Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, on the celebration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the establishment of the Red Army in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics I was happy to pay a tribute to the unparalleled successes of Russian arms in the unrelenting campaign of driving the German invaders from Russian soil. News of more recent days has shown the weight and the telling effect of the sustained offensive which has been undertaken by the united nations in combat areas alike in Europe and in the far east.
One has but to mention the recent air assaults against Germany, in which Canadian bomber squadrons had a large share, and the more recent annihilation of a large Japanese convoy by the air forces operating under United States command, to realize the might of this growing offensive.
As to the air offensive against Germany, it is now estimated that during the month of February alone more than ten thousand tons of bombs were dropped on bombing objectives in German-occupied Europe; two and a half times the average for any month in 1942.
As to the successes in the Pacific, it is evident from the details so far reported that the sinking of twenty-two Japanese ships by air attack represents a most signal success,

the most remarkable of the air arm in that theatre of war to date. The fact that both achievements, although many thousands of miles apart, were virtually simultaneous, is most significant. It foreshadows ultimate victory over the axis partners.
Throughout these momentous days, two in particular among the leaders of the united nations have been much in our thoughts. Both Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt have been indisposed, without doubt as a result of fatigue reactions consequent upon the strain of their recent momentous journeys. Hon. members will have observed with pleasure that Mr. Churchill was able yesterday to resume his place as chairman of the war cabinet of the United Kingdom, and that Mr. Roosevelt has also been restored to health. They will recall with equal satisfaction that to-day marks the tenth anniversary of Mr. Roosevelt's inauguration as President of the United States.
I have felt that it would be in keeping with the wishes of all hon. members were I to associate with a recognition of the latest achievements of the air forces of the united nations, alike over land and sea, messages of greeting to the British Prime Minister and to the President. With the permission of the house I shall read copies of the telegrams which I dispatched earlier to-day:
Ottawa, March 4, 1943. Right Hon. Winston Churchill,
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom:
I should like you to know with what pleasure members of the parliament of Canada have learned that yesterday you were able again to
Sreside at the meeting of the war cabinet.
othing I am sure could be more encouraging at the moment of your recovery from your recent indisposition than the reports of the effects of the heavy and sustained bombing of Germany within the last few days. The latest assaults by the R.A.F., the R.C.A.F., and other allied forces in the air offensive against occupied Europe have come at a moment when the successes of the Red Army on land, and of the air forces under United States command in the Pacific have demonstrated the might of the general offensive now undertaken by the united nations. Viewed together they are prophetic of the ultimate defeat of the enemies of freedom.
It is the fervent hope of all Canadians that you may continue to gain the strength and encouragement so greatly needed in the tremendous tasks which lie ahead. Kindest personal remembrances.
W. L. Mackenzie King
Ottawa, March 4, 1943. Franklin D. Roosevelt,
President of the United States of America:
On this tenth anniversary of your initial inauguration as President of the United States I should like to send to you on behalf of the

United Nations Leaders
members of the parliament of Canada and all your good neighbours in Canada, warmest greetings and every good wish.
I am sure that on this anniversary nothing could be more welcome to you, and to the people of the United States, than the news of the magnificent successes of the air and naval forces under United States command in the continuing offensive against Japan in the Pacific area. Combined with the onward march of the Red Army in Europe and the sustained assault by the allied forces against Germany, these signal achievements are indeed prophetic of the ultimate defeat of the axis powers. In this growing offensive of all the united nations, let me assure you of our heartfelt wishes for your health and strength as the labours and sacrifices of free peoples throughout the world bring us all nearer the day of final victory. Kindest personal regards.
W. L. Mackenzie King


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this is a singularly happy occasion. Our party in this house welcomes the opportunity of associating ourselves with the well chosen words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his messages to the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the President of the United States. The Prime Minister's reference to the successes of the arms of the united nations on land, on sea and in the air I think is most appropriate at this time.
The Prime Minister of Great Britain, the Right Honourable Winston Spencer Churchill, took office in the United Kingdom at what may be regarded as one of the darkest hours in the whole history of the British empire, and by his words, his example and his tremendous courage inspired the people of Britain to heights which perhaps they had never before attained, at the same time extending his influence to every part of the democratic world. He came to power at a critical time; and at least it can be said to the credit of democracy that when critical situations arise men with the ability and capacity to meet them are brought to the fore. To Mr. Churchill democracy owes a debt it will never be able to repay. His restoration to health is a great relief to the people of Canada and to all those fighting in the cause of freedom and righteousness the world over.
The President of the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, came to power also at a critical time, not during a war but at perhaps the most trying period that democracy has ever experienced in time of peace, and what is applicable to Mr. Churchill in time of war may be applied in equal measure to the President of the United States with regard to the difficulties which he surmounted in days of peace. I am sure all hon. members of this house who have been following
the life of the President of the United States will remember that in addition to his wartime achievements, which have been magnificent, he has proved to be a great friend of the little man in the country which he serves so well. His work, in close association with the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the leaders of the other allied nations, I think is understood and appreciated more than words can express, and on this tenth anniversary of his first inauguration I as leader of the Progressive Conservative party in this house want to add my words to those which have been uttered by the Prime Minister. This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we in this house are unanimous in greeting the two great champions of democracy.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, we should like to associate ourselves with what has just been said by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the leader of the Progressive Conservative party (Mr. Graydon). It is peculiarly fitting that at this time Canada should express herself in this manner, because we are in a particular way a friend of both countries represented by these two great leaders. As part of the British commonwealth of nations we are in close association with the country led by Prime Minister Churchill, and we are also closely associated with the great republic to the south; so that we appreciate the efforts not only of these two leaders but as well of the people who support them. We are glad that they have been restored to health following their recent indisposition.
We are glad also to note that during the past few weeks the armed forces of the united nations have made great progress toward the end we all desire. But may I suggest that in offering our congratulations and in our rejoicings we should not forget that these victories do not mean that the end of the war is in sight. I think that is something we should emphasize, because, as the Prime Minister said, here and there throughout the country there is a feeling that perhaps the tide has turned and that within a short time we shall see the end of the war. This, I take it, is but the beginning.
I assure the Prime Minister that we are pleased indeed that he has sent these messages to President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill, and we hope that all the peoples associated as the united nations may in due course find victory and peace.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, to-day is a day of buoyant rejoicing from one end to the other of the
Air Transport Services

Anglo-Saxon world. I think it is fitting, too, that this day we should offer solemn thanksgiving to the divine Providence that guided us during the dark days through which we have passed, and which saw fit to place at the head of our affairs during this crisis these two great and good men. I think also it would be becoming that in most sincere humility we should pray to that great divine Leader to bring us through the darker days that perhaps lie ahead, that we may arrive safely; and that when we shall have arrived we may prove ourselves in every way worthy of the victory which I feel sure will be ours.



AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table copies in English and French of the exchange of notes constituting an agreement between the Canadian and United States governments to renew the supplementary air transport arrangement of 1940. The notes were exchanged to-day between the Canadian minister in Washington and the Acting Secretary of State of the United States. These notes, -which are brief, might be printed in to-day's Votes and Proceedings.
The substance of the notes is as follows. In August, 1939, Canada and the United States entered into an agreement relating to air transport services. Under the provisions of this arrangement both countries recognized the principle of reciprocity in the granting of operating rights to air carrier enterprises of the other country for the operation of air services between the two countries. The details of the application of this principle of reciprocity were to be adjusted later between the competent aeronautical authorities of the two countries. Those authorities met in Ottawa in September, 1940, and as a result of their deliberations Canada and the United States, in December, 1940, entered into an agreement under which the various air routes between Canada and the United States were divided between Canadian and United States air carriers. It is this agreement of December, 1940, which has been renewed to-day.
The 1940 agreement thus supplements the 1939 agreement. The 1939 agreement is now terminable on six months' notice. Under the terms of the new exchange of notes, the 1940 agreement is also made terminable on six months' notice and expires without notice at the end of the war. After the termination of the war a conference will be held between

the two governments to review the situation which may then exist. This is in accordance with the general policy of the government, which is that pending a decision by the government on post-war policy no commitments respecting international civil aviation should be made which would tie the government's hands.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	What action, if any, has been taken by the government to bring the price of dairy butter in line with butter made in creameries?
2.	What consideration has been given to increase the capacity of creameries in the maritime provinces, also transportation of cream to said creameries and the supply of cans so that more farmers can take advantage of the bonus given on butterfat processed by creameries?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	The price schedules of board order No. 237 of the wartime prices and trade board provide that, effective March 1, 1943 the maximum prices of dairy butter throughout Canada shall be substantially the same as the maximum prices for first grade creamery butter.
2.	All requests for permits for expansion of the capacity of creameries in the maritime provinces have been approved. The administrator of metal containers has been in direct communication with the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and the dairy commissioner of New Brunswick, and with the president of the Dairymen's Association of New Brunswick, and has made arrangements for shipments of milk and cream cans to the province of New Brunswick.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-RELEASE OF MAN-POWER FROM NON-ESSENTIAL INDUSTRIES
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Has a plan been prepared under the direction of the wartime prices and trade board for the release of man-power from non-essential industries?
2.	If so, when was it completed?
3.	How many workers would be affected?
4.	Why has it not been put into effect?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Ever since the introduction of the price ceiling on December 1, 1941, the wartime prices and trade board has had a programme for the standardization of products, simplification of manufacturing methods and economy in marketing and distribution practices. In

Questions
part, this programme has for its objective the curtailment of costs so that the price ceiling can be maintained. As various steps are taken, however, release of man-power becomes effective. The programme is a continuing one and the nature of the man-power and numbers affected cannot be precisely determined.
In addition, through its administrators and industry advisory committees the board has made a survey of the possibilities of more drastic steps in curtailment or elimination of products and services which might be employed to bring about diversions of manpower, or to meet the difficulties of developing shortages of man-power or materials. It is not possible, however, to consider this survey as a "plan" because steps to be taken require to be considered in light of conditions as they exist from time to time.
The wartime prices and trade board issued a statement of administrative principles in this connection which was published in The Canada Gazette of October 21, 1942.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.


JAPANESE NATIONALS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. REID:: What is the number of Japanese located in and around Port Arthur, Sandon, New Denver and Bridge River, British Columbia?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 2,935.


WARTIME HOUSING LIMITED-HULL, QUE.
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	What was the per unit price of each of the 100 houses built by Wartime Housing Limited in Hull?
2.	W'hat was the per unit price of the group of 50 houses built in Hull?
3.	What was the average cost of providing sewers, service, etc., for each of the houses built in Hull?
4.	According to present agreements, wLat disposition is to be made of these houses after the war?
5.	Will any compensation be made to the federal government for installation of sewers, streets, etc.?
6.	Was it necessary to re-lay some of the sewers in connection with the Hull project?
7.	If so, what was the cost, and by whom was it paid?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 
WESTERN FUEL CORPORATION LIMITED
[Stage Direction]
Mr. O'NEILL:
1.	Is any monetary assistance being given to Western Fuel Corporation Limited?
2.	If so, on what basis and what amount has been paid to this company?
3.	Is this company a subsidiary of Canadian Collieries Limited?
Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Yes.


FLAX PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING
Mr. BENCE:: 1.	What is the total capacity of the flax processing plants situated in Canada and the United States of America?
2.	What was the total estimated number of bushels of flax produced in Canada and the United States of America in the year 1942?


Mr. ILSLEY:: The answers to these
questions are as follows:
1.	Approximate Canadian crushing capacity
6.395.000	bushels. Capacity of flax processing plants in United States estimated at 72,000,000 bushels, but competent authorities agree practical capacity 52,000.000 bushels. Total Canadian and United States crushing capacity
58.395.000	bushels.
2.	Approximately 55-7 million bushels.
I should like to make it clear, however, that the government cannot take any responsibility for figures relating to capacity for flax production in the United States.


WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES
Mr. GREEN:: 1.	How many persons in each province are in receipt of a monthly salary for the sale of war savings certificates?
2.	Are such persons engaged on a full time basis or are they at liberty to carry on some additional business or occupation?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Since formation of the national war finance committee, the promotion and sale of war savings certificates, war savings stamps
Questions

and victory loan bonds are now the responsibility of the National War Finance committee and no persons have been employed solely for the sale of war savings certificates.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


WARTIME HOUSING-WRIGHTVILLE, QUE.
Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	How many buildings of the various types have been constructed to date in Wrightville, Quebec, by Wartime Housing?
2.	What is the total expenditure to date on the said project?
3.	Has the work of landscaping the project been awarded? If so, to whom, and by what financial arrangement?
4.	Has additional work on the street allowances in regard to sewer and water services been necessary? If so, what is the cost of the same?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Type HI and 2-25 houses; type Hll and 12-100 houses; type H21 and 22-25 houses.
2.	The total expenditure as of January 31, 1943 is S577,604.06.
3.	The landscaping for the second project of 50 houses has been arranged at a cost of $2,400, the work being done by the federal district commission of Ottawa. The balance of the landscaping will be done this spring by the commission.
4.	$7,570.28 has been expended on repairs of sewers and waterworks. This is not an expense to Wartime Housing Limited, it being chargeable to funds of the contractor in Wartime Housing Limited's possession.


Mr. LOCKHART:: In the construction of buildings by Wartime Housing at Wrightville, Quebec, what is the cost to date of, (a) acquisition of land, (b) installation and improvements or alterations of any sewers and water services, (c) grading, paving or surfacing street allowances, (d) construction per unit of dwellings, (e) improving or landscaping the street allowances, (f) installation of electricity on the street allowances and on rights-of-way, (g) connecting of electricity to dwellings per unit.


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1. (a) Land acquisition, $2,197.50; (b) Installation and improvements to sewers and water services, $90,560.01; (c) Grading, paving or surfacing streets, $19.079.21; (d) Construction costs per unit: Hull No. 1, $2,939.87; Hull No. 2, $2,941.10;	(e) Landscaping,
$2,372.49; (f) Installation of electricity on the street allowances and right-of-way, $1,485.52; (g) Connecting of electricity to dwellings per unit, $9.90.


HARVEST EXCURSIONS
Mr. WRIGHT:: 1.	What was the total cost of the harvest excursions which were run from eastern Canada during the 1942 harvest season?
2.	What proportion of this cost was paid by (a) dominion government, (b) provincial governments?
3.	How many men were taken on these excursions?
4.	How many were returned to eastern Canada before the first date set for their return?
5.	How many, if any, had to receive additional financial assistance to return?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	$241,312.11.
2.	All dominion.
3.	5,886.
4.	No information available.
5.	7.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	What is the location of each of the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve training recruiting establishments ?
2.	What is the total number of enlistments for each such establishment since the commencement of the war?
3.	What is the total amount of contracts awarded in connection with each of the said establishments with respect to the following, (a) for purchase of land and buildings, (b) for construction of new buildings, (c) for alterations to existing buildings?
4.	What are the amounts with respect to each establishment which have been expended for such purposes in addition to amounts of such contracts ?
5.	What additional expenditures for such purposes are planned giving particulars of the establishments involved?


NAVAL SERVICE-CRESCENT ROAD, TORONTO, PROPERTY
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the navy taken over a home on Crescent road, Toronto?
2.	If so, for what purpose and at what cost?
3.	How many officers and ratings are housed therein ?
4.	What are the terms of the lease and what is the cost of repairs and maintenance for the first year?
5.	What fuel is used, from whom was it purchased, and were tenders called?
6.	Who negotiated the use of this site?
7.	What staff is there and how many of them have served in this war at sea?
8.	How many are pay officers, what are their ages and navy service?

Labour Conditions



POST OFFICES-REPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS

Mr. MARSHALL:: What amounts were spent during the year 1942 on post offices either by way of repairs or other improvements, by the Department of Public Works?



HON. J. G. TAGGART

[Stage Direction]
Mr.'NICHOLSON:
What is the total amount which has been paid to Hon. J. G. Taggart by the federal government as, (a) salary, (b) travelling expenses, (c) living allowances?

Mr. DORION:: 1.	How many females are engaged in war service, (a) in the army, (b) in the navy, (c) in the air force?
2.	How many are, (a) married, (b) spinsters?
3.	What number of females in each province are employed in war factories and how many are, (a) married, (b) single?
4.	What number of females in each province has been engaged by the civil service commission since 1939 to December 31, 1942?



DOLLAR-A-YEAR MEN-SUBSISTENCE AND TRAVEL ALLOWANCES

Mr. ROY:: 1.	Does the government pay to those generally designated as "dollar-a-year men" subsistence or travel allowances on a daily basis or otherwise?
2.	If so, (a) what are the minimum and maximum allowances, (b) are they subject to taxation and since when?



TIME REQUIRED FOR ANSWERING QUESTIONS- PROCEDURE IN QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

['For a moment I was afraid that the usual cooperation in our party had not been maintained.']
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, before the next order of business is called there are two matters in connection with questions that I did not raise as we went along, but which I believe should be mentioned now.
The first question on to-day's order paper, in which the hon. member for York East (Mr. McGregor) asks the number of prosecutions instituted by the wartime prices and trade board from the district headquarters at Brockville, was placed on the order paper on February 9. Could the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) expedite the answer? This seems an extraordinarily long period between the time of placing it on the order paper and the answer being given. To-day it was still permitted to stand.
The other question has reference to the question which is No. 27 on to-day's order paper. I should like to know why this question, which is a very simple one, and would take up very little space, should stand as an order for return.


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State):: Answering the latter part of my hon. friend's question, I would say the only reason the question to which he refers was made an order for return is that it involves two departments, namely, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Finance through the wartime prices and trade board. Returns will have to be received from each.


Gordon Graydon: That did not seem apparent from the question.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, before the orders
of the day are called I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. I have just received a letter from the national chairman of the association of technical employees, which is affiliated with the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, to the effect that the national secretary of that association has been summarily dismissed without notice by a government corporation known as Research Enterprises Limited. The association regard this action as a clear case of union discrimination. I should like to ask that the minister investigate this matter at once.


Humphrey Mitchell: The leader of the opposition was good enough to advise me of his intention to ask this question, which has to do with the case of Doctor David Shugar. The complaint is, as stated, that he was dismissed for union activities. I received a report earlier in the week and immediately an industrial relations officer, as is customary in these cases, was dispatched to the company. I expect to have a report within the next few days, and I shall be glad to show it to my hon, friend.


WAR REFUGEES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Miller Bell: Has the government been consulted regarding the proposal of the United States to hold a conference in Ottawa to consider ways and means of alleviating the sufferings of refugees who fled or escaped from nazi and fascist persecution? Will the Prime Minister make
War Refugees

a statement outlining Canada's opinion regarding this proposal, and the problem involved?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I was advised that a question such as has been asked would be asked this afternoon either by my hon. friend or by some other member of his party. With that in mind I have prepared a reply, which I shall give to the house.
I have now seen the communication from the United States government to the United Kingdom government on the subject of a refugee conference, which was given to the press in Washington last night. A copy of this statement was shown to the Canadian Legation in Washington yesterday afternoon. I am informed that the document communicated by the United States Secretary of State to the British Ambassador in Washington on February 25 was in the form of a working memorandum, which in the ordinary course of events would not have been published without further communication with the governments which it concerned.
The United Kingdom government, which has taken the initiative in raising anew the question of what further measures might be taken in concert by the governments of the united nations to relieve the position of refugees from axis occupied territories, has been in communication with the Canadian government on this subject. The Canadian government has been giving consideration to a number of suggestions put forward by the United Kingdom government and will, in due course, be glad to examine any suggestions which the United States government may wish to put forward as a contribution to the alleviation of a grave and distressing problem.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is an explanation I should like to make and supplement it with a slight apology. In replying to my hon. friend the leader of the Cooperative- Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) I said that I was advised that a question such as had been asked would be asked this afternoon, and L thought it would be by one of his group. The hon. member who was kind enough to send me notice of his intention to ask the question was the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). I should therefore like to see that he gets full credit for the reply that was made.


Thomas Miller Bell: For a moment I was afraid that the usual cooperation in our party had not been maintained.



PRIVILEGE-MR. BRUCE REFERENCE TO REMARKS OF PRIME MINISTER ON THE ORDERS OF THE DAT, MARCH 3

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, when addressing a question yesterday to the Prime Minister I had not proceeded very far before I was interrupted by the Prime Minister. The ensuing noise prevented my hearing exactly what was said by him. I have now the text of his remarks, which will be found on page 918 of Hansard. He is reported as follows:
My hon. friend has given me no notice of this question. If he ivishes to advertise himself, all right,-
I submit that that is offensive language , and language which imputes a motive. This is dealt with in standing order 41, which reads as follows:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of His Majesty, nor of any of the royal family-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I am just reading the complete text. Perhaps I had better skip down to the relevant passage, because it seems to be disturbing some of my hon. friends opposite. It reads:
-nor use offensive words against either house, or against any member thereof.
Paragraph 297 states that the imputation of bad motives against a member is contrary to the rules of this house. I would therefore ask the Prime Minister to withdraw his remarks.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, may I say
to the hon. member that when he rose yesterday I had very much in mind the fact that for some years he had represented His Majesty the King as his representative in the province of Ontario, and I was surprised that one who through a portion of his life had accustomed himself to the courtesies that go with such an office should have attempted to do what he was seeking to do yesterday. If I have offended the hon. member in any way I am sorry for that, and if I have used any language which is unparliamentary, I am quite prepared to withdraw it. I said just what came to my mind at the moment.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I should only like to add that I wished no discourtesy to the Prime Minister; I would not wish to do anything that would be discourteous to any other member of this house. This item had been published in the press throughout Canada the day before and I thought it was well known. I thought probably the Prime Minister himself had read it.

Social Security
I believe I was justified in thinking that he had read it, because I had proceeded only with a few words before he stopped my reading further. He must have known what was coming.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I certainly
knew what was coming, and I realized that my hon. friend was reading the article for that purpose. But I also knew, what I thought he himself would have recognized, that what was stated in the article was something in the nature of what had been a confidential conversation, not between myself and others but among a few persons at a meeting at which a reporter was present but at which the request was made and an assurance given that no communication would go from the meeting to the public. I have been so informed by the gentleman whose name was mentioned yesterday in the attempted reading of the article. I think my hon. friend ought to have been the first, if he had intended to seek to give publicity to something over which I had no control whatever and which was in the nature of confidential discussion on the part of others, to have spoken to me about it in advance of bringing it up in this house.



PRODUCTION PROGRAMME FOR 1943-AGRICULTURAL FOOD BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: As I do not expect to have an
opportunity to reply to the question asked me the other day by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) before it will be necessary to act upon the decision which has been made, I think I should give the house the information I have at the moment. A statement was made earlier in the session by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) dealing with the division of authority between the food board and the Department of Agriculture on matters of production.
The food production programme for 1943 will be directed by an agricultural food board which has been set up by order in council which names four members of the staff of the Department of Agriculture as the board. This was done after consultation with the Canadian farm federation. An advisory committee of twelve will be set up. The president of the farm federation will be the chairman of that committee, one member will be nominated by each of the nine provinces and the other two members will be nominated by the farm federation. The orders in council
authorizing that committee and the board have been passed, and just as soon as copies are available, I shall table them in the house.



SOCIAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 3, 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. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: At five minutes to six last night I had risen to discuss the objectives of the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) now before the house. As I look over the resolution I cannot help but feel that planning is first and social security and the conduct of the war a secondary consideration. Notwithstanding the fact that the war, up to the campaign in North Africa, had been going very badly, we are paying more attention to planning our post-war economy. So far as the war is concerned, -we have never been in a more precarious state and danger than we are at the present time. One would think that the generals who won the great victories in North Africa had been forgotten in Canada as there seems to be only one general remaining here, General Beveridge, and his social planning scheme for the mother country.
As I have said bdfore', in the maelstrom of planning talk the war seems to have been forgotten. Last year we wasted four months of the time of the house which were taken up with politics in a referendum. That is what happened notwithstanding the fact that we had not won a victory on land or sea, that we were still on the defensive. With Bill No. 80 and the referendum four months of the time of this house was wasted. It seems that we are entering another political year at this time.
While we have not been promised anything, I believe an election is coming. Before the vote of five billion dollars is passed I think it is the duty of the opposition to ask the government what are their objectives regarding the conduct of this war and as to a wartime election a second time for political reasons. Is this social planning all you are doing to win the war? I have received a great many letters from our men in England and other parts of the world who are serving their country on the land and sea and in the air and they ask what we are doing here to
Social Security

urge on the government that something should be done to achieve a total war effort, and prepare for the return of the men of the forces. Not only is the government on trial at the present time but the House of Commons is also on trial before the bar of public opinion in this country for its war efforts, and for what it is doing about after the war conditions. This house has surrendered to a whole lot of bureaucratic boards and controls and subcontrols and planners and modellers who control practically the whole business of the country, so much so that the House of Commons is the forgotten agency of government to-day. At times I have protested against this almost alone for the last three years, but at last the people are beginning to wake up and see the dangers that confront them.
I admit that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has done a great deal of work in his day in studying labour conditions and social problems. I have known him . longer I think than any other member of the house. I remember when he was a university student and a young reporter on the Toronto Globe, and when he was reporting the proceedings in the courts. I remember that Colonel Denison then predicted a very bright career for him. But I say to him to-day that not only is his government on trial but so is this House of Commons.
Coming to the text of the resolution, I must say that one of the most important matters that should be taken up by the committee seems to have been forgotten, and that is the question of providing employment. We speak of freedom from want. What does that mean? To rid the masses of fear you must provide them wtih work, but the resolution makes no mention of that. I should like to have a little order, Mr. Speaker, because this is an important matter I am discussing.
I do not interrupt anybody else when he is speaking and I am entitled as a private member to order when I am addressing the house.
I was saying that the question of providing employment for soldiers seems to have been forgotten by the government in proposing this resolution. The government seems to have two principles for curing unemployment. One is the ambassador cure for unemployment, sending ambassadors all over the seven seas, some of whom talk in a way that does great damage to the war effort and to this country. The other principle is the senate cure for unemployment, the appointing to the senate of young men who should be at the war. I would for national reasons suggest the return

of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen to the senate, and that we have appointed to the senate some representatives of the press.
I should like to refer for a moment to the British war victims fund, and to what one newspaper in Toronto, the Evening Telegram, has done in promoting that fund for the people of Great Britain who have had their houses and their homes destroyed and have suffered great losses in this war. Through the British war victims fund there has been brought home to the young people in the schools and colleges of Toronto and Ontario a realization amongst the younger generation of what they owe to the mother country in this war. Through this fund organized by the Toronto Evening Telegram there has been collected already about $2,000,000. Frequently the Telegram will publish pictures of little children in Toronto and in the province who have taken part in organized efforts to secure money for this fund, and other children will go out on the street corners and collect small sums from five to ten or twenty cents for this fund to help rebuild the mother country. I appreciate what has been done in that regard and the good work done by the late founder of the Telegram, John Ross Robertson, and the late editor, John R. Robinson, who has been succeeded by Mr. C. O. Knowles, who is continuing so well this good work. I think we all know of the good work that has been done for the Sick Children's Hospital by its founder, and what has been done in connection with health and welfare matters. I think one of the men who should be appointed to the senate is Mr. C. O. Knowles, editor of the Evening Telegram, for his British war victims fund.
Planning, Mr. Speaker, is the new name for socialism. Everybody is a socialist these days, everybody is a planner, and the war seems to have been forgotten as the matter of primary importance. The allies have just begun to take the initiative after more than three years of war. As Mr. Churchill has said, we are at the end of the beginning, and yet there is more talk about planning than about the conduct of the war on the land, on the sea and in the air. I have no objection to planning so long as we do not forget that the most important thing is the winning of the war.
But look at the text of this resolution. The committee is just to make a study and report, and it is a committee of this House of Commons. The Beveridge report was prepared by an interdepartmental committee on social insurance, under the control of a minister of

Social Security
the crown, Mr. Greenwood. But the work here is going to be done by a committee of the house. This committee is not, as I see it, being given any objectives by the government in the matter. The plan is only half-baked. It is too complicated and uneconomic, in my opinion. Timber, for instance, to rehabilitate the whole of Britain is badly needed and will be needed for reconstruction purposes after the war. Great Britain imports sixty-five million pounds' worth of timber a year, but there is no mention made in the resolution of that trade. Sometimes I think we would get better results in the way of social security and all along the line if instead of having so many professors and high-brows on some of these control boards and commissions, while other brave men are fighting our battles overseas, we had some practical men at work on the problems that lie ahead of us. Those problems are too big for any one political party.
We are proposing to make the most serious leap in the dark which this country has ever undertaken. We are faced with the greatest problems that have ever been faced by the world, and we in this country are the first to start to take a leap into the unknown world that will follow after the war. I believe that we should get men of practical experience to guide us. We should not forget those who were our best customers before the war, the people of Great Britain, upon whom we have had to rely for a market for our products. They should be taken care of. I believe that what should be done after the war is to go back to what we had before, free enterprise; try to build up free enterprise so that means for employment will be created by empire trade as before. In that way you will remove the unemployed from the unemployment seats on to the employment seats. Our raw materials should be made available to the empire and to other nations of the world on an equal basis as far as possible and every nation be given the opportunity of living in a state of freedom.
What caused the war was simply intolerance. I believe that all parties in this house and out of it should be guided by wisdom, restraint, and tolerance, and should not show a lack of ordinary Christian charity towards their opponents with whom they may happen to disagree. As I have said before in this house, it is the little man of England personified by Strube, who is the reflection of the average man who saved the mother country which has suffered so much in this war. These little men who were strong enough to beat off Hitler and
Mussolini will be able to plan the right conditions for the mother country and the empire after the war. As Admiral Southby said in the House of Commons the other day:
There are people who seem to think that the war is being waged in order to destroy a social and economic system with which they do not entirely agree.
Admiral Southby said:
Nothing could be further from the truth than that. We are fighting the war for our bare existence, for the right to live at all.
Then he suggests, speaking of the "little" man:
His victory . . . will have been in vain if, when the war is over, he is obliterated by the state which he fought to preserve. The essence of the evil nazi creed is that the state is greater than any individual. The essence of democracy, as I see it, is that the state is the servant of the individual and not his master. Therefore, let us at all costs, when we are starting to rebuild the world and to improve it, not impose what is not the less a dictatorship because it masquerades under the name of something which is politely called "democratic planning." A great man, who left us not long ago and a friend of most of us in the house, Lord Tweedsmuir, better known to us as plain John Buchan, once made a speech on Abraham Lincoln, in which he said, "The powers of moderation are slow to kindle, but once they are lit they do not go out until they have burnt up much rubbish and opened a path for the advance of mankind to a better world."
I hope and believe that we are willing to advance the progress of mankind to a better world, but if it is to be a success it must be, in my opinion, a world in which there is a square deal. That means a square deal for everybody, not solely for the small man and the sick and suffering and those out of employment, but for those who have maybe a little more substance than some others have. Much of the talk of planning after the war partakes of a plan for robbing Peter to pay Paul. Well, almost everything that Peter has is being taken away from him by two wars and a long depression, with the result that when the war is over Peter will have little or nothing left.
One of the speakers in this chamber yesterday suggested, referring to the Beveridge report, that Sir William Beveridge should be invited here. I think we have enough planners right in the house and out of it without the necessity of bringing Sir William Beveridge over to Canada to tell us what to do. While I am not a Scotsman, I was surprised to hear my good friend the Minister of Pensions speak as though incentive as we had it from capital will probably have disappeared after the war. He referred to "regulated incentive."
Social Security

That is all right if there is not too much regulation. But if we intend to pursue a course in opposition to what made the mother country and this country great, namely, private enterprise and free retail and wholesale business-I mean the system of free enterprise-we shall be trying to do something which the men who come home after the war will, I think, not tolerate. They are not fighting, nor are they willing to fight, for social planning from the cradle to the grave; they are fighting for the right of the people of this country to live; the right to possess private property which is derived from nature, not from man, and the state has no right to abolish it, but only to regulate its use. The position of the wholesale and the retail merchant should be restored to what it was before the war, if we are to create the maximum opportunities of employment. In Great Britain they passed the pre-war trade practices act to put free enterprise and the small retailer and wholesaler back in possession of the rights they held as citizens and business men before the war; and that is the way to build up this country, and release them from some controls.
Reference is made in the report to birth, maternity, old age and burial insurance. Well, after many of the taxpayers have done with the last few budgets I am afraid public insurance will be needed to pay their burial expenses. I can tell you that even some of the members of this house know of citizens who need that aid, and I have known of a few members of this house who left so little that aid was needed to bury them. Hon. members may laugh, but that is the fact. I know some of the undertakers in our city, and they are splendid citizens and men of real public spirit and do a great public health work. It has been my lot, I may say, to attend several funerals in the past two or three weeks, and I know in that city how the people are suffering.
We hear much talk about social planning and this new utopia and paradise which we are to live in. I can tell some of our planners that the new paradise, or part of the health and hospital social service, of which they speak so much started in the city hall of Toronto, with its modern health department. One of my colleagues, the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce), was a senior surgeon of the Toronto General hospital, and our city was a pioneer in this social legislation. The late lamented Doctor Hastings built up the most modern health department in North America. He and the

gentlemen who supported him, the men I mentioned a few minutes ago, had to fight with the aid of the Evening Telegram a campaign for health reform and to reorganize the health department and the works department. By their civic efforts an outstanding programme of social legislation was achieved, including a first-class water supply, a modern sewage system, and a modern health and works department. Other newspapers gave aid later.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) has for some time been, what I can call in a sporting sense, "barnstorming" all over the province of Ontario-I believe he used to play baseball, so that I do not think he will object to the term. But let me tell him that it was the planners of the city of Toronto who gave those services to the constituency he represents; it was the Conservatives of Ontario, Whitney and Beck, at Queen's Park, and the city council of Toronto and officials, who brought in the legislation which supplied cheap light and power to the homes of the province, which provided the services they now enjoy, which initiated the workmen's compensation act and many other social and health and hospital advantages. And what did the city of Toronto do? It was the pioneer of health legislation in its grants to hospitals, in instituting dental and medical inspection of school children, the eight-hour day, the improvement of the waterfront, the buying out of the street railway, the radials, the linking up of the railways and the buses, the facilitating of transportation to enable market gardeners to reach the cities and aiding by transportation the housing situation. These are some achievements of the city and the city council of Toronto. I am proud that we have always had such a splendid city council. We have always been fortunate in having a council which has done a great deal for the people of that city. Shortly before I started as a controller and as a police commissioner, in 1909 the police had only one day a month off; then they got one day a week off; and then the eight-hour day, as did the firemen, and the platoon system'was put into effect and soldiers given the preference in jobs. All the services I have mentioned are municipal and have been given to the taxpayer of Toronto without the aid of one cent from the federal government, showing that this social security came largely from the municipalities, not from federal authority.
Here let me mention that the province of Ontario and the city of Toronto were attacked the other day by the Rev. Doctor J. R. Muteh-mor, social secretary of the United church. I have great respect for that church and for him,

Social Security
but I would point out-that when Doctor Mutch-mor, with Mr. Fogg, made a Cook's tour of Canada from Regina to Halifax, he seems to have been in a fog night, noon and morning. He criticizes the province of Ontario. He said last Saturday in the Toronto papers:
The banner province of Ontario is in danger of being regarded as the spoiled child of confederation.
If he knew a little more about Toronto and Ontario, a little more about our social legislation and what has been done by the city and that province for the hospitals, the sick poor, and others, I do not believe he would have made these criticisms; and I resent them. Let me say that Ontario is the milch cow of confederation. I do not like to comment in this fashion because I have always contended for the principle of confederation, in line with the old Cornish battle-cry, "Each for all and all for each." With regard to my hon. friends below the gangway, of the five or six of them I see only the young hon. member for Charle-voix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) here now; he made a good speech the other day. They had a good deal to say about a certain pastor. Well, I have referred to-day to another pastor. I did not vote for church union, because I believed that, like union government, it would lead to more disunion than union. I object to remarks of Rev. Doctor Mutchmor, or Pastor Mutchmor, as reflecting on the province of Ontario, which is paying 42 per cent of the cash taxes of the dominion, and which is the forgotten province of confederation.
Doctor Mutchmor goes on to give figures about enlistments in the maritimes, compares them with Ontario, and in the name of social reform criticizes a province which has been the leader for many years past in progressive planning, hospital work, and social services of all kinds. I do not wish to say anything further about the reverend gentleman, who I understand is a very popular man in his church, except that, will all due respect, it seems to me that pastors such as the one to whom I have referred to-day should state facts and exhibit a little more wisdom, tolerance and restraint in their statements in war time in interviews given newspapers, like this interview with regard to the soldier province of Ontario, which has sent more men to the war than any other, and is now' expected to provide one-half of the ten million dollars which is asked for in the Red Cross appeal. I might point out that the reverend gentleman's figures with regard to enlistments are misleading, because soldiers from Ontario are to be found all across Canada from Vancouver to Halifax; they went to all the military districts to answer the call, and I challenge his figures
and remarks as to Ontario. I see here to-day my friend the head of the Canadian hospital association, the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann). The doctors and hospitals of Canada are having a very hard time. The Toronto General Hospital was built for to-morrow. I remember when the per diem grant was fifty cents. That would not be a drop in the bucket for this parliament to contribute towards hospital service and relief of the poor and suffering and for per diem patients. There should be' a grant for free insulin for those in necessitous circumstances. Without it many people who are doing useful work would be in their graves. The same applies to tuberculosis. This government will have to do much more than it has done both . for education and hospitals, because the first duty of a government is to look after the health, happiness and prosperity of its citizens.
In 1935 and succeeding years we were given blueprints by our friends to my left about the war. What did they say? Not a dollar for the army; disarmament on land and sea. Knowing what vision they showed at that time what faith can we have in their vision and blueprints now?
Cheap light and power; that is what the Conservatives gave Ontario in 1905 when Sir James Whitney and Sir Adam Beck were in power; they brought cheap hydro power to the artisans and the kitchens and ' farms of Ontario.
Malnutrition; I remember when food was not inspected, when the milk supply of Toronto was not inspected. The city provided all these services without a cent of help from the dominion government, for all this social planning. So do other municipalities. Federal aid is needed for education and hospital work.
The last thing I want to mention is housing. The resolution does not mention that. When our soldiers come home there will be no housing for them. I have asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) about it on several occasions. An order for return was passed last June or July, but the return has not yet been brought down. An order for return was passed on February 22; I asked about it the other day-nothing done, and I can find no statement in the budget. Where are these soldiers to be housed? As my friend the hon. member for Parkdale or any good medical man, such as the late Doctor Hastings, will tell you, bad housing is one of the most prolific agencies for the spread of disease and ill health. Hon. members opposite cannot solve the housing problem in Ottawa, let alone a': Canada. Many soldiers' families are living >
cellars. The government has a big mansion on Crescent road, taken for the navy; a property in
Social Security

Queen's park was taken, also the old Flavelle property. In the British parliament housing was discussed on the debate on social security and insurance. It was the most popular topic of all these. Sir William Jowitt was the minister, and the main features of the debate was a policy in regard u. 'ousing for soldiers when they come home and for their dependents and the civilian population. But nothing yet is done in Canada except talk about it. Are these people to live out on the street? The government has taken over in Toronto for war purposes many large private houses and given them to the forces; big buildings on the waterfront in Toronto and in Ottawa and other cities. Where are the houses for civilians to come from?
The Minister of Finance told me yesterday if I would put what I want on the order paper I might get an answer from a rental commissioner I never heard of, but I have been here too long to be led astray by any such play as that. The government is spending five billion dollars, but I could point out items amounting to twenty-four per cent not for the war at all, and they have not a cent for houses. I looked all through the budget speech for it. The Toronto members were requested last Saturday to attend a meeting with the board of control of that city and the city council that has done so much for hospital and health services for the public. Starting at fifty cents a day the rate went to $1.75 a day for city patients, and yet they had the same operations for nothing as the wealthy man would pay in some cases up to $1,000 for. The hon. member for Parkdale was chief surgeon when I was on the board for seventeen years with Mr. P. C. Larkin and Sir Joseph Flavelle. But bad housing causes more disease than any other agency. Toronto has not been treated right by this parliament. There is no bigotry or intolerance in that city; its principle and that of its citizens is equal rights to all and special privileges to none. Our city has not had much federal aid for years. The province of Ontario which pays so much in taxes has not been dealt with generously or fairly here or by the interprovincial report. The Minster of Finance is not going to get away with the housing failure or his controls any longer; there is no use in telling me to put something on the order paper, and I will not do it any longer. Housing is forgotten in Canada. The families of some soldiers overseas have been evicted by the bailiff.
I have asked for a national system of insurance for the soldiers; I hope the committee will look into it. The first thing is to take care of the soldiers and their dependents for three years after the war and keep them

from being evicted from their homes so they will not be worried. A national life insurance sytem for all soldiers should be set up, to include provision for their dependents for three years after the war. If we are to be left at the mercy of a real estate board and a rent board, no wonder there is no housing. There is no incentive to anyone to build a home with this farcical rent control. Houses are wanted, not talk. We were twenty-five thousand houses behind when the select committee on housing was appointed in 1935; we made our report, and the new government came in and spent nearly $80,000,000 on small houses, yet to-day not a cent of the five billions for war expenditures is for that work.
I have a large industry in my riding, Lever Brothers. I have never been in the plant. They have published a monthly pamphlet on the problem of unemployment in which they say:
It has been easy and cheap and popular to get on the social security bandwagon. In some form or other social security apparently is here to stay as a perpetual political promise leading eventually to good or bad performance. But it has been discouraging in Canada to see how enthusiastically many members of parliament and other public men have leaped forward to embrace large plans of social security without apparently having an adequate idea or asking how they are to be paid for out of increased production, or what the cost in taxation will be.
Then there is a reference to the social reconstruction plan of the James committee and the civil service committee for providing employment in the post-war period. All that is not mentioned at all in the report. It goes on to say:
... it studies and states the parts which governments and industry can play in the elimination of mass unemployment; and it bases those conclusions on a study of what causes unemployment and of what monetary and budgetary policies by governments would most contribute to the productive capacity of each nation being used continuously and increasing steadily without restrictions being imposed either from the side of manufacturers or of labour. That is indispensable to eliminating distressing totals of unemployment.
The government should consider what should be done regarding trade with the mother country and the empire. Britain cannot exist without export and import trade, which will create employment here in providing these goods. In the city from which I come sixty-five per cent of the working people own their own homes, but what incentive is there to any working man to own his own home today? We have had two wars and a long depression in a generation; all the small savings of these people have been eaten up, and now the government will call upon them

Social Security
to make even further sacrifices for 1943. There has been quite a reaction among the working classes, I believe, and I do not think they will wish to give generously to other schemes which are only half-baked, on reconstruction, and social planning, with their taxes already a burden.
We have had planning before, but the planning of the past remains as a warning to us now. It has been all based upon the principle of robbing Peter to pay Paul, and now the process has been completed because Peter has nothing left. I remember when Mr. Sydney Webb proposed that the coal mines in England be nationalized, and he even went so far as to publish a book entitled "How To Pay For the War." In that book he stated his confirmed opinion that coal could be delivered to the household cellar at a total cost of a shilling a hundredweight or a pound a ton. Out of this price, on paper, he satisfied all the demands of the miners and in addition provided money with which to pay for the war. Yet sensible people are still prepared to listen with patience to nonsense about planning. I am not objecting to all the planning in the world, as long as we do, not forget the war until it is won; but when housing is left out of the planning and when the municipalities are not given consideration, any scheme is bound to fail. No doubt planning is necessary, but it should be reasonable and proper. I have every respect for the views of others, but I believe the time must come when we will have to consider whether the appointment of this committee is the best way to deal with this question. Would it not have been better to have a day's debate to chart our course and declare what is to be our policy particularly toward the British empire, which has been our best customer, and with regard to all those other matters which should be thought out first? In my view no amount of planning, and not even victory, can bring about the millenium, nor can any planning ever change the law of supply and demand. I believe there will be nations as long as the world1 lasts, and there will be trade barriers, and quotas and trade agreements, as resolutions like the one placed on the order paper the other day by the Minister of Finance show. The party in Ontario to which I belong has had a glorious past in labour and social legislation, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that as long as I have known the Conservative party it has always taken a forward view with regard to the working classes in that province. It had no utopian ideas; it did not dwell in the clouds; it provided reforms in Ontario; it
got down to brass tacks and did all the things I have mentioned. It encouraged and aided municipalities to go forward in a concerted plan of social work for the good of all the people of the country. It believes that any planning should be done for all the people, not just for some of the people.
I believe the government would do well to pay heed to the handwriting on the wall. We have been through two wars and a long depression, and if it had not been for the mother country we would not be planning to-day. Hitler after Dunkirk would be in the United States and in Canada, and we would have to make peace with the Axis powers.
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax): Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to follow the arguments that have been advanced by the last speaker (Mr. Church). He referred to the city of Toronto as the forgotten city. The only comment I would make is that as long as the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) occupies a seat in this house there is not very much chance of the city of Toronto being forgotten.
I refrained from taking part in the debate on reconstruction and reestablishment in connection with the resolution introduced by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), because I realized that anything I might have to say in that regard could veiy well be said in connection with the resolution now under discussion. The one is closely connected and interlocked with the other; and as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) so ably presented the reasons for setting up this committee, the general scheme behind it, its functions and purposes,
I felt that the one committee naturally would have to work veiy closely with the other. One is to deal with matters of reconstruction and reestablishment as they will arise at the termination of this war, while the other deals with the study of existing social insurance legislation of this parliament and the provincial legislatures; the social insurance measures of other countries; the most practical measures of social insurance for Canada, including health insurance, and what may be necessary in order to have them included in a national plan; the financial adjustments which will be required for the achievement of a nation-wide plan of social security, and other related matters.
As I listened to the Prime Minister speak of our industrial expansion I decided to take part in the debate, because I represent a constituency on the extreme eastern coast of Canada. I wondered what effect any measures which might result from the work of this

Social Security

committee would have on my section of Canada, and I think what applies to the eastern coast applies equally to the west.
I propose this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, to confine my remarks as closely as possible to the resolution moved by the Prime Minister. He dealt with many of the matters that must be studied by this committee if it is to achieve the desired result. He outlined certain social measures coming under federal jurisdiction, such as unemployment insurance, pensions for war veterans, pensions for war *widows, war veterans' allowances, pensions for the blind, and old age pensions. All these, as the Prime Minister said, are matters coming directly under federal jurisdiction, though it is true old age pensions are administered by the various provinces. But in addition to these, measures of a provincial nature which I shall mention in a moment at some time or other must come under the direct jurisdiction of the federal government. We have provincial governments dealing with mothers' allowances and workmen's compensation benefits, including sickness and accident. These workmen's compensation benefits are enjoyed in all parts of Canada, but the benefits enjoyed by one province should be enjoyed by another to the same extent, and for that reason all measures of this nature must come under the jurisdiction of this government at the conclusion of the war.
The Prime Minister mentioned yesterday the great expansion which has taken place in Canada since the outbreak of war. When one reads of that development and realizes just what Canada has done in such a short period of time, starting out with practically no large industrial plants before the war, we begin to understand just what Canada's war effort means. When we note the large numbers of men employed in our war plants-=-20,000 in one, 30,000 in another, 50,000 in another, 120,000 in another-it makes us wonder where these men and women came from, and whether they are going to continue to live in the centres in which they are now located. In such event, what effect will that have on the districts from which they came? I rvould impress upon the committee the importance of this problem. I know that the committee is an able one, and I am sure it will consider carefully every question that comes before it.
The committee must consider, too, the great expansion which has taken place in the central provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and the effect it will have on the eastern and western sections of Canada. This accumulation of industrial interests, opportunities for employment and gathering together of wealth will be of much benefit to central Canada, but it will drain other portions of the country which as

a result will be working under a distinct handicap. When considering this problem the committee must provide for some measure of relief for those who live outside the central part of the country.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: The decentralization of industry.


Mr. ISNOR:: I do not know whether I am altogether a believer in the decentralization of industry. I am inclined to think we can get mighty good supervision from one central point, but we should not centralize our activities to such an extent as to sap the best from other parts of our country.
While I must pay tribute to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) for the wonderful results he has achieved in the development of war-time industries, from an economic standpoint I would point out to him, as I do to other hon. members, that great care must be taken not to make our economic structure top-heavy, or to sap the eastern and western sections for the benefit of the central districts.
There have been great shifts of population to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and this presents another problem for the consideration of the committee. It will have to decide whether this shifted population will remain in central Canada or will have to be sent back to the farms or the industrial centres whence they came, and there be given gainful occupations. We know that many farmers left their farms for the advantages offered by industry in Ontario and Quebec, and that the large wages paid in war-time industries have brought about a shortage of farm help. In this connection I have in mind particularly the condition of fishermen, who have been unable to take advantage to the same extent as the farmer of the higher wages paid in industry. At a later point in my observations I shall have a suggestion with regard to the treatment of fishermen.
The resolution clearly outlines the objectives of the committee. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) said there were no objectives, but I believe anyone reading the resolution cannot help feeling that there are definite aims covering a wide scope. I hope every angle and aspect of the subject matter of the resolution will be surveyed and every possible investigation made so that in the post-war period those who return from overseas after serving in the armed forces, as well as those who have remained in Canada, will be given employment which will obviate any condition such as that which prevailed following the last war.
Much has been said about the danger of inflation. We have taken definite steps to

Social Security
control inflation, but if we are to avoid another depression we must also make plans to prevent deflation. One is as dangerous as the other. If the committee does not consider measures for the control of deflation, as no doubt it will with respect to inflation, we shall again be faced with a period of depression. Worth-while measures have been taken not only to control prices but also to control wages, and the general set-up provided by the government will go a long way toward preventing inflation. It is for this reason that I urge the committee to consider measures to deal with deflation.
May I at this point offer some definite suggestions for the consideration of the committee? In my opinion it should obtain the advice of the very best authorities in connection with social service measures. We should have a survey of social measures in both the provincial and the federal field. Old age pensions should be reviewed, with the object of ascertaining whether the present scale of payments achieves the purpose intended, whether the age bracket is correct or should be lowered, and whether the amount now paid is sufficient to meet the present cost of living or should be increased so as to conform with the cost-of-living index. It might be considered wise to have payments regulated from time to time as the index increases or decreases.
There should be a complete check-up of our present employment situation, with a view to placing men and women in industries or trades for which they are best suited. The process in this respect would be the same as that in the armed forces, where an endeavour is made to select men for certain types of work.
Almost all hon. members who spoke in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne and in the debate on the resolution for the appointment of the committee on reconstruction, referred to the ques-. tion of housing. I think we are all in accord with the suggestion which has been made by practically all members that Canada must undertake a 'housing scheme in the very near future. The question is, which is the best plan. We are not satisfied with the war-time housing scheme now in operation, nor are we entirely satisfied with the national housing scheme. It did not go far enough to meet the requirements of those earning small wages, nor do I think the present war-time housing scheme meets our needs in a full sense.
_ I realize that the war-time housing scheme is an emergency measure, but these houses should have been erected to provide a greater value in the post-war period when we will be demobilizing our forces. There is no reason
72537-61J
why these houses could not be put to greater use than is planned at the present time. I was surprised to learn in the committee on rehabilitation that the estimated salvage value of these war-time houses is from' $150 to S300. Surely when we invest from $2,200 to $2,500 in a house it should give a greater return than is proposed at the present time. I am sure that if the committee gives this matter serious attention we will derive greater benefit from these houses than is now anticipated. I shall not enlarge further on this, but I pass it along to the committee for their consideration and suggest that they go into the matter fully.
When the Hon. Charles Dunning was minister of finance I suggested before he introduced the scheme for national housing that a commission or board of some kind be set up to which wage earners could apply the same as they apply mow for insurance. I realize that the weakness in such a plan is that at some time a large number of houses might be thrown back on the hands of the government, but with such a plan we would be building better citizens. Our people would have a stake in the community and we would have less trouble with individuals shifting from one section of the country to the other. There would not be so much moving about if these men owned their own houses. We should do everything possible to encourage the building of homes and thus create a larger group of home owners.
This committee should deal also in a broad' way with health matters. There is a large' representation of the medical profession on the committee, and no doubt this matter will be intelligently discussed. Ordinarily the urban districts are well supplied with medical men, while the rural districts are finding it exceedingly difficult to procure the medical attention the people require. It is not uncommon in the fishing districts-no doubt the same applies to the farming districts-for a man with an income of from $500 to $600 a year to be obliged to pay from $15 to $25 to have a doctor call in the case of illness. That is not good enough for a country like Canada. We should set up health measures that will provide more medical services for the rural districts.
Education should be considered nationally rather than be left entirely to the provinces.
I realize that under the British North America Act education is a provincial matter, but the committee could study this question and make recommendations which would provide that the educational standards in all provinces shall be the same. It has also been suggested from more than one quarter that the committee

Social Security
should deal with the question of recreation. This would be closely connected with any health programme. We should also make greater use of our natural resources, but as this matter has been enlarged upon to some extent I shall not pursue it further.
The committee would be well advised to take up that almost forgotten document, the Sirois report, and consider the recommendations contained therein. This report seems to have been laid aside, because I have not heard it mentioned during the past year. I suggest that the committee also consider a report prepared by the late William F. O'Connor, law officer of the senate, dealing with the benefits of the British North America Act and their relationship to the different provinces. There is a great deal of valuable information in that report.
The question of trade relations was mentioned the other day. While Canada because of its size may not be able to claim a very important place in international trade, it would be within the jurisdiction of this committee to investigate the possibilities of international trade. A number of new industries have been organized in Ontario and Quebec and we should endeavour to procure more trade with other countries.
Like the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. [DOT]Church) I shall deal briefly with this matter from a local standpoint. I come from Nova Scotia-specifically from the great eastern port of Halifax-and I remember, as no doubt you do, sir, the important part played by Halifax in the last great war. I realize, as you do, the important part that Halifax is playing at the present time in the assembling of ships to carry supplies overseas. I wonder if immediately following this war Halifax is again to become the forgotten port on the Atlantic coast. If trade relations are entered into with other countries and we make use of the vast industrial expansion which has taken place in Ontario and Quebec, I hope that the committee will be able to suggest definite measures to the government whereby our Canadian ports on the east and west coasts will be utilized to the full, instead of allowing large shipments which could go through our Atlantic ports to continue to go through the ports of the United States. I do not propose to labour that because I know the importance of maintaining the friendly relations which now exist between our two countries; nevertheless for our own protection we must deal with this matter in such a way that we shall enjoy the opportunities to which we are entitled.

I have already mentioned the fishing industry. The western farmer is well looked after. By that I mean that the farmers are represented by great and powerful organizations able to present a strong case for the farmers, and nearly always the result has been that the farmers have received assistance. But the fishermen are not so well organized, and it is my hope that the committee will recommend measures of assistance to our fishermen. I believe the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bertrand, Laurier) is in sympathy with that idea and will welcome any recommendations from the committee that will be helpful to him in strengthening this great natural industry which we have on our east and west coasts. I suggest to the minister and the committee that assistance be given to the fishermen in purchasing equipment, and by instructing them in the catching, curing and marketing of fish. These are definite proposals, and I hope the committee and the minister will take them into consideration with a view to assisting our fishermen on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
I had intended to speak on the control of our finances, but I may have an opportunity in the budget debate to express my views upon the financial position of the country and the financial measures which are proposed.
I consider that this is a part of the committee's work. The committee should look into our finances with a view to providing aid not alone for large industrial concerns but for the smaller farmer and the smaller fisherman so that as a country we may enjoy the increased wealth that comes from the labours of these two groups.
In conclusion, I would leave with the committee this thought of the poet Longfellow, and if they do their work in this spirit they may deserve the reward the poet speaks of:
Lives of great men all remind us We can make our lives sublime,
And, departing, leave behind us Footprints on the sands of time.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), may I be permitted to congratulate the speaker who has just taken his seat (Mr. Isnor) on the fine contribution he has made to the subject before this house.
I listened yesterday to the speech of the Prime Minister, with a large portion of which I entirely agree. Generally speaking, so far as the aims and ideals of this committee are concerned, I think all of us, regardless of party considerations, believe that the time has come to prepare for the post-war period, without

Social Security
neglecting the problem that is immediately before us, namely, that of assuring victory for the united nations. All over the world, and particularly among the united nations, men and women to-day are more socially conscious than they have ever been before at any time within the present generation. They believe that the responsibility rests upon the parliaments of the united nations to assure that conditions such as prevailed after the last war shall not exist after this war. I think this whole situation, so far as the problem itself is concerned, was set out in an address given by the Prime Minister on October 9 last. After speaking of the new order he went on to say:
The new order must be based on human rights; not on the rights of property, privilege, or position.
Then he says this:
It is necessary that social security and human welfare should be expressed in definite terms. It is, however, not my purpose to attempt^ to give a blueprint of the new order. Of the kind of objectives I have in mind, I would merely mention the following as a national minimum: useful employment for all who are willing to work; standard of nutrition and housing, adequate to ensure the health of the _ whole population; social insurance against privation resulting from unemployment, from accident, from the death of the bread-winner, from ill health, and from old age.
Those are noble sentiments and that was a very eloquent speech; but what is being done to ensure the implementation of the promise then given? There should be no necessity today to apologize for dealing with a subject such as this during war time. In the parliament of the United Kingdom the representatives of the people spent several days in discussing the report of Sir William Beveridge, and in giving their attention to social security they were but carrying out the principles enunciated in a letter, to which I shall only make reference to-day, which appeared in the London Times in December, 1940, signed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, by Cardinal Hinsley and by the Moderator of the Free Churches, which set forth the attitude of the Christian church to the new world. All over the world men and women say that conditions such as existed after the last war shall not be permitted to exist after this war. The Atlantic charter epitomizes that. It advocates national and international freedom from fear and want through security measures everywhere in the world.
I would point this out, that too often there are some members of political parties who would have the people believe that they have a monopoly of the desire to serve the people of Canada as a whole. The principles enunciated in Sir William Beveridge's report can be carried
into effect only under a system of free initiative where men and women still enjoy freedom to engage in enterprise. That is something that must not be lost sight of. The aim of the report is to assure security. By security it means that every able-bodied man shall have the security of a job; that those who through infirmity or invalidity cannot work shall have security without work; that there shall be security for men while they are in employment and wrhen they are unemployed; that there shall be the security of medical and hospital assistance; security of the family against the invalidity or death of the bread winner, and above all security for the men who serve the nation in the armed forces-security both for them and for their dependents. All these things can be secured under the system which has built up this country-the system of free initiative-and if they cannot be secured under this system there is something radically wrong with our thinking and our teaching.
I am not one of those who believe that when the war is over, there will be immediate and widespread unemployment. I believe that through the instrumentality of a system of public works and great power projects men will be employed, that through the transition period from war to peace, if the government will utilize the instruments which it has at hand, namely, the many scores of factories which have received assistance from the government, employment can be secured for many of our men in the necessary production of consumer goods, the need of which will be greater than ever before. Agriculture, too, should enjoy a period of prosperity when hundreds of millions of bushels of wheat become necessary to be distributed in all parts of the world, in order to restore order and to relieve people from famine. That phase of the post-war will be dealt with by the reconstruction committee.
The Sir William Beveridge plan sets out that it is necessary to insure people from the five evils of want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. Security for all is a great principle, a great ideal, but unless something more is done than the setting up of a committee to investigate, with no assurance as to what is going to be done after the investigation, or when it is going to be done, it is not sufficient.
As I listened to the address of the Prime Minister the other day and to the speech which he delivered in October last, I looked back a period of years to 1919, when, at a convention of the Liberal party, certain principles were enunciated, the very same principles which are being enunciated to-day for the after-war period of this war; and I naturally asked myself this question, why have they not been implemented during the inter-
Social Security

vening period of years? I wish to refer to a few of them. They represent "the terms of the labour convention and the general principles associated with the League of Nations and incorporated in the conditions of peace," and are as follows:
1.	The guiding principle that labour should not be regarded merely as a commodity or article of commerce.
2.	The right of association for all lawful purposes by the employed as well as by the *employers.
3.	The payment to the employed of a wage adequate to maintain a reasonable standard of life as this is understood in their time and country.
The matter of minimum wages is one of provincial legislation.
4.	The adoption of an 8-hour day or a 48-hour week as the standard to be aimed at where it has not already been attained.
That was implemented in 1935 by the Bennett administration, and subsequently the legislation was set aside by the courts.
5.	The adoption of a weekly rest of at least 24 hours, which should include Sunday wherever practicable.
This, again, was implemented by the Bennett government, and also set aside by the courts.
The principle that men and women should receive equal remuneration for work of equal value.
In all the years, what has been done to ensure the implementation of that great principle?
The standard set by the law in each country with respect to the conditions of labour should have due regard to the equitable economic treatment of all workers lawfully resident therein.
Another great principle.
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.
That was over twenty-three years ago, and as we look at the Liberal party promises of 1919 and note the similarity to the promises of to-day, I ask this: Why should it be necessary, after the length of time that the Prime Minister has been in power, to submit the matter of social security to a committee of parliament:
... to examine and report on . . . the most practicable measures of social insurance . . . and the steps which will be required to effect their inclusion in a national plan . . .
XMr. Diefenbaker.]
Why the necessity after all these years?
Now, something more. What is the committee going to do? The committee is-
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. . . .
Well, now, everybody knows what it is necessary to do in order to secure the necessary jurisdiction, to enact health insurance. Either there must be amendment of the British North America Act in order to permit health insurance to be placed upon the statute books by *this parliament, or there must be consultations with the various provinces in order to secure their consent to the carrying into effect of a federal social insurance scheme. Surely this committee is not going to be asked to shadow-box with the problem, to go through the motions of leading the people of Canada to believe that there will in fact be something done; for the Prime Minister, possibly not intentionally, has failed to state what will be done when the committee reports, whether anything will be done, and when anything will be done.
In connection with unemployment insurance, for a period of about sixteen years the general attitude taken by the government was that such legislation could not be introduced because of provincial rights under the British North America Act. In 1935 legislation setting up an unemployment insurance act-and also, I point out, a health insurance act, sections 39 to 41 of the Employment and Social Insurance Act-was submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada and by way of appeal to the privy council by the government of the day which for many years had stated that they believed in the principle, and was declared to be beyond the powers of the parliament of Canada.
In 1940 the matter again came up, and I remember veiy well the then Minister of Justice pointing out the difficulties in connection with the situation. He introduced a resolution of parliament asking the imperial parliament to amend the British North America Act by adding to section 91 the power to put into effect "unemployment insurance". And the minister pointed out that otherwise all the provinces would have to be consulted or be persuaded to submit to its being administered by a body which was not responsible to them.

Social Security
When the Prime Minister speaks again in this debate I think we as members of this committee that is to be set up, and, if not we, this parliament, and certainly the people of Canada, have a right to know whether the provinces have been consulted, which provinces have been consulted, and what have been their answers. Are they willing to give up their powers under the British North America Act respecting health insurance?
When .the Prime Minister was speaking yesterday he referred to this, and this is what he said, as reported at .page 937 of Hansard:
Questions of jurisdiction will arise, questions between the provinces and the dominion as to whether in a national scheme the dominion should attempt to carry out all social security measures, or whether those measures in part should be under the jurisdiction of the dominion and in part under that of the several provinces.
Why have we not been told whether the provinces have been consulted? Surely the committee will not be required to communicate with the various provincial governments of Canada and ascertain from them what they are prepared to do. If we are to wait until the provincial governments would answer the committee as to whether or not they are going to release their powers I think the committee would wait quite a long time.
Then the Prime Minister went on to say:
So far as administration is concerned there are some measures which, at least for a time, the provinces will I believe wish to retain.
What are the measures the provinces wish to retain? Is it the matter of health insurance? Is it the matter of other insurance to which reference has been made? What provinces have indicated their willingness to cooperate? These are questions I ask the Prime Minister to answer. Then he says:
There may be others they will be prepared to hand over to the federal government.
That is too indefinite. A committee is to be set up by this parliament to look into the question of assuring the men and women of this dominion that after this war there will be security against invalidity and against unemployment or while unemployed-we already have that-and security against disease as far as that is practicable. Yet we have no assurance that when we get through with our work all the provinces will agree to this parliament passing the necessary legislation, or that any of the provinces will give up their jurisdictional rights as far as health insurance is concerned. All those things should have been done earlier. The Prime Minister and the government should give the people of Canada the assurance now that when this committee works, as I know from the personnel it will,
and arrives at final conclusions, its recommendations will be brought into effect; that this parliament has the power to bring them into effect; that the provinces have agreed thereto, or that the necessary amendment of the British North America Act will be applied for to enable parliament to pass a health insurance act.
In 1940 the government knew that health insurance and many of these things that were advocated in 1919 could not be carried into effect without an amendment of the constitution. Then why was it, with the realization how necessary health insurance was, that when the imperial government was approached in 1940 the application for amendment of the British North America Act was restricted to just one thing, namely, unemployment insurance? I think in large measure what accounts for the fact that our social legislation is behind that of most of the other democratic nations of the world is that there has been divided responsibility, divided jurisdiction as between the federal and provincial governments. It has held Canada back from being able to take the position that Great Britain has in social legislation. She has had workmen's compensation since 1897, old age pensions since 1908, and by way of contribution some years later, unemployment insurance since 1912 and compulsory health insurance since 1912. Canada has been hedged in by constitutional difficulties in the enactment of social legislation. Surely the committee will not be doing anything effective if all that it does is to consider what social legislation has been passed in other countries, without the assurance that something will be done to carry its recommendations into effect.
It is a singular fact, as was pointed out yesterday in the very careful summary in respect of social legislation given by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) that we had to wait until after the Winnipeg convention before social legislation was made so large a part of the programme of this government. That may account for the fact that, the convention being over only six or seven weeks ago, sufficient time had not elapsed to enable the government to communicate with the various provincial governments -on these matters. I believe that the time has come, if we wish to build up in Canada equality in social legislation, that the provinces must give up some of their rights to the central authority. We have one law in regard to minimum wages in one province, and a different law in another; we have different provisions for mothers' allowances, maternity grants and so on in the different provinces. Great strides have been
Social Security

made by the provinces, but there is no uniformity in social legislation. The result is that in one province the deathrate in childbirth is very much greater than in other provinces, and in saying that I have no particular province in mind. The fact is that there are not uniform social services; and if we are in earnest about doing something for the men who will return after the war; if we are to have the social consciousness of the ordinary man on the street carried into legislative effect, then I believe the time has come when the field of social legislation should be taken over by the dominion government. I believe there would be very little difficulty if representations were made to the provincial governments. In his speech the Prime Minister indicated that there might be some difficulty, but he also indicated that in regard to many matters he believed the provinces would be prepared to permit the federal government to put such legislation into effect.
We in his majesty's opposition have certain definite ideas in reference to this problem. We believe that the state's share of the cost of all social security measures should be borne by the dominion, and the time has come when this should be put into effect. In the next place we believe that it is the obligation of the government to make available to every citizen adequate medical, dental, nursing, hospital and prenatal care, with further advanced public health and nutritional principles so that health may be safeguarded and preserved; that the time has come to put into effect legislation to assure adequate payment for the maintenance of unemployables; retirement insurance, and the payment of increased old age pensions at an earlier age than seventy years. I am going to pause there for a moment, Mr. Speaker, and suggest that there could be no better way to assure the morale of Canada as a whole than for the government immediately to bring into effect cost-of-living allowances for old age pensioners. Let us forget the difficulties of financing as far as old age pensions are concerned, as between the federal government and the provinces. Old age pensions for the period of the war should be immediately increased to a point much higher than the present destitution level. If that could be done it would meet with approval all over Canada; it would not require the approval of the provinces if the dominion government were prepared to pay the extra cost, and by paying that extra amount we would bring new hope to those people, many of whom to-day, by reason of the small allowance, are living under circumstances very little better than destitution.

Finally, if ever there was a problem to challenge the imagination it is the after-war problem, the problem of the new world of which the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill and President Roosevelt have spoken so often. Just in that connection I thought it was particularly appropriate that the messages read earlier today should have been sent to the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the President of the United States. It was appropriate on account of the fact that they have dominated the w-orld situation; they have given hope to the democracies; they have built up a determination in their nations that know no word but victory. Both have been leaders in social reform, and to-day the social security legislation of Great Britain is far ahead of ours, while across the line in the United States President Roosevelt in the last ten years has brought in social legislation designed to improve the lot of the common man to a degree never before equalled on the continent of North America. We believe this matter of social security is so important that the government should now appoint a minister of social security and reconstruction, to be charged with the administration of social security measures. That is what we advocate in our platform. We believe that with the load of responsibility at present being carried by the Prime Minister and the other members of the cabinet, with the division of responsibility among departments 'as far as social legislation is concerned, this problem, which now looms larger than ever before, is worthy of a minister to head a department which will administer social security laws for the uniform benefit of all parts of Canada.
I come back once more to the resolution setting up the committee. If read cursorily, this resolution gives promise that something will be done; but if read carefully, it says only that a select committee will be set up; that the committee will investigate; that it will study systems in Canada and elsewhere. There is no suggestion in the resolution that any action will be taken. That may be perfectly proper, but what is significant is that when the Prime Minister, whose interest in social legislation has always been very keen, delivered his speech yesterday he left no hope with those who heard him that the recommendations of the committee would be carried into effect in whole or in part. I think the people of Canada have a right to be assured now by the Prime Minister that jurisdictional difficulties with the provinces will be removed. Let him frankly inform the house of the attitude taken by each of the provinces if they have been consulted, and, finally, whether or not it is the intention of the government to bring in a resolution to amend the British North

Social Security
America Act. The setting up of the committee will build up fond hopes; and if no action is taken on its recommendations there will be a feeling of resentment among the people if, *when all the nations are building for the new world, this parliament intends only to set up a committee but does not intend to carry its recommendations into legislation.


James Alexander Marshall: Mr. Speaker, last year I was a member of two very important committees, one the committee on reconstruction and the other set up to investigate canteen funds. To a certain extent the work of those two committees clashed. Feeling I could not do justice to both I made an agreement with my colleague, the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) that he should take one committee and I the other. He devoted his time entirely to the work of the reconstruction committee, and I went on with the work of the canteen funds committee. That accounts for the fact that I was unable to give as much time to the committee on reconstruction as I should have liked.
My remarks this afternoon perhaps should have been given on the resolution sponsored by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie). I intended to speak on that resolution, but on account of the lateness of the hour, and the desire of the minister to close the discussion I considered it would be unfair to hold up the formation of the committee any longer, because had I spoken it would have meant carrying the debate into another day. Therefore I waved my right on that occasion, with the result that the remarks I intended to make then I shall make now.
Speaking in the debate to set up the committee on reconstruction, the hon. member for Acadia placed his finger on the cancer which has been eating at the heart of the economic life of Canada.
I have been prompted to enter this debate by reason of a trend of thought I felt I sensed throughout a number of the speeches on the resolution to set up the committee on reconstruction, and in some of the speeches on the resolution at present under discussion. Under the guise of social security measures there seems to be a tendency to centralize power in a central authority, thereby taking away some of the rights and privileges of lesser governments. Not only is that taking place in single nations, but there is the trend to tie all nations of the world together, place them under one central authority, the enforcement of law in that central body being placed in the hands of an international police force.
The type of individual who desires such conditions is to my mind a dangerous one.
We are setting up bureaucracies which I believe will be very difficult to do away with at the close of the war. It would be interesting to know the source from which this trend of thought emanates. I believe the idea of the world planner or bureaucrat originated in an institution in Great Britain known as the London school of economics. This institution was set up a number of years ago by an influential and rich man named Sir Ernest Cassel. He endowed it with an immense amount of money, and its avowed purpose, in his own words was-and still is-that of training bureaucrats for future socialist states.
One of the research committees operating under this school of economics issues a publication known as "PEP," the three letters standing for the three words Political and Economic Planning. Early in the war there appeared in this publication an article from which I should like to quote one sentence, because I believe it reveals the tactics being followed at the present time:
Only in war or under the threat of war will a British government embark on large-scale planning.
I suggest to the house that this is a most subtle utterance. Herein I believe lies the reason for the undue haste, shall I say, of trying to saddle upon the shoulders of the Canadian people, who at this time are most anxious about the prosecution of the war, schemes and plans which could not possibly be saddled upon them in peace time.
Let me first of all deal with world planning. There are those who believe that success can be achieved to-day only by tying all the nations together under a central authority. They believe that international trade is a solution of the problem. They believe that the amalgamation rather than the cooperation of countries is one of the factors tending toward a new day. I believe those good people are misguided. They seem to hold that what is national is inherently bad, but what is international is positively good. They wish to establish once again institutions which have been more or less discredited in the past. I refer to the institutions of the Bank of International Settlements, and the League of Nations. The Bank of International Settlements is a pro-axis organization. The chief shareholder in that bank is Germany, and the majority of the shares are controlled by axis countries. If anyone cares to have proof of that he has only to read the British Hansard of the last few months of 1942. It wall be found that that institution was the subject of many questions as well as discussion.



Social Security
Then we have the League of Nations, that brain-child of a United States college professor which was dumped on the doorstep of Great Britain and her allies at the close of the last war and then was disowned by its creator. Both of those institutions were, and still are free from national bias. Their policy is to get every nation into debt with equal impartiality. One in particular is working secretly and guards its workings most jealously from prying minds. The League of Nations was the international instrument by which reconstruction loans at usurious rates of interest were fastened upon many of the small nations of Europe. One example is the League of Nations loan to Austria. This allowed for a premium on redemption and yielded' a rate of approximately eight and a half per cent per annum although it was soundly secured and internationally guaranteed. The second instance is the League of Nations loan to Hungary which carried a rate of nearly 9i per cent per annum. The objective of the loans was to keep those countries under an orthodox economy, to keep them permanently enslaved under a debt system. Similar loans were made to Greece and Bulgaria.
For a few moments I should like to turn my attention nearer home. As I have said, these world planners are endeavouring to take powers away from the local governments and centralize them in one central authority. They work on the premise that nine wrongs make a right. They believe that if one man the worse of liquor is not able to reach his home safely, then nine men the worse of liquor will be able to get home all right provided they are tied together. They believe that if you take the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and the others, all of which are loaded heavily with debt, and bring them under the control of a central government in Ottawa, all their worries will be at an end and their debt problems will be solved. These planners forget that the central government in Ottawa has balanced its budget only fifteen times in seventy-five years. Debt has been piled up in sixty years out of the seventy-five to the stage where it now threatens to engulf us.
I am not convinced, therefore, that the way to solve any problem is to make it larger. There are certain definite limits beyond which one's faith cannot go.
What is the strategy of these bureaucrats? First of all, this government set up the Sirois commission which brought in a report that, had it been adopted, would have centralized all authority in Ottawa. Fortunately for the people of Canada that report was rejected, not

by the people themselves, it is true, but by their elected representatives. It is "only in times of war or under threat of war that the Canadian government will embark upon large-scale planning."
The first step taken in Canada during the war was to saddle the Canadian people with an unemployment insurance scheme. This scheme was pronounced economically sound by one expert actuary, but it was declared to be economically unsound by another. The bill was passed in 1941, a war year. I contend that that bill would never have been put upon the statute books during years of peace. Unemployment insurance flourishes in times of war and in years of prosperity, but it bogs down in times of peace and in years of depression. That has been the experience in Great Britain, and that is why a commission was appointed to find out what could be done to tie together all the various schemes in order to make them work. That was the first step in this programme of centralization.
We come now to the next step. We are asked to adopt a national health scheme. In the last speech I made in this house on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I prophesied that a plan of social security had already been formulated and that it would be brought out and presented for approval at the proper time. I was not surprised, therefore, to read in the Financial Post of February 27, 1943, right on the front page, under the heading " Social security report ready " the following:
Canada's first attempt at a pre-Beveridge report-the study on social security for Canada in terms of post-war planning-is now in the Prime Minister's hands, the Financial Post is informed.
The report covers some 150 pages and will presumably be available to the newly-formed parliamentary committee on social security and the parliamentary committee on reconstruction.
Prepared in less than two months, it has been turned out under the direction of the James committee on post-war reconstruction.
The report is intended as an educational document showing the background and present position of social security legislation and planning in Canada, and to indicate what would be required in respect of a comprehensive social security programme for Canada.
What is the use of setting up a committee if the plans are already cut-and-dried? All that we shall be asked to do is to give our approval to them and then they will be turned over to the publicity boys to sell them to the general public. This government, prodded by bureaucracy, appears to be determined to preserve the old order even though it means centralization and regimentation.
I should like now to direct the attention of members of the house and of members of the

Social Security
two committees which have been set up, to a resolution standing on the order paper in my name, and which I am sponsoring on behalf of the Social Credit group with which I have the honour to be associated. The resolution reads:
Whereas the men of our fighting forces are very properly looking to the people at home to see that when they return it will be to a country worthy of their magnificent courage, their unstinting sacrifices and the ideals for which they are fighting;
Therefore be it resolved,-That, in the opinion of this house, the minimum measures for the rehabilitation of the men of our fighting forces and their dependents shall be:
1.	(a) On demobilization, persons who have served in the Canadian armed forces or merchant marine shall, while domiciled in Canada, receive a monthly income equivalent to not less than the full pay and all allowances including subsistence, for a private in the army, for a period of not less than three years, to enable the individual to become established in the economic life of the country, (b) thereafter they shall receive a monthly income (irrespective of any earned income) sufficient to ensure adequate basic economic security for the family against loss of income through any cause whatever.
2.	Dependents of persons who have been killed in action and of persons who have died while serving in . the armed forces and merchant marine shall be provided with a pension equivalent to not less than the full benefits under clause 1 (a) during the life time of the mother or widow and, in the case of children until they become 18 years of age, when they shall be eligible for a special allowance to complete their education.
I commend this resolution to the earnest consideration of the members of the house and the members of the two committees. The resolution proposes to give the men and women of our fighting forces and their dependents individual security with freedom. If you give the people of this country financial independence, that will make these schemes we hear so much about entirely unnecessary. The individuals then will be free to choose their own doctors and nurses and hospitals. The old bogey, of course, of where will all the money come from to do these things cannot be trotted out any more because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) himself has said that what is physically possible can be made financially possible. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) used similar words. It requires only the willingness of the government to put this plan into effect.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not like the move of the government toward state bureaucracy. I realize that some of it is necessary in war time, but not in such large doses as are being fed to us to-day. That is not Liberalism, at least not the Liberalism that I have always known in past years.
Reforms must come. Suffering, destitution, sickness and all other evils that afflict mankind
72537-62}
must go. We are all agreed on that. But to institute unemployment insurance and a national health scheme are simply palliatives and will not cure the disease which afflicts us. All reforms must wait on monetary reform. The greatest monopoly of all is the money monopoly, and until that problem is tackled and solved there is no hope for the people from any of these palliatives. No new Canada can be built upon a rotten foundation, and I am not yet convinced that this government desires to clear away any of the rottenness. I think these palliatives and these plans can well wait and I suggest that they wait until the Beurlings and the Merritts return to help us make blueprints of a better Canada. Let us not fool ourselves. The same old gang who lost the last peace and who admitted, as Sir William Beveridge has done, that want could have been abolished are bestirring themselves and want to write a charter of a better Canada. But the youths who ride the sky lanes over Germany, Italy, Burma and north Africa, the youths who are standing to in Great Britain awaiting the "go" sign to march to Berlin, the youths who daily brave the biting gales of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans-they are the men who, in my opinion, should write the blueprint of a new Canada. But if these youths allow the politicians of to-day and yesteryear to plan for them, they are bigger fools than I take them to be. I do not think it is likely that these young men who have donned battle-dress to win the war will meekly agree to don overalls to lose the peace.
One Englishman writing under the pen name of " Excalibur," penned a short poem which describes more pungently the situation than I could possibly describe it, and I think provides a complete answer to all world planners. The poem is as follows:
Youth Replies to Planners We should be touched by your consideration Of problems that affect our generation But frankly we are not. It may disgust you To learn it but we simply do not trust you. We fear the gifts with which you would present us,
They hide a cunning scheme to regiment us, Curl up, old busybodies, on your shelves And go to sleep and-leave us to ourselves.


Thomas Miller Bell: Who is the author?


James Alexander Marshall: "Excalibur." He writes under a pen-name. I do not know him; I should very much like to, but I have never been able to find out who he is.


Thomas Miller Bell: Where does he write7 In what paper?


James Alexander Marshall: I could not tell the hon. member.
Social Security


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow .River):: He is
writing about the Liberal cabinet!


James Alexander Marshall: Youth fights to win this war; the world planners fight to lose the peace. I prefer to leave the planners, the politicians, and above all the peace, to Canadian youth.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Marshall) who spoke just before the dinner recess will not expect me to follow him, because after all there is a place where international affairs can be discussed more appropriately than on this resolution. When the proper time comes no doubt we shall be able to discuss the points he raised this afternoon.
I am glad to note that the government is recommending to this house the appointment of a committee to study social security measures. But that is not enough. The government will be judged not by the problem it presents to a committee but by what it does now to impress upon the country the assurance that it is in earnest in bringing about some improvement in. our social and economic conditions. I should have preferred very much had this resolution been preceded by some mention in the speech from the throne of some provision to be in the budget for an improvement in the condition of the old age pensioners, the blind, the dependents of .our soldiers and the men who are being discharged now from the armed forces in the present war.
This afternoon the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) delved- into history and referred to the Liberal programme of 1919. I have been doing the same thing.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Doubtless.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have done it before, and I have no doubt, if the government continues the pace in regard to social legislation that it has adopted in the last twenty-three shears, someone will be doing it twenty-three years hence, and with no better result than I have been able to find. It was a wonderfully attractive programme at the time. The first resolution adopted read:
Whereas the great war and the greater epidemic have taken an appalling toll of *Canadian life; and
XMr. Marshall.]
Whereas human life and physical efficiency are the nation's greatest assets; and Whereas conservation and improvement thereof should be the country's first care;
Therefore this gathering of Liberals in convention assembled pledges itself to a vigorous prosecution of the measures best calculated to conserve the life and improve the physical standard of our Canadian citizenship.
That was adopted on August 5, 1919.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was only a chart.


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes; that I believe was .the last national convention of the Liberal party in Canada.


Mr. MARTIN:: We have always had our leader.


Thomas Miller Bell: If we progress no more rapidly than we have in the last twenty-three years we shall be a long time indeed before we achieve any real measures of social security.
A little further on is a resolution saying: That the introduction into the government of industry or principles of representation whereby labour and the community, as well as capital, may be represented in industrial control and their interests safeguarded and promoted in the shaping of industrial policies.
I am not going to comment on .that, for every hon. member knows how well or how badly that particular paragraph has been put into effect. Then we go on:
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.
Here we are to-day in 1943 with the jurisdictional difficulty still facing us, in spite of the fact that we had the Rowell-Sirois commission sitting prior to the war and bringing these problems before us in a very striking manner in 1940.
Another paragraph read:
That the system of retraining the soldiers unfitted for their past work because of physical injuries be extended to disabled workers in industry.
I venture to say that the soldiers are not adequately provided for and that workers in industry have never received any real benefit under this particular resolution.
I am not going to discuss the other clauses in that section,

Social Security
Let me read the paragraph regarding insurance:
That provision should be made whereby any increased cost of insurance in favour of the dependents of the soldier should be borne by the state where such increase arises from disability incurred during the war.
And then:
That such pensions or allowances be granted as shall enable soldiers or their dependents as the case may be to maintain a liberal standard of living sufficient to guarantee health, education and all the necessities, comforts and amenities which go to make up a standard of living worthy of Canadian citizenship.
That policy was adopted a year after the close of the last war. To-day we are engaged in another great war, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if the men who to-day are being discharged are receiving an amount sufficient to provide them with a reasonable standard of health, education and the amenities which go with the standard of living which we enjoy normally in the country in which we live. The answer must be in the negative. Therefore I say that when the people of Canada look at the resolution to set up this committee they will not take the resolution as seriously as some would wish them to do because they know the past record of the government which is recommending it to this house at the present time.
May I say to my hon. friends to my right that when we look into their record in the years between 1930 and 1935 we can find no indication whatsoever that they would do any better, in spite of their new programme, if they were occupying the government benches instead of those of the official opposition. I remember perfectly well those dreadful years 1930 to 1935. I remember being on delegations meeting the government of the province in which I live and the premier telling us that we could not get programmes of public works because the dominion government, then the Conservative party, believed it was cheaper to keep people on the low level of relief at which they w'ere kept than to enter upon a public works programme, which would involve expenditures for material as well as for wages. Nor can I forget, as few hon. members will forget, seeing the hundreds of young men moving across this country seeking work, some of them arriving in my own city one June afternoon, as decent a bunch of boys as one would find anywhere in Canada. They may have had some leaders who were not of the best type, but on the whole they were well behaved, and during their stay in our city of Regina there was raised for them the largest amount of money that was ever raised on a single tag day in that city. In the end there was a riot, during which blood was spilled.
Therefore, I say that actions speak liouder than words, and we need from the government, from the opposition and from all parties in this house more in the way of action and less in the way of words.
As far as we in this group are concerned, we have tried to promote throughout the country a consciousness of the need for social service measures. I do not think any hon. member sitting anywhere in this house will gainsay the fact that ever since we came into existence as a party in 1933 we have endeavoured to keep before the Canadian public the need for social security legislation. I have in my hand a copy of the manifesto that was adopted at Regina in 1933 when the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation was first placed upon a strong foundation, and I will put it on the record. At that time, as at the present time, we had this plank in the platform.: publicly organized health, hospital and medical services. We went on to say:
With the advance of medical science the maintenance of a healthy population has become a function for which every civilized community-should undertake responsibility. Health services should be made at least as freely available as are educational services to-day. But under a system which is still mainly one of private enterprise the costs of proper medical care, such as the wealthier members of society can easily afford, are at present prohibitive for great masses of the people. A properly organized system of public health services including medical and dental care, which would stress the prevention rather than the cure of illness* should he extended to all our people in both, rural and urban areas. This is an enterprise-in which dominion, provincial and municipal! authorities, as well as the medical and d,ent&li' professions, can cooperate.
When we look back over the last few years in our own country, the record in connection with disease and death is certainly appalling. I do not intend to give a long list of figures; I simply state that according to official records in 1941 tuberculosis took more than six thousand lives in this country. In Ontario the incidence was 29-2 per hundred thousand of population; in Quebec it was 80-8 per hundred thousand. In 1940 infant mortality per thousand of living births was 29 in Vancouver and- 113 in Quebec city; and even 29 was too high. Some 3,954 mothers died in childbirth in 1939. The Verdun district of Montreal had four times the number of deaths of mothers in childbirth as the city of Regina, and even at that Regina does not stand at the top of the list of the cities of western Canada. I recall that the former Minister of National War Services, Hon. Mr. Thorson, in 1941, said that up to October 2 of that year, 44 per cent of the 217,588 volunteers examined had been rejected from class A as being unfit, class A
Social Security

of course being the top class. Since the outbreak of war I am informed that more than 60,000 men have been discharged or have deserted from the armed forces, which I submit is an appalling indictment of conditions in our country.
Conditions are not growing better. Last year I had occasion to refer to the shocking conditions that existed in Halifax, and I should like to draw attention to the fact that conditions in that city have grown worse during the past year. Recently the Rockefeller foundation sent two of its physicians, Doctor D. Bruce Wilson and Doctor W. A. McIntosh, to make a survey of conditions in Halifax, at the request of the provincial minister of health, Doctor F. R. Davis. What does their report show? The deathrate in Halifax has risen from 14-5 in 1937 to 17-2 in 1941, and is almost 45 per cent higher than anywhere else in Nova Scotia. Yet in order that they may do their duty and defend our country in this time of war we are sending literally thousands of our young men and some young women to Halifax, or through Halifax to other points. It seems to me that the condition of this great Canadian city affects not .only the citizens of Halifax and the people of Nova Scotia, but the people of this country as A whole. Conditions in that city ought to be :a dominion responsibility. Tuberculosis, one of tt-hat city's major health problems, is not even reported as it occurs, though these doctors state that an early report by medical men would cut down the incidence of that disease very considerably. Another appalling fact is that two and a half times as many new cases of syphilis were reported in 1941 as in 1939, and the extent of the social diseases problem is unknown because provision for treatment and control is entirely inadequate. In their report these medical men state that some of the doctors in Halifax are not even reporting these cases and that the committee which was established in that city to look after this particular social disease has not been meeting. They go on to tell us of the disgraceful manner in which the food of that city is handled. They tell us of the filth around the market place, the filthy lavatory accommodation and the wretched and entirely inadequate milk supply. Yet, as I say, we are sending thousands of our young men and women through that city. I am not going to quote further from that exceedingly gloomy report, but to my mind it is a disgrace not only to the city of Halifax, not only to the province of Nova Scotia, but to the entire Dominion of Canada.
I raised this question last year after I had seen the terrible slum conditions in Halifax, but apparently very little has been done to

meet the situation there. The report of these two medical men states that the slum population of Halifax is out of all proportion to the size of the city itself. I believe the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) has obtained or is about to obtain a copy of the report to which I have referred, and no doubt he will give it his attention; at least I hope he will do so.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I may inform my hon. friend that we passed an order in council yesterday providing a substantial contribution toward the betterment of health conditions in Halifax.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am pleased to hear that, and may I say that I trust the minister will supervise the expenditure of the financial aid in order that it may do the job I am sure the government hopes will be done in that city. In line with this plea for the prevention rather than the cure of the disease-for such, to my way of thinking, is the real purpose of any health scheme we may adopt or support in this country-we have to consider allied nutritional problems.
I have seen a good many reports on the nutrition of the Canadian people, a people with a comparatively high standard of living. Yet it is surprising how many people in Canada are insufficiently and inadequately nourished. To a large degree that is due to inadequate incomes, but not altogether, for one sometimes finds malnutrition in families where the wrong kind of food is eaten, but who have enough money to get the right kind of food.
Those of us who visited Great Britain a year ago had the privilege of seeing some of the great community kitchens established in that country; and we learned there, with a good deal of satisfaction, that in spite of the fact that many kinds of food are scarce, and some unobtainable, and in spite of the fact that they have had to cut down very largely on the foods to which the British people were used in normal times, yet government supervision of feeding in Great Britain, even on the lower levels, so far as types of food are concerned, had improved the health of the people to the point where, we were told, the British people to-day, taken as a nation, are probably better nourished than they were in the days before the war. Therefore I say that we should be giving attention to the problem of nutrition.
I mentioned the incidence of the venereal disease, but when I was doing so I omitted to say that I hoped adequate provision would be made this year to deal with that problem. I do not know just what is in the appropriation for that work.

Social Security


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is $175,000.


Thomas Miller Bell: I believe that is a
smaller amount than was appropriated shortly after the last war, when there was an appropriation of $200,000, if my memory serves me correctly.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was the maximum year.


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes; $200,000 was the
maximum. We should be spending the maximum now. May I say again that I thought it was most unfortunate that when Mr. Bennett was Prime Minister of this country the appropriation was so drastically cut, to the point where actually the stamping out of the disease was made exceedingly difficult. I am glad, therefore, to know that something is being done in this connection, and I can assure the minister that any appropriation he sets aside for purposes of this description will receive the hearty support of my colleagues and myself.	.
In the short time remaining to me I should like to offer some suggestions regarding the work of the committee. I am glad to know that the reference is broad enough that the committee may examine health schemes in other countries. There are two countries in which, I think, health has been placed in the forefront of the aims of the nation. No matter what we may think of the methods used to establish the present government in Russia; no matter what wTe may think of what is called communism-and I suppose there is no one in this chamber who dislikes communist party methods more than I do- yet I want to say this, that if there is one thing which has been done in Russia which we should study, and one thing that should be a challenge to all democratic nations, it is the manner in which Russia has dealt with health problems. That is the one great contribution, if they have made no others, that they have made to the welfare of the human race. The manner in which they care for mothers before children are born, for children after they are bom, and the manner in which they use preventive medicine right through to life's end is something we should study. In Russia that is a service accessible and free to all.
The other country I have in mind is New Zealand. I realize that New Zealand has one advantage we have not at this time, namely, the ability to institute a nation-wide health scheme because it has a unitary parliament, or one parliament governing the whole country. That is not easily possible in a confederation such as ours. But I believe that if we approach the constitutional problem in the manner in
which it should be approached, and in the right spirit, we should be able to straighten out this constitutional difficulty. I believe that the basis of confederation, as written into the British North America Act, and upon which the unity of this country depends, is the recognition of certain rights, rights not only of minorities but of majorities as well. We often speak of the rights of minorities, but let us not forget that the majority also has rights. If we accept the point of view that both these rights are the fundamental basis of confederation, then it seems to me we can approach this matter in the spirit in which we ought to approach it.
I believe an attempt should be made to obtain from the several provinces an agreement with the dominion-call it a bill of rights, if you like-and into this agreement there should be written the basis of confederation. Remove, the question of constitutional rights from the realm of partisan discussion, so that we may then agree as to what new powers are needed by the dominion in order to bring about the kind of social structure we desire. As I say, in that respect New Zealand has the advantage of being able to do what it wishes, because it is a unified country with a single parliament. But. somehow or another we must devise ways and means of meeting this difficulty under which we labour. After all, national health and social security are not provincial problems. I often hear my hon. friends to my iim-mediate left talking about the danger of interfering with the rights of local communities -in their case, provincial rights. Yet I often pay this tribute to Alberta: I do not know any province in Canada which in recent years has done more for its education system than has Alberta. How did they do it? Did they do it by recognizing the inherent rights of every little local school board, every little local community? Indeed, no. What they did was to adopt a larger unit of administration, and take from the local community in spite of considerable opposition, the right to control its own local schools. In that respect they found that the larger unit was more efficient; and I ask them to apply to the wider problems which confront this nation and indeed the world, the same logic as was applied by thear government in relation to their local school districts.
There are certain problems which cannot be dealt with by municipalities, localities or provinces, but which must be dealt with by nations. By the same token there are certain problems, such as the elimination of war and the establishment of collective security for the world, which can be dealt with only by the cooperative effort of all the nations willing to cooperate.	.
Social Security

I hope the committee will study the New Zealand scheme. I am quite sure it would have no difficulty in obtaining the appearance before it of a man like the Hon. Walter Nash, who is now located at Washington' and who, to a large extent, was responsible for the building of their social security system. I have no doubt that in studying social security conditions in other nations, the committee can find much first-class and first-hand evidence if it will, for example, consult officials of the international labour office in Montreal. I think some hon. members know that in the international labour office in that city there is one of the leading authorities on social security, a gentleman who was invited to go to England to appear before the Beveridge committee and who has been to South America to assist some of the countries there in devising social security systems in recent years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Stein?


Thomas Miller Bell: 
Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: I listened attentively yesterday to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) speaking on this resolution that a select committee of this house be set up to examine and report on a national plan of social insurance which will constitute a charter of social security for the whole of Canada. In the past twenty-three years the right hon. gentleman has been Prime Minister for some sixteen years and leader of the opposition for the remaining seven. On August 14, 1937, with the concurrence of the then Minister of Finance and the then Minister of Justice, he had set up what was known first as the Rowell commission and later as the Rowell-Sirois commission on dominion-provincial relations, recommending to that commission first, that it was expedient to provide for a reexamination of the economic and financial basis of confederation and of the distribution of legislative powers in the light of economic and social developments of the last seventy years. That commission, as most hon. members will remember, made an exhaustive and detailed study of prevailing conditions throughout this dominion and submitted a lengthy and comprehensive report to the present Prime Minister on May 3, 1940.
This afternoon my colleague the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) made reference to a speech delivered in Toronto last October by the Prime Minister to a gathering of labour people and to the very fine sentiments he expressed at that meeting. The hon. member also referred to those principles of social security which were enunciated by the Prime Minister in 1919 when he accepted the leadership of the Liberal party, and the speaker who preceded me, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), quoted at some length from that chart of the Prime Minister's which was set forth in 1919.
_ I should have thought, in view of all these circumstances, that the Prime Minister would1 present to the house at this time a bill on social security and health insurance setting forth the government's policy, instead of presenting simply the resolution now under discussion.
The report of the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations accentuates the need for some central authority to obviate the dangers of fluctuating provincial incomes during depression periods. The report shows us the urgent needs of the provinces prior to the war and their inability to carry on the necessary social and health services. It goes without saying that the situation of the provinces is even more desperate now that the war has made it necessary to invade provincial fields of taxation.
The need for a collective attack is clearly shown by the evidence brought forward by the various provinces in their submissions to the Rowell-Sirois commission. In brief, here is the picture. I quote:
Costs of medical services are increasing, but the ability of their people to pay is not increasing.
The high incidence of preventable disease and death.
Inadequacies of hospital facilities, especially in rural areas.
Inadequate accommodation in mental hospitals.
The expenditures on behalf of the mentally diseased and mentally defective have increased more rapidly than the general population rate.
The problems of cancer, mental illness, venereal diseases and tuberculosis, which ignore provincial boundaries, can best be attacked by unity, rather than by nine more or less sporadic provincial attacks.
Early diagnostic and preventive measures are needed all down the line.
The^ urgent need for properly organized services in the field of maternal and child health.
The increase in the costs of dependency because of illness and premature death.
The crying need for federal responsibility and financial aid-in fact, some system of national health insurance-if the problem is to be solved.
They acknowledge their provincial lacks, but state that they are unable to finance the health services they should be giving to their people.
I quote further from this pamphlet on Canadian nutrition surveys which have been made. It says:
In Canada, nutrition surveys at different income levels have been made in cities across the country; and they show that Canada has a serious nutrition problem. Dr. L. B. Pett, director of nutrition services, in the Department of Pensions and National Health at Ottawa (and also secretary of the Canadian Council on Nutrition) is conducting a wide-spread campaign to develop interest in nutrition on a community basis.
He says: "What people are we trying to reach? The answer is-everyone. . . . The Canadian dietary surveys indicated that while
Social Security

a higher income tends to assure the family of better nutrition, it is no guarantee. Furthermore, these surveys showed serious dietary deficiencies among families of an annual income less than $1,500. I am informed that this comprises more than half the families in Canada, so that there is a widespread nutrition problem.
. . . Therefore, in analysing the meaning of this word "everyone" it is advisable to be clear that it is not just a case of relief families, or low-income families, because surveys show that even where apparently large amounts of money are being spent on food, yet there may be malnutrition."
If there was any doubt or misunderstanding as to the report of the Sirois commission, this war has certainly proved to us the great need for the improved care of health throughout this country. In a three months period last year, of 50,000 young men who tried to enlist, 20,000 were rejected as physically unfit. To date over 70,000 men have been discharged from the armed forces during this war, many of them-I do not know just what percentage- as physically unfit.
Among the twenty-six leading countries of the world, only four have a record of maternal deaths worse than Canada's. In four years, 1932 to 1935, Canada lost 70,000 infants under one year of age and lost another 33,000 mothers and still-born infants.	_
A government investigation of Canadian children has shown that half a million are undernourished, one-quarter of a million have impaired.hearing, 77,000 have weak or damaged hearts, 35,000 suffer from tuberculosis. On the basis of these figures, Mr. Allan Ross, who takes care of rations for the Canadian troops, labelled Canada as a C3 nation.
The Hon. J. T. Thorson, as Minister of National War Services, stated in this house on November 11, 1941, that a total of 209,000 single men between the ages of twenty to twenty-four had been called and that 44 per cent of them had teen rejected on medical inspection.
Therefore I do not think there is any doubt as to the need of some system of health insurance in this country, and this need has existed for a long time past. In social security and health legislation Canada lags far behind many other democratic countries. The magazine Health in its autumn issue in 1942 points out that:
Under the social security act of 1938 medical care was provided in New Zealand for all. The service included free general practitioner's service, free hospital and sanitarium service for all and other benefits.
In other words, in a large proportion of the English-speaking part of the British empire the problem of medical care has resulted in legislative action which we still lack in Canada.
In order to estimate the type of national health programme which may be evolved in Canada and indeed which is likely to be evolved,

it is perhaps desirable to make some additional comparisons between Canada and the United States. Conditions in the two countries are similar so plans for the remedying of defects in public health machinery may well be similar.
In the United States for constitutional reasons it should be more difficult to initiate federal action in the field of health. Yet one finds that the efficiency of federal machinery is infinitely greater than in Canada, as expenditures on national health are greater.
I should mention the importance of full-time health service and the failure of our parliament to set aside any funds whatever for this purpose. On the other hand, in the United States under the social security act of 1935, $8,000,000 was made available annually for this purpose. In 1939 this appropriation was increased to $11,000,000.
It is more than interesting to note the remarkable increase in state and local expenditures as the result of the stimulus of federal subsidy. The total amount of money available from all sources in those health jurisdictions where federal funds were budgeted was $83,790,782 for the fiscal year 1940, an increase of $32,714,421 over the previous year. While because of some confusing factors this may not give an entirely accurate picture, it is obvious that the increase and improvement in local and state health machinery in the United States is much greater in proportion to federal grants than one could reasonably expect.
But if the two items of federal expenditure give one some idea of the direction in which we might go, they give little idea of the scope and magnitude of plans for national health under consideration in the United States.
The article goes on to cite details of expenditures in the United States, and then says:
Our own dominion expenditures on health, as I have said, are about one million dollars annually, of v-hich $50,000 only goes to the provinces in the form of subsidy.
I know personally of a community in western Canada where a group of doctors gox together and organized the area, establishing a small hospital and clinic and a contributory scheme of health insurance for the people of the area. Under this scheme the head of a family paid $25 a year, a single person $15 a year, and each local municipality paid $300 a year to take care of the health of its indigents. This has worked very satisfactorily, and if it be possible I should like to see the country zoned and organized on some such basis as I have just referred to with respect to health insurance, the scheme to be supplemented by government assistance. These people could be given proper help in the matter of dental care and other parts of a proper scheme of health insurance.
In the past, speaking in this chamber, I have repeatedly asked that the old age pension be increased. I believe also that seventy years is too high a minimum; we might well consider reducing it. And certainly, in these

Social Security
difficult times, pensioners are entitled to more than the meagre twenty dollars a month which they are allowed.
I have already indicated, when speaking on the debate in reply to the speech from the throne, that if social security legislation is to function properly, the British North America Act should be amended. If that is not done, the dominion and the provinces must get together and agree on certain matters-which to date they have not done. In the programme of the Progressive Conservative party as laid down in Winnipeg last December we recognized the obligation of government to make available to eveiy citizen adequate medical, dental, nursing, hospital and prenatal care, and to further advance public health and nutritional principles so that health may be safeguarded and preserved throughout this country ; this programme to be financed under a contributory system supplemented by government assistance.
It has been pointed out that Prime Minister Churchill and President Roosevelt are not only two great figures of our democratic world today but are great leaders in social reform. We may very well at this time take a leaf out of their book.
In closing, I should like to associate myself with the appeal of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) this afternoon, in advocating the appointment of a minister of social security and reconstruction, to be charged with the administration of social security and health measures in this country. This measure is advocated in our platform which is now before the public.


Mr. Wr. F. KUHL (Jasper-Edson):: The necessity or otherwise of the social legislation envisaged in the resolution before us is, I believe, entirely dependent upon the nature of the economic order which we wish to obtain in the post-war period. Personally I can conceive of an economic order in which the necessity of such legislation is entirely eliminated. My colleague the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Marshall), in speaking this afternoon, stated that if the proper economic adjustments were made, much of this social legislation would be unnecessary. I agree entirely wdth his statement. I believe that many of these special problems which we are considering, including insufficient old age pensions, the need of pensions for the blind, and inadequate health facilities, are part of a major and fundamental problem affecting the whole economic body, and that if the disease which is common to that whole economic body is eliminated, many of these problems which are regarded as special will take care of themselves.
It seems to me that our approach to this whole post-war question is analogous to that of the construction of a house. It would be foolish, of course, for a builder to consider where he was going to put the chimney, or to begin to place the chimney, or to arrange the walls or any part of the superstructure, before he built the foundation. We are proposing to erect the national edifice which is to be a fit habitation for our nation's heroes. In listening to most of the debate which took place on the resolution pertaining to post-war rehabilitation, as well as to what has already been said in the present debate, I had the impression that for the most part it has centred round the superstructure, Whereas I believe that the first duty of the membership of this house as well as of the committees which have been set up is to determine the fundamentals which are to operate in our economic system. We must first fix our objectives and then govern ourselves accordingly. I do not believe that thus far this has been done. There has been very little discussion of the objectives which we are to pursue in the post-war world. But discussion of these objectives is extremely appropriate and pertinent at this time.
I wish to occupy a few minutes this evening in endeavouring to indicate what I consider are the objectives toward which we ought to strive in our economic life. The only fundamental objective which I have been able to discover in any of the addresses made thus far by hon. members is that of full employment. I cannot agree or disagree with that objective unless I know what meaning hon. members attach to it. From every side we have heard the words "full employment" as expressing an objective. But what constitutes full employment? What do those who have used the term have in their minds as to what it means? We ought to have a clear definition of the terms we use. One writer tells us that definition is the breath of science and that fruitful discussion in any field presupposes and begins with a common definition. I cannot see that we can make any progress with any discussion we undertake unless, to begin with, we define our terms.
If hon. members who have thus far employed the expression "full employment" agree with my definition of it, perhaps I can concede that full employment is a fundamental and legitimate objective. I shall endeavour if I can to clear the air a little with respect to this question of full employment and work. Generally speaking, all work may be divided into two classes. There is forced labour, and there is voluntary, self-chosen, self-initiated activity. Forced labour in turn may be
Social Security

divided into two classes. There is forced labour imposed by nature, the kind of work which God referred to when He told Adam that outside of paradise nature would yield bread only by the sweat of his brow. Then there is the labour that is forced on man by other men, such as slave owners and bankers, who declare from their high position that men shall not eat-not without nature's consent, but without their consent.
Work which is imposed on us by nature is necessary, natural and dignified. On the other hand, labour which is forced on man by other men is unnecessary, unnatural, artificial and degrading. One thing that many members of this house, as well as orthodox thinkers outside, refuse to recognize, or have done thus far, is that the condition of unemployment is the consequence of the tremendous advancement of technology. We have yet^ to hear from these orthodox thinkers that it is the substitution of solar energy for human energy that has brought about the condition of unemployment. Also the orthodox thinkers refuse to acknowledge that because the machine has taken the place of manual labour it also takes away a man's job as well as his income. They refuse to recognize that, as a consequence of this, man is suffering, not from unemployment but from "unempayment", which is a vastly different thing. I hope to elaborate that point later. Just now I should like to give a few statistics indicating the extent to which solar energy has been substituted for human energy, as a reason for the condition of unemployment that prevailed before the war and that certainly will prevail after the war unless changes are made. On previous occasions in speaking on this question in the house I have submitted quite elaborate statistics indicating the extent to which machinery has displaced human labour. I do not intend to go to the length I have gone in the past, but I wish to submit a few figures to substantiate my argument. Most of the figures I am submitting -were given by the president of the United States chamber of commerce several years ago.
In the shoemaking industry one machine operated by two men can produce a thousand pairs of shoes in one day. I would ask hon. members who suggest that the duty of industry is to provide jobs, how they are going to find jobs in industry for all those who desire to make shoes when two men with one machine can make a thousand pairs of shoes a day. It has been estimated that sufficient shoes for a whole year for every man, woman and child in the whole United States could

be manufactured in sixteen days. What are the workers to do for the rest of the year if they are obliged to earn their living by being employed?
Again one man with one bottle-making machine displaces fifty-four men. Two men with one coal-conveyer displace fifty men. One man with one window-glass making machine replaces twenty men. One machine produces 525 light bulbs per minute.
Here is an interesting item on the question of public works. We have heard again and again suggestions on the part of hon. members,. particularly the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), that public works is one way in which the unemployed can be- and should be absorbed. In digging the Suez canal four thousand men dug a quantity of ground. Many years later in the construction of the Welland canal five men did the same amount of work, or five men doing as much work as four thousand did before. If we are to take advantage of technological advance and use machinery, which certainly should be a blessing instead of a curse, where shall we find jobs for all those who will be without jobs?
The same thing applies to agriculture. Here is one item. In 1820 fifty-seven man-hours of work were required to produce twenty bushels per acre; to-day it requires only eight manhours. Where are the people going to find employment on the farms at that rate? Again, one planting machine sets twelve thousand plants an hour.
The substitution of solar energy for human energy has taken place not only in the agricultural world and the manufacturing world; it is also true in the white-collar occupations. One girl with one machine is able to deal with sixty thousand ledger entries in one hour, displacing sixty clerks. Where are the jobs coming from under those circumstances?
We have some interesting statistics that have arisen during the war, indicating the reduction in man-hours per unit of production. Here are some with reference to the production of guns. I quote from the Financial Post. The first two-pounder anti-tank gun required 1,219 man-hours of work; it now requires only 350. The first 6-pounder anti-tank gun required 930 hours of work; it now requires only 375. The first 40 mm. Bofors gun barrel required 186 man-hours of work; it now requires only 45. The constant trend is to the reduction of the number of man-hours required per unit of production.
An interesting item appeared in the February 27 issue of the Financial Post in reference to motor-car production. It stated that before

Social Security
the war the motor-car industry produced automobiles to the extent of one for every eight [DOT]Canadians. After the war, it indicated, the industry would be able to produce one for [DOT]every four Canadians. This tremendous production, with a comparatively small number of man-hours of labour, is made possible largely through the development of electrical energy. The hon. member for Davenport has given ns many interesting and profitable talks dealing with the erection of power plants and similar enterprises, but has it not occurred to him that every time a power plant is built, [DOT]each new horse-power provides the equivalent of the work of ten men.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Does the hon. member mean ten new jobs?
Mr. TCTTTTT* [DOT] No, I do not mean ten new jobs.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It would be more like a thousand new jobs.


Mr. KUHL:: Every horse-power of electrical energy developed creates mechanical men, to the equivalent of ten per horse-power. Up to the present time, according to statistics, our *development of water-power has reached the point where approximately ten million horsepower are provided. On a twenty-four hour basis that is equivalent to 300,000,000 manpower. When that much mechanical power is .added to our production I should like to be told where in the world all the jobs are going to come from in the post-war period, if our objective is to be the obtaining of jobs. If those who have suggested that full employment is our objective mean that men will be required only to do that work which machines *cannot do, then I think I would agree with them. But if they mean that men must work *eight hours or more, while at the same time machines must stand idle and rust, then certainly I will not agree with them. I submit that when a government, or for that matter any group of people, compels people to work when machines could do that work, it is imposing a condition of slavery upon the people. I submit further that when machines are available and governments or other groups compel men to work, they are usurping a prerogative which belongs to the Almighty alone. It is not work, as such, that men dislike; it is being compelled to work that men object to, and particularly being compelled to perform monotonus tasks which destroy all individualism. Compulsion, I submit, is the basis for slavery, and I understand that one of the great reasons for which we are fighting this war is to drive from the earth the philosophy of compulsion. Therefore I submit that if after the war we are
to have a work state, a state in which men will be compelled to work while machines stand idle, then we shall have fought the war in vain.
I assert that what we want in the post-war period is a world in which we are absolutely free from man-forced labour and as completely free from nature-forced labour as we can possibly make ourselves. I submit that the reason why we have this vast accumulation of machines, devices, power and mass production methods is because man is constantly endeavouring to free himself from nature-forced labour in order that he may have not only an abundance of wealth-and by wealth I mean goods-but also leisure. I consider that the striving on the part of men to free themselves from nature-forced labour is a legitimate objective which should be encouraged to the maximum. I suggest that by the time this war is concluded, the tremendous advances technology had made prior to the beginning of the war and the advances it certainly has made during the war will make leisure possible for all classes of people in the post-war world, not only for the white-collared workers but for the farmers, miners, lumbermen, factory workers and fishermen. If all the machinery, power and mass-production methods that have been developed and improved upon during this war are used in the post-war world it will mean that the necessary hours of work can be reduced very substantially. Why should a man be obliged to stay at a desk for eight hours a day when a machine can reduce those hours to seven or six or five or even four? And that applies all the way through our economy.
I consider that a legitimate and desirable objective. This subject of leisure is to me very intriguing. We all strive to obtain as [DOT]much leisure as we can, but the objectionable feature with which I have always been confronted in any discussion of leisure is that most people are anxious for leisure for themselves but are not anxious to see their fellow men enjoy that privilege. Oh, yes, they say; leisure would not demoralize me, but my fellow man would become a loafer and a bum if he had too much leisure. I have encountered that attitude quite frequently. As I stated in a previous speech, leisure is not a loafer's paradise. It is an opportunity, the greatest opportunity a man can have, for the expression of his creative desires. .
Man cannot live a complete life unless he obtains the opportunity to express the creative instincts which were given him at the time of his creation. With regard to the use of leisure time one writer has said that in their ample leisure men and women will do any of those things for which their long education has prepared them; they will paint
Social Security

pictures, explore jungles, carry out scientific research in public laboratories open to all qualified students, cultivate their gardens, write books, join in the acting of plays, invent new types of aeroplanes, learn to fly, weave rugs and learn languages.
That is a brief summary of the many, many things people would do if they had the leisure time. We all have hobbies. We all have those little things we like to do for the sheer joy of doing them-gardening, sports, and a thousand and one other things which satisfy our creative instincts. One, I believe, upon which far more emphasis ought to be placed is the matter of music. We have much too little music in our nation-much too little good music. If advantage were taken of the technological advancement in our country, and if people had ample leisure, we would have far more symphony orchestras, and far more grand operas and good music than we have at present.
Personally I cannot see how anyone can object to these objectives as being legitimate and proper. I suggest, therefore, that in the post-war world our objective is not to put people to work, but rather to arrange our economy in such a way that people will put themselves to work-and that is a vastly different thing. There is as much difference between those two states of mind as there is between freedom and slavery.
In the past the work of man has been largely for self-preservation. In the future the work of man should be mainly for selfexpression. I believe, therefore, that the legitimate problem of the committee we are about to set up, and the committee on postwar reconstruction and rehabilitation, is the provision of an economic arrangement whereby there will be the most equitable distribution of the superabundance of goods which can be produced by the machine, the leisure which will be produced by the machine and the small number of necessary man-hours of nature-forced work which will remain. I believe that is a legitimate problem the committee must undertake and study.
When the problem of the distribution of goods, leisure and necessary work is tackled and solved, then I am satisfied that the need for the social legislation contemplated by the resolution under consideration to-night will largeb', if not completely, disappear.
In a few words, in conclusion, I would suggest what I would consider a fair and equitable distribution of necessary hours of work, hours of leisure and) the superabundance of goods which the machines can. produce. I am sure all will be obliged to concede, by

the time the war is concluded, that the necessary man-hours of work will be an absolute minimum. The people of Canada, all the way from sixteen to sixty, will not be required to put in eight hours a day to produce the standard of living they desire. There have been many statistics compiled as to what might be a possible division of these three elements. One which has come to me and which I think is one of the most reasonable is this. It was suggested that the necessary man-hours of work should be done' by those most capable and able to do it, those possibly between the ages of twenty-five and forty-five years. Their working day would probably be reduced to six, five or four hours a day, depending only and entirely upon the extent to which solar energy is substituted for human energy. What would that mean? It would mean that those who would be most capable of doing the necessary work would not be so fagged out by the end of a day's work that they could not appreciate their leisure. They would still be in a physical and mental condition to appreciate either the creation or the rendering of some good music; or they would still be in the frame of mind to be able to indulge in any cultural pursuit of their choice. It would mean that those up to the age of twenty-five years, [DOT] or thereabouts, would spend the first twenty-five years of their lives in obtaining the most complete training they could possibly secure, not only for their life work but for their leisure.
The reason why leisure has been a burden on people in the past is that, in addition to its being unpaid leisure, they have not had the training to satisfy their musical, artistic and other desires. Under the plan I suggest, once an individual reached the age of forty-five years or more he could retire. I believe this presents a most attractive division of the hours of labour and leisure.
The question which remains is this: How are goods to be distributed? What is to be the most equitable distribution of goods? It has been stated again and again that our production to-day is around nine billions of dollars. That includes to a great extent capital goods for the prosecution of the war. But in peace time it is no reason why we cannot step up our production of consumable goods to nine billions, and more, the extent depending only upon the willingness of the people to apply themselves to the machinery available. If our production were stepped up to a value of ten billions of consumable goods, that would be equivalent to $1,000 per man. woman

Social Security
or child for a population of ten million people, or for a family of four it would mean consumable goods to the value of $4,000.
That is what would be possible by way of production of goods in Canada. As I have indicated previously, if we are to insist that people must derive their income by reason of being employed and if we are to take advantage of machinery and power production we are demanding two things, one of which is a contradiction of the other. The only manner in which these goods can be distributed is through consumer purchasing power.
This raises another fundamental question into which my time will not permit me to go. This is a question which is the subject of much controversy and economic thinking, and it has been mentioned before by several of my colleagues. I refer to the relationship of national income to national production. It has been our constant contention in this group that national production and national income are not one and the same thing, that national income is always less than national production. Ten billion dollars worth of goods in the post-war period will not be represented automatically by ten billion dollars of purchasing power. The monetary income of the people will probably be around five or six billion dollars. There will be a shortage, a deficiency, a discrepancy, between total income and total prices.
The only manner in which this gap can be bridged is by the issuance of national money sufficient to balance income with production. It will not do any good to raise wages because immediately wages are raised, prices go up and there is no more purchasing power. Again I see absolutely no advantage in the government taking over a factory, operating it and trying to bring about distribution. If the government owned a factory it would be confronted with the same problem of the displacement of man-power by machines as confronts the private owner. The only argument I can see for government ownership of industry is in connection with administration, and personally I have yet to see any evidence which convinces me that the government can run an enterprise more efficiently than a private individual.
Once more I say that I do not believe that the operating of business is a government function. I believe that the government exists for the purpose of doing for the people what they cannot do for themselves. The people can manage their own business; they can produce the wealth of the nation, and it is the duty of the government, by the creation of

proper laws, to enable the people to do this.
I believe the conducting of business is the duty and obligation of the private individual.
As I say, the only way I can see to balance consumption with production is the issuance of national money to an amount equal to the difference between national production and consumption. That would not be adding water to the milk as some hon. members have suggested. It would be no different from the case of an owner of a theatre with 1.000 seats who had printed only 750 tickets. It would not do any good to redistribute the 750 tickets in order to take in 250 more customers. The printing of another 250 tickets to take in another 250 customers would not constitute watering the milk. The same thing holds true in regard to raising the national income until it equals national production.
This represents the cultural heritage of the Canadian people to which they are entitled by reason of being citizens of this modern generation. It belongs to them by reason of being the fortunate recipients of the vast heritage of discovery and invention, of culture and learning, of organization, whether social, political or industrial, of education and religion, of aspirations and ideals which have been handed down and developed generation after generation from the dim beginnings of the race.
The national dividend is something to which the citizens of Canada are entitled by reason of being citizens of this modern generation. It is their heritage and just right. When the national dividend is distributed among the people their incomes will be sufficient to buy back as much of the national production as they desire. When they are able to do that they will have security. They will then be secure at all times, in old age as well as in youth. Consequently I assert that many of the problems that we now regard as special problems, such as old age pensions, pensions for the blind, lack of health facilities and so on, will disappear when the people have sufficient purchasing power to enable them to buy as much of the national production as they desire. In conclusion, I say that I believe it is the duty of this committee as well as the committee on post-war reconstruction and rehabilitation to confine their attention to fundamentals, to the foundation of the economic system which we desire to see obtain in this country. When that is done, then I am satisfied that the need for much of the debate and the discussion and the legislation that is contemplated will disappear entirely.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member who has just, taken his seat for his kindlv references
Social Security

io myself, but I cannot find in the resolution anything pertaining to the operation of machines, to how much they will produce, to the purchasing power of the people or to many of the other matters mentioned by him. I will try to confine my remarks to the resolution.


An hon. MEMBER:: That will be a
novelty.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It would be a greater
novelty if my hon. friend knew at any time anything about what he was speaking. Any sound economic bill which may be founded upon the report of this committee on social security and which is returned to this house through the government to carry out the objectives of the resolution will have my unstinted support. Like the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for as long as I have known him, ever since I have been ini the house I have been a persistent advocate of national health insurance. Others in the house have likewise been persistent advocates of it. The late leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, the present hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and others I have known have never let an opportunity pass to advocate national health insurance. The hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth), both while he was in the Ontario legislature and out of the Ontario legislature, has always been a persistent advocate of national health insurance. I intend to confine my remarks to a portion of the words of the resolution. It states:
. . . the most practicable measures of social insurance for Canada-
I suppose that means beneficial changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act. I continue to quote:
-including health insurance and the steps which *null be required to effect their inclusion in a national plan.
The Prime Minister must feel a good deal of satisfaction at seeing crystallized even in resolution form his own advocacy of national health insurance. But I would much rather have seen the Prime Minister sponsor a bill at this session because I am persuaded that he knows all about the subject. He has studied it long enough, knows what should be done, and is just as familiar as I am with similar acts in all those countries in which national health insurance is in operation. While I endorse this resolution I would much sooner be rising to support a bill introduced by the Prime Minister, who for so long has been a persistent advocate of this boon. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering why we ha.ve not a bill before us. When this matter came

up during the administration of the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett, or before when there was talk about it, I made a trip to Europe and made as thorough a survey as I could of the health insurance acts in operation in Belgium, Holland, Germany, and particularly in Great Britain. The British act is, in my judgment, by far the best, and I am not saying that in disparagement of the legislation of any other country. That the British act is by far the best is only to be expected because it has been in operation ever since 1911, together with several amendments made in the intervening years. When I first heard of the government's proposal I hoped that the government would bring down a bill this session, and I can assure them that any bill that is comparable with the British act will have my support. The British legislation might not be adapted to all our conditions in Canada. Great Britain is in the happy position of having only one government which legislates for all its people. Here we are handicapped-perhaps I should not say handicapped; maybe I should say benefited-in that we have nine provincial governments and one federal government. But I have confidence that the Prime Minister could overcome that handicap just as he overcame it in the matter of unemployment insurance, and I still hope that at the earliest possible moment he will bring in a bill for national health insurance-and perhaps much earlier than any of us expect.
As I said, I made a trip to Europe to make my own observations of the operation of national health insurance. Germany had long had such legislation, their first legislation on the subject being enacted in 1883. Great Britain did not enact its legislation until 1911, but the British bill has accomplished infinitely more than the German bill. On the other hand, the British government had the great advantage of all the experience which the great labour unions of Great Britain had had. Those labour unions were the pioneers in this whole matter of health insurance or, as they called it, sick benefits. The experience of those great unions dated back to 1831, and when the British government took over the operation of national health insurance they founded their legislation very largely upon the operation of * the splendid regulations which the great labour unions of Great Britain had found satisfactory in operation over a long period of years.
I am a staunch supporter of the British act. It was my pleasure to visit many of the labour offices in Great Britain and to observe the administration of the act. I visited the labour offices in London, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Belfast. It was a pleasure

Social Security
to watch the officials there administering the national health insurance scheme and all the other social legislation, for all these social measures are administered through the same offices. This government has set up unemployment insurance offices all across Canada which could within a very short time be turned into offices to administer the national health insurance legislation. All these social measures go hand in hand. I was struck by the courtesy and gentlemanliness of the officials at the labour offices in their dealings with those who came up to the desk. I never saw anywhere either in business or out of business such courtesy between man and man as I saw in those labour offices in Great Britain. My hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) nods his head. Very likely he has had experience of them years ago and has visited them many times since. I have no doubt that in due course our own labour offices, once they have had a chance to get experience, will show the same courtesy. I am not by any means suggesting that they are discourteous, but we could not expect them to rise all at once to the standards in the old country. Undoubtedly, however, they will, because Canadians can adapt themselves as well as an3' other people.
The British have amended their act many times. I believe the last amendments were made in 1936. There may have been later amendments, but I have not seen them. Their scheme started off with low contributions by the employer and by the employee, and the state absorbed the difference in order to put the act into operation. The contributions in the old country have been stepped up on several occasions. I believe that to-day a man contributes twenty-two cents a week and a woman twenty-one cents a week, depending upon age and other conditions. That is not a large amount when one considers what they get in return.
At this point I would suggest to the government that when they have enacted a national health insurance act they take the opportunity to educate the great masses of the people by means of the radio, the press and public speakers, as to the benefits of health insurance. It is the great mass of the people that it will benefit, the class I am proud to belong to myself, the labouring class, for everyone that labours is a labouring man, and I certainly was of that class in big industry. The people should be educated to the fact that they will receive more in return than any twenty-two cents a week or whatever it may be which might be deducted from their pay cheques. Quite a number of deductions are being made from pay cheques to-day, and it is causing a
certain amount of murmuring because the people have not, in my judgment, been educated sufficiently as to the reason for these deductions and the benefits resulting therefrom ; for instance, the deduction which will be returned to them after the war. I am a very strong supporter of that provision, which was enacted last year, whereby so much is deducted and will be returned after the war.
As regards unemployment insurance, so far, on account of the great demand for labour not many of our people have had to apply at the labour offices for benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act; but the time may come-I hope it is far distant-when many will have to go to the labour offices, turn in their cards and receive compensation during unemployment, and they will be glad of this provision, as many of their brothers in England have been glad of a similar provision up and down the years. I know this, because I have talked to many of them.
For a moment or two I wish to speak of national health insurance. What do they get in the old country in return for what they pay in? While unemployed through sickness, a man will receive eighteen shillings a week and a woman thirteen shillings a week. I have not been able to understand just why there is this big difference between the allowance to men and that to women. In addition, they get medical attention. If there is one thing which the great mass of working people in Canada deserve and have long deserved it is adequate medical attention. That they have been deprived of it is no fault of the doctors. I am one of those who believe that the class of people who walk nearest in the steps of Our Master is the medical profession; I have a very high regard for them. But the average working man cannot pay for medical attention, and therefore he goes without it. As one who has worked with hundreds of men year in and year out, I have seen times without number men almost drag themselves to their machines and remain there until, unable to work any longer, they collapsed-simply because they could not afford to call in a doctor. What a boon this measure would be to working-men! The Prime Minister has been a fervent advocate of social legislation of this kind. I beg of him to give the Canadian worker at the earliest possible moment this great boon of national health insurance.
In the course of my investigations in the old country I went into a store at Southsea. On that trip I had been to the labour offices and spent quite a time there. I talked to everybody-to the worker on the street-cars, the waitresses and waiters in restaurants and hotels, the clerks in the stores. To everyone

Social Security
whom I could get in. contact with I put the question, " How do you like national health insurance and "-at that time-" unemployment insurance?" I was in this store at Southsea the day when Their Majesties the King and Queen went to Portsmouth to review the fleet. I went there too; it was a wonderful demonstration. In this small store I came in contact first hand with the benefits which flow from a national health insurance act. The operator of the store is the brother of a Mr. W. Butler, a very fine citizen who lives in my riding. He had in his store on that day four clerks; he was doing a real business. While I was chatting with him a young man came in, and Mr. Butler said to him, " Hello, Jack, I am glad to see you around again. When will you be able to come back?" I have forgotten whether the day of the week was Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday; in any event the young man replied, "I will be in on Monday." I said to him, "What has been wrong with you?" He said, " I have been sick three weeks." I said, "Well, how could you live?" I had not thought of a young man like that being in receipt of benefits under the national health insurance act. "Oh," he said, "I got along fine. I had my medical attention; it was paid. If I had had to go to hospital-which I didn't -that would have been paid. My doctor waited on me, and he was paid by the state, too; and while I have been off I have been getting eighteen shillings a week." That made a great appeal to me on account of my long association with thousands of working men, whose interests are always closer to my heart than any other interests, because they are or have been the least able to get their just dues. They cannot set their price unless they go on strike, which none of them want to do. They have been the least able to protect themselves. The case of this young man is an example of over twenty million workers in England who are under the benefits of this act. Is it not marvellous? And they have piled up tremendous resources which will take care of withdrawals for sickness for years to come, because nothing piles up faster than contributions to national health insurance paid by a whole population en masse. It may be beside the question for the Prime Minister to deal with it, but I venture to say that if he would take time, when he replies, to look up the figures relating to unemployment insurance, he would find that Canada has laid up a substantial number of millions of dollars in unemployment insurance payments. The same holds good with regard to national health insurance; we have nothing whatever to fear and the people have a great deal to gain.
[Mr. MacNicol 1
The example I gave of the young man in Butler's store at Southsea is only one of several I could mention, because I came across the same thing in many places. I am strong for this, as I was for unemployment insurance, because I believe that after this war we shall have to have a sound system of immigration.
I have been over many thousand unoccupied square miles of this country, and I do not believe that we as Canadians can hold very much longer this vast area locked up between the forty-ninth parallel, the Arctic, the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans, without letting others in to help in its development. After the war we shall have to have immigration to build up the country. I look back to the years around 1907, when the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, with whom I was personally acquainted, established a great immigration policy which helped to build up this country. I believe, whatever anybody else says, that this country would never have won the glory which it won from 1914 to 1918 but for that immigration policy which brought in that new blood from the old land. We want more of that blood. I should like to see a million enter Canada after the war. But we cannot get working men here from Britain unless they know that they are coming to a country which provides the same boons and benefits that they enjoy over there-national health insurance and other acts of that kind. We need these people; they will return to this country everything which we lay out to bring them here; but they will not come here unless they can come to the same social conditions which they enjoy in the old land.
I will go one step further and suggest this to the Prime Minister for consideration when he frames his bill, that if and when people come from the old country after the war to settle, who have been paying into unemployment insurance and national health insurance there, we make a reciprocal arrangement with the old country government that they will pay to us for their nationals who may come here the money that has been paid on their behalf, so that we shall be able to take care of them from the time they arrive here. I think we shall have to have something of that kind.
Last summer I met with a number of incidents which convinced me that the medical profession were cooperating with the government in the consideration of the framing of a national health insurance bill. I cannot say I read of labour unions being called in. Perhaps they were; I think the government would not overlook them. If they were not, I recommend that in the framing of the bill the labour unions and those who have a knowledge of labour and the rights of the great

Social Security
mass of the Canadian people, the ninety-five per cent for whom the bill is to be framed- it is' not going to be for the wealthy people, or the professional men-should be represented if the bill is to be for their benefit. Let the bill be framed with the best advice possible from all those classes.
I do not know that there is anything further I can add. I did not intend to speak for more than ten minutes, and I see I have gone a minute or two over that. I say in conclusion to the Prime Minister that any national health insurance bill comparable with the British measure, improved if possible to suit our Canadian conditions, will benefit the great mass of Canadians, not only the workers in the factories but the farmers in the outlying parts, among whom I saw too frequently [DOT]during my trips great distress and the impossibility of getting medical attention. I am *convinced that the Prime Minister has it in his heart to bring in the best bill possible. I say, do so, and he will have my support.


Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):: My participation in this debate at this time is not *designed to delay the passing of the resolution. However, I should like to make one or two *observations.
It was apparent that the announcement of the proposal to set up a forty-one man committee to examine into all phases of social security aroused widespread interest in this *country and a great deal of editorial comment. In connection with the editorial comment I should like to refer to a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) yesterday, as reported at page 937 of Hansard. He said:
When the Atlantic charter was proclaimed it met with universal acceptance in this country. I have yet to find a newspaper in Canada which had not a good word to say for the Atlantic charter.
Further on he said:
I find that to-day some are inclined to belittle, at least, the idea of social security, as being something vague and general, something that will involve outlays greater .than any [DOT]country can meet, and the like.
This is the point I wish to make in that connection. I can agree with the Prime Minister that the declaration known as the Atlantic charter did meet with widespread approval. But when we agree with the aims and objects laid down in the Atlantic charter that does not necessarily mean that we are *obliged to accept all measures or suggestions designed to attain the objects laid down in the charter, advanced by this or any other government. While we agree on objectives we
must retain at all times the right to criticize any proposal advanced by anyone which is designed or stated to accomplish the results that we desire.
In this connection may I say it is strange how quickly people make up their minds respecting certain matters without having given complete consideration to them. I recall that when the Beveridge report was announced the press took sides immediately, without reading it, without examining it. I am not criticizing them for doing so more than I am criticizing members of this house for having done the same. Ten minutes after the press and the radio announced that his report had been submitted to the British government, we found people across this country ready to fight if you criticized it and others ready to fight if you supported it. Was that not also true when the Sirois report was made known in this country? I know that boards of trade, town and city councils, held meetings and voted unanimously to support the Sirois recommendations, when in certain instances not a member had ever seen a copy of it. I know from personal experience in my part of the' country that they sent to Edmonton or Calgary for a Liberal politician to come and tell them what the Sirois report recommended. I got into communication with some members of these boards of trade, carrying the printed document under my arm, three red books, and asked these gentlemen and others if they had seen those books. In no case could I find anyone who recognized them from the back, and very few who recognized them when I turned them around.
Let me deal with the plebiscite in the same connection. We found people in this country inspired by certain politicians who immediately, without having first given the matter proper consideration, formed a decision as to whether they would or would not support the plebiscite. They were encouraged by politicians to do that. I know of one politician who, meeting someone, would say, Are you going to vote "yes" on the plebiscite or are you going to be subversive and vote "no"? I think it is time that we should make a declaration as to whether this is a democracy; whether I have a right to think as I see fit; whether I have a right to speak as I see fit, of course having due regard for the rights of others and the safety of the state; whether I have a^ right to act as I please, within the same limitations. But there is a vicious type of propaganda which is going around this country at the present time, and which has been going around since the outbreak of the war, leading the average man to believe that unless he agrees with the government he is
Social Security

subversive. That is a most dangerous situation. For example, at the time of the last plebiscite who dared stand on a street corner and say, "Vote 'No'." Yet any man had a perfect right to do that if he saw fit.
I mention these matters for this reason.
I do not believe the members of this committee on social security should enter into their deliberations with preconceived ideas in respect of certain measures or steps that should be adopted, without having based their conclusions upon a comprehensive knowledge of the proposals in question. The committee, as I have said already, is to be made ^ up of forty-one members, consisting of thirty Liberals, seven Progressive Conservatives, two Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and two members from this group. I have no doubt this is based upon the representation in this house, but I trust that when the committee begins its deliberations we shall not discover that the thirty Liberals who constitute a substantial majority have already arrived at conclusions with respect to what the committee shall or shall not do. I believe we should keep the political aspect of the whole matter as far removed as possible.
There is a tremendous amount of work cornfronting the committee. As I examine the terms of reference I am obliged to assert that its job will not be completed in a week, a month, six months or a year. I feel that if we endeavour to rush in order to reach a conclusion by a given time, we may risk the danger of failing to do that which we have been charged to do. Speaking as one who has been proposed as a member of the committee, if this resolution passes we shall be called upon to study the social insurance schemes of the various provinces; to study the social insurance schemes of other countries; to discuss the most practical methods for social insurance in Canada, including health insurance, and the steps required to effect their inclusion in a national scheme; to look into the constitution and the financial adjustments which will be required for the achievement of a nationwide plan of social security, and other related matters. I wonder just how many of us realize the assignment we shall have to undertake, and I use the word "have" advisedly because w'e all have a responsibility in this regard. I feel that one of the most important things we shall have to consider is the constitutional adjustments which may be necessary to put into effect any proposed scheme.
To-night I listened while the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) spoke in very complimentary terms about the educational system of the province of Alberta, which

I believe be said was the finest in Canada. He spoke of the enlarged school divisions which he said proved the fact that w'e would have to deprive smaller communities of their rights. Let me make it abundantly clear that while I agree with the statement that we have the finest educational system in Canada, the school areas were enlarged because of the fact that under the existing financial system it was becoming utterly impossible for the small areas to get along. I do not believe anyone in this house is better acquainted with that fact than I, because I have had plenty of experience in those rural schools. We found that in order to reduce the overhead, in order to provide the type of education the children of that province required, under the existing financial system it was necessary to enlarge our school areas and to cut down administrative costs so as to make available for other things the money which could thus be saved. But the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar neglected to give other reasons for the splendid school system in our province. One of them is that we brought about a drastic change in our course of studies, and a change in our methods of teaching. But probably most important of all is the fact that we have the finest departments of education and the finest minister of education in Canada. That is the complete picture with respect to the matter referred to lay the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.
In connection with the matter at present under discussion I believe we shall have to make a decision as between one of two things. The first is, are we suffering from conditions over which we have no control, or are we suffering from conditions of our own invention and creation? I say that the approach to the problem cannot be determined without first coming to a conclusion as to which situation has created the conditions with which we have been confronted from time to time. If the booms and depressions which have been our lot in years gone by are inevitable, then I can well see where certain insurance schemes will fit into the picture, and if such were the situation I would suggest that the first thing should be to proceed with such schemes. On the other hand, if we come to the conclusion that the conditions which have made life so difficult for us in the past are of our own creation and invention, then I believe we should attack the problem from the point of view of endeavouring to eliminate those conditions. The committee, as was stated in a certain newspaper editorial, can be the architects of an enduring and beneficent reform, or the authors of tragic failure. I thought those words were significant when I read them, and I still think so. Let us hope that out of the

Social Security
deliberations of the committee shall come enduring and beneficent reforms, and nothing that resembles failure in any way, shape or form.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, at the present time we are discussing an unknown quantity, and it is pretty hard for anyone to tell what the postwar period will be. The government of the country is at present in the hands of a few individuals-or of a large number of individuals-who have no direct mandate from the people, but who have been assigned certain duties by a committee of parliament which is commonly known as the government of this country. Those people have been delegated certain powers by the government, and in virtue of that situation parliament is not fulfilling its functions. What we have to do now is to try to find ways and means of correcting the situation I have described.
I hope I have made myself clear enough. I am wondering how a member of parliament or any group of members can decide upon a remedy to what will be wrong in the post-war period. In the first place, when will it come? No one knows. What will it be? No one knows. During that time will Canada still be a part of the British empire? It is very possible, but no one knows. Will Canada be part of the United States of America? It is possible; no one knows. Will Canada be an independent country? No one knows. It seems to me that in order to express any opinion respecting the future one must be better informed on the present situation,
A friend of mine suggested to me this evening that members of parliament are fulfilling the duties of an economic council. We are trying to act as the antidote to the poison which is distilled by the bureaucracy we now have in Ottawa. We shall be the antidote. Shall we succeed? It is hard to tell. I do not believe any remedy of social conditions should be artificial. Sometimes the best cure of social evils is as simple as some cures for human ailments. Sometimes the most simple cure is the most effective.
We have heard about health conditions, and about employment and unemployment in the post-war period. This is a very grave problem. What will happen to all the boys who enlisted in the army and who are doing so well? We are all proud of them. At times I have to complain about the brass hats; but no one is more proud than I of the Canadian army. If they need our support now, then they will need our support-intelligent support-when the war is over. Who believes that all those fine men who are now in the three branches of the armed services will come back to Canada to do pick-and-shovel work? Who
thinks that those brilliant students who interrupted their studies to enter the armed services, either as volunteers or as trainees, will be ready to accept nothing but the dredging of the St. Lawrence waterways? AVill they be ready to accept the dole? Will those fine young men who have been flying over the continents, taking a bird's-eye view of the universe, be ready to renounce all those dreams which are legitimate and which youth holds precious? Will they be prepared to start at the bottom of the ladder as common labourers? I have great respect for the common labourer. I believe sincerely the late Reverend Father Vaughan, the great English Jesuit Father, was right when he said that there is no honest work which reflects shame on the person who performs it. On the other hand, those who are fighting for the liberation of the world from certain doctrines denounced by all the democracies have every reason to think of their own future. No one has a right to assume for a single moment that a young man who goes into the army is committing suicide. I have said before, and I repeat, that my deep belief is that it is a great mistake to bring before those young men who are ready to do anything to save this country only the idea of sacrifice.
It tires me to listen to the kind of talk that is heard in this dominion. The idea that should be brought before the eyes of our youth is that of victory over any foe. Not only that; the idea of victory carries with it the idea of superiority. That is a noble feeling; it is a feeling that should be in the hearts of all the citizens of this country who are well bom, who are worthy of the liberties that are given to them. I say, let us put aside this idea of inviting our young men to come into the army only with the idea of making a sacrifice. Let us give them an opportunity to do all they can, not only for us but for their own personal benefit.
I am sure that even if the history of Dieppe is repeated, the great majority of the young men, the men of middle age and the older men who are in the army in any theatre of war-I insist upon those words-will come back to this country. They know what happened in the past, and they do not want to be accorded the same treatment given to the veterans of the last war by the Borden or union government. They will not be satisfied with that. Some time before the war a former leader of the opposition who belonged to the Conservative party stated publicly that he feared a revolution. There was no war at the time. Think of the bitter disappointment these well gifted young men will have if nothing decent is offered to them when they come back to this country I
Social Security

It shows one thing. Those who objected to the uprooting of the best elements in this country had a hard and painstaking task, but the fact remains that the more tha.t remain at home, the less the government will have to do in reconstruction work. There are plants that do not live after they are uprooted, that cannot live when they are transplanted. There are also trees that never bear fruit after they are transplanted. This may be all right for some, but it is bad for others. Let me remind the house that when we were fighting for the spirit as well as the new letter of the selective service system-by new letter I mean that we fought for the spirit before . the letter was printed-we thought it was vital that certain classes essential for the public welfare should not be disorganized. If the farmers do not belong to that class, I do not know who does.
I remember distinctly at the start of the war that I had the support of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when I submitted certain cases to him. I had some trouble, and I wrote to my lamented friend, the former Minister of Justice, in fact I wrote to nearly all the ministers to tell them exactly what I am telling the house now. We are carrying on a fine war effort; everybody appreciates it, but that is not the only thing. It is easy to start to think of the future, but when we were working for the farmers we were thinking of the future. We were thinking of the trouble we now find ourselves in. We want this country to survive, not for just a short period after the war but for all time. We want the citizens of this country to be as prosperous as they deserve to be. I listened to some statistics which were given by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) in connection with different parts of Canada including the province of Quebec. I have not all his statistics at hand, but he said, if I am not mistaken, that in 1940 infant mortality in Quebec city was 130. I have here the "Canada Year Book" of 1942 where, at page 137, under the heading "Infantile mortality", I find this:
The Quebec rate continues to show steady improvement, having decreased from 100 in 1937 to 83, 78 and 70, respectively, for the following three years.
There is progress. The health units are doing exceptionally well in the province of Quebec, and my native province now compares favourably with any other part of Canada in regard to health improvement and sanitary conditions generally.
So many things have been said in this debate, Mr. Speaker, that it is hard to summarize them 
all, but there are a couple of things I desire to mention now. First, there is this idea of centralization. I am against it. In my humble view one of the guiding principles of Liberalism is that of decentralization; and if my grandfather, with many Ontario reformers, voted against confederation when he was a member of the legislative assembly, it was precisely because he feared the dangers of centralization in one government. Health is purely a local matter, and the tribute that was paid by my hon. friend the member for Rose-town-Biggar to Alberta is evidence that the provinces do these things very well. I should like him to come and visit my constituency. I should be very glad to take him around and show him the health units so that he could sector himself the progress that has been made in that regard.
There are, however, different ways of working for the betterment of health amongst our fellow citizens. One of them is to try to lessen unemployment in this country. That is the view which the member for Temiscouata had in mind when he made a special study of unemployment in this country and also made a survey of the cattle and horses and other live stock which the settlers in his district possessed.
But there was more to it. I know very well that there are other things, clothes especially, which can be very useful to the poor and help to keep them in good health. My hon. friend the Minister of National War Services (Mr. LaFleche) must remember that before the war, when he was the deputy minister of national defence-and the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) must remember it too-I went to both of them and asked for some old army clothing to give to the settlers. I got some until the end of the year 1940; then, after a committee of the house had gone into the matter, it was impossible for me to get any more. How was that? What use was made of those clothes? Of course, Mr. Speaker, the health of our Canadian citizens should be looked after from the time a child is born, and even before that because care should be taken of the mother; that is done in all civilized countries. When a child is born it is a very delicate little thing and needs great care and warm clothes.
I do not forget that some of our most eminent citizens have come from very poor families. There in my constituency were poor settlers. They were settled on rocks, and were very poor. I shall not insist upon the unpleasant scenes that occurred when my party was in opposition and when I mentioned these people. I shall not mention them to-night because the debate is on such a high level that we must not -bring into it any political parti-

Public Accounts
sanship. But let me tell you, sir, what was done with, those old clothes. Many of these settlers had been transplanted from the cities into rural sections which were not fit for colonization, and they found themselves in very hard circumstances, so much so that their little ones had no warm clothing to put on in the winter time. The consequence was that they had to stay indoors, which was prejudicial to their health. When I was able to get for them those long military coats, some of them worn out, but still able to provide warmth, the mothers would cut them down and tailor them to fit their young children, so that they could go out in the winter time and play in the sun and breathe the fresh air. Then a committee of this house sat which did not know these facts, and after that it was impossible for us to get any more of those old clothes for the children of the settlers. I got in touch with the officer in charge of the matter in the Department of Finance. Mind you, sir, he was a very nice man, and he told me that he would be pleased to do it, but he said that his authority for doing it had been taken away from him and that the thing simply could not be done. When I went to the Department of National Defence to beg for some of those old clothes for the poor children of my county, they said, "We cannot do it. The committee of the house has decided against it."
We should not wait until these little children are all dead or have suffered from the cold before we decide to look after them. There is no plan of social security or social insurance which will resuscitate them after they are dead or after they contract an illness like tuberculosis or anything which will be for them a predisposition to death. We complain that so many young men are unfit for military service. That was the complaint of the Minister of National War Services, whose excellent speech about it in London, Ontario, had wide publicity in the press. We complain about it and some think that we shall cure all that with paper and with insurance policies. We cannot wait until after the deliberations of the committee; it must be done right away. These people have not the opportunities of the children of members of the House of Commons to be well fed, well clothed, and so on; they need help at once. It is not a pleasure; it is a humiliation to go to anyone to beg for clothes, and if the thing is done it is on account of the supreme duty which Canadian citizens have, which men have, to help each other.
The Prime Minister and some of his colleagues are listening to me now. I thank them and all hon. members for listening to me, but I tell them that there is something more
important than any plan which is concocted by a doctor of economics or of political science from Queen's university, the university of Toronto or anywhere else. What is important now is to visualize what is going on, to recognize the immediate needs of the nation and to provide the remedy and the cure. We cannot wait while these people suffer from the carelessness of all with regard to them. We must open our eyes and see what is going on.
I hope that this war is the last that not only ourselves but even future generations will see. We do not know about the future, but whether we have war or peace it is essential that our fellow citizens shall enjoy the best possible health; and I do not see why old clothes which may be sold to the Jews as rags would not be put to better use if they were given to the mothers of little children to clothe them and enable them to go out in the winter time and breathe fresh air. Distribution should be made alike to needy Jews and Gentiles; there should be neither Jew nor Gentile in such a distribution; it should be to all Canadians who need it. As far as I am concerned I would pay freight, and I know every hon. member would be ready to do the same thing.
This is not an affair of propaganda of any kind; it is a matter of helping our people with the "left-overs"; it is the best possible recuperation, better than any plan of social reorganization in this country. As I said to a former chairman of the committee of the whole when he was speaking of patriotism, " If all Canadians are dead, to whom will you preach patriotism?" This is the time to see to it. I do not believe much in all the plans for the future if we do not make the present safe for our own people.
On motion of Mr. Hlynka the debate was adj oumed.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, March 5, 1943