[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. What action is being taken by the government to help bring about an early settlement of the labour dispute at the Ford Motor company plant at Windsor, Ontario?

Ford Motor Plant Strike


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in reply ^to my hon. friend may I say the strike was called only yesterday. I understand the report of the board of conciliation reached the workers yesterday morning. I have had no word from the company as to its attitude toward the report of the board, but I do think at this time the history of events might be placed on the record, so that everyone may understand what we have done to prevent this stoppage of work in the city of Windsor.
In the early years of the war the Ford Motor Company operated without any signed contract between its employees and the company. Commencing in the fall of 1941 demands developed for an agreement between the company and its employees.
In November, 1941, the Department of Labour arranged a vote of the employees under an agreement with the company that it would make a contract with its employees if the majority of them indicated by the vote that it was their desire that the company do so.
As a result of these negotiations an agreement was completed between the company and its employees of January 15, 1942. Disputes have arisen since the time of the agreement and the department has succeeded in bringing about agreement with comparatively little actual stoppage of work.
Negotiations have been going on for the past eighteen months looking to a new agreement. With the permission of the house I would ask that the document I hold in my hand be placed on Hansard, and taken as read. It is lengthy, and sets out the details of the negotiations which have taken place.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I think it should be read.


Humphrey Mitchell: If the house would like to have it read, I shall read it.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Read it.


Humphrey Mitchell: Very well. The following is a summary of conciliation in industrial relations between the Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited, and local 200, U.A.W.-C.I.O., Windsor, Ontario, showing action taken by the Minister of Labour of Canada and the Minister of Labour of Ontario.
November, 1941: Consent vote conducted by Department of Labour of Canada to determine bargaining agency.
January 15, 1942:	Agreement completed
between company and local 200 after negotiations following vote.
November, 1942: Employees went on strike to enforce claim that 37 female employees were performing work previously performed by men and were therefore entitled to equal pay. After conciliation by Hon. Peter Heenan, Minister of Labour of Ontario, Hon. C. P. McTague was appointed umpire and decision handed down December 31, 1942. He found that clerical work performed by men was incidental to other duties not required of women. Claim of union not upheld.
December 31, 1942: Memorandum to agreement concluded, amending agreement of January 15, 1942.
January 11, 1944: Memorandum of agreement concluded, further amending agreement of January 15, 1942.
April, 1944: Dispute with regard to suspension of certain stewards, followed by stoppage of work by all employees, and termination of agreement by company in consequence. Minister of Labour of Canada sent conciliation officers to Windsor. Parties accepted a proposal of the wartime labour relations board on April 28, which provided for certification of bargaining representatives and negotiation of new agreement. Work resumed May 1.
May 2, 1944: Workers again went on strike because of objections of union to grievance procedure as determined by the national wartime labour relations board. Mr. Justice O'Connor (in his capacity as a supreme court judge), Mr. M. M. Maclean, industrial relations officer, and Mr. B. Wilson, one of his assistants, went to Windsor. Work finally resumed May 11 on the understanding that board would clarify the grievance procedure, which was done on May 12.
May, 1944, to June, 1945: Mr. Louis Fine, Ontario Department of Labour, acted as umpire under terms of grievance procedure established by board. Company has refused to implement one decision of umpire, which refusal is now the subject of an application by the union to the Ontario labour relations board for leave to prosecute.
May, 1944 to January, 1945: Negotiations for new agreement continued as provided in settlement of wartime labour relations board, dated April 28, 1944.
January 22, 1945: Ontario labour relations board asked Minister of Labour to appoint conciliation officer under section 12 of P.C. 1003, one of the parties having advised the Ontario board that negotiations had continued for more than thirty days and that there appeared no likelihood of concluding an agreement.

Ford Motor Plant Strike

January 29,	1945:	Minister of Labour
appointed Mr. Louis Fine, of Toronto, to confer with the p'arties and to attempt to effect an agreement.
March 28, 1945: Mr. Fine reported to Minister of Labour that in his opinion an agreement was impossible and the situation was very complicated and difficult.
April 5, 1945: Application by company to wartime labour relations board (national) for interpretation of the termination clause (section 14) of April 28, 1944, settlement. Arbitration committee appointed by the board ruled that certain sections of the settlement which preserved the individual rights of the employees could be terminated only at the expiration of one year on two months' notice by either party. All other clauses of the agreement would terminate at the expiration of fourteen days after a conciliation board reported to the Minister of Labour.
April 18, 1945: Minister of Labour appointed Hon. Mr. Justice S. E. Richards, of Winnipeg, Manitoba, an industrial disputes inquiry commission, under order in council P.C. 4020, to confer with the parties, endeavour to effect an agreement and report his findings and recommendations to the minister.
August 3, 1945: Hon. Mr. Justice Richards submitted to Minister of Labour an interim report recommending that the present agreement be allowed to stand until the end of the present year and that negotiations for a new agreement be entered into afresh on October 15, 1945.	.
August 16, 1945: Mr. Justice Richards' report transmitted to parties.
August 21, 1945: Reported that local 200 U.A.W.-C.I.O. had rejected the recommendation of Mr. Justice Richards.
August 28, 1945: Mr. Justice Richards recommended to the Minister of Labour that in view of the rejection of the recommendations in his interim report a conciliation board should be immediately established.
August 30, 1945: The Minister of Labour established a conciliation board.
September 1, 1945: The union nominated Mr. Bora Laskin of Toronto as a member of the board.
September 1, 1945: The company nominated Mr. S. L. Springsteen, K.C., of Windsor, as a member of the board.
September 1, 1945: In the absence of a joint recommendation from the two board members, the Minister of Labour appointed the Honourable Mr. Justice G. B. O'Connor of the Supreme Court of Alberta as third member and chairman of the board.

Mr. Justice O'Connor and other members of the board conducted hearings in Windsor last week.
The board submitted its report on September 11, and it was released to employees and employers on the same date.
The board in its report expresses the opinion that the main issues preventing an agreement between the company and its employees are the questions of "union shop" and "check off." The union asks for the inclusion of both these provisions. The company, on the other hand, is fully determined that there shall not be a condition of employment with the company that a person must be, become, or remain, a member in good standing in the union.
The report of the board of conciliation records the belief that the Minister of Labour of Canada as well as the Minister of Labour of Ontario from time to time have exhausted every possible governmental effort to compromise the difficulties between the parties and to keep the Ford plant in operation.
There were a number of issues brought before the board of conciliation other than those of "union shop" and "check-off."
In dealing with "union shop" and "check-off" the chairman and the representative of the employees recommended that the parties agree to a voluntary check-off irrevocable during the term of the contract as a solution of the present difficulty. In addition, the representative of the employees recommended that a provision for maintenance of membership be coupled with a provision for "check-off."
The representative of the company on the board of conciliation did not concur in either recommendation.
My department has one of its conciliators on the spot at this time to keep the minister and the government informed of developments.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the pressing shortage of shelter for Canadian families, which is likely to become extremely acute during the coming winter, has the government given consideration to the conversion of suitable military camps and other premises owned by the government into temporary housing accommodation to meet this emergency?

Housing


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Yes, consideration has been given to the utilization of camps and other premises owned by the government. I think it was two months ago or thereabouts that the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) and I met a delegation of mayors from the larger cities of Canada and made an offer on behalf of the government to make available such premises as we thought could be given up by the military authorities and where they would be suitable. Since that time certain premises have been made available to the municipalities, and others are under discussion at the present time. There is an officer in the Department of Reconstruction who is working on this class of problem, and,perhaps the Minister of Reconstruction would like to add something to what I have said. In any event I can say positively from my own knowledge that the matter has been given extensive consideration and necessary arrangements have been set up to deal with the situations that arise.



QUESTION AS TO FREEZING OF PLUMBING MATERIALS IN PARTLY CONSTRUCTED HOUSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: I would ask the hon. Minister of Finance if it would be possible to hold back the plumbing freezing order now being invoked on houses partly constructed, until such time as these houses are completed, inasmuch as the majority of them are to be occupied by returned soldiers?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think that is in my department.


Joseph Henry Harris: Perhaps the
Minister of Reconstruction and Supply can tell us.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction) :: I must say that I never heard of this order in connection with houses under construction.


Joseph Henry Harris: In regard to plumbing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There may be one, but I have never heard of it.



CARRY-OVER IN TORONTO STOCK YARDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: Before
the orders of the day are called I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. This is based on a wire which I 47696-9i
understand the Toronto live stock exchange sent to him either yesterday or to-day. The wire describes a serious and in fact critical condition which exists in the Toronto stock yards where some 2,000 head of good cattle have been carried over since Sunday with no buyers in prospect and asking that permits be granted to ship these cattle to the United States. Will the minister make a statement to the house as to what action has been or will be taken to remedy this situation?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: I received the wire referred to just before I came down to the house, and I did not expect a question with regard to it. I can say that there often is a carry-over on the Toronto market at the beginning of the week but I do not think it is usually due to the fact that there are no buyers. My understanding is that the weighing capacity of the yards is only 3,500, that no more than that number can be put through whether there are buyers or not. The only way in which that could be corrected would be to have the weighing capacity increased. I understand that these yards are under the control of the provincial government and I do not know what their attitude with regard to that would be or whether the capacity could be increased. The wire includes a statement which is contrary to the facts. It states:
Understand meat board cannot handle any further shipments of beef until end of this month.
The meat board is buying all the meat that is offered every day. All the meat that does come from the plants in shape to be shipped to Britain is being purchased by the board, so if there is any delay that is not the reason.
Mr. SENlN:	Will the minister permit a
supplementary question? Can he say whether the abattoirs in Toronto are being operated to full capacity?


James Garfield Gardiner: I doubt if they are
being operated at 'the same capacity as they were a,t the peak of supplies, say last year, but they are being operated at a capacity which is very high as compared with some other times.



WAR SERVICE GRANTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. 0. PROBE (Regina City): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I regret that this matter came up so recently that I was unable to send him a
War Service Grants
[Stage Direction]
copy of the question. Are members of parliament who are also members of the armed forces or discharged veterans debarred because of their membership in the House of Commons from eligibility to receive any or all of the benefits to which they would otherwise be entitled on discharge under the War Service Grants Act, 1944 or the Veterans' Land Act, 1942?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): This question came to my attention about three or four days ago. Our policy is directed entirely toward the protection of members of this house. The matter has been referred to the deputy minister of justice for a ruling as to whether or not any benefits conferred upon relatives of any hon. member of this house would be jeopardized by the independence of parliament act. As soon as I have the decision I shall be glad to make a reply to my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance under whose jurisdiction is Canada's new meat rationing plan. An urgent message came to me this morning from one of my Peel farmers stating that ihe is stook threshing and corn cutting this week and will have fourteen extra men for meals at his farm. He tells me that he went to the nearest rationing board office, which is at Orangeville, to obtain extra meat rations and was advised that no instructions had been received and no authority had been issued by the wartime prices and trade board to give additional meat coupons for that purpose. In view of what appears to be a very urgent situation with respect to the rural parts of Canada I would ask the minister to give consideration to having that authority and direction delivered to the appropriate officers so that these' extra rations may be available for the1 purposes I have mentioned.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall bring the matter to the attention of the wartime prices and trade board. I received notice of the question too late toi permit my making a more extended reply to the question.


Gordon Graydon: As this matter is so urgent in the rural parts perhaps the minister would suggest to the chairman of the wartime prices and trade board that telegrams be

sent to the ration board centres throughout Canada. This situation is a matter of extreme concern to farmers because they are right in the middle of the season and need additional supplies.



REQUEST FOR ABANDONMENT OF RATIONING AND REQUISITIONING FOR EXPORT

Mr. W. C. MACDONALD (Halifax):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance with regard to meat rationing. It is reported in the press to-day that retail butchers have asked that meat rationing be abandoned and that instead meat be requisitioned for shipment overseas and the balance equitably distributed throughout the country. I should like to ask the minister what consideration has been given to these representations.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member sent me a notice of this question and I have a brief statement prepared in answer. There appears to be no difference of opinion that Canada should make every effort to make the maximum amount of meat available to the United Kingdom and liberated countries in Europe, but the question is raised as to why coupon rationing is necessary to achieve that result. It is suggested that we might requisition such meat as we need for export and that the balance should be distributed equitably among the Canadian people. The matter is not nearly as simple as that. In the first place, meat for export must come from the inspected packing plants. It is only meat from these plants which can enter into interprovincial trade. It is meat from these plants which in general goes to feed the people in areas which are not self-sufficient in meat supplies, such as the maritime provinces, the northern parts of Ontario and Quebec, and British Columbia, and it is these plants which in large measure provide for the larger cities.
Requisitioning of meat for export would therefore shorten the supply of meat from the inspected plants and create a serious deficiency in those areas which depend on such plants for supplies, leaving areas whose meat requirements can be taken care of locally with abundant supplies. The truth of that is emphasized by what took place before meat rationing was first introduced in 1943. Butchers in Toronto, Montreal and elsewhere had nothing to sell, and stores were actually closed for lack of supplies, while there was an abundance of meat in other areas. As soon as coupon rationing was introduced, that all changed. The flow of coupons from the consumer through the retailer to the packer automatically controlled the flow of meat, and every retailer and every

Meat Rationing
consumer received his fair share. It should not be overlooked that the previous rationing was introduced primarily to do the very thing I have described, namely, to ensure equitable distribution. This time the ration is designed to reduce consumption of meat in Canada for reasons with which I think most Canadians are in agreement, but at the same time it will maintain an equitable distribution of the supply available for domestic consumption. I have every reason to believe that the very merchants who are protesting against rationing to-day would, with their customers, be the first to suffer in many cases, if we requisitioned meat for overseas shipment and discontinued coupon rationing.
We know also that maldistribution breeds black markets. The existence of black markets would attract an increasing amount of live stock from the normal trade channels and either reduce the amount of meat we would export or further shorten the supplies of the honest retailer who will not engage in black market activities. We would find ourselves in the vicious circle which such a situation always produces.
I am satisfied most of those who have protested do not realize the results which would follow if we had attempted to meet our obligations to our allies without rationing. If they did, I cannot believe that they would have joined in voicing these protests. No one welcomes rationing; neither the wartime prices and trade board officials who must administer it, nor the consumer, nor the retailer nor the packer. To all it means added work and inconvenience. On the other hand, however, it means an opportunity to assist those of our allies who have felt the physical ravages of war; to demonstrate that humanitarian considerations still play a part in world affairs and to maintain the enviable record which Canada has established during the war years of being sufficiently self-disciplined to provide for the needs of all its citizens in an orderly and decent fashion.
As hon. members are aware, the mechanics of the meat rationing system introduced last Monday differ somewhat from the mechanics of the previous system. These changes were introduced with a view to simplifying the problems of those who have to operate under rationing. Protests have been received, however, from retail butchers, and the wartime prices and trade board has therefore arranged to meet with representatives of the Retail Merchants Association here in Ottawa on Wednesday next, September 19.



SMALL PACKERS-TRIMMINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Speaker, I would like to base a question on a series of telegrams which have reached my desk since the house convened at three o'clock, and perhaps the Minister of Finance would prepare a reply for to-morrow, taking this as notice. The telegrams have to do with the small packers. The first one reads-I will give only the substance:
Impossible to continue to remain in business under new rationing regulations for the reason that-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I must remind the hon. member that it is against the rules to read telegrams.


Joseph Henry Harris: I bow to your
ruling, sir. I would ask the hon. Minister of Finance if he could tell the house what arrangements are being made to keep the small packers in Canada in business under the new meat rationing regulations, which make no provision for the trimmings produced by small packers, to find a market which would keep them in business.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will make inquiry about the matter of the trimmings and let my hon. friend have an answer to-morrow.



MEAT RATION FOR LOGGERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: I have two questions, Mr. Speaker, to direct to the ministry, but first may I suggest to them through you, Mr. Speaker, that they speak up so that they can be heard by the rest of the people's representatives in this chamber.
I would ask the Minister of Finance, do loggers and other hard workers in the province of British Columbia get the same ration of meat as members of parliament or newspaper men or someone w'ho does no hard work? If so, why do they not get more?
Hon. J. L. I'LSLEY (Minister of Finance): I will make inquiries.



BEDFORD BASIN NAVAL MAGAZINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Chisholm Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, press reports indicate that Halifax narrowly escaped! a serious explosion yesterday at the Bedford Basin naval magazine. I should like to ask the Minister of National
War Criminals

Defence if he has had any report from there as to what happened, and whether there is danger of further explosions. I should also like to ask him if the committee of explosive experts that was to be appointed to study the design and suitability of the magazine and the adequacy of the safety precautions has yet begun its work?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services):: I 'have had a report as to the incident which occurred yesterday. There is no danger of any further explosions in the magazine. What happened was that a gasoline launch which was used by the disposal officer was moored alongside the jetty. It had been filled with gasoline a short time before, and when the motor was started the engine appears to have backfired. In any case an explosion took place and the crew were thrown into the water. The fire was put out shortly afterwards, and the crew are back at work to-day. There is no danger of further explosions as a result of that accident. i As to the committee that was appointed to inquire into the arrangements at the Bedford magazine, it has begun its work. Colonel Ogilvie, the head of the committee, Doctor Ross, of the explosives division of Munitions and Supply, and Mr. Whyte, of Woolwich arsenal, visited the magazine some time ago. I asked them first to investigate the adequacy of the steps taken to dispose of the damaged ammunition, and their report was that the arrangements made and the precautions being taken were satisfactory. They spoke highly of the competence of the officers now in charge of that work. The committee is returning to Halifax at the end of this week with some additional members to carry out the main purpose of their inquiry, which is to investigate the design and arrangements of the magazine.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the minister of defence for the army, as a result of inquiries that I have received from several secondary and high school teachers in Toronto and county of York. Would not the minister, with the Minister of Labour and his very capable deputy, Mr. MacNamara, consider extending the principle of the recent order in council which allows the early discharge of intending university students to apply also to those who wish to go back to the secondary and high schools of the country 
to complete their education? I do hope that the minister for the army will consider the matter over the week-end because in the case of many of these students their fathers are still overseas or they have brothers or other members of the family still at the front.


James Horace King: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: I would like to get a reply from the minister, also from the Minister of Labour.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The regulation allows students at university or equivalent educational institutions to be discharged. That is as far as it goes. In the case of students who are eligible for their senior matriculation, which is equivalent to first year at some universities, while no hard and fast rule is fixed. I think that sympathetic consideration is being given in all three services to applications made by these students. I believe that would cover the majority of the cases, because if a lad does not come into the service until he is eighteen years old or better he should be pretty nearly eligible for senior matriculation at that time.



WAR CRIMINALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Inquiries have been made from outside the house of the government with respect to the trial of war criminals, and particularly in relation to Canadian courts to be established for the purpose. I have thought that perhaps I should give the house a brief statement which would be of interest to hon. members as well as to the public generally.
In November, 1943, Mr. A. G. Slaght, K.C., then a member of the House of Commons, was named as honorary counsel to the government to advise with regard to the custody, trial and punishment of persons charged with war crimes. An interdepartmental committee was established at the same time, including representatives from the Departments of External Affairs, Justice and National Defence.
The Canadian government also participated in the work of the united nations war crimes commission which was set up in London and, at a later stage, Mr. Vincent Massey, the Canadian High Commissioner, was appointed as the Canadian representative on the commission.

The Address-Mr. Stewart
Since the surrender of Germany, rapid progress has been made in the plans for the apprehension, trial and punishment of war criminals. The political leaders of nazi Germany are being dealt with under arrangements agreed upon by the governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and France. The others of the united nations are not participating.
War crimes arising out of conquest and occupation will :be dealt with by the countries concerned, for example, the Norwegian authorities will deal with atrocities committed during the occupation of Norway. The remaining war crimes include atrocities committed in the course of battle and crimes against prisoners of war and civilian internees. It is recognized that jurisdiction to deal with such offences should depend upon the nationality of the victim rather than the national character of the place where the offence has been committed. Accordingly, arrangements are being made to establish military courts to deal with these offences. Canadian military courts will deal with offences against Canadians, including members of the Canadian armed forces regardless of their individual national status, British military courts with offences against British, United States and Soviet courts will deal with offences against United States citizens and soldiers and Russian citizens and soldiers, respectively.
In order to carry out this general plan, a recent order in council authorized regulations to govern the custody, trial and punishment of persons charged with violation of the laws and usages of war. The regulations are similar and, in matters of substance, are identical with the regulations which have been established for British military courts. Further, the nature of the courts and the character of the procedure will be substantially the same as in the case of those which are being established by the United States authorities.
A war crimes section has been set up in Canadian military headquarters in London headed by Lieutenant-Colonel B. J. S. Macdonald, who had formerly occupied a similar position in the war crimes section established by General Eisenhower at his supreme headquarters. When the section at supreme headquarters was disbanded early in the year, a number of the Canadian officers who had been associated with Colonel Macdonald were transferred to the Canadian section and they have since been engaged in the preparation of Canadian cases and in submitting them to the united nations war crimes commission for approval.
The commission will deal with cases submitted in this way in the same manner and in accordance with the same procedure as in cases submitted by other governments. If the commission, considers that there is a case which should be tried, it will remit it to the Canadian war crimes section for action. Colonel Macdonald and his associates will then undertake the prosecution of the accused. The courts will be established in accordance with military law, the procedure will be in accordance with the principles of justice, the accused will have full opportunity for defence, and the arrangements for constitution of the court and execution of sentence will follow recognized military practice. In view of the impossibility of assembling all of the witnesses, some of whom may have been demobilized and many of whom will have been repatriated, there are some modifications of the rigid rules of evidence applicable under our ordinary criminal procedure. There are, however, sufficient safeguards for the accused to make it certain that they will receive fair trials, and that they will be convicted only if convictions are justified by the laws and usages of war and supported by evidence.
Under the arrangements which have now been established, the Canadian courts will be concerned with war crimes involving death or grievous bodily harm to Canadian civilians or to members of the Canadian armed forces. Prosecution will be undertaken by the war crimes section of Canadian military headquarters and the judge advocate general's office will be responsible for examining cases and for authorizing prosecution. The courts wall be constituted from military personnel experienced in the- laws and usages of war; and the proceedings will be conducted with dignity, fairness, and justice.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, September 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. M. Benidickson for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Bracken, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. ALISTAIR STEWART (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, we have read in the speech from the throne about the intention of the government to bring the legislation respecting national status, naturalization and immigration into conformity with the definition of
The Address-Mr. Stewart

citizenship. Now I know as yet of no definition of citizenship, so I can say nothing about that ; but this I can and must say, that many of the administrative orders and regulations in the department of immigration are iniquitous in principle and vicious in their effect.
The other day the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) suggested that when we spoke we should have facts to support our arguments. I have these facts. He also suggested and implied that captious criticism would not be welcomed, especially criticism regarding the last six years. He forgot about the years prior to that when also he was Prime Minister of this country. He forgot, I think, about those years when thousands were out of work and hundreds of thousands were on relief. He forgot about those years when the young men of Canada were an unwanted generation, when neither industry, commerce nor the government had time for them, but who-these men who were the rejected and the despised in Canada-when war was declared, suddenly became its saviours. He may have forgotten that. I can assure him that these men and their families have not forgotten.
I should like to draw to the Prime Minister's attention another statement which he made. He made it in Winnipeg on the 24th of May of this year during the heat of the campaign-and I am firmly convinced that he said it in all sincerity, and that anything he does to implement the spirit of the statement will receive not only our applause but our complete cooperation. On that occasion the Prime Minister said:
Any man who lends his voice or pen to stir up racial or religious strife is an enemy of mankind.
I commend these words to certain of his followers. I suggest that they should treat them as a text, read them, mark them and inwardly digest them, and then act on them.
Even the blindest observer in Canada to-day surely sees the danger there is in the growing racial animosity which prevails; and there are many reasons for it. In the first place there is the stupid myth of race, which has no basis at all in science or in fact. I cannot concede the theory of a French race, an English race, a Jewish race, a Ukrainian race, because there is no fact at all behind that belief. This theory of race is a myth, and I say quite as definitely that those who spread racial animosity are enemies of mankind. They are essentially bigoted men and cowardly men at heart; the very essence of fascism when it started was to oppress the weak, and it is always the coward who is the first to do that very thing.

I suppose that if any member of this house were asked whether he had at any time stirred up racial animosity he would deny it immediately because humanity has a tendency to rationalize its most stupid emotions by regarding them as conclusions arrived at as the result of experience.
There is one small group in this country, a defenceless and economically very weak group, to whom I should like to call the attention of the house. I refer to the coloured people, Canadians who are of negro origin Many of the members of this house must know members of this group. When we pass across Canada in a train we see them occupying humble positions as porters; yet I submit that they occupy honourable positions, because any man who by his toil enhances our welfare or adds to our comfort, is occupying an honourable place in our society. Yet I know one of these men, a graduate of a university, cultured, kindly, essentially civilized, who is condemned apparently forever to one job only in life and that is to act as porter on a train. That man can contribute great things to Canada, but he is given no opportunity. I know of children of coloured people who are told not to go to university because they will get no economic benefit in after life from their education. They are condemned to one sphere. I know of coloured people, friends of mine, who have the greatest difficulty in getting housing accommodation. That is true of many people, but ten times more true of men or women who are coloured. I think I have the right to ask the protection of this house for these minorities.
I have the right on the basis of the following which is contained in the compendium of parliamentary rules and forms prepared by Doctor Beauchesne, at page 4, of which, there appears a quotation from Bourinot. It is the high privilege of ours-
-to protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority.
That is a sacred obligation of this house, but we find this discrimination in the highest places in the country, and in it are the seeds of tremendous danger to Canada.
Just a little over a year ago in Manitoba a group of us, Canadians, accused the board of governors of the university of permitting racial discrimination of the vilest type to exist in the faculty of medicine of the university. The charge was denied, at first loudly, and as time went on with lessening vehemence, because the facts were undeniable. Here is what happened. When the applicant for admission to the medical college sent in his name he was placed in one of four lists- the preferred list, the Anglo-Saxon, the

The Address-Mr. Stewart
French and the Icelandic. Then followed central Europeans, and these central Europeans came from northern Norway down to the southernmost boundaries of Europe. Then, as one would expect, there was a separate list for Jewish people, and then, as one would not expect, a separate list for women. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there is as much discrimination against women in this country, in many ways, as there is against men because of ethnic origin or religious belief. Because we publicized this discrimination and challenged the board of governors with it the situation has been corrected. There is no statute yet on the books of the province of Manitoba to make sure it will stay corrected, but we have the vigilance of the people to ensure that.
Lest the members of this house think that this shame rests only upon Manitoba, I would say something to members who come from Montreal and Toronto, because in these two institutions of learning, McGill university and the university of Toronto, they *will find that this discrimination exists against people because of race, which is a scandal in a democratic country. I hope that as part of their responsibilities and duties they will realize that it is their task to try to eradicate the discrimination that exists. In the university of McGill, I am informed, Jewish students have to have an appreciably higher percentage of marks than other students before they can expect to pass. Here is one of the examples of anti-semitism in high places in this country.
But not only do we find it in institutions of learning where we should never expect to find it; we find it in certain of the orders of the government. The Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) is not here, but I am going to tell him this. A minister of the crown is responsible to this parliament for everything which happens within his jurisdiction. He may perhaps have no knowledge of what has happened and therefore we will temper our criticism, but in the application form for wartime housing there are many questions, two of which are: What is your religion? What is your nationality? What have these things to do with the right of -man who has fought for Canada to get a home in this country? I suggest to the Minister of Reconstruction that he take steps immediately to strike out these two vicious questions.
I should like now to deal with the department of immigration, and first of all I want to establish the policy which has been carried on in the past. We find it in the report for 1941:
Canada, in accordance with the generally accepted practice, places greater emphasis upon race than upon citizenship.
That is as regards people who come into the country-"greater emphasis upon race." In 1941 when these words were being written and read in this house we were encouraging Canadians to enlist in the services to go abroad and die in order to wipe out that stupid s-upersitition. Yet here we practise it. Immigration into Canada has been on the basis of race, and I am going to suggest to the minister if he makes any changes in the immigration law he will be well advised to start by first of all tearing up these orders and rules and starting anew. I suggest further that he has a great responsibility because he is dealing with the lives and happiness of people, and I think it is wrong that a responsibility such as this should come to the attention of the House of Commons only when we learn of the orders. I suggest that all legislation vitally affecting any principle of immigration should come before this House of Commons.
What are the facts? Again we come to the preferred and non-preferred groups. The most preferred obviously are British and those from the United States, and in the group called preferred are included French, Belgians, people of the Netherlands, Germans, Swiss, those from Scandinavian countries, Iceland and Finland. So we have established a category of citizens. Then we have the non-prefeTred. We have established two categories of citizens in Canada, the non-tpreferred being those who come from Poland, from the Ukraine, from Austria, from Czechoslovakia and from similar countries. But we have categories even below that, those who are lower than the non-preferred, who can get into this country only by special permit; those who come from Turkey, Romania, Greece, Italy; and the Jews. I think it is a matter of statistical record that immigrants from the countries I have named have been few in number, and therefore it appears to me as though the intent of this order were anti-semitic, designed to exclude Jewish people from Canada. That feeling is still further strengthened when it is remembered that under the second category a certain discretion was given the railway companies as to who were to be brought into Canada, but no discretion was given them in this matter. For instance, a Polish citizen could migrate to Canada if the railway company brought him here, but a Polish citizen who was of the Jewish faith could not come into this country without a specific order from the minister. There is discrimination again, Mr. Speaker, at its very worst.

The Address-Mr. Stewart

While I am speaking about the Jewish people I should like to say that a few years ago there were 17,000,000 of them in the world. In the last few years due to the barbaric devilment of fascism, 7,000,000 have died, and there have been few Christian voices raised in protest. In certain areas in Europe there are between 800,000 and 1,000,000 Jews left alive, but they are friendless, homeless and landless; no Christian nation in its charity will stretch out a hand to help them. Instead we have done our best to keep them out and to keep them down. For these people I ask some pity. I should like to see the Prime Minister translate that pity into action by making representations to the government at Westminster that the Balfour Declaration be lived up to in all its provisions; that Palestine be opened as a home for the Jewish people, because only there will they be free from the , persecution they have suffered at Christian hands; only there will they escape these wretched perversions of human nature.
It is not only the Jewish people who suffer in Canada. There is wicked discrimination against those of Ukrainian descent. We have several hundred thousand Canadians descended from men and women who came to this country from the Ukraine to establish homes and bring up families, who contributed great wealth to Canada, who have given their sons and daughter in Canada's wars, and who deserve well of Canada. Yet because of their name, because of their ethnology, they find it difficult indeed to compete with Anglo-Saxons, let us say. Just the other day a young boy whose parents are Ukrainian, and who had served five years in our air force, came to me. He wanted to pursue a certain line of work and asked if I could help him. I did what I could, but I am afraid I was unsuccessful, because the first question I was asked was as to his nationality. If I said he was a Canadian, the reply came, "\ou know what we mean. Where did his parents come from?" So I failed, I am afraid; but if so, the social consequences may be bitter indeed for that boy and his family, because already he has been asked by his friends, Why do you aspire to this vocation? Don't you realize that you have no chance? Don't you realize that you had better go to the railway shops at Weston or Transcona and work there as a labourer?"
There again are the seeds of disunity. Why talk about national unity when people have in their hearts the bitterness of knowing they are discriminated against? It is impossible to have unity on that basis. You find the same thing in connection with citizens of Polish descent. They are discriminated against
IMr. Stewart.]
because of their religion, perhaps, or again because of their name. We have in Canada people with Polish names that rank high in honour in the country of their origin; yet we in our insolence tell them that before they get work they must anglicize their names. These people need the protection of this parliament. We have Canadians of German descent, loyal, sound democrats who have fought for Canada. I know one boy who made thirty-two operational trips over Germany, who received an honourable discharge, yet again, because of his name, he is discriminated against.
We need in Canada, Mr. Speaker, a bill of rights to protect the minorities in this country, and I am going to suggest to the government that it give us such a bill. Within a few weeks we are going to debate in this house the charter of the united nations, and in the preamble we shall read these words:
We, the peoples of the united nations, determined to . . . reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women . .	. and for these ends to practise
tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours . . . have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims.
Here we make our declaration of faith to the world. I ask that this parliament make the same affirmation of faith to Canada. I ask that the government introduce a bill of rights and that this house place it upon the statute books of Canada, so that our children may grow together in dignity and in grace, with equality and justice, and above all in brotherhood.


Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few brief remarks on the motion may I begin, as others have begun, by expressing my pleasure that the mover (Mr. Benidickson) and the seconder (Mr. Langlois) should have been veterans, not in years but in military service, in this war. Speaking as one whose military service is further behind him than he quite likes to think, may I say how fitting that seemed to me to be.	.
May I also take just a moment to refer to the chief impressions made upon the mind of a new member at the beginning of this session. First of all it was a great interest and pleasure to watch the ancient observances that we follow here and to reflect that in countries all over the world which share our traditions and beliefs these same practices are being followed, operating, I would think, as a tie linking together in common purposes all those who believe in these institutions. The other thing that struck me and which I should

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell
like to mention was the feeling that in this house, regardless of parties, tongues or anything else, there was a friendliness such as I suppose Mr. Churchill had in mind when, not long ago, he spoke of an underlying comradeship. I suppose some people thought Mr. Churchill forgot that occasionally during the last election campaign; nevertheless I am sure he is one of the people who feel it basically, and of course basically it is there.
And I should like to say that as one who for years lived in the province of Quebec and had good friends in that province, one of the things that gave me pleasure in coming down here was to believe that I could again make good friends coming from Quebec though speaking their language so badly that I must learn to speak it better before I can talk to them except in English.
In saying that, I would add that I hope it will be a beginning of my answer to the comment made yesterday in the house, one which deeply distressed me, that the party to which I belong was a party seeking to create dissension in this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, for a few moments I should like to speak about my constituency. I think very highly of my constituents for electing me. I represent a double-barrelled constituency, that of Muskoka-Ontario. Not so long ago it was two constituencies, until some ten years ago when they were united. It was a marriage of convenience rather than a love match, and I think the people in the constituency doubted whether the convenience was entirely theirs. However, they have lived together in amity

although I think it is probably true that if opportunity were afforded they would like again to resume single blessedness. Speaking for myself, I would regret that, because I have received kindness from both consorts, and would dislike to lose association with either of them.
I should like to say a word about the people in my constituency. For the most part, indeed almost altogether, they are descended from the immigrants who came from the British isles. However, on the western part, overlooking Georgian bay-which, by the way, I recommend all of you to visit, because we are a great tourist constituency-there is a group of French Canadians living within sight of the route followed over three hundred years ago by Champlain. In those early days he came down through the Georgian Bay district. Sometimes we are apt to forget just how long ago it was that those early voyagers travelled through our country, and just how very much we owe to them. If it will not appear simply as an advertisement for my constituency, may I say that in the midst of 47696-10J
his other occupations that great traveller and pioneer found time to refer to the excellent black bass, and to the no less excellent blueberries which abound in that area.
Now a word about geography; geography has most definitely separated the two sections of my constituency. The southerly part is as beautiful and fertile a fanning land as will be found anywhere in Ontario. I believe it was one of the premiers of Ontario who with Scottish modesty referred to his province as the banner province. At any rate, that section of my constituency is remarkably fertile. Then, going north one steps almost at one bound across to Muskoka, and there finds himself in the area of the pre-Cambrian shield, that formation we know so well composed of rock, river, lake and forest.
About the industries I should1 like to say one word, because what I shall say will lead to a point I wish to make. As I have already indicated, the industry in the southern part of the constituency is that of farming, while in the northern part are the industries connected with the woods, which have been developed to some considerable extent; and also the tourist industry. The tourist industry has, of course, the tremendous advantage, first of all, of being one of the greatest providers of American exchange-and at no cost whatsoever to Canadian resources. The only thing we send out in return for that exchange is good-will which, so far, has not been rationed.
Just one further word about the industries in that constituency. I suppose it is true that in pioneer countries there has always been the danger of being wasteful. One industry rushes ahead, with the result that it gets ahead of the others. In the northern part of Muskoka, by its development, the woods industry has tended to militate against the tourist industry. Woods have been gradually been taken off, streams have shrunk, and, in spite of the present prosperity we are in danger of finding that various activities which have been carried on d'o not jibe.
The result has been that only a few days ago in the district of Muskoka there took place a meeting which, I suggest might well be duplicated up and down this country. This was a meeting by the people for the purpose of helping themselves. They are prosperous enough now. but they are looking forward to the time when possibly they may not be so prosperous. It was because of that they held the meeting of representatives from all the townships in the district of Muskoka, for the purpose of considering ard taking stock of their situation, finding out what needed to be
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell

done, where forestation might be best carried on, and the like. That meeting has been held, and the hope is that through the collaboration of the province and the dominion, assistance will be forthcoming when needed, so that those people who have set to work to help themselves will find the necessary help from others as a means of post-war planning, and various other activities of which we hear so much. Naturally they look with anxiety toward the dominion-provincial conference, and it is their hope that in God's good time it will be completed and the results available for the benefit of all of us.
The ancients, I believe, Mr. Speaker, held the view that a democracy should be small enough so that all the citizens could gather together for the discussion of their common problems. We have got a long way from that. But we who sit in the House of Commons are merely representatives, and are here only because our constituents themselves cannot be here. I thought that to-day, for the few remaining minutes I propose to detain you, I should like to imagine that my constituents, of whose intelligence I have already spoken so highly, were, here. With lhat in mind I shall venture to put before you some of the questions I believe they would be asking if they were here.
In the first place I think they would ask a question which is so much in the minds of all of us, a most perplexing question, that of controls. Perhaps they hold rather dark views of controls, because the controls which affect them seem, in some cases, peculiarly trivial, peculiarly nagging, and from their point of view so entirely unnecessary. I am not saying they are unnecessary, but am only expressing what would seem to be their views.
I was in a very small shop one day located in my riding. Like most country stores it was really a small departmental store. In it was a dry goodls section, a grocery section, a boots and shoes section, and' so on. I should think one could have taken any of those departments and put it in a good-sized wheelbarrow. The owner of that shop was somewhat annoyed on the day of my visit. It seems there had been two government inspectors who came to the shop during the afternoon. They travelled in very fine cars supplied with plenty of gasoline-and this was during the rationing period. One of them examined, let us say, his dry goods; the other examined, let us say, his boots and shoes, to see that all was in order. From my own point of view it was perhaps a good thing, because I think the owner of the store was a faithful 
member of the Liberal party, and I left that shop with some feeling that perhaps he might change his allegiance.
However that may be, the fact is that in my constituency they take a dark view of controls. On this subject I should like to speak as I believe they would speak if they were here to say a word or two for themselves. Those of us who believe in individual private enterprise earnestly wish to get rid of controls as fast as we can. But to say that is not to get rid of them, because there are great difficulties in the way. In my view the question is one of vast importance, because I believe that to ask individual enterprise, which we so much desire, to serve us at the present time and to do its job is like tying a man hand and foot and then asking him to run a race. I do not think I underestimate the difficulties. But who is to get rid of these controls? Are we to leave it entirely to the cabinet ministers? Cabinet ministers are very busy men. No one will doubt that they are carrying tremendous burdens. I submit that it will be extremely difficult for them to attain the necessary mental detachment. They are doing a full-time job and it would be extremely difficult for them to stand off and look at it in a detached way and try to consider how it shall be changed, to decide then the time has come to get rid of these controls.
Are we then to leave it to the permanent officials, whom I greatly respect, to decide when these controls are to be done away with? One might facetiously say that would be like getting a lot of admirals together and asking them to reduce the navy. That is what they used to do, and they did not get very far. But I am not making any such cheap suggestion as that. I believe that the senior men in charge of the main controls are not men who would cling to a job. I believe that they could have better jobs to-morrow if they wanted them. They are there because they believe in their work. Again I submit, how are they to have the detachment as well as the wisdom or the courage to do this? I submit that it is extremely difficult for them. They believe that they are doing a good job, and let us admit for the moment that they are. How are they to decide when the time has come to change?
It is not an easy question to answer. The other day I read an article in the London Economist which interested me. I think we shall all agree that the London Economist is that good mixture of left and right which we would all like to be. I wish to read

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell
just one short sentence from this article which struck me quite forcibly because it contains a suggestion which surprised me. I have no doubt it will surprise a great many people who are now acting in the position of controller. In this article the Economist was urging on the present British government, with which it is extremely sympathetic, that in order to make a success of that small area of economic life which they have taken under their control they will have to make the rest of it succeed; they will have to ensure the success of all that area which is still under private enterprise. The Economist was urging them to do away with controls and, speaking of what had gone on during the war, they say this:
By what right can a government department maintain in peace time that it has more right to the use of a building than its owners?
That rather struck me and I suggest that it would strike a great many people who are operating controls with the same force. Let me read it again:
By what right can a government department maintain in peace time that it has more right to the use of a building than its owners?
It then goes on to ask this rather pertinent question. Perhaps it is more of a statement than a question:
The traditional and very healthy British view puts upon the official the onus of proof of his own right to existence... The time has come to restore this.
Let me read that one sentence again:
. _ . . puts on the official the onus of proof of his own right to existence.
How is he going to discharge that onus? Is he to decide it wholly with his minister? I suggest that that is leaving it in too small a compass. I suggest that he and his minister are too fully engaged in the job, too fully seized with the work they are doing. They will find it almost impossible to stand off and look at it with a critical mind. Therefore I suggest that there is only one body- as a new member it is not for me to suggest how it should be done-that should be asked to do this, namely this high court of parliament.
In that connection I should like to draw the attention of the house to another statement that was made. I realize that it is not easy for hard-working ministers and hard-working officials to be submitting everything to parliament and I have no such foolish idea as that in my mind. I know business has to be done ; I know decisions have to be made, but there will be questions which I believe will be of vital importance in connection with these controls and I do not think they should be
decided in camera by a small group of men. Thank heavens the need for secrecy is gone and I see no reason why we should not give consideration to these things that matter.
There was a time during the war when it would have been almost impossible to do this. A member of this house who is by no means unfriendly to the government wrote in a Canadian magazine in 1943:
To-day the state is in business. In Canada it is conducting more than half of all the business of the nation with devices like those in the Department of Munitions and Supply and the wartime prices and trade board.
Listen to this:
Over these parliament has about as much control as it has over the movement of the stars.
I am not criticizing that statement in 1943. It was extremely difficult when security was such a prevalent consideration, though perhaps the plea of security was sometimes over-used a little. Perhaps they were only human. But if that is true to-day in peace time then all I can say is that the sneers against parliament which have been so common up and down the land for the last two or three years and which I personally have greatly deprecated-if I had believed them I would not be here to-day-are perfectly correct. If they are correct, then all I can say is that I tremble for the situation in our country. If respect for this body in which we are sitting this afternoon is not to be maintained. I wonder where the moral authority is to come from to make the people like the things they must have to put up with before reconversion is over.
If my constituents were here-this is not an original idea-they would have a word to say about taxation as everybody else would, and I would suggest that their word might have a special validity. They are nearly all workers-on-their-own; very few of them are on any payroll. They get only the money they earn themselves. If they pay out more than they take in they go broke. There is a [DOT]lot of realism about people like that; you cannot fool them.
They have been patriotic citizens. When the war was on they did not complain about their taxes. They paid them like everybody else, but now that the war is over, like other people they are perplexed and troubled. They had hoped that taxation would go down, though perhaps their hopes were exaggerated.
Now what do they find? They fear that there are signs of taxation being kept up and up. They fear that perhaps the state has turned itself into a Santa Claus. Let me say quickly that there is not one of us who is more ready to support proper social

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell
services than they are; there is no one more ready to see that those who are unfortunate, those who are disabled, those who are old, those who have suffered unemployment, those who have suffered through no fault of their own, and those in distress should be taken care of. They do not want any withholding from those people. But they are people like ourselves who believe in private enterprise and who sometimes feel that there is a danger that too little stress is laid on the virtues and qualities which have brought us the distance we have come.
They begin to ask if it is really true that the state has discovered some secret store of money when the fact is that the state has no resources apart from that which is produced by its citizens. They say, "Is it still true that the goods that we have, the services that we have, the resources that we have to help those people come only from the thrift, and energy, and providence, and readiness to take a risk, of the people who have initiative and energy?" Let me say just in passing that when we talk about the profit system we are using a misnomer; we should talk about the profit and loss system. When a man asks to . have his wages raised he is seeking a profit; the only difference is that he is not taking any risk.
What do these people say about taxation?
I think all that they would say, all that anyone can say at the moment, is that we are now coming to a time when as rapidly as possible we are going to remove the controls from private enterprise. That is, those of us who believe that private enterprise has to carry on are ready to remove the controls. Remember that every day they continue is not only a day lost but is one day more of tampering, of retarding and discouragement for the people who are waiting and hoping for the day when they can get busy and again provide labour and wages; and taxes for the state. Do not let us forget that it is only from private enterprise and profits that the state gets its taxes, and incidentally I would point out that the Economist put that up to the British government when they urged that in all that area of economic life not yet taken over by the state they must see to it that private enterprise resumed its activities and that profits are made for it. Who has more desire to see profits than the state, because that is where the state gets its taxes from?
We shall soon be considering a question which I suppose is the most difficult one that any minister of finance has ever had placed before him. (How much of the great burdens that we are to have shall we carry by taxation, and how much by borrowing? There 
is a sixty-four dollar question which it will require our joint wisdom to answer. It would be easy to make generalizations. Two can be made right away. If we raise too much by taxation we just grind still further into the dust all those who are seeking through their individual initiative to make the contribution which under our system they have primarily to make. On the other hand, if we raise too little by taxation and too much by borrowing, we meet the other lion in the path-inflation. I shall not. detain the house one moment to discuss that. But it is a question we should all be considering, a question on he proper determination of which our happiness may very likely depend.
There is one other thing my constitutents would say if they were here. It was said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt) the other night. They would like a *lead. They would like someone whom they regard as having moral authority to tell them what the score is, to tell them where we are, to tell them what can be done and what cannot be done, and to tell them as honestly as possible, as persuasively as possible, what their sacrifices are to be. Still more they would like someone to tell them honestly that the sacrifices are being shared, to tell them that there will be a square deal all round, that no one is to be left with the short end of the stick. That is what they are afraid of. They want to be assured that everyone will share in the sacrifices.
That is particularly true, I suppose, of labour. I myself have had some very modest dealings with labour. I have a good many labour friends. I believe that if things are put to them, cards on the table face up, if they are given full information, it is astonishing how quickly suspicion disappears. If labour is dealt with fairly and persuasively, there is nobody in the world that can be more reasonable or more understanding than they are. But it has to be done in time. And nobody must try to drive them. What is needed now is to try to get their cooperation, to work with them.
Finally, if my constituents were here, they would say this-or perhaps they would only feel it, so that I will say it for them: now that they are welcoming back their sons and daughters from the armed forces and mourning those who will never come back and as they are condoling with the relatives of others who have not come back, they would feel like reminding us here of the quality which these young people have shown during war time, and I think they would like to say to us that we need to have, not a double portion, for that we could never have, but some small por-

The Address-Mr. Raymond
tion of their spirit. I know it has never been fashionable to serve the state in peace time. It is astonishing the number of people who will do their utmost in war time, who will do nothing in peace time. Some who will do most in war time never think of doing it in peace time. It is a foreign idea to them. But it should not be a foreign idea to anybody here, and I conclude by saying to you, sir, and to this house, that I do not think the great affairs, the tremendous problems, such as we are going to have to face, can ever be dealt with by little minds and in a little way. And I would say that these young people who have served in our armed forces in the war and their relatives have a right to expect that we shall show at least some portion of the spirit that they have shown.


Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few brief remarks in order to define the attitude of members of the Bloc Populaire regarding the speech from the throne as well as the two amendments which have been moved.
The present government has been entrusted with the mandate of administering the affairs of the country during the next five years, with the responsibilities arising therefrom. It is therefore bound to introduce measures necessary to bake care of the grave situation in which Canada finds herself to-day, after six years of war which have completely upset its economy.
What are those measures? We do not know them yet. The speech from the throne, drawn up as usual in vague and general terms, does not set them forth in detail, but it informs us that they are meant to meet present-day needs. But how can we deal effectively with measures that we do not know? It seems to me that, logically, we should wait until those measures have been submitted to us so that we may be able to deal efficiently with them. I therefore consider that, for the present, long debates would serve only in delaying the presentation of these measures, some of which are of an urgent character, as, for example, those concerning the housing problem, and the placement of our demobilized service men and our war plant employees.
We shall therefore facilitate the adoption of the address, thus helping the government in bringing down these measures which we are anxiously awaiting; and I can assure the administration that we shall judge them on their merits with no other object than to serve the true interests of Canada. Such is our stand regarding the speech from the throne.
We are told of the formation of a committee to prepare the design of a Canadian flag. We have sponsored such a measure for a long time and I am gratified to note that the government have finally realized the importance of giving our country a distinct national emblem.
As for the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) and the subamendment of the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell), they are drafted in general terms and I really fail to see that they add anything whatever to the speech from the throne. I consider them, at this stage of the session, as useless and designed to delay the business of the house. We refuse to be party to any delay in our work, and, for this reason, we shall refrain from expressing our views on the amendment and the sub-amendment. Mr. Speaker, such are the few remarks I deemed it my duty to make in order to do away with any doubt as to the stand we intend to take in this house.
Mr. PATRICK H. ASHBY (Edmonton East): Mr. Speaker, I was sorry to see the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) leave this chamber, because I happen to have discovered the solution of all our problems: in fact, sir, utopia is just around the corner. I do not know which corner, because I am a stranger here in Ottawa; but I am not the only stranger. It is, sir, an honour and a great privilege to come to this house to represent a section of the people of Canada. I consider it an honour to have been chosen by the people of Edmonton East to represent them and their will. I think I should repeat those last words, "to represent their will." I told the people of my constituency that if they wanted someone to come here to represent liberalism, socialism, communism, fascism, or any other "ism," not to vote for me; I would not accept the position under those circumstances; but if they wanted a man who would come to this house to represent them and their will, to vote for me and I would do so to the best of my ability. That, sir, is why I am here.
The people of Edmonton East, like the majority of the people of Canada, are honest, hardworking people, trying to make a living. Let me repeat-and I shall repeat quite a lot of things-they are trying to make a living; but ninety per cent of them never do make a living. They exist while trying, but they exist only. The object of work and toil is to obtain a living, and :by a "liv-
The Address-Mr. Ashby

ing" I mean a full and abundant life. There are mighty few people in this great dominion, this wonderful country, with all the marvellous resources and advantages which God has bestowed upon it, who obtain a living. Ninety per cent never obtain a full and abundant life no matter how hard they struggle.
We are slaves indeed, slaves to these ''isms", to systems, to methods such as those which this government has practised and supported ever since it has been in office. There is, however, one difference between the people of Edmonton East-in fact, the people of Alberta generally-and the rest of the people of Canada. Albertans are becoming enlightened; they are no longer voting for methods and means but are voting for and demanding ends or results. That is why I was elected to represent them and their will, and I am here on instructions from the people of my constituency to demand certain results. They are going to get those results, I tell you, before I am through. When all the people of Canada-and in the east, too they are becoming enlightened-realize that they can have democracy, by which I mean a form of government that makes it easiest for the greatest number of people to enjoy the largest amount of individual freedom and security, and when they realize the full meaning of democracy and elect individuals to represent them, and not some other form of government or some "ism" or some method, we shall begin to make real progress.
The reputation which has been built up by party politicians in the past is not an enviable one. I have yet to hear an adult speak with respect of party politicians. The name "politician", if you will pardon my saying so, stinks to high heaven. The names of many politicians are being associated with such criminals and scoundrels as Dillinger and Hitler; and when the people of Canada begin to lose faith and trust in the riien they elect to represent them, it is time we turned over a new leaf and began to represent the people.
In Alberta we have a government which is respected by the people because they have tried to the best of their ability to serve the people instead of ruling them. That is our duty here as members of this parliament -to serve our fellow men, not to rule them.
We in Alberta are not hampered in this progressive movement by any natural laws or any laws that God has made, but only by man-made rules and regulations. I must say that we have been hampered only by the actions of political bosses in Ottawa and in this parliament; for had we been given the freedom to go ahead as we desired, without any interference with the rights of other prov-

inces or any other part of the great empire we call the British commonwealth of nations, to-day we would have seen in Alberta, and possibly in the rest of Canada-for the rest of Canada would soon have followed-a majority of the people enjoying, for the first time in their lives and the first time in modem history, a full and abundant life.
We have just passed1 through in this war a period in human history that will forever remain a blot, and a bloody blot, upon the records of party politics. Eor this war w-as not fought between peoples, because the majority of the people everywhere are too busy trying to make a living to be bothered with making wars. The people, I know, were used by the various dictators, whether hidden or open, who wished to gain for themselves advantages over one another. On the one hand we have dictators hiding behind the scenes centralizing control, trying to gain control over the whole earth. Whether you believe it or not does not alter these facts. On the other hand there was that notorious dictator named Hitler who also coveted that position. They are insane; there is no doubt about it in my mind. It is a peculiar mania from which they have suffered, the mania to rule.
It is our duty in this house not to rule but to serve, and yet I find that the majority of members desire not to serve their people so much as to serve the party to which they belong. Before this war the federal government of Canada, who were supposed to represent the people, did not represent the people of Canada. The people of Canada wanted food and could not buy it even though -the stores offered it for sale. They could not buy it because they had no money and this government- said, "We have no money. We cannot build highways, we cannot build schools, we cannot reforest our burnt-out areas, we cannot build public works or carry on other activities because we have not the money." And so the people starved, living in- misery, suffering and privation which was unbelievable, and must be unbelievable to many members here who have not seen the conditions under which the people lived.
Thousands of our people died as a result of the actions or inaction of this government, who were then supposed to be representing the people of Canada. Thousands of our boys who went overseas in this war rode freight trains seeking means to get a living, and failing to do so. We all know this if we stop to think. But the moment war was declared the money

The Address-Mr. Ashby
began to flow forth in billions upon billions of dollars. We then found money enough to produce great highways, airports, tanks, guns, ships, planes, bombs, bullets by the millions. We erected great factories and equipped them with all the most modern machinery, and we trained men and women and paid them well while training them to operate these machines. And with all this production we took the most able-bodied of our boys and sent them over to deliver these goods to people who did not want them. Those people said "We will not take them and we will blast you out of the sky and sink your ships if you try to deliver them." Our boys said, "We will deliver them and you will get them just the same." Well, we delivered them without charge to the enemy. We delivered them absolutely free, and we were all far more prosperous during the war than we ever were before.
Now the government are going to continue to let the money flow forth just as they did during the war, and if they do not do so then they will be dishonourably discharged from office as traitors to the people of Canada. I have instructions from the people of my constituency and from hundreds of thousands of returned men to demand in their name certain wants which I am going to outline to you in a few moments. And they are going to get them this time. I told them before leaving Edmonton; I said to these men, thousands of them: "I shall give you the name and address of every member of parliament who does not vigorously stand in this house and demand that these wants be satisfied." I know that these men mean business this time, and I think that they will want to call on such members and pat them on their hands, or maybe they will spank another part of their anatomy, and they will not use a hairbrush. But of this I am sure, that if any returned man is caught serving any member who does not get up in the house and vigorously demand these things he will never again be served by any returned soldier unless that soldier becomes a traitor to his fellowmen. That means that the member of parliament in this house who does not demand these things will never get a shave possibly, or a haircut, nor will he be able to buy food nor a railway ticket. That is true, for these men this time are determined that they shall not suffer as did the old soldiers of the last war. I am joining with them and will stand up for them in this house on every possible occasion. I will represent them and fight for them with all the power I can muster, because I had to make a slave of my wife and slaves of my children. For years and years we toiled and
sweated and slaved under the soldier settlement board, and we suffered. I will never ask any human being to suffer as I did. I tell you, sir, that I would be willing to take up arms in defence of Canada and of the democratic rights of Canadians and die; I would much rather do that than go through what I had to go through then.
Out of twelve returned soldiers that joined with me in my community two only are left, myself and a white haired, stoop shouldered old soldier whose wife taught school to help pay that notorious soldier settlement board the shekels it demanded.
One of the first things that the people demand of me is that all taxation on all incomes of 35,000 a year and less shall be immediately abolished. I hope you have that down. The second is that the old age pensions be increased and the age limit reduced. Our national leader, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), yesterday suggested $50 a month at the age of sixty years. I always like to turn things around. I think it looks a great deal better if we say $60 a month at the age of fifty; and if the people desire it I can assure them they can have $100 a month at the age of forty. It all depends on what the people want. We are their servants, and that is what we must be if we are loyal, and if we are not traitors to them. We are here either to serve them or to rule them, and I am sure I am not here to rule the people of my constituency. I am here to accept from them instructions as to what they want; and when the people of this great British empire realize the situation and compel their members of parliament to serve them, then God's gifts will open up before us as though we saw the light of day for the first time in our lives. Then we will begin to live, for that is all human beings work and toil for-to live.
I have some horses on my farm. I know very well I could not possibly work a horse eight, ten or fifteen hours a day for twenty, thirty or forty years. The animal would die. I know a number of poor old farm women right in my own constituency who have toiled and sweated and outlived and outworked seventy-five or a hundred horses. Are we animals? Well, certainly we are beasts of burden when we have to toil all our lives. I have a letter here from the Canadian Legion, which I am not going to read, telling me of men over sixty years of age, old soldiers of the last war, who are still toiling on, though crippled with arthritis and rheumatism; poor beasts of burden. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that unless we see that human beings can live, we must resign from
The Address-Mr. Ashby


Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am starting out definitely behind the eight ball, because I cannot hope to duplicate the efforts of my hon. friend to my left. However, I shall do my best.
As a new member of the House of Commons, and an industrial worker-when there is work-I should like to give my impressions of this parliament for the short time I have been here. It seems to me so divorced from reality, from the everyday struggle on the job, that I sometimes wonder if our efforts are not in vain. Many similar institutions were found wanting in the last war. I hope this one will survive, and will manage to bring about conditions in the country which will warrant its continuance.
I listened with a great deal of attention to the speech from the throne. That speech is of key significance because it outlines the official programme of the administration.
The Address-Mr. Archibald .

The Address-Mr. Archibald

It was, ''Have you the guts to go active?" Well, the veterans and the war workers have the right now to demand of the government: Have you the guts to give us a job and guarantee it? The men responded to these appeals, to this demand in the final analysis, and finally, through the befuddled attitude of the government on demobilization the situation at Aldershot was brought about. It was the natural result. One may well ask why it was that men had to take part in a form of riot in order to make their demands known to the general public. The sentences meted out, running up to seven years, are a disgrace for a democratic country, especially when they are measured in terms of the government's attitude toward notorius elements such as Adrien Arcand.
A staggering burden of taxation Has been placed upon the backs of the workers. Salaries as low as $660 a year are taxed, and there is no sign of relief. It is notable that the first country in the British empire to lower taxes on incomes is Australia, where a Labour government is in power, which is the duplicate of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in Canada. The Australian government has already lowered taxation to the extent of 12i per cent. Those responsible for the enormous national debt that we now have in Canada point to its astronomical figures as necessitating the continuation of our heavy taxation. There is no necessity in our economy for the curtailment of production or the shutting down of the factories, which can only result in our returning war veterans facing lack of employment. The taxes should be lifted off so that full employment could be brought in, and when you have full employment the national debt, even at its present astronomical figures, could be wiped off in no time if the full productive forces of this nation were turned loose.
Housing conditions have gone progressively from bad to worse during the past twenty years. During the period before the war, when the administration had all the time in the world to build homes, they did not do a thing. Compare that with the action of the New Zealand Labour government prior to the war, when they were building houses for the workers and are continuing to do so. But in this country, oh, no. Under our Liberal administration, that would be interfering with private enterprise. There must be no interference with private enterprise in the face of this most acute housing crisis. Seemingly the financial institutions in this country do not believe that the workers have in their hands that tremendous back-log of savings that would enable them to pay the high rents which have been 
demanded over a long period of time. Therefore they are bogging down on the job. The government could go ahead and have 'low-priced housing schemes which would be within the range of the lowest paid workers; it just requires the will.
I should like to propose another important measure, if we rule out (profits and run the economy on use. I should like to see them continue the operation of the government-financed and government-built plants. I should like to see them come in with a programme of public works to cover irrigation, the building of hydro-electric power projects, and so on. In Prince Rupert, for example, we have a government-owned dry dock. Prior to the war this dry dock was used partly as a cow pasture; yet it was recognized at the same time as a key installation. During the war that dry dock built corvettes and 10,000-ton freighters, as well as repaired many an ocean-going boat. Why does the government not modernize that plant and continue the building programme, even a minimum building programme, so as to keep that trained crew and personnel in that key installation? Capitalism is a system of war; therefore the system itself will likely produce another one. Far be it from me to advise capitalism how to protect itself, but it would be a good idea that that plant and equipment should be kept up instead of having a mad rush every time a war breaks out.
Under the government programme as outlined in the speech from the throne, Prince Rupert, like many another city throughout Canada, faces stagnation. Yet Prince Rupert has magnificent possibilities under proper planning. Let me quote the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who, in a speech delivered at Prince' Rupert in 1920, when he was leader of the opposition, said:
Was the Grand Trunk Pacific policy a -wise one? What was Sir Wilfrid's vision when the transcontinental railway was being planned, and his vision of this particular city? I know, it was of ships plying from this very harbour, crossing the Pacific with the products of this country, bringing back other commodities here, making this community one of the greatest marts of the world; of a railway running through a country as fertile as any in the world, with feeders running north and south, tapping the resources of the province, mineral and timber, and great national wealth; a great community, with ocean wharves, docks, repair yards, dry docks, round houses, hotels, railway stations, and all of the sights and signs of a great world metropolis. And what have you got to-day?
A side line and not a main artery! The difference between the Liberal and Conservative parties.
We in Prince Rupert are wondering if the Prime Minister has shortened his horizon to that of a cow pasture.

The Address-Mr. Sinnott
It is with such experiences in mind that the members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation have come to the conclusion that only through the socialization of industry and the financial institutions will living standards rise and there be a continuous expansion of industry. During the war the federal government considered the building of the Prince Rupert highway an urgent national necessity. It wasted no time in putting men and materials on that road. It poured them on. It set an example for similar public works in peace time. But as soon as the necessity or the "squeeze" ceased up in the Aleutians the government forgot all about that road and allowed it to slip into a sad state of disrepair. One small slide was allowed to remain on that road blocking people from driving over it, with the government machinery all tied up and doing nothing. Speaking for British Columbia-and I speak for British Columbia-


Mr. REID:: Oh, no, you don't.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I should like, Mr. Speaker, to have a chat with the hon. member on the other side after October 25.
May I now bring to the attention of the government the dire need of a railroad outlet from the Peace River. The people of Peace River and Skeena riding have been waiting for years for that to be completed. As I understand it, the settlers went to the Peace because of the promise that such a railroad would be built, but they are still waiting. They are still isolated in that area, and they want that outlet to the Pacific. It would increase the national wealth by building up that northwestern corner of British Columbia which has proved so vital in time of war. This would provide jobs for thousands. It would bring industry into the country; and, as the Prime Minister stated, this territory has the mineral resources, the power, and the timber. Industry will follow transportation. Thousands of jobs could be made available on such a project.
I should also like to mention another one, the building of a highway from Hazelton north through the Atlin country up to White Horse, known as the "A" route. It should be built on that route because, it would drain all that northwest corner of British Columbia on to a Canadian highway, much as those who built the Canadian Pacific railroad just north of the 49th parallel of latitude so that the Canadian economy would drain into it. The necessity is apparent in that corner, so that we shall not be at the mercy of international financiers working through the Alaska panhandle. It is tragic that only the threat of war forced the government to take action. A threat to private property forces the government to bring in
work with wages. I should like to see them take a lead in developing this country and making it a -worth-while place in which to live.
The completely inadequate character of the government's proposals to meet unemployment in the post-war period will lead only to a devastating social crisis. If the Liberal government continues its present course it seems to me inevitable that large masses of workers will be unable to find jobs. I would think they would take a different attitude if only to maintain the respect of the people of Canada.
I have a different philosophy. I claim that a new system has to be brought into being, a system of socialism which is both national and international in outlook because it includes all those who need things in this world. Therefore, though I will support every measure that is introduced which will benefit the country, I maintain that only socialism will bring about real freedom and social justice.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. J. S. SINNOTT (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, as I am a new member of this house this will be my maiden speech. I am the new member for Springfield, formerly represented by my late good friend Mr. John M. Turner, who had many friends in this house.
I wish at the outset to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, upon your elevation to the office of first commoner and I also wish you much pleasure in the position you now hold.
I speak here to-night for the first time and I do not intend to speak very long. I am a man of few words; I believe more in action. May I first of all congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address upon their admirable speeches, also their maiden speeches, in parliament, because they represent a large section of the armed forces. I am considerably moved and interested in the large number of members of the army, the navy and the air force who have been watching proceedings in this house from day to day, many of whom I presume left families and jobs to go over to the other side to protect dear ones at home. I am sure that this house will see to it that nothing we can do will be too good for those who have done such a magnificent job.
I believe it is my duty to say a few words about the constituency I have the honour to represent, which is considered to be one of the largest in Canada, containing one of
The Address-Mr. Sinnott

the most varied cross-sections of our population. In that constituency there are people from practically every part of the world and we all get along very well. At the western end we take in the suburbs of Winnipeg and a large part of the Red river valley market gardeners and small farmers. To the north there are large and small lakes where there is a large fishing industry, and centrally there are farm lands which are regarded as one of the surest crop districts in western Canada. Coming to the eastern portion adjoining Ontario, we have a large lumber industry, pulpwood and paper mills. The mines and natural resources of that part of the country have hardly yet been touched.
I join with other speakers in regard to the expansion of industry in the west. In war time we have shown our ability to produce munitions and supplies with as small an overhead as any other plant in Canada. We have the Winnipeg river which supplies an abundance of power to all Manitoba, and its capacity is only partly developed a.t the present time.
We have in Canada the means and the people to produce far more than we can consume, which will enable us to share a large portion of our surpluses with some countries that are not quite so fortunate. It was mentioned here a day or two ago that Canada should have a large immigration. In my opinion, we can take up the slack for a while, but we have in Canada to-day the ability to produce far more than we can consume, so that the only way in which we can make it work is to have a good deal of immigration.
I am one of the many to-day who know that the horse and buggy days are gone and gone forever. I believe in the Liberal party and in the members of this house who are here at this session and I believe that by working together we can bring about the necessary reform. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King)-and I have every reason to believe him-has said that we can make laws only in accordance with the desires of the members the people send to parliament. There is no reason why we should have such criticism as we have had to listen to from the other side of the house, since the war is hardly over yet. God has given man brains and man has produced science and invention, and in this machine age we have seen what science and invention have caused in this world in the way of destruction. Let us hope that the same science and invention will do as much for sound construction in peace time.
As the representatives of the people of Canada, we shall be called' upon to perform tremendous tasks, unheard of and umthought of in the past, and described as nonsense by
some. We are told occasionally that we are up against a stone wall when we come up against the British North America Act. How* ever, I believe, as many other Canadians do, that if the British North America Act does not measure up to the requirements of the Canadian people to-day, the Liberal party and the members of this house have the ability to redraft it in order that the people may have the benefits they should enjoy.
There has been a good deal of talk about full employment, and there has been much criticism. Let us not forget that to-day we are in the. machinery age. At the time of confederation it took many days to get from the east coast to the Pacific coast. To-day you can have your breakfast in Halifax and be in Vancouver for supper. The machines of to-day have been so built that they will make life much easier for the working man if they are used properly. We know that at the end of hostilities, with our soldiers, sailors and airmen coming back, it will be hard to find positions for all. It will be necessary for the opposition in this house, including all groups opposite, to cooperate or we shall find ourselves in difficulties. I regret to say that in this machine age it will be impossible to find jobs for all our people. The only way we can serve the people properly is to put our machines to work and give those people who have no jobs a decent living. Let the machines do the work; that is what machines are for.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that it will be my endeavour to help the government in any possible manner, and to cooperate with all hon. members of this house to build a better, peaceful Canada.
Mr. PARK A. MANROSS (London): Mr. Speaker, I, too, am a new member of this house, although I do not know whether or not this will qualify as my maiden speech. Since the house opened a good many maiden speeches have been made, and some have been of such high quality that I think I shall require a little practice before I can qualify. I am a new member representing the- constituency of London, Ontario. I am not going to tell you that London is the greatest city in Canada, although that word has been used, or that it is the fairest city, or the gayest city. We are quite content to call it the best city.


The Address-Mr. Manross
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, let me compliment you upon being elected the chief commoner of this house. I think that was a wise choice, and as a new member I hope I may further my education in parliamentary matters by carefully watching your decisions and judgments. Then, as a veteran of the last war, I take great pleasure in congratulating the mover and seconder of the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne. It gave me a great deal of satisfaction to see that they were two young men, new members, from the armed services of this country.
One or two of the first speakers in this debate spent some little time in eulogizing their respective leaders. In advertising we sometimes call that "blowing up" our leaders. There are two interpretations of that phrase, and I am not going to deal with either one. The riding of London is an urban constituency. We have 175 subdivisions entirely within the city itself, so that it is a concentrated riding with a large population. We have a great deal of varied industry there, and it is the centre of a large agricultural district. Sometimes it is called the garden spot of Canada, but I am not going to emphasize that tonight, for I might get into an argument. I was interested yesterday to receive a London newspaper, in which I saw the picture of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott), who I am sorry is absent from his seat tonight. According to the newspaper he is going bo pay a visit to our city on Friday and Saturday. I do not know whether the minister is adopting the suggestion offered by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt) that he visit the military districts and check up on the demobilization programme. Perhaps that is the purpose of his visit, because London is the headquarters of military district No. 1. Incidentally, on the same days there is a meeting in London of the western Ontario Liberal association, but probably that is just a coincidence. However, if the minister wishes to check up as to their demobilization I would say they are thoroughly demobilized, and very well rehabilitated, because our party made a gain of ten seats in that particular district.
The speech from the throne, which we are supposed to debate, cannot include everything the government is going to do, or that it is going to be advised to do, or that we can sell it into doing. It contains a general outline, which is purposely made broad in order that it may be varied. T think the speech from the throne has been pretty well covered by various members of our group, at least, but there are a few special points I should like to emphasize. The first point I wish to
bring up is not peculiar to my riding; it is of interest to the whole country. It has to do with the nurses who are serving in a Canadian military hospital at Sogel, Germany. These nurses enlisted in the army medical corps to take care of war casualties, but now that the war is over they have been sent to Sogel to look after people, mainly Polish and Russian, who are suffering from tuberculosis. These nurses do not object to this, and we do not object to it. It is a humanitarian act. But I wish the government would look into the situation and the conditions under which these nurses are working. The patients are under canvas, and the nurses are in huts, so-called, without any conveniences. The place is muddy. They perform their duties many hours of the day in rubber boots. Nothing has been done to control the fly or mosquito nuisances, with the result that the nurses work under considerable handicaps. Up until the end of August they did not get any butter, milk or eggs, such as the patients were getting. In the final analysis, while these nurses volunteered for service to our troops, they are doing this job quite nobly for the devastated people in Europe. I would ask the government to see to it that the nurses in question have better living or working conditions. I make this plea on behalf of the Canadian nurses some of whom are from my riding. However, what I have said covers all nurses who have gone overseas from Canada. Surely we should take steps to correct this situation.
Taxation was ably discussed this afternoon by my colleague the hon. member for Mus-koka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) in a wonderful address. This is a big subject, and it will be discussed at greater length when the budget is before the house. However, it is well to give it some thought before the budget comes down, because it is often difficult to change a budget, once it has been presented to the house. While this is my first experience in the house as a member, it is not my first experience in dealing with budgets, having been on tariff committees on various occasions. To my knowledge, the only change any committee ever saw fit to make to a budget was to make an addition of the three words "and parts thereof'-and we thought that when we accomplished that we had done something. As outlined by my hon. friend, under a system of taxation one can take only so much from the people, and raise only so much by borrowing.
I certainly would be in favour of the plan advanced by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Ashby) which, boiled down to simple terms, means old age pensions for
m
The Address-Mr. Manross

young people. Well, I am content to settle for $100 a month at forty years of age; that is, if they will make it retroactive.
There are some nuisance taxes which do not amount to much and which I think the government would be well advised to abolish. This evening I shall refer to only one of them, a thing called a radio licence fee, or a radio tax at $2.50 a year. When the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was set up it patterned somewhat after the British Broadcasting Corporation. The committee which investigated the matter went to England, looked over the situation, and decided that the same set-up would be satisfactory in Canada. But they overlooked one thing, namely our geography.
England, as we know, is a country surrounded by water for many miles on each side. Beyond that water, before short-wave reception, the only stations they could get were foreign language stations, to which they did not listen. In Canada, however, the situation was entirely different. By the simple turning of a dial we could bring in all stations in the United States and get the big chain programmes. At that time the government decided to set up the corporation and to charge us $2.50 per set, so that we might enjoy the entertainment offered by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, without any advertising in it.
Well, most of us were willing to listen to a few soap operas, if we could get better comedians, with the result that we tuned in to United States stations. Later on, however, it was decided that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would take advertising over its stations to help pay expenses. This made the broadcasting corporation in Canada a commercial venture. Now, I say it is either a commercial venture and as such should be on its own feet, or it should get out of the commercial picture, and let us pay for our entertainment.
This $2.50 is not a large amount to any individual who owns a radio set. The objection to it is the nuisance feature. You do not remember when your tax was last paid, with the result that some fellow in a uniform comes hammering on your door, and says to you, "Let me see your radio licence", and you are really sunk. Yes, you had forgotten about it. Of course you may have, it but you do not know where it is. I say this fee should be abolished.
There is another tax I should like to talk about because I am vitally interested in it, in fact, all the people in my riding and in all other ridings, the people in every city and town in Canada are interested, because these

plants are widely distributed. Against the industry I have in mind there has been discriminatory taxation for the past number of years. I refer to beverage plants-and hon. members need not start smiling, because it is not the kind of beverage they have in mind. I refer to the carbonated beverages, commonly known as soft drinks.
I think all hon. members have received briefs from their associations. I have investigated those briefs with considerable care, because I am in a position to know something about that industry, and I make the suggestion that some attention should be paid to their appeal for relief.
As it will be recalled, and as set out in the brief, when taxes were first brought down to raise money for the conduct of the war a twenty-five per cent tax was put on this industry, an industry which was built up on the five-cent piece, the same as those other industries offering chocolate bars, and all other commodities selling at a nickel. It was the only industry so taxed. The result was that the product had to sell at1 six cents while the others sold at five cents.
After considerable contact with the department and with the wartime prices and trade board, and also after communication with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), it was considered-probably through double talk-that this would be corrected in the next budget. But when the next budget was brought down it put a one-cent tax on everything else, including this industry. The result is that they are still discriminated against, and still have to sell their product at a price higher than is asked by their competitors.
I bring this matter to the attention of the house because they are in a precarious position, since sugar has been rationed to fifty per cent of the 1941 quota. The result has been that the volume of these factories has been cut in half, and they are left out on a limb. I am not contending that sugar should not be cut to fifty per cent. I believe, from the figures we saw in the hands of the wartime prices and trade board and the sugar administrator of Montreal that there is a scarcity of sugar. Whether or not this industry should be at the lowest point in the distribution of the amount available is a matter of opinion. We do not think it should. It is our view that this industry should have as much sugar as is allowed other sweet goods, wines and other lines which receive twenty per cent more.
In other words, the basic period for the rationing of food was 1941, and the wartime prices and trade board say that everything

The Address-Mr. Manross
shall be based on the basic period. Now they come along and give some industries more than others. In other words, they are telling the Canadian public that they did not live right in 1941, that they consumed the wrong goods, and that now they should eat more sweet cakes. Well, I do not think the wartime prices and trade board is well enough versed in nutrition to issue such an order.
The sugar shortage is a world condition, and is tied up with IINRiRA. Let us look at our own situation in western Ontario. Speaking for the city of London, let me point out that we have a large sugar beet producing area at our back door. In that area are two sugar refineries, one aA Wallaceburg and one at Chatham, Ontario. The one at Chatham has a capacity of 80.000.000 pounds a year. For three years it has been closed down for lack of sugar beets. That lack of sugar beets arose because of a lack of labour. Selective service has been appealed to, and labour was promised, but that labour did not come. Permission was asked to advertise for the labour over a period of months, and finally that permission was granted-but too late.
The Ontario government subsidized the growers to an extent of $1.55 a ton last year, up to $225,000, which helped considerably on the beet price situation. But the growers must know a year ahead how many beets they are going to put in. One cannot tell in the spring just what the situation will be. You cannot make arrangements in the spring for, let us say, 50 acres of beets, because you have to prepare more than a year ahead, and continue to rotate the crops. You cannot go out and produce sugar beets on such short notice, any more than you can go out and get a dozen pigs when you do not plan to raise any.
In connection with this sugar situation let me tell the house that at the present time three South American countries have over
800.000	tons of sugar, or about 1.600,000,000 pounds. We cannot get our hands on that sugar because of a pool or cartel, whatever you wish to call it. These three countries in South America will not knuckle down to this cartel policy. In a way we have sort of piously condemned this cartel, but then we have our external relations department with its good neighbour policy. Because of the cartel we say, "We will not buy your sugar," and then under the good neighbour policy we say, "We would like to buy it, but we cannot get it." It is just the same sort of double talk. So much for the sugar situation. The sugar beet growers need labour. They need a plan. They need action from the government. They should know how much help they should hire, how many acres they
should plant, what the price of beets is to be. They should be given a plan and then there will be relief for the sugar situation in Canada.
Quite a bit has been said about housing in this debate. I am not an authority on housing and I am not going to tell the government what to do. However, those who are trying to do that are not authorities either, and they cannot do it. When the Minister of Finance wanted to raise money during the war by means of victory loans he did not call in a bunch of carpenters to sell bonds.	He went out and got bond
dealers and insurance salesmen and they organized probably the best bond selling or investment selling organization that ever existed in any country. He got the men who knew how. I know that all hon. members worked on the victory loans in whatever capacities they possessed, whether it was in a desk or outside job, speaking or ringing doorbells.
In the building of houses the same thing should apply. The government should get the people with the know-how. Get the contractors and the builders; provide them with the necessary materials; make it possible for them to get the necessary finances and they will build the required houses. I am not condemning the bureaucrats or controllers, whatever name you want to call them-you cannot call them as bad a name sometimes as you would like-because I think we collected the best group of men that we could get quickly who were out of work-I beg your pardon, I mean men who were out of essential war work. We put them on these jobs as controllers.
However, the emergency is over. Let us look at some of these miracle men who are still on the job. In my district we have a tailor who is conttroller of honey. I was a member of an association of those using small steel parts in connection with domestic production during the war. A controller of steel closures was appointed. Steel closures are made by a multiple production stamping process. After a couple of meetings with this controller I began to wonder what knowledge he had of this business and I asked him, "What did you do before you took this job?" He said, "I was secretary of a horticultural society." I think the only idea of closures that existed in his mind was the fact that a morning glory closes in the night.
As further evidence of the fact that men are being used who are not fitted for their job, may I say that I noticed in a western Ontario paper this week that a production manager of a company who had been receiving a large
The Address-Mr. Manross

salary had toppled over about two months ago with a heart spell and had had to retire. It was a candy business with which he was connected but he has now been made shelter administrator for the emergency. The only thing he ever made that looked like anything connected with a house was candy which looks like a door-knob.
If we continue with this policy of not putting men with the know-how in the right jobs I am afraid that what will come about will be what was perhaps inadvertently stated by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-CIare (Mr. Baker) who said, as reported at page 97 of Hansard, that our men will eventually be properly rehabilitated. Eventually is not good enough; we have to have it now. These men have been overseas; they have married; they have come back and they have no place to go. They are living in barracks, old sheds; they are living three and four families in a hovel. Eventually is not good enough. Unless the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) does not take better action than he has indicated he is taking we shall not have the houses to take care of these families and with the cold weather we shall be facing a serious situation. So much for controls, although I could give the house more examples.
There is one other thing I would point out to the Minister of Reconstruction and probably the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott). I have not been here long enough to be sufficiently conversant with just what each minister has under his control. Some of the ministers have been here much longer, but I noticed this afternoon that the Minister of Finance looked over to another minister and said, "Is that mine or is that yours?" As a new member, who am I to say anything?
But there is one thing I should like to point out in connection with which every minister has a responsibility. This has probably been mentioned before in this debate. There are a lot of government buildings around the country which were rented by the Department of National Defence. I have a long wire, which I am not going to read, about one in London in my riding. This building was rented by the Department of National Defence and justly so because they needed the space. The firm moved out to smaller quarters because their business had been cut down by virtue of war curtailments. But they want to get back to their building. Considerable alterations will have to be made because the Department of National Defence changed it to suit their needs. At the present time it is filled with goods in dead storage, things that are not being used and that will probably be turned over to the War Assets Corporation.
(Mr. Manross.]
There are many buildings in western Ontario which have been rented on that basis and the people want to get them back. It seems almost impossible for them to get a straight yes or no. This company states that they now employ thirty men but that as soon as they get their building they will employ eighty men. They state that they want to help rehabilitate the boys coming back. That is the situation and I think the departments concerned could well look into it to see that these civilian buildings are turned back to the owners. This should be done even if the leases have not run out. They need not pay for them, although I am not concerned about the rent. I am concerned simply with getting these buildings back into production so that we can employ our veterans who are getting out of the armed services.
There has been some talk or rumour of a national registration. I hope that is not so because that is simply another control. If it were so I would be ready to wax eloquent for a long time about it. In case it is in the government's mind I should like to say something about it. A national registration was taken in 1940. The plausible story told us at that time was that it was to get track of our man-power in order to see what they could do and what they could not do. The government wanted a sort of identification system. It started out very well; it cost a lot of money, but I do not think the cost was too great if it had done the job it was intended to do. We found out afterwards that it did not work. It was found that it would take a lot of courage to make it work and the government did not have the courage. They lost their courage and they also lost their director of selective service.
While national registration had that purpose in mind it really did not work. When the national selective service came to your factory and said, "We want some men for Central Aircraft," or some other war plant, no attention was paid to the registration cards. The employer made a list of the men and what work they were doing and that is what was used. They did not use the registration cards any more than to know that when you sent Bill Jones over to selective service it was really Bill Jones and not Sam Miller. I think the purpose of the registration card is over, although, of course, various governments still use the backs of them, and I will soon have to have a new one myself. I do not think it is the function of the federal government to supply a system of identification cards or kind of human dog-tag to help provincial governments set up their liquor business or to be used in connection with ration cards. I do not think we should take the taxpayers' money to carry on this national registration.

The Address-Mr. Herridge
There is another fact I should like to mention before I sit down. Practically two hundred seats in this house are represented by hon. gentlemen, whether sitting on this side of the house or the other, who were elected on various platforms, but there was one thing common to them that stood out, and that was that all of them were against mass regimentation. The way to count the votes is not to count just the votes your party got but also the votes for the party apposing you that was also against mass regimentation. In my riding there were about 34,000 votes, and about 30,000 of them were against regimentation; that is, they were split between the government side and our side. So I would say that the public have given the government a mandate, and given this group a mandate, on the basis of no regimentation, and we should always bear in mind that having this mandate we cannot represent our people and regiment them.


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, as the new member for Kootenay West I succeed a gentleman who served that constituency in this house for a period of over twenty years, and I am certain that all those who knew Mr. Esling will join with me in wishing him a happy and lengthy retirement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Esling received the esteem and affection of all people in Kootenay West regardless of party affiliations. On that account possibly may I say that my advent to this house was delayed for about ten years.
I enter this house under somewhat unusual political circumstances, and I think a few words of explanation are necessary. I was nominated for the last federal election as the candidate of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation organization in Kootenay West, actively supported by large numbers of members of trades unions, farmers' organizations, veterans' organizations and cooperatives. I was elected to this house in support of the principles of the Regina manifesto and the present national programme of the C.C.F. Owing to the difference that has occurred within the fold of those who support the philosophy and the principles of the Regina manifesto, I sit in this house as a member of the people's C.C.F. group in Kootenay West. That difference, which was the result of sincere convictions on both sides, does not lessen in any degree my determination to work for the building up of society as enunciated in the principles of the Regina manifesto.
I have just mentioned that I entered this house under somewhat unusual political circumstances, and if hon. members will forgive
a reference to my domestic affairs, I may say that I enter this house under rather unusual domestic circumstances. I come on the one side from a long line of Liberals. My father is a great admirer of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and has been a long-time supporter of his, and he will be reading the papers to see exactly what I say to-night.


An hon. MEMBER:: Be a goodi boy!


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My mother comes from a long line of Conservatives and is a great admirer of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken). She will be reading the papers to see what I say to-night. My wife is a supporter of the Cooperative Commonwealth principles and philosophy and also an admirer of the political sagacity of the leader of the C.C.F. group in this house, and she also will be reading the papers and hoping that I give both the other parties hell.
One of my daughters-I have four daughters, Mr. Speaker-is a great admirer of. the good work that she considers the Social Credit party has done in Alberta. I have another daughter who thinks that possibly the Labour-Progressive party is the party for youth, and I have two other daughters who are inclined to think that we are all wrong and that what we require in this country is a popular front of all progressive parties. They will all be reading the papers to see what I have to say in this debate. But regardless of our domestic political differences we carry on quite harmoniously so far as our family is concerned and form and have formed a family popular front against the vicissitudes of this life.
I have the honour to represent a particularly choice section of this dominion inhabitated by a progressive and energetic people. During my forty years of residence in the Kootenay West constituency I have seen it make a great development. I have seen there the development o;f a great mining and smelting industry. I have seen the development of a substantial lumbering industry, and I have seen the development- of a considerable agricultural economy. My intention, while I sit in this house is to do my best to represent Canadian thought as a whole and to represent the people of my constituency who have placed their confidence in me. My intention is to do what I can to have a constructive approach to the questions that will come before this assembly, and I shall endeavour to be fair in my criticisms and in my suggestions.
So far I have enjoyed the deliberations in this debate. I listened with interest to the leader of the opposition and I must say I
The Address-Mr. Herridge

listened also with sympathy to his attempt, obviously with good1 intentions, to reconcile a Conservative philosophy with the necessities of this time. Unfortunately, when the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party (Mr. Coldwell) was speaking I was called out to meet an old-time resident of my home village whom I have not had occasion to see for thirty-five years. Therefore I heard only my hon. friend's concluding remarks; but I have read his speech and I congratulate him upon the logical presentation of the case he gave to this house.
I must congratulate the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low) upon his able exposition of what are, in my opinion, economic fallacies unless they are combined with social ownership. I also enjoyed the-shall I say?- vigorous remarks this afternoon of the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Ashby). I thought he made a virile and excellent address but I should just like to say this. When he was drawing that parallel between the freedom which he enjoyed and that which he allowed his pigs, one extra freedom above the freedoms allowed by the Atlantic charter, he painted a rosy picture but failed to include a full statement of the facts. Those gentlemen who drew the Atlantic charter and made recommendations for certain freedoms to become the rights of mankind did not recommend those freedoms looking forward to the future to cut our throats.
My remarks regarding the speech from the throne will be quite brief so far as detail is concerned. I am very glad to know that this government seeks the promotion of peace, work, and health in domestic and international relations. That is a fine statement. We are told that the charter of the united nations is to be submitted to this parliament; that the government is endeavouring to secure dominion-provincial agreement in matters essential to the satisfactory progress of this dominion; that the government is considering the maintenance of long-term markets for primary industry.. That is a thing which must be considered; the farmers of this country are thinking anxiously about it at this time. We are also told that the government intends to make plans for the stabilization of international exchanges.
I think the recommendation made by the leader of the C.C.F. party was a good one. These plans should be brought before a special committee of this house to be studied and considered: plans for the extension of home construction, very necessary and urgently needed; plans for a national minimum of security, very much needed and coming very late; plans for national health 
insurance, which the people of Canada have been waiting for for years; plans for more generous treatment of ' old age pensioners. These are excellent plans so far as they read in the speech from the throne. Apparently planning is becoming fashionable, because I remember that only a few years ago, when anybody suggested planning he was accused of regimentation, bureaucracy, national socialism, and so on. But regardless of the government's basic philosophy, any government to-day, owing to the realities of the situation, the economic and social conditions, is forced-actually forced-into planning. The issue is, for whom will that planning be; will it be for the many or the few?
The speech from the throne does not deal in detail with any legislation to be brought down by this government. On reading it I was reminded of going into my orchard on a spring day when the orchard is covered with bloom; everything looks fair and beautiful. But you cannot estimate the crop by looking at the bloom; you cannot estimate a crop of fruit until the fruit is set. I approach the speech from the throne in that state of mind. I trust the blossom in the government's programme will be so fertilized by the demands of the people and the activities of this house that a crop of highly necessary and urgent legislation will result.
I was elected on the basis of rendering strong support for the urgent necessity for continued united nations' cooperation; for the principles of the Regina manifesto; in support of the general programme of the C.C.F.; and of one other major plan, the necessity of democratic mobilization far beyond the confines of partisan politics. I am sure that the principles of the Regina manifesto are known to most hon. members. It is not my intention to deal with it this evening; if any hon. member is ignorant of the principles of the manifesto I shall be only too glad to supply him with a copy. The general or national programme of the C.C.F. will no doubt receive attention at a later date.
I wish to deal specifically with the urgent necessity for continued united nations' cooperation and the necessity for a mobilization of the Canadian people far beyond the confines of partisan politics. We believe that our economic structure must be based on the foundations of continued united nations' cooperation and mutual aid. I wish to express just a few ideas in that connection.
Upon the right relationships of the British commonwealth of nations, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the United States depends the future welfare of the world. Without mutual understanding and resolute action

The Address-Mr. Herridge *
a horrible future faces us. What a contribution those three great nations have made toward a common victory: the British commonwealth of nations, with a thousand years of struggle for peace; the Soviet Union, with its immense and recent experience in the building of a new civilization, the greatest social experiment in history; the United States, with its vast industrial machine, its magnificent organizing ability, and the vitality of its people. If we can only keep that combination together, what possibilities we have to win the peace in the days that are ahead! We have all much to learn. Unity will develop only through understanding; but with understanding I am certain we can distil from the joint contributions and necessities of the united nations an international order of justice and of peace.
I wish to deal briefly with a few possibilities of the future. Let me emphasize that at the conclusion of this war the world is different from what it was at the conclusion of the last war. We now have over one-sixth of the world's area a great socialist nation, a nation which has gone through great trials and tribulations and has come through this war successfully as an ally of ours. That produces an entirely different set of circumstances from what existed at the conclusion of the last war. From this time on the eyes of the world will be focused on the public economy of the Soviet Union. We are going to see a form of socialist-capitalist state emulation. Not all those who support the capitalist system in this country are unprogressive; but we have a core of reactionaries in all the western democrats. There are some people who support and endorse the capitalist system who are progressive in their outlook and so realize that the world of to-day is entering a new stage. The western capitalist, democracies from this point on must keep their eyes open and watch the public economy of the Soviet Union. That will produce an entirely different psychological approach to current questions on the part of the people in the capitalist democracies. There will be a good deal of watching of future developments in the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union will watch our trends in production. I believe that we can learn a great deal from one another; they will learn from us and we shall learn from them.
As I said before, we are willing to seek mutual understanding, and I am sure that out of this will come a better world order. I do not look to the future from a pessimistic or negative point of view. I realize the great dangers that face us in the days ahead, the most dangerous days the Canadian nation has ever faced. At the same time I realize the great opportunities that lie ahead, and I believe that if we approach the present situation from a pessimistic or a negative point of view we are unwise, because if we do so we may undermine the morale of the people. I say that, because, without confidence, without courage and without faith in the future, we shall not succeed. If we approach our problems from the pessimistic or negative point of view we shall undermine that confidence, that courage and that faith in ourselves which are necessary if we are to remain united.
We have these two great economies, the socialist economy and the capitalist economy. This world is growing smaller every day owing to the rapidity of transportation, and we have several factors working in our favour, factors which I would wish that more members would consider when viewing the question as a whole. Owing to the rapidity of transportation we shall have a tremendous increase in the exchange of ideas as between the western democracies and the Soviet Union and other countries in the world. In the post-war period we shall have great exchanges of literature and art and science and an enormous increase in travel os soon as that becomes possible.
In regard to the world situation, not only have governments to seek to cooperate, but we have great hope in the possibility of cooperation among peoples, the direct representatives of the peoples meeting together to discuss world problems. We have the illustration afforded by the world federation of trade unions. In London in February representatives from thirty-six allied countries and seven neutral countries representing sixty million workers met to discuss questions common to all the workers of all countries. That is a good sign; it indicates the great possibilities for the future from the use which the peoples of the world can make of available machinery to meet and discuss problems with a view to promoting understanding and ordered peace.
Organized labour can play a great part in the international field for the building up of world unity. The unity which is being forged by the world trade union federation and other organizations will anchor the united nations and keep them together. Victory on the battlefield won, organized workers are better able, in my opinion, than people in many other walks of life to realize that unity in the post-war world will be essential, a unity that will be strong enough to overcome some misunderstandings and possibly many disappointments.
Then we shall have world agricultural councils. We shall have the farmers of the world meeting together to discuss the distribution of the primary products produced by the
The Address-Mr. Herridge

farmers of the world, not planning scarcity but planning that the undernourished people of the world shall receive surpluses from countries such as ours.
We must not forget that so long as there are understandard and undernourished people living in any country their condition is a constant challenge and a constant threat to our standard of living. I congratulate the Canadian federation of agriculture upon the work it has done to promote the coming world agricultural conference which I think will be held early next year. Our Canadian federation of agriculture is doing a great work for the farmers of Canada, and in this connection I should like to quote briefly from a booklet issued by them recently. I recommend it to hon. members. I think they should get it if they have not already done so. It is entitled "Farmers to Take a Hand in World Affairs/' and I would quote the following from page 16, from the federation statement with regard to the world agricultural council.
More and more, from different angles, it is being brought home to us these days that world affairs are our affairs. Unquestionably the primary producer of our country-and similarly of other agricultural countries-can no longer think in terms of domestic policy without finding himself drawn into a consideration of international policy. There is widespread acknowledgment that in this interdependent world no nation can stand alone and no nation can any longer intelligently plan and direct its food and agriculture programme without first ensuring that its domestic plan harmonizes with the collective plan of other food exporting, as well as the food importing countries.
Canadian farmers are fundamentally in agreement with the declaration of the Hot Springs conference. They believe that the goal of freedom from want of food suitable and adequate for the health and strength of all people can be achieved; that v7e must start dealing with international problems in an organized international way; that we must replace international anarchy by international order in the field of agricultural production, distribution and consumption.
Our farmers have always believed in an economy of abundance, but they are no longer interested in a laissez-faire programme of unorganized abundance. They are convinced that the almost unlimited possibilities of an expanding world economy should be organized and coordinated on a world scale. Accordingly they believe in promoting and expanding international trade on a planned and orderly basis.
Looking to the post-war period, we believe that security for agriculture and for the farm family must be the keynote of a forwardlooking programme. While we seek this as a goal for our own^ primary producers, we naturally acknowledge it as a legitimate and desirable goal in all other countries. Moreover, we do not believe that a substantial measure of security is possible or likely to be permanent in any one country unless it is based upon a solid foundation of international collaboration which will provide a comparable measure of security for fellow farmers in other countries.
	*	i
There, in the spirit of our Canadian farmers, the spirit which is being exhibited also by farmers in other lands, lies a great opportunity for the primary producers to get together and do something in the way of working for the future benefit of the nations as a whole.
I think we shall also have a great getting together of veterans of the united nations. These men fought in this war a common enemy and they will meet together in the not very distant future on an international basis. There will be a united nations' veterans' federation embracing representatives from all countries to continue the friendships and the comradeship commenced in the war. They will continue for many years to come, and these men can play a great part in promoting world peace and world improvement.
I would suggest to the federal and provincial governments that instead of erecting memorials in cold stone throughout the country to those who have not returned from this second world war, nothing better could be done as a tribute and as a permanent memorial to the sacrifices of these men than to provide funds to see that some representatives, some of the teen-age children from every county in Canada, have an opportunity annually to visit other countries in order to attend meetings of international youth organizations. Youth can play a great part in the development and improvement of international relations.
Then again we have the coming development of world cooperative organizations, in connection with which there is great cause for hope and, I think for confidence. Also without question there will be international organizations of women in the future on a considerable scale. Through these great groups of the peoples of all countries meeting together I see a great opportunity, with the assistance of governments, for the building of a peace that will be permanent and secure.
I see my time is going very rapidly, but I should like to deal briefly with national affairs. The capitalist system is very hard to assess. Its fall has been anticipated by some people for many years. I suppose inflation might hasten it., but inflation is one of the great dangers of the days immediately ahead of us. Whatever the immediate future holds, however, I do not see the collapse of capitalism at once. As I try to study the situation as it exists in this country to-day, I believe we are in for a period of state capitalism, in which many of the chief industries of this country will be financed by state loans bearing interest. I believe we are now

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
just entering that stage. My point is that this will be the most dangerous period in our history. Time alone will show whether we shall move toward a totalitarian economy or toward a general cooperative commonwealth. I see that great danger. The question is whether state capitalism will become a rigid means of maintaining the system for the benefit of the few, or whether it will evolve democratically into a cooperative commonwealth. If we are to have an orderly, planned evolution to a cooperative commonwealth, I believe we must have the people of this country organized in groups far exceeding the bounds of parties and politics, to defend and improve democracy and work together to meet concrete situations and specific conditions. We have men of varying political beliefs. We have them in the labour unions, the veterans' organizations, the farmers' organizations, the women's organizations, and the cooperatives. Here are great bodies of public opinion; and if we are to preserve democracy and evolve in the right direction we must have a mass mobilization of the people, without regard to partisan politics, to meet situations which may change from day to day.
I am hurrying to complete my remarks before my time is up. The one great enemy we have is reaction, and the one great weapon that they can use is disunity. As I see it, the only way the Canadian people can be prevented from evolving a democrative cooperative commonwealth is by the spreading of disunity. That was the method used in European countries; it has always been the method of those who try to destroy the efforts of the working class. In this country they will try to arouse the enmity of race against race, religion against religion, veteran against labour, unorganized labour against organized labour, farmer against worker, east against west. That is the thing we have to watch, the thing we have to fight and defeat. The greatest danger of the future is the possibility of disunity among the Canadian people.
We have some factors in our favour. We have the hope of cooperation between the peoples of the united nations. We have a mass desire for change. We have our democratic traditions which have come to us through the centuries of struggle. We have our great natural resources, and our great capacity for adjusting ourselves to changing conditions. Einally, we have the vitality and intelligence of the Canadian people. Because the C.C.F. Regina manifesto approaches the problem with an understanding of Canadian requirements, Canadian psychology and Canadian conditions, I support it. The next step will be the control 47696-11
and finally the ownership of the banks and great monopolies of this country, to be followed by a great extension of social ownership in provincial and municipal fields. That will be the beginning of a wide basis for cooperative ownership throughout this country.
I see my time is nearly up, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to relate what some of my constituents in Kootenay West expect from this government. Organized labour in my constituency expect legislation to protect and advance the interests of the working class, and they expect it soon. The organized farmers expect security, and therefor endorse the proposed national natural products marketing act, a draft of which was recently presented to this government. The farmers of West Kootenay are also very much concerned about the government taking immediate action to investigate the Little Cherry disease, which may bring about the ruin of the cherry crop in Kootenay and Okanagan and possibly throughout Canada. The organized veterans expect more action in the development of the reestablishment programme. All the people of my constituency expect this government to implement its promises.
In conclusion, I should like to say that I am certain members of this house are divided not so much by the matter of aims as by the matter of methods. Therefore I urge that this thought may be with us in our deliberations in this chamber. If we strive for national unity of purpose; if we persevere to that end, we shall wrest from the hand of privilege and monopoly in this country its power to defeat the desires of the people, and will build in Canada a civilization that will justify to the Hull the. sacrifices of the boys who will not return.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, the new members who have taken part in this debate find themselves speaking in an atmosphere very different from that which prevailed at the commencement of the last parliament. Hon. members will recall that during the first few weeks we were in session in 1940 the low countries were overrun and the collapse of France became imminent. Now everyone is rejoicing that the nazi forces have been completely defeated and the democracies have triumphed. But those of us who are here will have during the life of this parliament responsibilities almost as great as we had during the past five years.
Regardless of where we sit in this chamber there can be no difference of opinion as to the effectiveness of the contribution Canada has made toward the allied victory. The men

The Address-Mr. Nicholson

and women in our armed services have matched the heroism of the fighting forces of any of the united nations.
Our people at home, in the factories, on the farms, in the -mines and in other civilian occupations have surpassed all previous records established in Canada. I am sure that members of the government would not for one moment try to claim credit for Canada's magnificent performance. The people of the whole country were responsible for the achievements.
During the war years many orthodox ideas were exploded. It has been proven conclusively that a nation's war effort 'is in no way related to the amount of gold in the Bank of Canada or in the hills of Kentucky. The important considerations always were these: Have we the materials? Have we the man-power required?
The government was forced to adopt planning. Free enterprise was not interested in making guns, tanks or planes sufficient to meet the law of supply and demand. However, they were willing to make them on a cost-plus basis, which assured them that they could not lose. However, there is no use in quarrelling about what has been done; we must look to the future. But I think, having established during the war years that whatever is physically possible must be made financially possible, we should accept that as a suitable policy in war time.
The present Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) and his predecessor made it clear on different occasions that in no way would Canada's contribution to victory be limited by financial considerations. In other words, to establish an air training school the only questions asked were: Is there a suitable site? Have we the water available? Have we lumber and other building materials? Have we carpenters? Is there a need? If the answers were in the affirmative the job was executed, and the workers in the building trades and the lumber yards cooperated to the fullest extent in seeing that the work was done.
Since I have come to parliament the problem of housing has received a good deal of my attention. Every year I have tried, to urge the administration to face in a realistic way the providing of adequate housing for the people of the country. I argued that- if the government intended to spend S10 million to build a new war plant at Windsor, Toronto, or Hamilton, some consideration should be given to the matter of providing congenial living quarters where people were going to live, for those working in the plant.
There was a critical housing problem on our doorstep when war broke out. During those ten years of depression, when we should have 
been building new houses', our carpenters were walking the streets in idleness; our factories were failing to produce building materials because we had no money in Canada in those days. Therefore, when war broke out we had a most acute housing shortage from coast to coast. Eventually the government recognized that there was a problem and Wartime Housing was set up. However, I feel that we failed during the war years to give sufficient consideration to the problem.
I am greatly encouraged to find that at this session hon. members in all sections of the house are emphasizing the immediate job that must be undertaken in facing up to to-day's problems. I have been interested in the remarks wThich have come from our Progressive Conservative friends to our right. These have been observations of protest. However, I suggest they should not protest too loudly, for fear we might be obliged to inquire into just what they did when they were in office, and also inquire as to what plans they would have introduced, had they been elected to the government benches.
Let me remind the house that between the years 1930 and 1935 we had a Conservative government in office. I suggest that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) should be congratulated upon being able to change the name of the party. Certainly it reflects credit upon his personality, and his long term in public life. But the majority of those associated with him have come from the Conservative side of the family. One might ask what was accomplished during the years Viscount Bennett was Prime Minister of Canada.
I have in my hand the report of building activities in the principal countries of the world between the years 1929 and 1937, taking 1929 as a base period, with the figure 100. In this table we find that Canada has the worst record of any among the principal countries. The following table will show building activities in Canada during those years:
Figure showing
activities, taking
Year	100 as base
for 1929
1930		 70
1931		 47
1932		 16
1933		 9-7
1934		 12-8
1935		 18-6
1936		 17-6
1937		 29
But while we were unable to grapple in an imaginative way with the housing problem, countries like the United Kingdom, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and others which had progressive governments

The Address[DOT]-Mr. Nicholson
were forced by public opinion to take advantage of the depression, and to see that, instead of'keeping people on doles and relief, something useful should be produced. Let me point out, in passing, that some of these governments were not labour governments; in fact, some were Conservative.
Of course, the production of houses is one of the most economic undertakings in which any country can participate. For instance, in the year that our building index was down to 9.7, in the United1 Kingdom they had' an index of 114.5.
For many years the leader of the opposition was premier of Manitoba. I would remind him that all the time he was in office disgraceful housing conditions existed in the metropolitan area of Winnipeg. I do not think housing conditions are any worse in Winnipeg than in most other cities, but in that city they have had a public health department that was not afraid to face up to the fact.
I hold in my hand a report of the public health committee for 1942. This is what Mr. Alexander Officer, who was so well known for years throughout Canada and who was chief inspector of the division of sanitation and housing in Winnipeg, had to say about conditions which prevailed in Winnipeg:
Surely our present housing shortage cannot continue much longer. The risk to health of our substandard housing, not to mention that of the fire hazard in our non-descript tenements, may be brought home to us with painful remorse. Already, we have much evidence in the toll of moral and mental standards, also the cost of crime in our blighted districts. Children are denied the elementary innocent amusements of youth, and are indeed, often exposed to health and moral hazards.
And further down:
The doubling up of families is one of the chief characteristics of slum areas and this condition is spreading like a cancer into some of our most exclusive residential districts. It is only a matter of time, therefore, when these districts will degenerate into blighted areas. . . .
Sliims have for centuries been the curse of large communities, serving as breeding places for all manner of crime and the spread of disease.
And at page 7 of the report:
It is surely not too much to say that when our men on active service return to civil life they have a right to expect that decent living quarters for their future family life is available, or at least in process of construction.
These are the conditions which, prevailed in Winnipeg when the horn, member was premier of Manitoba. If he was interested in providing housing for people in low income brackets, then something should have been done: by the provincial government for the city of Winnipeg at that time.
When the Conservative party was in office at Ottawa a special committee on housing was established. But it was not until 1935, not until it was clear that they were on their way out, that the committee was set up. Witnesses were called to review the situation. They reviewed conditions in Toronto, Halifax and Vancouver; they considered the cost of maintaining slums in terms of crime, fire hazards and disease. These matters are all set out in the report, but nothing very much was done.
Something was done. I was living in northern Saskatchewan at the time and we had some assistance from the federal and provincial governments in carrying out a housing programme. I mentioned in the house at one time something of the housing achievements of the Progressive Conservatives during those hungry thirties, and in looking through my old files I found a return that had been brought down in connection with housing assistance to three veterans in my constituency. One of these is a veteran of two wars. One sent two sons to the present war, one of whom will never return. The third served during the last war.
These three men who fought for freedom from 1914 to 1918 had committed no crime. They were carpenters who just could not get a job in Regina at any price, so they journeyed to the Hudson Bay Junction district, where I - lived, under a scheme financed partly by the city, partly by the province and partly by the federal authorities. According to the particulars furnished by the dominion authorities the following expenses were shared by the federal and provincial governments, both of which were Conservative at the time.
I shall not give the names of these veterans, but I have them here. Under the housing programme the governments of the day provided a payment of $6.70 for six windows. The next item is $3.80 for stovepipes, tar paper and hinges. The next item is $35.75 for lumber. The ceiling that was permitted in those days was $50 per unit, and you can see what a careful manager this settler was because his total expenses came to $49.75.
Of course, it should be remembered that all logs were free for the cutting. They were on a plot of land of 160 acres and so thick that you could not possibly drive through them, with your oxen. You did not have, to pay for the logs, but expert carpenters were obliged to go north; they were not forced to go north, but they came to the conclusion that nothing could be worse than living on relief in Regina. They thought that if they had 160 acres of free land, all the fuel they needed, some berries and maybe some wild game in the winter

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
time, if they would not be in heaven they would be better off. than they would be on relief in Regina.
Here is the next case-and I want to say that I know these families very well-which concerns a-father, mother and eight children. They were limited to $10 a month for food and were permitted to cut down on their lumber and put more into food. So this family spent only $31.60 for lumber. On account of having so many children they had to get along with fewer windows, and they had only $4.50 for windows. The total expenditure for the house was $36.10.
In the next case $5.45 was spent for windows and it is not stated how many. Then there was $5.85 for building material, $31.75 for lumber and $5.20 for tar paper.
As I mentioned, those were the houses that were built for heroes. These were settlers who came north in the thirties to try to get off relief. They were given $50 at a time when the governments of the day in Great Britain, the United States and Sweden were saying, "We cannot ask our people to live in $50 houses when we have plenty of lumber, plenty of building material and plenty of carpenters; our relief programme should be more ambitious".
I give this same reason for failing to support the Progressive Conservative amendment which, if carried, would amount to a vote of want of confidence in the present government. Who knows but what we might have them to take their place. Therefore I cannot support an amendment which says that the government has failed to take adequate and timely action to meet the ever-mounting housing crisis. I do not think they did that. I am going to support the C.C.F. amendment, but if that does not carry I shall not be able to support the Conservative amendment in view of their record while in office.
Coming back to the immediate problem, I must admit that the present administration has recognized that there is a problem. As I said, Wartime Housing was set up several years ago. While I was critical of the building of potential slums when permanent houses could have been built for about the same cost under some sort of plan, as I said, that is all gone and all the talking I could do would not change the situation. But I repeat that I think it was unfortunate that the federal administration should spend such large sums in building what have been called temporary houses and giving a guarantee that tihey would be torn down. Surely they must have known from past experience that these
fMr. Nicholson.]
houses will never be torn down so long as there are less desirable houses being occupied in Hull, Halifax or Vancouver. I am afraid that at the rate of travelling this situation will last for a long time.
In 1943 a special subcommittee on housing and community planning was set up by the advisory committee on reconstruction. The terms of reference were:
To review existing legislation and administrative organization relating to housing and community planning, both urban and rural, throughout 'Canada, and to report regarding such changes in legislation or modification of organization and procedure as may be necessary . . .
And so on. If hon. members have not read this report I urge them to do so, because I think it one of the best pieces of work done by the groups working on reconstruction. It is certainly the best study by far that has been done to date on the housing problem in Canada The recommendations are set forth ih an easily read fashion at the commencement of the book. They review conditions in different parts of Canada; they deal with urban housing, rural housing and legislation in other countries. Nothing less than the carrying out of the recommendations of this subcommittee will be good enough in this day and age.
In 1944 the National Housing Act was brought down, supposedly to implement the recommendations in this report. This act has been in force for over a year and we must judge the government's performance by the results to date. I think it should have been recognized that housing activities would provide one of the most popular and most useful post-war activities. Sir William Beveridge in his recent book on full employment says:
Adequate and healthy housing presents the largest single objective for desirable outlay after the war and affords the largest scope for raising the standard of life, health and happiness. Housing involves the setting up of a long-term programme of building to approved designs with the maximum of economy. The scale of the programme must be determined not arbitrarily but with reference to the total labour available; some forms of building and construction can be used as the balancing factor in the national man-power budget. The prospective importance of housing makes it vital to secure, by new methods if necessary, the maximum efficiency of the building industry. It is even more important to secure that national planning of town and country is made a reality, before permanent housing begins.
The legislation that has been passed has assumed that private enterprise would be able to solve the problem. The National Housing Act which had been in force previously was altered in several important details, but the fact is that the present National Housing Act

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
is just not of any use to people in the lower income brackets. What chance has the average worker in a war plant, a non-commissioned officer or a member of the armed forces who has been away from this country for four or five years to make the down payment and monthly instalments that gre required?
Our National Housing .Act is proceeding without sufficient consideration bejng given to town planning. Here, there, and everywhere houses have been built on lots without proper consideration of modern building requirements, and without consideration of the need which is everywhere recognized for town planning. Proper surveys have not been made to determine whether houses built under the National Housing Act are meeting the needs of the people who most deserve houses. According to the statistics that have been compiled eighty-five per cent of the houses built under the National Housing Act are designed for five persons or fewer. Is it the policy of this government to sponsor a housing programme designed to keep our birth rate low? The scheme operates without any large-scale administration to take advantage of reduced building costs. The programme also operates without adequate supervision of standards, without recognition of the interests of union labour, and without trying to find out whether the mortgagees would be able to negotiate the mortgages independently. There is no argument about it that those who have been able to take advantage of the national housing loans have been able to get their houses built at a much lower cost than they could have done before we had a national housing act. But providing cheap money or making lower rates of money available to those in the upper income brackets will not solve the problem in this country. That part of the programme dealing with low rental housing has been a complete flop to date. I noticed in the press yesterday a dispatch from Toronto saying that formation of limited dividend companies to finance the construction of low-rental housing projects throughout Canada w-ould be proceeded -with immediately by the Canadian life insurance companies as soon as a charter for the holding company, to be known as the Housing Enterprises of Canada, is obtained from the Secretary of State. I protest, Mr. Speaker, against a democratically elected government handing over to private corporations the responsibility of sponsoring the building of low-cost housing for the people of Canada. There is no country in the world where a scheme of that sort has worked out under private enterprise. The only countries that
have dealt effectively with slum clearance and low-rental housing have recognized that it is a national responsibility, that the federal government is the only authority that can adequately finance the problem.


Mr. HOMUTH:: What are those countries?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The United States, for instance. I suggest that hon. members take a trip and see what has been done in New York, Washington, and Pittsburgh. I am not suggesting that they have solved their problem in the United States, but at least they have demonstrated what can be done. In New York city, for example, one will find the Vladeck houses in one of the oldest districts, including Cherry street, where George Washington at one time had his residence. It was one of the worst sections of the city, one of its worst slum areas. New houses have been built there for 1,771 families, or nearly 6,000 people. They are living in modern fire-proof apartments, with running water, electric light, gas stove, electric refrigerator and modern bathroom. The rents range upwards from about S15 a month. The rents are a little higher in New York city; the average gross rent including services is $24.80 a month for the Vladeck houses, which is regarded by the people who live in them as a very low rental. But it would not have been possible for people to live in this sort of housing had it not been that some public authority realized that it is more costly to maintain slums than to face the problem and clear them.


Mr. ADAMSON:: Has the hon. member the figures for the Metropolitan Life Insurance company's scheme?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes. They have a beautiful development at Parkchester, where they have cleared a slum area. The rents are a good deal higher in Parkchester. The rentals, which include both gas and electricity, are for two rooms, $32 to $34 monthly; three rooms, $39 to $53; four rooms, $52 to $64; and five rooms, $63 to $71. The Metropolitan Life Insurance company has received no funds for this work from the federal treasury. Later on, this group wilhhave something to say as to how life insurance companies in this and other countries do get their funds.
Anyone who has visited the public housing developments in the United States, Great Britain or on the continent will agree that no private agency has been able to devise any scheme for building suitable houses and making them available to people in the lower third of the income brackets. In the United States the federal authority has popularized what it is doing. The pamphlet I have in my
The Address-Mr. Nicholson

hand shows what has been done, what these areas looked like before and after the projects were built; and if you go through these districts now which formerly were slum areas and see the children playing in the parks or playing in the recreation room in the basement, you will realize that for them the world is quite a different place from what it was before.
But in Canada we are passing the buck to the insurance companies. The act provides that municipalities, provinces and philanthropic organizations may contribute to a rent reduction fund-everybody under the sun but the federal government. But slum clearance should not be regarded as a charitable proposition. We must recognize that we have to pay for these slums directly or indirectly. We maintain our penitentiaries at a very high cost, and we have to provide fire and police protection for these slum areas. It has been established in many countries that it is cheaper in the long run to tear down the slums and rebuild to provide decent homes for the people. .
There are those who say that the working people would not appreciate decent housing. Hon. members all know the old slander about working people using the bathtub for storing coal. But there is not a single case on record in any country where working people have used the bathtub for a coal storage. On the. contrary, people living in the Vladeck houses in New York city appreciate the chance to have running hot water so that the kiddies can have a bath regularly.
Farm housing received a good deal of attention by the Curtis committee. The statistics compiled by the dominion bureau of statistics revealed shocking conditions in farm housing in Canada. To those who are interested in selling furnaces, radios and bathtubs I suggest that they should get behind those who are fighting for an ambitious housing programme. In Canada the percentage of farm people who have refrigeration, radios, automobiles, bathrooms, vacuum cleaners, is only 3-9 per cent. In Prince Edward Island it is -07 per cent; in Nova Scotia, 3-4 per cent; and so on down the way; a very small percentage. Like the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), I was born in a log house. Neither of us should apologize for that. Neither of us had anything to say as to where we were born. But my father and mother moved out of the log house as soon as they could, and I never once heard any suggestion that we should go back.


James Garfield Gardiner: How many are there
in the province that has had a socialist government over a year?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: There are a great many, but the people who elected the socialist government are not proceeding on the assumption that log houses are good enough in this day and age.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; but how many
bathtubs are there?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: And what are you
doing about it?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Saskatchewan has a
poor record, I admit, but I must remind the minister that these statistics were taken in 1941, before we had a C.C.F. government.


James Garfield Gardiner: What I want to know
from my hon. friend is: they have been in office for something over a year, and they have statistics, what are they? How many bathtubs are there?


Mr. COLDWELL:: More	than the hon.
gentleman's friends put in in forty years.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think you have put any in.	-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The	minister must
know that at the present time we are very-short of bathtubs and almost everything else.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So are we.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: And	these statistics
were taken, as I said, in 1941, before we ever had a C.C.F. government.


Humphrey Mitchell: Does that argument not cut both ways?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I agree that housing
conditions in Saskatchewan are the worst in all Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In the last year, you
mean.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: We have not materially altered it in the first year, but I will stake my reputation that by the time we have been in office for a few years we shall have a much better housing record than you have now.
My time is almost gone, but before I conclude I should like to make a few constructive recommendations.
The government is now accustomed to making very large appropriations. The National Housing Act was passed on the assumption that if more money were needed it would be made available. I suggest that immediately the federal government negotiate with a view of setting up five experimental units, with the municipalities I mention: Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax. I would suggest that in Vancouver, Winnipeg and Halifax, from 200 to 300 units be built, and

The Address-Mr. Rose
that in Toronto and Montreal the number be 500 each. I cannot prove that the Canadian people would like to live in such beautiful surroundings as have been prepared by the United States government at the Green Belt, near Washington, or at Baltimore, or at Chicago, or a dozen other experimental centres which I could, mention; but I think that at least the government might go so far as to spend 115,000,000, if necessary, to set up these experimental units, so. that you would have 500 houses laid out, according to a town plan, in the Toronto area where you would have your schools, recreational centres and parks, all laid out by technical men who are here available and just dying for a chance to do the job. I hope no one will ask, where are you to get the money? I need not answer that. All I need say is that the Canadian government has done a magnificent job in building Shipshaw, in the construction of aircraft plants and the synthetic rubber plant at Sarnia; that when a Catalina is sent out it has cost the government $250,000, and that the young pilot who takes over the controls has been trained at a cost of $25,000, so that we need not inquire about cost. Let us approach our housing problem from the same point of view, that whatever is physically possible must be made financially possible. Have we the materials, the carpenters, and other artisans, and the imagination to embark on an ambitious housing programme, so that everyone who has fought for his country will have a home in which to live?


Mr. FRED ROSE (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It is most appropriate that both the mover and the seconder, the one from English Canada, the other from French Canada, have come from the ranks of the heroic Canadians who fought and died at Dieppe, on the beaches of Normandy, France, Belgium, Holland and Hong Kong to safeguard Canada from the nazi hordes and the Japanese fascist militarists and to maintain the rights of the people of Canada to determine the destiny of this country. But I am sorry that I cannot extend the same type of congratulations to the government because of the lack of concrete proposals in the speech from the throne to meet the present emergency situation.
On the same day that the people of Canada read the speech from the throne, President Truman sent a message to the United States Congress outlining a programme for the people of the United States, to meet what he called a great emergency. There is a marked contrast between the two messages, the speech
from the throne and the message of President Truman. The president made one statement which I will quote, because I believe it is a basic statement of the type which we should have found in the speech from the throne, a statement which in a few words says exactly what is expected from governments at the present time:
The cost of transition from war to peace is as much a part of the cost of war as the transition from peace to war, and we should so consider it.
That is, we must consider the present emergency a continuation of war. and the same government responsibility that it had in the period of war in order to supply our men with arms, ammunition and everything else, the government must accept to-day. We have proved in the course of the war that we can do as 'well as the United States in all respects, in the field of production, of organization, and I do not have to say also, of course, on the field of battle. We can probably say that we in Canada blazed the trail in the matter of financing the war and stabilization. On some occasions when I visited the United States people told me that they envied our system of stabilization. If we could be trail blazers in war time, why can we not do the same to-day? Unless we work to-day in that spirit and unless the government accepts responsibilities in that spirit, military victory may be followed by economic disaster.
Everyone knows that the problem of reconversion is no simple matter. There are difficulties connected with it. We all recognize these difficulties, but the government should not try to hide behind difficulties. Instead of hiding behind difficulties and explaining away everything, it is necessary to tackle the problem in the same spirit in which we tackled problems in war time. Positive steps have to be taken to-day, to-morrow and the day after. It is the responsibility of the government- and these are not my own words; they are from the white paper-to maintain full employment and purchasing power. Basically to maintain purchasing power means to maintain war-time wage levels, to raise substandard wages, to provide means of livelihood for workers and their families in the reconversion period.
As I said before, in official statements of the government it is asserted that it is the policy of the government to maintain high income and high employment; but it is not enough to say that. Steps have to be taken, and rapidly, in order to make these things possible. It is -a fact that tens of thousands of workers who have been demobilized from the army, the navy and the air force, and
The Address-Mr. Rose

many thousands who have been let out from war plants, are being, forced by circumstances to accept wages far below war-time levels.
Surely this is not the way to maintain purchasing power. Men and women who are released from the armed forces and from war plants are not asking for anything extravagant. They want jobs at decent wages. If such jobs are not available, it is the responsibility of this government to provide them with a means of subsistance commensurate with a Canadian standard of living. I like that phrase, "Canadian standard of living". The trade union movement is unanimous in its proposal that the worker with a family should receive the sum of $25 a week during the period of reconversion, and * this is a perfectly justifiable demand. If any hon. member considers this an extravagant demand I would urge him to read the statement of President Truman on the same subject. I quote:
During this emergency every eligible worker should be entitled to twenty-six weeks of unemployment benefits in any one year. The maximum weekly payment for those workers whose previous earnings were high enough, should not be less than $25 per week.
Hon. members will see that those people who came here the other day were not, as some newspaper editorials stated, a bunch of radicals but were workers laid off from war plants asking for something which President Truman, who is no radical, also asked for.
Where is the money to come from for this undertaking? I know there is always that question. Well, there is $300 million in the unemployment insurance fund. If the government does not see fit to make an upward revision in unemployment insurance benefits the difference can be financed out of general government funds. Many workers have told me that even if this proposal were accepted by the government they feared they would be deprived of this benefit if they refused to take jobs at low wage levels.
The only condition for a man or woman receiving $25 weekly compensation should be willingness to accept work at a minimum wage recognized by the federal government as essential to the health and well-being of people. I emphasize that-a minimum recognized by the federal government-because we have in some provinces minimum wage scales which are a disgrace to Canada.
I have in my hand a reference book for the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction entitled, "Health, Welfare and Labour." On page 86 we find the following:
Weekly minimum rates for experienced workers under minimum wage acts.

What.are these weekly rates for experienced workers? I will start with my own province of Quebec. These are the provincial minimum wages: province of Quebec, zone number 1, which we are told is Montreal and district, twenty-six cents an hour; zone number 2, which is Quebec and district, twenty-four cents an hour; zone number 3, Terrebonne and area around it, twenty-two cents an hour; and other parts of the province, twenty cents an hour. Lest some hon. members from Ontario say this is only in Quebec, I want to disillusion them by citing the following for Ontario. In the Toronto area, $12.50 for female workers.


Mr. IRVINE:: An hour?


Fred Rose: No, a week; and $11 in towns with a population of 5,000 to 50,000, and so on. I insist that this government cannot under any circumstances accept these as just and decent wage levels. These provincial minimum wage acts will not help to provide purchasing power for our people. It is true that at the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction this government indicated willingness to discuss with the provinces the setting up of national minimum wage scales, but this is definitely insufficient. It was the responsibility of the government to come before the conference and suggest a minimum wage which they believe is a Canadian minimum wage. In this matter the federal government should have given the lead to the country. They should have told the provinces what they regarded as decent minimum wages for Canadians. How did President Truman react to the same-problem? In the United States, too, they have constitutional difficulties, but President Truman did not hesitate to tell congress what sort of minimum wages he expected in the country. He said:
The goal of a forty cent minimum was inadequate when established. It has now become obsolete. ... I therefore recommend that the congress amend the Pair Labour Standards Act by substantially increasing the minimum wage specified therein to a level which will eliminate substandards of living, and assure the maintenance of the health, efficiency and general well-being of workers.
That is a different sort of language from what we find in the speech from the throne. I do not believe it is too late now for the government to go before the next session of the dominion-provincial conference and state what they believe a national minimum should be. There are constitutional difficulties, it is true, but the fight for a national minimum must be started some time, and the time is now. By giving such a lead, the government at the same time will discourage certain employers from going in for some terrific wage

The Address-Mr. Rose
slashes; and if any hon. member doubts that such a practice is being followed at the present time in Canada, or that there are certain employers bad enough to think we should have wage cuts now, I want to quote a statement I found in the Montreal Standard of September 1, 1945, made by Victor M. Drury, president of Canadian Car and Foundry. He is quoted as saying:
The party is over. Not only will there not be enough jobs, but wages will have to be brought down to former peace-time levels. If the employees won't take a cut in wages, the plant will have to close down. We can't afford to have our profits cut into by paying the high war-time wage levels.
At the same time, according to the Standard, Mr. Drury admitted that the average take-home pay of his worker's at no time was more than $28 a week.
After reading that statement in the Standard I decided to look into the figures of profits of various companies, and of course I was interested in Canadian Car and Foundry. After taxes and depreciation the net profits of this company were as follows:
1941		 $ 700,000
1942		 950,000
1943	  830,000
1944	  1,130,000
So I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whose party was
it?
It is because there are employers of this type that labour needs greater protection on the part of this government. Of course primarily it will be up to the workers and their organizations to fight for what they want, but they also need protection on the part of the government. Therefore this government should help the labour movement achieve a forty-hour week (but with no cut in take-home pay so that there will be fewer unemployed), union security, and other measures that will help to maintain purchasing power.
In the speech from the throne this government speaks of a high level of employment. Here again I wish to say that we fall short of what President Truman gives as an objective for the people of the United States. He speaks about full employment, not high employment, and he has called upon congress to pass a full employment bill now before it. I have that measure before me to-night; it is known as the Murray-Wagner bill, and I want hon. members to listen attentively while I read from it, because we can afford to copy it, and not only to copy it on paper but to fight for it:
All Americans able to work and seeking work have the right to useful, remunerative, regular and full-time employment, and it is the policy of the United States to assure the existence at all times of sufficient employment opportunities
to enable all Americans who have finished their schooling and who do not have full-time housekeeping responsibilities freely to exercise this right. . . .
How is it to be done?
To the extent that continuing full employment cannot otherwise be achieved, it is the further responsibility of the federal government to provide such volume of federal investment and expenditure as may be needed to assure continuing full employment.
Here they set down the responsibility in black and white, in a way that unfortunately we do not see in the speech from the throne or in any of the other statements made by government leaders. One of the ways to maintain purchasing power for the Canadian people is through public investment. Any programme of public investment must have as its aim the greatest possible contribution to the prosperity and well-being of the people, and I can think of no better investment than in homes for the people. In my first speech after coming into this house on January 26, 1943, I raised the problem of housing, because I saw that the situation was becoming more and more acute. At that time I called for the freezing of leases, and some hon. members thought that was not necessary. Well, since then the government has been forced to accept certain measures to which it would not listen at the time, but they far from meet the situation.
I am further reminded of the seriousness of the problem every time I return to my constituency. A few months ago a number of families living on a back lane came and asked me to plead with the municipal health authorities to allow them to remain in homes that had been condemned for the past twenty-five years, and were again condemned a few months ago. They were living in the centre of the city, with no electric lights and with leaking roofs. The situation was awful. I wenr to see those people in their homes and wondered how they could live there; yet they pleaded with me to be allowed to stay because they had nowhere else to go. Just before the opening of school this fall a French-Canadian woman came to plead with me to find a boarding house for her children. They were living in a store; she was ill and her children were ill, and they had to get out. The parents were going to take a room, and they wanted the children in'the boarding'home. Incidents like this can be multiplied hundreds of times throughout the country.
In this morning's Montreal Gazette we find the report of a meeting of a veterans' rehabilitation housing committee in Montreal, in

The Address-Mr. Rose
COMMON?
which the situation in respect of veterans returning from the armed forces is described as follows:
It has been revealed that approximately 300 men of the three services are being discharged daily in the Montreal area and that nearly twenty per cent of these are in urgent need of housing accommodation. Since this has been going on all summer it is now estimated that between 4,000 and 5,000 families are now seeking accommodation.
Without in any way minimizing the value of legislation enacted, it is obvious from these facts that the situation is not being met so as to provide homes for veterans, and for all who need homes, and to provide employment for the people. This government must decide to take the responsibility for the rapid construction of homes. This has been tried for a number of years but those who were to build homes have failed. We are not getting along rapidly enough. If Wartime Housing can build them faster, then Wartime Housing should build them.
The advantages offered to the limited dividend corporations should be extended to municipalities. The government should consider other means of cheapening the prices of houses and should make further research into methods of standardization. Experience has been gained in Great Britain and elsewhere in these matters. Perhaps the government can undertake to pay part of the taxes to municipalities in respect of newly built homes. It is obvious that much more drastic measures have to be adopted if the situation is not to become worse.
In tackling the problem of reconversion, I wish again to emphasize to the house that social security is an essential feature in any programme to maintain purchasing power. Money distributed by the government to individuals either to maintain them during unemployment or in their old1 age, or to maintain public health, helps the nation as a whole, as well as the individual receiving it.
From this point of view the proposals of the federal government to the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction regarding health measures, and other matters, constitute an advance and a substantial step forward, and should be supported by all. Despite the fact that the proposals for a national health programme are not ideal, I believe they deserve support. If there is opposition from certain circles I would urge the people of Canada, through their members in the house and through their organizations, to do something about it, so that we may put out of the way rMr. Rose.]
those who would obstruct the application of the health programme offered by the federal government.
In respect to the problem of old age pensions I must be much more critical. I say that $30 a month does not mean a decent standard of living to anyone; and seventy years of age- that is a long time to wait. I would say that we need at least an old age pension of $50, and that it should be given without a means test at the age of sixty-five.
I know there are difficulties in connection with implementing the proposals offered by the federal government and some of those difficulties have been created by some of the provincial governments. I hope none of the provincial governments will stand in the way of the application of these health and other measures, so that action may be taken without delay. If some governments in the provinces refuse to go along with the federal government, then the government at Ottawa should be prepared to act in unison with those provinces which are now willing to collaborate.
The measures I have described might be described as domestic measures. But they are most necessary if we are to increase or to maintain the purchasing power of the people. Might I point out, however, that there are other means of maintaining purchasing power, and that one of these is the development of greater export trade. It is a fact that thirty per cent of our workers depend upon exports.
There is a great need for our products in many countries of Europe and Asia. But the . people in those countries cannot pay to-day. They must have long-term credits. From press reports I have learned that the government is contemplating substantial credits to Great Britain and France. This is good. Such a policy is in accord with Canada's needs, as well as our responsibility to those people who have suffered. But it is not enough. To keep our export industries working at capacity it is essentia! that Canada should also maintain all the other outlets, and create new ones in a number of countries, including Belgium, Greece, Poland, Jugoslavia, the Soviet Union, China and the Latin-America countries. We shall have to "step on it" to see that we help these countries to-day in their reconstruction, so that to-morrow they may be permanent customers for our goods, thereby helping to create work for our people.
In the remarks I have made this evening I have concentrated chiefly upon problems of reconversion, because I believe they are the key problems of the day. The manner in which the house deals with these problems will be the test of our ability to meet the problems of peace as effectively as we met the problems

The Address-Mr. Robinson (Bruce)
of war. We won the war because we allowed nothing to stand in the way of our war effort. We can win the peace if we approach the problem with the same determination.
I do not often permit myself to indulge in pessimism. I believe no hon. member can charge that I have done that. I wish to say, however, that unless the government meets the needs of the people in the present emergency we may find that we are heading back for the hungry thirties.
I should like to deal with a number of other matters, but in order not to offer any distraction from 'this key problem of reconversion I would simply add, in pas. ing, that I fully endorse the idea of a Canadian flag and of Canadian citizenship, and have so expressed myself in the house on other occasions.
There is one further problem upon which I should like to touch before concluding my remarks. This one deals with destruction rather than reconstruction. Every hon. member must have been impressed with the report of the terrible devastation newsmen found in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It staggers the imagination of human beings to realize what will happen to our civilization if this dreadful weapon should ever again be used in war between nations.
We in Canada have a special responsibility in this connection because of the great deposits of uranium which are to be found in our country. If science succeeds in harnessing this mighty power to the service of human well-being. I am sure that as a nation we will gladly share this tremendous natural asset with the other peoples of the world, but until that day the potentialities of the atomic bomb for destruction- should not be placed at the disposal of any nation to use against other nations. I propose that this house and government place the uranium deposits of Canada at the disposal and under the control of the security council of the united nations organization, and under the control of that body alone. Such action will be more than a gesture; it will be a concrete demonstration of Canada's will for peace. Such action, along with policies aimed at full employment at home and generous assistance to our allies in repairing the destruction of war, will be a significant contribution by Canada toward lasting peace and prosperity in the world.
Mr. ANDREW E. ROBINSON (Bruce): Mr. Speaker, may I first offer my congratulations to you upon your election to the high office you now occupy. I am sure you will fulfil your duties as they should be fulfilled. To the mover (Mr. Benidickson) and the seconder (Mr. Langlois) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, who like 47696-121
myself are new members, I offer my congratulations upon the wonderful speeches they made. To our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) I wish, not continued success as a politician but health and longevity. To the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) I wish publicly to acknowledge my allegiance. To the hon. members of the political parties in this house I wish the best guidance.
I represent the county of Bruce and I am proud to represent that constituency. There can-not be many hon. members in this house who are not familiar with the good qualities of Bruce. During this session we have heard the Peace River district spoken well of by the hon. member for that riding (Mr. Low). We have heard about High Park from the hon. member from that riding (Mr. McMaster). I should like to tell the house a few things about my riding. First and foremost, Bruce is known o-ver this country as one of the best, if not the best counties in the dominion. Bruce has put forth a tremendous effort toward winning this war and the war of 1914-18; in men, money and materials we have contributed a great share. In the past Bruce has contributed greatly toward populating the western provinces, those provinces which have done so much toward feeding the hungry people of the world. Speaking as a Bruce boy, I must say that I am not too proud of the political trend that has taken place in some of these western provinces. To those who are thinking along the same lines may I say that they should not worry because these people are good people and eventually will see the error of their ways.
Not the . least achievements of Bruce have been the able men that the county has sent to the different parliaments of Canada, myself excluded. We are proud to claim the Minister df Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) of the present government as a native of our county. There are Senators Donnelly and Marshall who are active in the senate at the present time. In our town of Kincardine we are glad to have with us yet the Hon. Hugh Clark who for many years served our riding and the government of Canada in time of war. The late Hon. James Malcolm, who in his time was Minister of Trade and Commerce, was also a Bruce boy. We have no great centres of learning in our county, but we have produced many men and women who have made outstanding records in the business and professional life of the country.
At the present time there is in Ottawa a deputation of Indians, the original inhabitants of this country. They are here to have injustices removed and grievances corrected.

The Address-Mr. Robinson (Bruce)
In that delegation our Indian people of Bruce are represented. One of them is a sergeant and another a corporal who were in the same unit with me overseas in the last war. We had a platoon of those Indian boys in our unit and I feel safe in saying that there was not a better platoon in the Canadian army. We must remember that the Indians were here before we were, and the least we can do is to give them their just dues and the comforting assurance that their future welfare is in good hands. May I at this point read to the house a letter which I received from a corporal of Indian ancestry who is now overseas. This is from B company, first battalion, Regina Rifle Regiment, Canadian army overseas, under date of June 1, 1945, and reads:
To your letter of March 15, 1945, which I just received a few days ago due to changes of address. It took time for the postal corps to find me.
I have done you the favour asked by you. 1 myself have no use to, whatever party may be in. As to my status of civil life I am an Indian. I have no citizenship. All I have is a vote which is no good to me whatever. I have no voice in government, therefore my attitude to the government is poor. In the past I was looked down upon. It is what the future may bring can only change that, to change it from that. Can you give me some advice on what I could do in line of farming. Not that I want a big one. I want one that can bring me some profit, to be independent, to get by in every way. I understand the ups and downs of a farmer. Right now I am at wit's end. I am afraid to step into civic street. The setback f alie's bigger than the battles of the beachhead m Normandy.
I would be very grateful for any advice 1 may get.
I thank you.
Why should that boy not be given the chance of settling down on a farm under the veterans' reestablishment scheme without losing his rights and status as an Indian?
While Bruce county is the finest in Canada economically, we are not in the best position that it should be possible for the people of this country to achieve. For a number of years now we have not made the progress that it was our right to expect, due partly to the fact that Bruce is principally a rural county and agriculture is not getting its fair share of national income, and due partly to the centralization of industry.
At the present time, Canada has an acute housing shortage, but let me say, Mr. Speaker, that we have no housing shortage on the farms of Bruce county, and I feel safe in saying that Bruce county is typical of most rural counties all over Canada. To save the situation we must have decentralization, and to have decentralization we must revise transportation rates and power rates. By so doing we shall keep '

alive those centres like Bruce which have done so much toward building the country we live in and love. If consideration is not given to these facts Bruce, along with similar counties, will decline in population and in productivity.
It is nice to see our industrial centres grow, but if they grow at the expense of our smaller urban places and at the expense of our agricultural counties, we know that such is not good for the future of Canada.
Permit me, Mr. Speaker, to mention one of the greatest problems in Canada to-day, namely unity within our dominion. I believe that every hon. member is interested in finding a remedy. In this war it fell to my lot to have charge of a platoon of sixty men engaged in loading and unloading ships on the east coast. In that platoon were men from every province. Those men got along good together, and I believe that was the case in most units. The mixing up of those men from all over Canada will, I believe, help in the future toward unity; knowing each other's viewpoint will also help. To leam one another's language will go a long way toward solving the problem.
International good will is just one step on, a step that will ensure peace for the world. With the world machinery we have to-day it should be possible to arrange an exchange of scholarships throughout the world that would help every nation better to understand that we are all human beings.
I shall not criticize the present government, but I wish to state two facts: (1) The present administration did not have Canada ready for war in 1939; (2) in 1945 the present administration has not Canada prepared for peace. We all believe that Canada is the best country in the world. Let us get together and prove that such is so.


Mr. D. F. BROWN (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of probably the finest constituency in the Dominion of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh!
Mr. BROWrN: I am glad to see that hon. members agree with me. While we have a diversity of population, we have at least honesty of purpose. We are all hardworking, thrifty and sincere, and I think all hon. members will agree that we are a dynamic people.
I refer, of course, to the constituency of Essex W'est, and in particular to the city of Windsor.
I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the, gentleman whom I have succeeded. I refer to the Hon. Norman A. McLarty, a gentleman and a scholar "who devoted a great part of his life to bis country and to his constituency in particular.

The Address-Mr. Brown
I should also like to compliment the mover (Mr. Benidickson) and the seconder (Mr. Langlois) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It makes me feel proud to be a Liberal to be associated with these fine young men.
I can not let this opportunity pass without paying a tribute also to the one who has done do much for Canada, one who has given, shall I say, his human sense of life to his country. I refer to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King).
I should also like to pay tribute to the men and women of the armed services. We shall never be able to repay them for what they have expended for us. We can, therefore, only make an attempt at giving some satisfaction. ' To you, Mr. Speaker, I extend my congratulations. You have already shown in your conduct of the proceedings of this assembly that you are being fair and conscientious.
It is interesting for me as a child in this House of Commons to sit here and listen to this debate. It is interesting from many points of view, because in this assembly we get the thinking of all parts of Canada. I shall not say what I think of that thinking, but at least it is an expression of what is being thought throughout the country. While some of our debate may seem frivolous or not very sound to the people at large, yet it is an expression that should not and, I am sure, will not fee curtailed. However, sir, I hope you will not think it presumptuous of me to take exception to a remark that was made in this chamber this afternoon. As I heard the remark, it was that politics "stinks to high heaven." Well, I agree with the speaker that probably in Alberta it does. But we in Essex county elect Liberals. I take exception to that, because I think there is nothing finer for a young man or a young woman in this country than to get out and take an active part in the public affairs of the nation. I feel sure that if we would all do that honestly, conscientiously and intelligently, there would not be so many political parties in the house. Politics to me is the science of government, and as such should be studied thoroughly by everyone. If that were done, the people, especially the younger people, would be more interested; we would get a more representative vote, and we would probably have better government.
I want to commend the proposals in the speech from the throne, in particular that with respect to the memorial by way of beautification of the city of Ottawa. Taking the dominion as a whole, and likening it to a human body or individuality, one can probably say that Ottawa manifests the mind or
the soul of the nation, for a nation we are; and as such manifestation it should be beautiful, complete and perfect. From a practical aspect, beautification would attract not only the constituents whom we represent, but people from outside our country, people who would come here to enjoy the beauty and to create for us a more friendly world. If we bring about that beautification of Ottawa there would be a certain material return, for I think we shall agree that the tourist business is one of Canada's largest industries. The human anatomy cannot be complete without the manifestation of the face, the eyes, and the limbs, and so it is that the beautification of Ottawa is not complete until we have a contribution from all the outlying parts.
Speaking on behalf of Essex West, we live in a district which has in front of its door more lake fresh water traffic than any other fresh water system in the world, passing by it. We have lake St. Clair at the north and lake Erie to the south. Across the river to the north of us-this may sound strange-* is the city of Detroit, for Detroit is to a great extent to the north of Windsor. Detroit, which surrounds us on three sides, has a population of about two million people. Two hundred and fifty miles away is the city of Chicago with about four million people. About a hundred miles away is the city of Cleveland; also near us are the thickly populated states of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and others. I do not need to tell the house of the population of that area.
We have in the city of Windsor, as I have said, a dynamic people. We have set up a town planning commission for the purpose of beautification and putting the city in proper order. The people of that constituency have an active art association, an active handicraft guild, and other cultural and literary societies and movements which express the thought of our people. What I am getting at is this: the city of Ottawa should be beautified, and I know it will be; but probably more tourists visit the city of Windsor and the county of Essex in one week than find their way to the city of Ottawa in six months. Being practical, I think we should try to capture a part of that traffic, not only for the material purpose of making money, but to let our friends see what we have, find out what kind of people we are, and cement the bonds of friendship which unite our two peoples. So that, I would recommend to this government that it consider ways and means of beautifying not only the city of Windsor but other ports of,entry; because when we regard the human anatomy,
War .and, Demobilization

the first thing we look at is the face, the eyes; and those ports of entry correspond to the face. Therefore, let us make those ports of entry spots of beauty which may attract tourists and help our common cause.
On motion of Mr. Claxton the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, September 14, 1945.