new lines.
A question has been raised with regard to provincial jurisdiction. I do not propose to deal with that question at any great length, but it is about time the members of this house ceased casting reflections on Canadians who are called upon to form his majesty's governments in the various provinces of this dominion, by insinuating or suggesting or stating that they are not willing to govern this country properly. If the correct policies are adopted by Ottawa every province will fall in line. If Ottawa discovers a system whereby it can put in financial form that tremendous production which it is possible for us to have; if it can discover a medium of distribution to the provinces, every province will fall in line. There will be no need of spoiling the British North America Act. Can you imagine any province refusing to accept from this dominion five million dollars a year, for example, to be expended on health? Can you conceive for a moment that any province of this dominion would refuse two million dollars a year to be expended on education? Why, two million and five million a year would be small change in the light of four billion dollars.
The British North America Act gave the dominion government power to create money. It gave this government absolute authority over banking and currency, and in giving this government control over currency it gave it the greatest single power that could possibly be conferred upon any government. What has the government done with that power? Has it used it? Never once in the long history of this dominion has it consistently done so; anything but that. Strangely enough, since he made those speeches out in western Canada about currency and credit in terms of public need, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has never even skated near that danger spot. Yet there lies the secret of obtaining maximum cooperation from all the provinces
Social Security

of this dominion. There is no need to change the British North America Act; there was no need to change it for the introduction of unemployment insurance. Why did Alberta stand out against the change need for unemployment insurance? Because Alberta suspected a power which has done everything possible to crush the strength of the province of Alberta in its heroic struggle against the old system, a struggle for the assertion of the new. Alberta has cooperated; in this house minister after minister has risen in his place and testified to that fact. There is no province in this dominion more ready to cooperate in the attainment of any good end; but somewhere, someone in this dominion must stand up for the new order, someone who understands what the new order is and how it is to be brought about, someone who is willing to sacrifice. Apparently Alberta is the province that has been called upon to do so, and the officials of the province of Alberta intend to be true to their trust.
Where are the sources of revenue? They are all available to Ottawa, while none of the real major sources are available to the provinces. And the object of the Sirois report, which I have condemned as iniquitous and pernicious in every respect, was to take away from the provinces still more of the variable sources of income such as the corporation tax, the income tax, the succession duty and so on, in order to render the province unable to increase its revenues no matter how much it developed its industry and its wealth. The sources of revenue are, as I say, with the dominion; if they are exercised by the dominion it will find no difficulty with the provinces. But the major source of income available to the dominion, which has been used only on rare occasions and then fitfully and fearfully, is the power over currency, the power to monetize the wealth of the nation; to take four billion dollars worth of goods, for example, and represent them by media of exchange which can be used as media of distributing those goods. Such media of exchange can be distributed equitably among the provinces of this dominion, greatly to improve the standard of living everywhere in this country. If the Prime Minister wants a means of gaining unity in Canada, there is a means right at hand.
Now I am going to say a word about the Beveridge report. The members of this group are not opposed to increased social security. If we could find nothing better than the Beveridge report of course we should accept that report; but we maintain that to accept the Beveridge report is like accepting crumbs when you are entitled to a square meal. The

Prime Minister made a fine statement when he said that society, having created a condition which permits of that sort of thing- referring to the irregularities,' the national hazards and so on-society has to find some way of remedying it. That is true, but he must be careful to see that the remedy will improve conditions and not make them worse. All the policies which are being advocated to-day in the dominion by those in authority are going to make the situation worse. The remedy must be real.
Obviously the solution of the difficulty is in some sort of mechanism, of distribution, which I discussed about a month ago. Every thoughtful person who knows anything at all about it will agree that the problem confronting us is that of distribution. Well, let us find a system of distribution. The medium of distribution is money, so of course it becomes perfectly clear that the secret of the trouble lies somewhere in connection with money. We have already discussed the fact that Canada is producing eight billion dollars worth of goods to-day. Canada could have produced eight billion dollars worth of goods in 1930 if we had set ourselves with right good will to the attainment of that objective. Certainly Canada could have produced those goods in 1935 had she been organized for the task. Yet what was done? Well, let us forget the doleful, dismal, pathetic story. Canada had the capacity. Canada could have produced the goods. The only difficulty was that Canada did not know how to find markets for the goods; in other words Canada did not know how to distribute them. The Prime Minister has sat in the seats of the mighty in this country since 1935, yet he has done nothing toward finding a solution of the problem of distribution.
The answer which no doubt will come into his mind is this, that he has sought foreign markets. I will grant that, but foreign markets just have not been successful, in meeting the difficulty. Foreign markets have not been able adequately to distribute. Let no one assume that I am opposed to foreign trade or foreign markets at all. Markets have their place; foreign trade has its place, but foreign trade has signally failed as a mechanism of distribution in this country. We were using foreign trade all through the terrible thirties. Where did it get us? The answer will be, "Well, we were tied up with a lot of other nations." I will have more to say about that.
With respect to foreign trade; let us examine for a short time the mechanism of foreign trade. Foreign trade cannot adequately distribute. Here is the reason: Any nation,.

Social Security
under the present system, in order to succeed in foreign trade must sell more than it buys. That is true, is it not? Very well, then. If foreign trade is to succeed in respect of ten nations, every single one of them must sell more than it buys-which is an absurdity. It is an impossibility, and a fact which lies right near the basic cause of this war. Is it not possible for ordinary members of the Liberal party to get that idea into their heads?
Now, if any nation fails to have a favourable balance of trade, what happens to that nation? It goes into debt, and it has to pay the debt off with gold. It will be unable to get the gold unless it finds some nation which will trade gold for goods. If it is unable to find such a nation, it continues in debt. Let members of this house tell us what a nation like that can do in circumstances of the kind. It is a victim of the break-down in the mechanism of international trade. What can it do? It must raise trade barriers, because when it gets into debt it incurs adverse exchange on its money, which makes the situation worse. It has to pay interest on the debt, which again makes the situation worse.
Will somebody tell me how in the world nations would get along if they had a supranational authority which said to the nation, when it wished to put up a trade barrier to protect itself, "You must not do that"? What would the nation do? If the Prime Minister by any stretch of the imagination can call that international cooperation, then he certainly has a unique definition of those words. It is an impossibility for every nation to export more than it imports.
For years Canada has had a favourable trade balance. Has that fact enabled her to distribute? Not nearly successfully enough.
Then the question of free trade arises. What would happen under free trade? Canada would immediately at least buy as many extra goods from outside as she would sell outside. In other words her trade balance would hardly be affected at all in her favour. But if it were affected at all it would probably aggravate her difficulty. Where for example would western Canada buy her butter, if not from New Zealand? Where would western Canada buy her mutton, if not from New Zealand? That is a mere illustration of what would happen if we had complete free trade.
My argument is that the trade mechanism simply will not solve our distribution problems. The considerations I have mentioned must render anyone suspicious of the adequacy of foreign trade alone as a mechanism of distribution. I have another illustration for those who are anxious to find out about this matter. Has free
trade worked where it has been applied? We have one fine example of free trade right here in Canada, where we have nine nations- provinces-with utterly free trade. And what good has it done them? In the United States they have forty-eight fine sovereign states, free to trade, and able among them to produce practically everything they want. Where has it got them? I will tell you where it got them in 1935; it got 23,500,000 people on relief. A country such as the United States, able to produce enough goods to give eveiy family $4,400 worth of goods and services, was able to give the bare necessities of life to only twenty-one out of every hundred. That is where it got them. That is free trade in the United States. There they have forty-eight nations, absolutely free to trade. And if a supranational government would do any good, then surely they had a supranational government in Washington, just as we have a supranational government in Ottawa, and getting more "supra" every day. Let us face the facts. It is time the Prime Minister sought a new mechanism of distribution. That is my point.
I find that my time, with the exception of two minutes, has expired. In the time at my disposal I am going to refer to or hint at a very important work, one which I commend to the Prime Minister, all the members of his cabinet, and all his supporters, as one which should be read over and over again. I hold in my hand a report of the London Chamber of Commerce on the general principles of postwar economy. If there is any group throughout the world which has faced realities, and which knows what's what about trade, and practically everything else pertaining to economics, then one certainly would expect this group of people to know. It consists of 9,000 firms and companies and 39 industrial and commercial associations, with a membership of 50,000, all of whom are represented on the committee which drew up this report.
I have not time to read the important points in the report, but if I had I would go through it and read quotations from it. But the report accepts as sound a little work entitled "A Twentieth Century Economic System". If the Prime Minister and his cabinet, and the committee, will take those two documents, read them through, over and over again, and digest them, they will have an idea that will beat in a hundred ways the silly proposals they are advocating now. They will not need any Beveridge report after that. I shall read one quotation to show the line along which the report starts. On the first page it says:
The chamber submits that constantly raised tariffs-
Social Security

The Prime Minister has said much about the horrors of economic nationalism and the wickedness of tariffs.
-the imposition of quotas and prohibitions, and other signs of growing economic belligerency between the nations in the interwar period, were not the result of stupidity nor ill will but were, on the contrary, imposed for most compelling reasons. They represented attempts by the nations to defend themselves against very real and pressing dangers.
The Prime Minister and the united nations authorities must remove this danger before they talk for a moment about removing trade barriers. I read on:
The chamber is convinced that until those dangers are recognized and removed, a direct attack upon trade barriers can serve no useful purpose but will, on the contrary, merely increase fear.
I do not feel I have the right to impose upon the house any further, but I will say that when hon. members read those two pamphlets through, and digest them, they will find that the policies advocated therein conform exactly to social credit-without any deviation at all. The expression "social credit" is not used, but they conform exactly to its proposals. They point out how purchasing media should be created by the state to be spent into circulation and to distribute the surplus of goods which the state can produce. They point out the way in which prices can be controlled by exercising the power of creating purchasing media. They point out how the underprivileged people, about whom we are having all this discussion, can be taken care of by the use of some of the purchasing media which the state is able to produce in abundance. I commend these to the committee and to the government as a first step toward the solution of our problems, the only solution which will give hope to mankind.
As these people point out, this device can be applied by one nation alone. That is one of the admirable things about it. Perhaps I can take the time to read one statement in the last part of the report. I quote from page 12,. as follows:
These proposals also have the merit that
(a)	whilst revolutionary in effect, they involve, so far as industry and commerce are concerned, little change in practice;
No government ownership, no government regimentation, no socialism, no disruptive change; just the exercising of the government's prerogative to create a purchasing medium. I continue:
(b)	they require the minimum of agreement between nations;
No united nations and no taking away of the sovereignty of any nation! I continue:

(c)	they can be put into effect even though some nations withhold agreement.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to read the pamphlet the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) has suggested we should read. Anything that proposes to change things and then leave them as they are, will just not change things. That is exactly what he has read from that pamphlet. Any scheme that will leave the ownership and control of the means of life in the hands of the people who own them now and expect that by some sort of witchcraft the underprivileged will be looked after by the people who never looked after them before does not appeal to me.


John Horne Blackmore: But they are going to be looked after; that is the important thing.


Angus MacInnis: That is what will not be be done. The underprivileged will continue to be underprivileged until they own and control the means by which they live. That is the philosophy of the group to which I belong. We welcome the motion introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for the setting up of this committee, because it recognizes, even at this late date, the obligation of the community, or, if you like, the obligation of the state to make provision for the underprivileged within the state. The motion is quite simple, and I suppose it will constitute the terms of reference for the committee. It reads:
To examine and study the existing social insurance legislation of the parliament of Canada and of the several provincial legislatures; social insurance policies of other countries; the most practicable measures of social insurance for Canada, including health insurance, and the steps which will be required to effect their inclusion in a national plan; the constitutional and financial adjustments which will be required for the achievement of a nation-wide plan of social security; and other related matters.
That puts the case as I see it very clearly. I am glad that the group to which I belong has chosen the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) and myself to be their representatives on the committee. We hope the committee will be able in the course of time to formulate a plan of social insurance for the people of Canada. We are not, however, deluding ourselves by believing that any scheme of social insurance will eliminate poverty. Poverty in the Dominion of Canada can be eliminated only when we release the means of production within the country from the restrictions imposed upon them by the profit motive. After we have done that it will be quite easy to find the means to distribute the wealth of the country among the people of the country

Social Security
according to need. There is nothing difficult or hard to understand about that. But there is one thing certain., namely, that the adoption of such a system will not leave things as they are. It will not leave the control of the means of life in the hands of people who control them now. It will vest the control of the means of life in the people to be organized socially for the common good.
As I said, we welcome the opportunity to sit with this parliamentary committee to try to formulate a scheme of social security based on social insurance that will provide for many of the hazards that beset us.
There is just one other thing I should like to say. We have been told on numerous occasions that the government has taken away the functions of parliament. Here is a motion introduced by the Prime Minister himself which has put in the lap of parliament, if I may use that term, the question of working out a social security through a social insurance scheme for Canada. If the members of this house will bring in a comprehensive scheme and see to it that it is forced through the house, then there can no longer be any claim made that the government has usurped the functions of parliament. Here is an opportunity for parliament, and I hope the members of parliament will show that they are equal to the occasion and use it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like my first word to be one of appreciation of the contributions which hon. members have made to the debate. It is, I think, true that the discussion has shown that there is general agreement among all parties in the house as to the importance of the questions to be referred to the committee, as well as of the magnitude of the problem involved. What has been said has served to indicate to hon. members the many-sidedness of these social problems and the necessity for a careful and wide study in approaching them in the hope of making a practical and1 immediate contribution.
Listening to the debate has impressed me more and more with the fact that the government has taken the right course in suggesting at this stage that we should have in Canada a national system of social insurance and also that the government has adopted the right course in appointing a committee to consider all aspects of a national insurance scheme before bringing forward any particular measure which is to be part of any further legislation along social security lines.
I doubt if anything could illustrate better the wisdom of the course which the government has adopted than an item which appeared
in the press this morning. I hold in my hand a clipping from the Ottawa Morning Citizen of March 5 entitled, "Health insurance plan for Quebec favoured in report". The item reads as follows:
Quebec, March 4.-Enactment of a health insurance system by the Quebec legislature was recommended in a report made to the government by a hospital investigation commission, it was announced to-day.
The commission was set up by the government in 1940 to stud3' the financial situation of hospitals and of insane asylums and to study the working conditions of employees in the institutions.
Members of the commission recommend that the province, the employer and the insured contribute to the cost of a health insurance system and that a special commission be named to administer the system once it was established. The recommendation urged that the premium be calculated to cover the family and not the individual.
We have been criticized, Mr. Speaker, for not having brought in a concrete measure relating to health insurance. May I say that I have been long enough in public life to realize that no matter what an administration does, it is pretty certain to meet with criticism. We have been criticized for deciding to have this matter carefully studied by a committee of the house before bringing forward further legislation. Had we taken the opposite course and come forward with a concrete measure of health insurance, I am sure the first criticism that would have been made would have been that the government had not given consideration to what the provinces might be doing or wish to do in this matter before attempting to override them with legislation of its own. We would certainly have had cited as evidence of this, perhaps not yesterday because it was only announced through the press to-day, but certainly to-day, reference to the commission that had been appointed in the province of Quebec and to the recommendations which it had made to the provincial government. Both would have been cited as an evidence of the fact that instead of trying to work out something in the nature of a cooperative nation-wide plan between the provinces and the dominion we had only succeeded, by rushing ahead with our legislation, in raising unnecessary difficulties between the dominion and the provinces. That must be perfectly apparent from what I have just read.
More than that, listening to what my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) said when he was speaking, I think he would have come forward and said that we had dealt with just one aspect of the question, that we had said nothing about giving more benefits in the way of insurance
Social Security

to the unemployed or increasing the amount of benefit they should be given for their contributions. In fact, he said in his remarks that we should have done that, that there should be more in the way of reward so that those who are contributing to an insurance scheme will get something more in the way of benefit out of their contributions, if not in one direction at least in another, so that they will get back whatever in the way of contributions they may have made. I think he also would have said that we should have reduced the age limit for old age pensioners, that that was more important than what we were proposing to do, and that we should have done a little more for those who were paralysed, for permanent invalids, and others. There would have been criticism of the government all along the line for everything that had not been included. It is advisable that the committee should realize how vast is the scope of social insurance measures and how many measures have to be considered when a government, whether it be provincial or dominion, undertakes to add another piece of social legislation to what already exists.
What has been brought out very clearly in this discussion is the fact that there has grown up in Canada, without relation one to the other, a large number of social security measures, and that as a consequence of there having been no general plan to which the different parts should relate, there is to-day a great amount of overlapping as between the dominion and the provinces with respect to these security measures, with the consequence there is much more inefficiency in administration and great waste. The necessity of linking together, however it may be done, the measures that relate to security in this country must surely be seen to be one of the imperative needs at the present time. The fact that we have already so much social legislation-and it is evident that we are going to have more- makes it clear that at this .time we should seek to have a plan that from now on can be followed by the provinces and the dominion alike. That is a great undertaking I think for members of parliament. It is a work that *can be accomplished by members of parliament, and a work which will be in the nature of a national service of the highest kind.
I was impressed by what the hon. member who spoke on health a little earlier in the afternoon said, that we have now health departments in all the different provinces and ^ dominion health department as well. Surely the time has come when if we are going to add further legislation which relates to health, in the nature of insurance legislation against

sickness and ill-health in its different forms, some survey ought to be made to see whether we are to have the provinces and the dominion handle health matters separately and independently or whether some arrangement cannot be arrived at whereby there will not be a duplication of functions on the part of all.
I do not think that a national plan implies that the government would in any way seek to have everything centralized at Ottawa, any more than I think that a national plan would necessitate having identical legislation in the different provinces and all the provinces operating together in accordance with a uniform plan. But I do think it means the careful study of how social security measures can best be effected through cooperation between the provinces and the dominion, and that in relation to all other social security measures. That I believe can be worked out by a committee in a manner which will make a contribution not only to the work of this parliament but to that of the provincial legislatures as well.
I had not thought of saying anything in particular about political aspects of the discussion which has taken place. I was careful in my introductory remarks not to make any reference to the sources of inspiration of passages in the speech from the throne. But my hon. friend the leader of the opposition found it impossible not to make a reference to the Winnipeg convention, and the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) felt it important to draw attention to what was set forth in the platform of the National Liberal convention which was held in this city as long ago as 1919. He sought, I think, to create the impression that the Liberal party which was responsible for the platform of 1919 was taking a long time to implement its policies. I must thank hon. gentlemen opposite for giving me a reasonable excuse for quoting just one plank from the platform of the National Liberal convention and indicating to hon. members what, as a matter of fact, has been accomplished in the carrying out of a programme of social security. I hope this will dispose of the idea that what is suggested in the speech from the throne owes its origin to the Beveridge report or to the Progressive-Conservative Winnipeg convention, or to the Canadian Commonwealth Federation conference at Regina, or to anything other than continuing the policy laid down at the Liberal convention which was held in this city in 1919.


Gordon Graydon: I thought my right hon. friend said that it originated in "Industry and Humanity."

Social Security


William Lyon Mackenzie King: "Industry and Humanity" was published in 1918. I shall give my hon. friend a quotation from that work in a moment. I mention the policy respecting social security laid down at the Liberal convention of 1919 because I think hon. members will recognize at once that there is to be found the first formal statement, as a part of its programme, made by any political party in Canada with respect to social security. It will also be seen that the Liberal party, in setting forth that programme, was very, very much ahead of the times, and that it has proceeded in the implementing of the pledges it made at that time in a manner which I think must be a surprise to those who know anything about social problems and the difficulties there are in making the adjustments necessary to meet them.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: That is almost twenty-four years ago, is it not?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That only shows how much more in the way of vision the Liberal party possessed than the parties who have just this year wakened up to the fact that there is such a thing as social security.


George Hugh Castleden: Those were promises, were they not?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will see if he will just be patient. Probably he has not read the platform, and obviously he does not know what has been accomplished in this country in the last twenty-one years, or he would not ask the question he does. I am going to answer as to whether these things have been accomplished or not.


George Hugh Castleden: I read them the other day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps I am not betraying a secret when I tell the house that I myself drafted this paragraph at the time of the Liberal convention, and it went into the platform of the party just as it came from my own hand at the time the platform was drafted.


Gordon Graydon: A committee of one.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; there was a large committee-very much like the Port Hope conference and very much like the Winnipeg convention. We all had a hand. Some worked out one clause and some another.
I say to my hon. friends that I have been impressed, in reading the proceedings of the Winnipeg convention, with evidence of the meticulous care with which the friends of my hon. friend and he himself have gone over all the Liberal platform and important speeches
and picked out here and there the things which they thought would make most appeal to a democratic country.


Gordon Graydon: We picked out the progressive parts, of course.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes: that is no doubt how my hon. friend came to feel he had a Progressive Conservative party.
I shall read the clause which relates to the question of social insurance:
That in so far as may be practicable, having regard to Canada's financial position, an adequate system of insurance against unemployment, sickness, dependence in old age, and other disability, which would include old age pensions, (widows' pensions) and maternity benefits, should be instituted by the federal government in conjunction with the governments of the several provinces; and that on matters pertaining to industrial and social legislation an effort should be made to overcome any question of jurisdiction between the dominion and the provinces by effective cooperation between the several governments.
Now if, after reading that passage, the gentlemen who have referred to it had paused for a moment to point out to the house just how much of it had been implemented, I think hon. members would have been greatly impressed. I am going to do that myself.
First of all: a measure which is mentioned there as one of considerable importance is that of insurance against dependence in old age, which means of course old age pensions. May I point out that a government of which I had the honour to be the head was the government that introduced in parliament and carried through legislation with respect to old age pensions-


George Hugh Castleden: Under pressure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and the old age pensions which are to-day existing in Canada have existed in this country since 1926 as a result of legislation brought in by a government of which I was the head.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: You would not say that it gives old age independence?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am speaking of social security legislation which was set forth and promised, and am indicating the extent to which promises have been implemented.
Let me come to the next clause, which is an equally important one:
... an adequate system of insurance against unemployment,
There, again, the government of which I have the honour to be the head was the government which introduced in this parliament and put
Social Security

through the legislation which is on the statutes to-day establishing in Canada national unemployment insurance plan. These are two of the most important social insurance measures which could possibly be enacted.
Hon. members will notice further that there is mention in the statement of policy of the legislation being enacted in part by the provinces and in part by the dominion. Most of the social security legislation existing in the provinces of this country to-day has been put on the statute books by Liberal governments. Consider the matter of workmen's compensation, mothers' allowances, maternity benefits, health measures and the like; go through the [DOT]different provinces of this dominion and you will find that most of the social security measures in Canada have been enacted by Liberal governments since this Liberal platform was adopted.
What are we doing now? To-day we are seeking to carry this whole programme a step further. We are now face to face with so much in the way of social security legislation in Canada that we feel it is necessary, if there is to be an avoidance of waste and extravagance, to have the whole system coordinated. We realize that the matter of health insurance, all that relates to sickness and invalidity, is becoming increasingly important. We feel that at this stage there should be, before there is a further enactment on social security lines, a clear understanding of the place all health measures should hold in a complete national plan.
I could enlarge on that, but I think I have said enough to make it clear that, so far as the Liberal party in Canada is concerned, it laid down, for the first time in this country, a comprehensive programme of social security. It outlined that policy from beginning to close. It did not expect to carry it out in the first year or two-we knew its fulfilment would necessarily run over a series of years- but we have already implemented that programme in large part, and we will continue to do so so long as we have the opportunity.
A paragraph which is of importance, it will come up in connection with other measures, is this:
... on matters pertaining to industrial and social legislation an effort should be made to overcome any question of jurisdiction between .the dominion and the provinces by effective cooperation between the several governments.
Well, have we succeeded in that?
In regard to the question of pensions, we had to consider the matter of jurisdiction as between the provinces and ourselves. We met that question by a cooperative arrangement

whereby the dominion undertook on conditions which ensured a common practice to pay so much and the provinces to make a contribution of so much, and we allowed the administration of pensions then to be carried out further by the provincial governments. We met the difficulty by conferences. When we came to unemployment insurance we were again faced with the question of jurisdiction. We felt there should be a national scheme of unemployment insurance, but the government of the day had no authority so to legislate. The British North America Act had left property and civil rights in the control of the provinces, and that included unemployment insurance. After carefully discussing the matter with the provinces, after having a committee of this house carefully explore the situation, we were convinced that the wise thing with regard to unemployment insurance was to have a national insurance scheme, not a provincial scheme. Having agreed to that, the next step was to get the British North America Act amended.
There has been much said in this debate about the obstacle of the British North America Act. I do not think that the amending of that act is a matter we need to be in the least concerned about, once we decide that we want it amended in any particular way. I recall very well what was done in connection with the unemployment insurance measure. After this house had agreed upon an unemployment insurance measure, an address was presented from this parliament to the British parliament, requesting that the British North America Act should be amended so as to put "unemployment insurance" into section 91 of the British North America Act, thereby giving the federal government the power to enact a national measure of unemployment insurance.


Mr. HAZEN:: With the consent of the provinces.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh yes, I say that it was done with their consent. The consent practically of all. That is important in these social insurance matters. Any government in this country that ignores the provinces and tries to ride roughshod over them is not going to aid in settling any questions of social security, it will only make an existing situation worse. But approach matters in the right way, in the spirit and method in which I believe this committee will, as a great national problem affecting provinces as well as the dominion, and I believe it will be possible to get agreement between all. It is

Social Security
as much in the interest of the provinces as in our interest to save unnecessary expenditure and secure the course which is most effective.
I was about to say that when the address of our two houses was presented to the British parliament it was less than a fortnight before this house was informed that the British parliament had amended the British North America Act in accordance with our Tequest. It might have been done in an even shorter time but for the wording of the amendment which was made in the first instance and which did not meet with the wishes of the government. A delay of a few days was occasioned in having the original amendment changed. But if this committee is able to work out a national plan and agree as to the wisdom of adopting it, and if the plan requires for any particular reason an amendment of the British North America Act, as far as the British government is concerned that amendment hon. members may be assured will be granted on an address from both our houses without difficulty or delay. And may I add in regard to unemployment insurance, the counsel who was instructed with respect to the matter in Britain was told that we were anxious to have the amendment made in short order so that we could put through the enactment before that session of parliament was over. The bill was passed at that same session.
It has been said in the course of the debate that our social legislation in Canada is not as up to date as that in Great Britain and the United States. Figures have been quoted to show how much has been spent in Britain and in the United States, as though the amount that had to be spent under social insurance measures was a fair index of the condition of the industrial population of the country. To my mind the best index of the prosperity of a country and its people does not lie in the amount of money which a government has to spend for relief, or unemployment or invalidity, rather does it lie in the opposite, the extent to which conditions in the country are such as to render unnecessary the payment of large sums for such purposes.
It is there that I think some hon. members in this debate have touched what is a very important point, namely that the study of social security measures may lead to an even more necessary and profound study of the causes which underlie the situation which necessitates insurance against these inevitable economic hazards.
There was a certain confusion in the course *of the discussion between social security and
social insurance. Some hon. members used the terms more or less interchangeably. Social security is the object to be attained, social insurance is a means whereby that object can be attained, but only one means, a means related to only one class of industrial and social hazards, namely those which are inevitable, as said by Sir William Beveridge, "from the cradle to the grave"; hazards which arise regardless of the circumstances in which people may live, which come to the rich and poor alike. Inasmuch as the well-to-do are in a position to meet them out of their own incomes there comes the necessity, if we are considering the worth of human individuals rather than their possessions, whereby those not in a position to meet these inevitable hazards should be enabled to do so by the aid of the state. I believe it is true that as respects conditions in Canada there is no country anywhere, taking everything by and large, where the mass of the people are better off than they are in our country. And it would be strange if it were not so. This is not due to the government of the day, or to any government; we are a new country, we still have resources more or less untouched, we have large areas in which people can settle; the worst conditions of older countries have not developed as yet, we are seeking to avoid their development-a condition where you have great slums, overcrowded areas, industrial diseases such as exist in the great cities of the old world and as they unfortunately have developed even in some of the large cities of the United States. It is important it should be clearly recognized that in seeking this social security legislation we are not thereby declaring that our country is in a more unfortunate condition than others, but rather that we intend to keep up and improve upon the standards we have to-day.
I shall conclude by a brief reference to a view which has been expressed and will continue to be expressed in some quarters, namely, that social insurance in some way will lead to the lessening of effort on the part of individuals. In other words that social security legislation means perpetuating the weak at the expense of the strong. That is a view that many people have and it has been given expression to in this house to-day-the view that state aid is likely to cause people to cease to work, that because of it people will come to look to the state for a living, and that instead of really helping society along and improving the lives of individuals and the well-being of the community as a whole it will prove to be a weakening thing, because men should not have to lean on the state
Social Security

but should be able to take care of themselves. I have given a good deal of thought to that aspect of the matter, and if I believed that any such consequence would arise as a result of measures of social security properly framed and administered I should be the first to oppose them. But I believe that on closer examination it will be seen that what security measures in the nature of social insurance do is to enable those who have their own lives to care for, to preserve their health and strength so that they can be real assets to the community instead of being crushed under conditions of society such as wre have to-day, and becoming liabilities.
My friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) referred to a book I wrote some years ago, entitled "Industry and Humanity", a study in the principles underlying industrial reconstruction. If the house will allow me I think I can best condense what I should like most to say by quoting a passage or two from what I wrote at that time on this aspect of the question. I think it is one of the most important of all the considerations of which account has to be taken. I have given the reasons why I believe social security measures are necessary and the real purpose that unemployment insurance, old age pensions, insurance against sickness, invalidity and the like are intended to serve. What appears here was not written for the purpose of any election or political campaign, it was written when I was not in parliament, when I was employing my time in other ways, among them seeking to make some contribution to the solution of post-war problems. This volume was published in 1918. What I wish to quote will be found on page 346 of the first editions. There has since been a new and abridged edition of the book which came out in 1935; in that edition the passage I am quoting will be found on page 176:
Insurance against unemployment recognizes that an isolated human being, not less than a machine, must be cared for when idle. It recognizes also that nothing is so dangerous to the standard of life, or so destructive of minimum conditions of healthy existence, as widespread or continued unemployment. Where idleness is the fault of the social order, rather than of the individual concerned, it places the onus on the state to safeguard its own assets, not more in the interest of the individual than in the interest of social well-being.
Workmen's compensation, sickness and invalidity insurance, widows' pensions, maternity and infant benefits, recognize wherein personal relationships in industry have changed, and where as a consequence of new conditions permanent handicaps arise. The social legislation of which these measures are an expression rejects, as unworthy, the thought that men and women voluntarily incur accident, sickness,

disease, enfeebled health, or dependence in distress, any more than they willingly seek enslavement of any kind. It recognizes the difficulty of differentiating between industrial accident and occupational disease; and between disease occasioned by occupation or its environments and illness otherwise contracted; also the impossibility of dissociating from economic conditions the social waste caused by excessive and preventable illness. It sees that debt binds health as it binds freedom, that sickness represents the most frequent factor of individual destitution, and that it is in painful crises that handicaps for the whole of life are oftenest imposed. To save the spirit of men from being crushed is quite as important as to prevent their bodies from being broken or infected. Many a man's spirit fails when, through no fault of his own, or of his family, efficiency is permanently impaired through accident, or savings become exhausted by unemployment or sickness, or where a new life in the home suggests an additional burden instead of a joy. Much invalidity and penury is due to lack of character and thrift; but much also is evidence of want of effective social control. What society fails effectively to prevent, society is in some measure under obligation to mend.
Old age pensions are similar. They are based, not on the theory that the state owes every man a living, but rather on the fact that the provision of an assured competence for old age is an easy matter for some, whilst, for others, it is most difficult, if not wholly impossible. After all allowance has been made for superior thrift, intelligence, and integrity, it must be admitted that to the man who has capital to begin with, or whom society permits to own and control vast natural resources, there are opportunities of saving not possible to the worker who possesses no capital, and who has to face uncertainties of employment and contend, unaided, against all kinds of vicissitudes. It is obvious that existing forces of world competition operate to rob advanced years of opportunities of employment, which, under the less strenuous regime of earlier times, were available to the close of life. There , is need for society to assist in the protection of its members against a condition which simultaneously places burdens upon the worker whose day's work is done, and on the worker whose day's work is just beginning. If the young are to be given a fair start in life, the care of the aged should not be their first responsibility. If life-long public service in industry is to receive its fitting reward, years that are denied opportunity of employment should not be subjected to the humiliation of dependence or charity.
May I conclude with just this further quotation:
It is the elimination of fears with respect to these fundamental requisites of health that labour speaks of as a national minimum standard of life. ...	_
The doctrine of social justice, whereby the economically strong share the burdens of the economically weak, and on which the principle of the national minimum is based, is the antithesis of the doctrine of force. It is founded on a conception of right in contrast to a belief in might. It signifies brotherhood, not fratri-

Business of the House
eide. It does not proceed upon the theory that the economically strong are necessarily the fittest to survive, or that the economically weak are necessarily the unfit. In estimating fitness, it looks to character and personality, not to possessions. It considers human need rather than human greed. It recognizes that, without the many who comprise the economically weak, the economically strong would cease to have a superior position, or, indeed, any position. Social justice would not deprive position of its advantage, but it would require of advantageous position, a wider measure of social service.
When the committee begin their studies they will find that what is needed if social security measures are to be effective is not only a national minimum for industrial workers in any one country, but an international minimum which will help to preserve higher standards not in one country only but in all parts of the world.
Motion (Mr. Mackenzie King) agreed to.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the adjournment of the house.
Gordon Graydon: What will be the business on Monday?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Earlier in the week there was some discussion on the question of farm debt. I indicated that an opportunity might be given for a discussion of that subject perhaps early in the coming week, and that a statement on the matter would be made by the government very soon. The day I made that statement I had no knowledge of a letter since received which had been mailed at Edmonton on March 1 by Mr. Lucien Maynard, the chairman of the interprovincial debt conference and addressed to myself. In the letter Mr. Maynard states that there had been a conference of farm organizations and the governments of the prairie provinces at which it was decided to request an interview with myself and members of the government on the question of obtaining adequate debt
legislation. Later he goes on to say that as chairman of the interprovincial conference, which I think was the one held at Saskatoon- -I was asked to communicate with you and arrange an appointment for the purpose of enabling representatives of the governments and the farm organizations to make further representations. . . . We are therefore prepared to meet you at your convenience. We would greatly appreciate an appointment for Monday, March the 15th, but if this date is not suitable we are prepared to meet you at your convenience on any subsequent date that would be suitable during the week of the 15th.
Upon receipt of that communication I replied that the government would be pleased to receive the delegation on the earliest date mentioned, March 15. The government has felt that any statement to be made should be reserved until after we have heard the representations of this delegation. I think hon. members will agree that it is obviously right that this should be so. For this reason the statement by the government on farm debt matters will not be made until after the government has received the further representations that this delegation may wish to make.
In regard to Monday's proceedings it has been intimated already that the debate on the budget would be continued. I believe it will be an economy of time, as well as perhaps of a more concentrated debate, if we continue with the debate on the budget until we dispose of it. If we begin discussion on other measures it is going to mean a great deal of repetition in what is said. From the conference I have had with the leaders of the different groups I think I can say that we are all of the view that while we must not make too rigid a decision, we should nevertheless aim at getting through the debate on the budget before taking up other matters. There is this one exception, that there are two committees still to be appointed, one to deal with radio and the other on war expenditures. I will confer with the leaders of the parties as to a date for the discussion of those matters, but the proposal now is to go ahead with the budget debate on Monday.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 7.10 p.m.



END OF VOLUME I