PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he has received a telegram from Saskatchewan inquiring about the dates of the filing of the petitions for the disallowance of Saskatchewan acts, and indicating that Saskatchewan's first notice was received on September 20?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): No; no such telegram has yet been brought to my attention.


Major James William Coldwell: I will send the minister a copy of it; I received one.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East); I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Has he asked the provincial governments to agree that the present federal labour code make provision for full union security to certified unions upon request, pending disposition of jurisdiction on the subject at the forthcoming dominion-provincial conference?
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I should like to thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of the question. No such representation has been made to the provincial governments in the matter referred to by my hon. friend, but representations have been received from the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the Canadian Congress of Labour, and other labour and employers' organizations, with regard to amendments to the code generally. All those representations have been sent to the provincial governments. The representations received from the employers have been sent to the trade unions, and those received from the trade unions have been sent to the employers for their information.
Parliamentary Assistants



PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should
like to table orders in council passed to-day appointing certain parliamentary assistants.
Mr. R. W. Mayhew, the hon. member for Victoria, has been appointed parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley).
Mr. W. C. Macdonald, the hon. member for Halifax, and Mr. Hugues Lapointe, the hon. member for Lotbiniere, have been appointed parliamentary assistants to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott). As the house is aware, the Minister of National Defence has responsibility for naval services as well as for the army. Mr. Macdonald will be concerned particularly with naval services, and Mr. Lapointe with the army.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The bouse resumed from Monday, September 24, 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. Hansell.
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, either this parliament will discover and apply a solution to the dismaying problems confronting the Anglo-Saxon world, or it will fail to discover and apply that solution. Either this parliament will redeem democracy and parliamentary governments generally from the siloughi of despond and contempt into which they are rapidly descending all over the world, or it will drag still deeper into the mire the reputation of parliament. The matter rests in the hands of members of this parliament.
There is in this parliament I am sure a knowledge of how to obtain a solution of the prohlems of the world. If the government would call together the representatives of the various parties in a round table conference in a non-political manner and1 discuss earnestly for whatsoever time was necessary this matter of a solution, I am confident that a solution could be found.	.
We shall never be able to find a solution by sneering at each other's ideas as did the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. 
Maybank) the other night when he referred to Social Credit as funny money. We shall never do it by indulging in outbursts of fantastic misrepresentations as did the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) last night, or in bursting forth into ecstatic paeans of glorification of the present obviously hopeless orthodox system of finance, as did the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) last night in his otherwise excellent speech. We may be able to find a solution by approaching the situation with humility and a disposition to be open-minded, to consider and weigh and assess the value of the various arguments as did the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Case) on September 21. At that time the hon. member said as recorded on page 369 of Hansard:
-I do not think Canada, of all countries in the world, is in a position to give leadership in monetary reform. We produce a tremendous volume of goods in this country, and we must find a market for tnem in the markets of the world.
Mr. Kuhl: How about the home market?
Mr. Case:	The home market could never
consume the amount of goods we produce, because we produce enough for 50,000,000 people. The productive capacity of this nation during the war absolutely staggers human imagination. If those with whom we seek to trade were to discover that we were using a monetary base which resulted in subsidizing our goods to the detriment of their standard of living, I am sure they would soon find means of applying dumping duties or an embargo to prevent us from finding our way to their market. The whole matter is greatly involved. I am glad that there are those who have the courage to come forward with these ideas. I like to think of myself as being a student of monetary reform -sometimes I think our system should be reformed-but I have yet to be convinced that Social Credit policies will fit in with our plan of world affairs.
The hon. member's words indicate a somewhat sincere desire to know something about social credit, why it is called social credit and the basis of facts upon which it founds its philosophy. What is its philosophy? What is the basis of fact upon which it founds its technique? What is the technique which social credit proposes? How shall social credit deal with the great problems which confront us at the present time, the great phenomena such as the surpluses in Canada and- in other nations-wheat for example-and the deficiencies in other nations, such as are found in a country like Jamaica; inflation or boom, deflation or depression; monopolies and cartels; foreign investments in Canada which upset our trade balances or balances of payment; Canadian investments abroad; international debt and adverse trade balances; international commercial rivalry or trade wars? How would

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
social credit enable Canada to sell her goods on the world markets? How would Canada protect her economy against foreign goods seeking to enter her market in competition with Canadian goods? Would she use the tariff under social credit, or exchange control, or quotas, or embargoes, or just how would she proceed under social credit? How would Canada attain monetary stabilization, first of all in Canada and then internationally?
What is social credit's attitude toward international trade? What is social credit's attitude toward the Atlantic charter? What is social credit's attitude toward war, its causes and the remedy for those causes and provision against war? What is the social credit attitude toward the British commonwealth and the empire? What is the social credit attitude toward world organizations such as were attempted in San Francisco? What is the social credit attitude toward the world as it is to-day? How do they interpret the world? Why is it we have people pitted against each other in great organizations ready to fly at each other's throats? Is Canada of all countries in the world in a position to give leadership into social credit? These seem to be some of the major questions in the mind of the hon. member for Grey North.
These questions are all fair and reasonable, and they require to be answered. Any sound economic system ought to be able to answer them. The proposals necessary to answer them should be definite, consistent, realistic and logical. Can social credit answer these thirteen questions definitely, consistently, realistically and logically? If it can, and to the extent to which it can, then social credit has a valid claim to careful consideration as the possible technique to be used in establishing a new world order of freedom from want and fear, together with freedom of speech, worship and choice.
Can social credit answer these questions with definiteness, consistency, realism and logic? Let us see. Consider, first, the meaning of social credit, the first question the hon. member wanted to get clear in his mind. The credit of a nation is like the credit of an individual. It is of three kinds. There is the credit of honour, whether or not a man's word is any good, and this applies also to nations. There is the credit which means the ability to produce and deliver goods as, when and where required. This is called the real credit of the individual and it is the real credit of a people. Finally there is the financial credit, which means the ability of the individual or the ability of a nation to produce as, when and where required, money, which is a quite different thing.
Social Crediters maintain that the financial credit of a nation should reflect the real credit of the nation and correspond to it. They believe that when there are more goods and services on a nation's markets than the consumers of that nation are financially able to buy, then the people's representatives in parliament should lay down a financial policy under which a national finance commission or authority would create and distribute scientifically to the people money tokens or dollars enough to enable those so-called surplus goods and services to be bought and consumed by the people of the country in so far as the people can use them, or perhaps by the peoples of other countries in so far as the people of this country cannot use them. Under such a policy the national money authority would render available to all the people of our nation their real credit, the goods and services they produce. The social credit movement favours rendering the people's real credit social through the creation and use of financial credit to represent or correspond to that real credit, that is, the creation of enough tokens or dollars to make it possible to distribute to all consumers in Canada that portion of our goods and services which otherwise would be wasted.
One of the great faults we have to find with the members in this house who undertake to criticize or sneer at social credit is this simple fact-they never do take the trouble to find out what social credit claims to be, and consequently they have not the slightest idea what they are criticizing. So they make the most idiotic statements and say the most stupid things, simply because they do not know what it is. I have made that completely clear. I have given the facts concerning the social credit concept.
What is the basis of fact upon which social credit philosophy is founded? First, we as a people and as a world have solved the problem of production. That is, we have now got to a position in this world where mankind can produce more goods than mankind is at present able to buy. Consequently there are more goods than mankind is at present able to sell, and this is one of the major causes of depressions and war.
Second, machines have displaced men so that production has increased and jobs have decreased, and consequently wages have decreased, the result being that there is ever present a deficiency of purchasing power in the hands of the people which renders it quite impossible for them to buy the goods which they are able to produce in normal

The Address-Mr. Blackmore

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
so that there is no scarcity of goods of any kind, you cannot have a rise in price, consequently you cannot have inflation, no matter how much money you bring into circulation; for the people will be able to buy all the goods they want, and will certainly call for no more. This is one of the great truths which must be learned by this parliament and by this generation if it is to solve the problems which confront it. Inflation is a rise in price which results from scarcity of goods. It has nothing to do with money in this modem age.
How do you overcome inflation? The first thing is to see that you have an abundance of production of all kinds so that, no matter how much people want to buy of coal and milk and cream and cheese and sugar and a thousand other things, there will be always more than they require, and prices will not rise. Such a condition can certainly be brought about in a land of abundance like ours.
Next, look after your prices. Social credit has a technique which we call the compensated discount. It means this, that the financial authority, the monetary authority, pays part of the price of goods. For example, if a pair of shoes is being sold for S5 and it is deemed advisable in the interests of Canada that these shoes shall sell at $-4 a pair, the financial authority will pay one of the dollars, enabling the consumer to buy at S4. This device brings the price down, and it can be used in the national economy all over the country. The only limit beyond which it cannot go is the amount of goods and services you have in the country: those are what make you rich and strong. This compensated discount, if applied throughout the economy of the country, will completely prevent inflation. Furthermore, credit can be and should be regulated, and would be, under a social credit regime. Finally, if necessary, if some difficulty should arise, such as a great crop failure, say of apples or something of that sort, we would have to ration that particular commodity.
What would social credit do about deflation? First of all, what is deflation? Deflation is a fall in price. Why a fall in price? Because there are more goods on the market than there is money coming into the markets to buy goods with; consequently there is a glut of goods and the prices of goods go down. Under the law of supply and demand that will always tend to happen. The present government has already introduced a system of floors under prices, which indicates that they are already beginning to see the light. Social credit will introduce floors under prices, and the^ money required will be paid from the national credit without new taxation or debt.

So floors under prices and floors under wages will be maintained, and credit will be regulated. If the banks fear to lend and begin to draw in loans, the government comes in with an agency through which it begins to lend until the banks are encouraged to go forward. Thus deflation would be checked.
Fifth, monopolies. Social credit first of all believes it can control any monopoly for the simple reason that it has control of price. All it needs to do is to tell monopoly it will not give it the advantage of price, and I think that any monopoly with any sense will come into line. If monopoly chooses to be disobedient-"uncooperative" is the word we like to use-it becomes very easy for the government monetary authority to advance money to private companies to establish businesses,-say, to produce aluminium, or whatever it happens to be; and with government bonuses and assistances that little company could cut into the markets of that big monopoly and utterly destroy it, and it would be impossible for that monopoly to avoid it. There is no need for the government to take over the monopoly and thus have a government monopoly.
Now as to the matter of cartels. There is only one really safe solution to the problem of cartels, and that is to make the country as nearly as possible self-sufficient. In this day of remarkable scientific advancement, of the development of plastics and the like, together with the vast resources which we possess, we can become very nearly self sufficient. If there were difficulties with a few cartels we would probably have to resort to some sort of international agreement, but the general attack would be as I have described it.
With respect to foreign investments in Canada, these cause a great deal of difficulty. There is altogether too much foreign capital investment in Canada. Social credit would make it the government's business to see that these great interests which have investments in Canada were encouraged to sell. The government could lend money to private interests to buy these people out and send them home with their money. That can be done, and it is going to be done; it will -have to be done. Mexico had to resort to that device in 1938 with respect to United States interests in her oil industry. It will be found as the days go by that it will be necessary for that device to be applied generally throughout the world, otherwise how can a nation govern itself, when it cannot be master in its own house?
With respect to Canadian investments abroad, such investments would not be encouraged by social credit, for the simple reason that Canadian investments abroad

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
would be unwelcome, just as foreign investments in Canada would be unwelcome. Some people will say-and I can almost see my Conservative friends thinking it-"We had to have foreign capital come in to develop this country." Yes; that was done when you still thought that you had to have money come in from outside. But we have learned that we can create our own money; we have no further need at all of foreign capital coming in.
What would we do with international debt? First, it must be agreed that any debt should be payed in goods and services, which is the only way such debts can be paid. The sooner all nations come to realize this, the better. Today the United States is rapidly coming to a realization of this truth in her arrangements with Great Britain. AIL nations will have to realize that international debt must be paid with goods and services. Then we would stimulate our own production, and we would lower our own prices in Canada by the method of the compensated discount, which would encourage people to buy Canadian instead of buying foreign; that would enable us to have a favourable trade balance. It should not be difficult at all in a country like Canada. In fact it would not be difficult if we were using a social credit system.
What shall we do about international commercial rivalry? This is one of the problems in the mind of the member for Grey North, who asked that question with, great sincerity. He is much troubled about how Canada would get her goods into foreign countries. Well, Mr. Speaker, the day has to come when we must realize that we must not force our goods into a foreign market in competition with other people's goods or in competition with the goods of that country in its own market. If we persist in so forcing our goods we shall disrupt the economy of the country concerned and begin to sow the seeds of war.
All wars are the result of hot commercial rivalries-successful commercial rivalries. That principle was definitely enunciated by Woodrow Wilson, who was one of the men who in their time knew these things. Social Credit- would trade not on a competitive basis but on a mutual aid basis. If we are financing mutual aid to various nations, why should those nations not finance mutual aid to us? If we can provide them with the things that they are unable to produce, why should they not provide us with the things that we ourselves are unable to produce? Surely they should not hesitate to do that, and I am certain, that- they would not. Imagine Britain refusing to send us good's which we cannot produce in return for
goods that we have sent to her which she could not produce! It is not conceivable; neither would it be conceivable in the case of Australia, New Zealand or any other country under intelligent government.
And so we would trade not on a competitive basis but on a mutual aid basis. We would trade the goods we have, such as aluminum, copper, wood pulp, lumber, the products of wheat, salt fish, sugar, rubber, machinery and all sorts of things which we are able to produce. We would trade all these commodities for such products as bananas, oranges and other things we need from abroad.
There would be no attempt to "blast our way" into the world's markets in any shape or form. We could reduce our price-as the member for Grey North conceived we would -by means of a subsidy, to enable other nations to buy our goods, but we would not force those goods on those nations. We saw an illustration of this concept in operation in the statement on wheat which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) gave to the house recently. He pointed out definitely that we must keep the price of wheat down so that the British people could buy it. Under social credit that could be done with any commodity. If a nation wanted to buy our goods we could bring down the price of the goods by a subsidy to producers so that other nations could buy those goods without reducing the price received by farmers and other producers. That could be done on a world-wide scale, especially by a nation as fortunately endowed as Canada is.
The tremendous difference between bringing down your price-may I impress this upon the hon. member for Grey North-so as to enable other nations to buy, and bringing down your price in order to force your goods upon other nations, is a difference that must be apparent to all. The first is a blessing; the second is a curse which must result in war.
How would social credit protect Canada's economy against foreign goods-by using tariff, exchange control, quotas and embargoes? Each of these could be used, but the social credit technique is that of price discounting. If goods were coming from a foreign country underselling ours by fifteen or twenty cents per unit, all we would have to do would be to subsidize our own producers to bring down our own price to enable that article to be sold under the goods coming in. That can be done and has been done; I could point to plenty of instances in which it has been done. We need have no use of a tariff. If we could not get along without one we might

The Address

Mr. Blackmore
have to have one, and we would use it only under those circumstances; but there is no need of one, so far as I can see.
How would social credit attain monetary stabilization? First, in Canada, it would lower the price structure by subsidies to producers or compensated discount to consumers. The lower the price structure in a country, the higher the value of that country's dollar, which means that by means of the compensated price you can raise the value of your dollar in the world to any desired standard. That is the technique we would use, in that way stabilizing our own dollar, so that we would know exactly what it would be worth, and everyone else would also know. In a similar way the other nations could do the same thing. We would have to agree on prices. Social credit is absolutely opposed to having any fund, such as the Bretton Woods agreement envisages, set up with the power to dictate to a nation how its money shall be managed. What a nation shall do with its money is that nation's business and nobody else's. If they do not choose to trade with us, that is their lookout; we will get along anyhow.
The next question is, what is social credit's attitude to international trade. I have already stated that social credit is prepared to trade with any nation on a mutually advantageous basis. It will trade what others need for the things which Canada needs.
What is our attitude to the Atlantic charter? Social credit is the only known system on the face of the earth under which the Atlantic charter can be established so that there can actually be freedom from want and fear among the nations of the earth and all the earth's peoples. I defy any economist anywhere in the world to show any other system whereby that can be done. The only system under which it is possible is social credit.
What is our attitude to war? We hold that the cause of war is economic; it is fear and want. The system of mutual aid which I have indicated would entirely remove fear and want and thus remove in a large measure the cause of war. We would trade through a mutual aid arrangement instead of having competition, and thus go far towards removing the cause of war. And if after that there were still people who wanted to fight-we!!, there is only one thing to do and that is to see that our walls are strong. Social credit would see that that was the case, and it has taken that attitude ever since coming into public life. We would see that we had a

strong economy, strong armaments, strong and healthy people, well educated, strong through exercise and strong in morale.
What is our attitude to the British commonwealth and the empire? We believe that the British commonwealth is the greatest and most dependable guarantee of freedom of every kind thus far developed in the world. The greatest demonstration of democratic strength, through decentralization, is found in the commonwealth. We favour full understanding and wise cooperation with the British peoples. We insist that local sovereignty be completely and unchallengeablv guaranteed. We insist that Canada, while being daughter in her mother's house, shall be mistress in her own, with all that term implies. We believe that, with respect to the British peoples, united we stand, divided we fall.
The British have a great responsibility to discharge in the world, and the British commonwealth, on a social credit basis, could withstand any enemy on earth or any combination of enemies. No combination could then destroy it politically or economically.
We favour putting the British empire and British commonwealth on a social credit basis, and then, under God, going forth facing the future without wavering. The British commonwealth can be economically self-sufficient.
What is the social credit attitude to world organization? We are ready to cooperate. We are ready to discharge our full responsibility. But we are not willing to surrender our sovereignty to any international or other external force on earth.
What is the social credit interpretation of the world situation? It accepts God, it accepts Jesus Christ, it believes that there is a struggle between the powers of righteousness and the powers of evil -waging in the world to-day. Evil is forever seeking to enslave men, to centralize power and destroy men's freedom, politically, economically and financially. Good is with equal determination struggling to free men and to guarantee their freedom, politically, economically and financially.
The powers of evil are headed up by certain international bodies or powers. Among those powers we consider international finance to be one of the foremost.
Is Canada fitted to take the lead in the social credit movement in the world? The member for Grey North asked that question, and it was a good one. Let us see: Canada is rich in resources. She has very varied resources, almost inexhaustible resources, and she could be almost completely self-sufficient. She has industrial equipment of a very high order, and industrial skills coming out of this

The Address-Mr. Harkness
war of first-rate quality. She has administrative skill of the first order. She has scientists of high quality, as witness the great developments in plastics on a commercial scale. She has hundreds of thousands of people already enlightened in social credit, and hundreds of thousands more much interested in it, as the hon. member for Grey North indicated1 the other day. Her people believe in individual enterprise; her people are a freedom-loving people, very brave and dreaded in war. She is a part of the British commonwealth of nations and is therefore protected through that association. She is a part of the North American continent and derives protection from that relation.
She is eager to find a solution to the economic difficulties which confront her; she is eager to find a solution to the problem of war; she is fearful of failure. Where could you possibly find a nation more admirably fitted, apparently more designed and destined by Almighty God, to take the lead in the world in the solution of the world's economic problems? I commend the whole system of social credit to the most earnest consideration of all hon. members in the house and of all the people in the country as the only means whereby we can emerge from the old order of doubt, insecurity, irregularity, injustice and war, into the new order where there shall be actually guaranteed freedom from want and fear, and where people will be able to enjoy freedom of religion, of speech and of choice.


Mr. D. S. HARKNESS (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at the outset of this, my first speech in the house, to add my congratulations to the many which you have already received on your election to your high office. I also wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Benidickson) and the seconder (Mr. Langlois) of the Address in reply to the speech from the throne, first on the excellent addresses they gave, and second because they are representatives of the air force and the navy respectively. I think it was fitting that those services should have been honoured in this way.
At this point I should like to pay a tribute to the men of the particular arm of the services with whom I served, namely, the Royal Canadian Artillery. I believe few will dispute the statement that, with the exception of the infantry, the gunners were more responsible for winning all our battles than any other arm of the ground forces. I am proud to have served with such a fine body of men, and I was anxious to have this tribute to them put on the record.
I should like to make a plea here for the' foot soldier. Throughout the war he was the lowest paid of any service man, and during the earlier years of it was the least regarded, because it was commonly believed that technological advances had outmoded him, and that the gun, the tank, the signals, the repair services, and so forth, were much more important. Yet on the actual field of battle it was found that the infantryman was still the most important and necessary man there. He . had the worst conditions under which to live, suffered the most privations, took the greatest risks, and incurred the highest casualties; yet his pay remained lower than that of the motor mechanic working in comparative safety some thirty miles behind the battlefield. I maintain that this was all wrong, and I hope to see this parliament authorize a complete change in the scale of pay of the services, so that it will bear a much closer relationship to the risks run, and to the conditions endured, than has been the case in the past. I feel very strongly on this matter because of my personal experience. As a result of the man-power policy of the present government the artillery regiment which I commanded spent three and a half months of last winter acting as infantry. During that time many men came to me and remarked that they had never before appreciated the difficulties and hardships of the infantry, and reckoned that they should be paid two or three times as much in that role as they were paid as gunners.
In the short time I have been in this house I have observed that it is customary for a new member to say something of the glories of his own constituency. In the constituency of Calgary East, which I have the honour to represent, we have a post office and a polling division called Bragg Creek. Do not be alarmed that the name is indicative of what is to come. In fact there is no need to advertise Calgary East, because, I believe, it is known to practically every person throughout Canada, because of two things. First, it is the site of the Calgary stampede, and second it contains Turner valley, the only large producing oil field in the dominion. At this point I will do a little advertising. I earnestly recommend to all hon. members that they make use of their travelling facilities to come out and see either or both of these attractions. For my own part I propose to do the same thing in eastern Canada. I am sorry to say that I have not seen anything of Quebec and the maritime provinces. I believe it is my duty to do so, and I intend to do so as early as possible.
What is not so well known as the Calgary stampede and Turner valley, is the fact that
The Address-Mr. Harkness

Calgary East is a representative cross-section of Canadian life. It takes in most of the central or business district of Calgary, and embraces residential areas representing all levels of income, and people of nearly every racial origin and religion to be found in Canada. These people are engaged in most of the occupations followed in this country with the exception of those connected with the sea. The rural part of the constituency runs from twenty-five miles south of the city, west to the British Columbia boundary. In it there are found dairy farms, mixed farms, wheat farms, cattle ranches and the odd small saw mill, and on the outskirts of the city a large number of small holdings, where people are engaged in vegetable growing, fur farming and other rural enterprises of a small kind.
As a result of fairly close contact with a large number of these people, of all conditions of life, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members of this house, that the three things uppermost in their minds are those with which the amendment proposed by the leader of this party deals. They want their men now in the services back home and into civilian life as rapidly as possible; they want houses for these men and for themselves to live in, and above all, they want jobs and the assurance that these jobs will continue.
These subjects of demobilization, housing and jobs have been dealt with by many other speakers in this debate; therefore I do not propose to say anything further on them except that I believe any hon. member of this house who has these matters sincerely at heart cannot conscientiously do otherwise than vote for the amendment proposed by the leader of this party.	[DOT]
I should like now to touch briefly on certain other matters. Because of the nature of my constituency, and because the prosperity of Calgary and of Alberta is very closely connected with the prosperity of the beef producers, I am very deeply interested in that industry. Some ten days ago the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) and I, had several long talks with Mr. George Ross, chairman of the Council of Western Beef Producers, and a large rancher in southern Alberta. From their contacts with cattle men in the United States, his organization is convinced that unless at least token shipment of beef are allowed to go from Canada to the United States shortly, we will lose that market, which meant so much to us in the pre-war years in the matter of disposing of our surplus beef cattle, and thus in keeping prices of beef at a level which made it possible for cattle producers, and beef producers particularly, to 	i [Tf
operate at a profit. Mr. Ross states that beef producers are not interested1 in the three to four cents a pound more which can be obtained on the United States market. They are quite content to let the government take this in the form of export licence fees, or in any other way that it sees fit. But the beef producers are very anxious that this market be not lost in the future, and to ensure this they believe, with their expert knowledge of the situation, that some shipments of beef to United States markets are essential at the present time. To use Mr. Ross' words, "We have to keep the ditches wet-, or there will be no flow in the future". I earnestly recommend to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that this matter receive his immediate attention.
Another thing which exercises the beef producers is that the Income War Tax Act places them at a disadvantage as compared with people in any other business. The proceeds from any cattle sold by cattlemen are considered as income, and taxed. But a cattleman's breeding stock, his cows, are actually his capital, or his tools, comparable to a grain farmer's machinery or a manufacturer's plant.
A cattleman normally runs let us say 300 head of breeding cows. If, owing to a dry year or adverse conditions of any kind, he is unable to carry those cows through the winter and has to sell off, we will say, half of them, along fkith his normal turn-off of beef cattle-say 250 head-with income tax at present levels it means that he gets practically nothing back for those 150 cows. He is in a position where he has lost his capital, or his tools, and is not able to go back into production on anything like his former scale. Surely this is an injustice which parliament should redress by a provision in the Income War Tax Act to the effect that a farmer or rancher's normal breeding cows, brood sows, and the like, shall be regarded as capital, and not have to pay income tax upon the sale thereof.
I should like to compliment the Minister of Agriculture, who, I am sorry to see, is not in the house at this time, upon his eloquent dissertation of last night. I am certain he convinced himself and hon. members on his side of the house that the government's bonus on coarse grains and the price ceiling set on hogs has not been responsible for the marked decrease in the number of hogs produced. I am equally certain that he did not convince the men whom I was glad to hear him credit with knowing more about farming than any other group, that is, the men who milk the cows and feed the hogs. In this I refer more particularly to Alberta;

The Address-Mr. Harkness
and the fact that the farmers in that province were not, and are not, convinced of this, is amply demonstrated by the very large decrease in hog production which has taken place in that province, despite the fact that these farmers had plenty of feed.
I can assure the minister, too, that from conversation with large numbers of men who formerly produced hogs, but who are not now producing them, it is clear that the sole reason they stopped such production was that it paid them much better to sell their grain. They maintain that they will not go back into hog production unless the price of hogs is raised. I can also assure the house that, so far as my constituency is concerned, hog production at the present time is falling from month to month.
I was glad to hear the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie) discuss the question of irrigation for southern Alberta, when he addressed the house on Thursday last. I join with him in the hope that this question will not be made a political football, and that the government will proceed immediately with at least one of the irrigation schemes surveyed and talked about so much in Alberta.
I do not purpose at the moment giving the house any of the mass of facts and figures which is available to show the tremendous benefits which the construction of irrigation systems in western Canada would produce for the whole dominion. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) has already done a great deal along this line, and on behalf of Alberta I should like to thank him for his work, and for what he has accomplished in bringing to the attention of the house and of all Canada the possibilities of irrigation, and of many other natural resources in western Canada.
I was pleased, too, to hear the Minister of Agriculture state in his speech last night that the government proposes to go ahead with irrigation schemes, and I trust it proposes to do so immediately-not three or four years in the future.
During the debate several hon. members have discussed the subject of immigration. I hope this is an indication that there is an increasing interest in this matter, and that the fear-begotten closed-door policy, and ideas of the kind which were prevalent in the pre-war era, are disappearing. While we had hundreds of thousands of people on relief rolls, anyone who proposed an immigration policy or made the suggestion that we should bring more people to this country was looked upon as a lunatic. Such an attitude of mind was quite
understandable at that time. Now, however,
I think we should go back to the basic truth that we just have not enough people in Canada to make our great transportation systems economically sound, to make for a well-balanced economy, to develop properly our natural resources, or to support our multitude of governments-municipal, provincial and dominion-in the manner to which they have become accustomed.
To elaborate on the last point: our taxes are too high, but I see no good prospect of reducing them materially except by getting more people into the country, producing more wealth, and thus spreading the load.
However, I would not be in favour of a policy of unrestricted immigration. I believe the test as to whether a man should be admitted to Canada should lie in the answer to this question: can we readily and rapidly assimilate him? If the answer is no, then he should be excluded. Our experiences in the past fifty years should be a good enough guide to us in deciding as to whom we can or cannot readily assimilate. Certainly in that class would come all orientals. I believe we should rigidly close the doors against them. When I take this stand I trust that hon. members to my left will not accuse me of racial prejudice. My views are not founded upon racial prejudice, or racial grounds at all, but rather on common sense, observation, and a strong desire to build a great and united Canada.
I believe that even hon. members of the C.C.F. will admit that more than ninety-nine per cent of the white population of Canada will not intermarry with orientals. Those few who do, and their children, are exposed to all the cruelties, hardships and humiliations of social ostracism. I think it is only honest to make this admission, and to admit also that these oriental people cannot be assimilated into the broad stream of Canadian life. They cannot be made into thorough-going Canadians, and therefore it is better for them, as well as for us, to keep them out of the country.
Throughout the debate I have been glad to hear a large number of speakers say something on the subject of national unity. I think this is basically the greatest problem we have in Canada to-day. If we are to make this the great and united country which it is possible for us to build, we will all have to pitch in and work to that end. National unity has had a great deal of lip service in the past, but as far as I have been able to find out very few people have really worked actively and in a practical manner in order to get results.
The Address-Mr. Harkness

We have had far too much sectionalism and distrust and suspicion in each part of the country toward every other part of the country. Provincialism too often has been fostered and encouraged for political reasons, which is one of the chief reasons it still exists to the extent it does at the present time. I trust that this sort of thing will soon become a thing of the past. We cannot afford to gamble with the future of Canada for political ends on this issue.
I think we must start a hard-pushed publicity campaign to foster Canadianism. We should make full use of our schools, our radio and our press to do this. People in this country to a large extent are Scotch-Canadians, Irish-Canadians, French-Canadians, Poldsh-Canadians and every other sort of hyphenated Canadians. What we need in place of that are just plain Canadians, and in order to get that we must teach Canadianism. The thing will not come of itself. The proposal of the government to adopt a Canadian flag and Canadian citizenship is a step in the right direction. That will help materially in getting people to think of themselves as Canadians. There has been too much harking back in this country to racial origins, and this has retarded the growth of a national spirit.
I know this from my own experience. I am of Scotch descent, and although my forefathers came to this country well over a hundred years ago, as a boy I was taught to think of myself as a Scotsman. Until the age of nineteen or twenty years I referred to myself as a Scotch Canadian whenever the matter came up. That sort of thing is fairly typical of the majority of people in Canada, but it is an attitude of mind which must be broken down if true national unity is to be secured.
Before concluding, there is another question about which I should like to say a few words, the trans-Canada highway. The hon. member for Medicine 'Hat introduced the subject in his speech a few days ago and said that he hoped the hon. member for Calgary West and I would support the project. I want to assure him that we support him most strongly, and will press for the adoption by this house of the ideas contained in a report on the subject prepared by the Calgary board of trade, from which I should like to read a few extracts, as follows:
Canada requires an adequate highway system built around a hard-surfaced trans-Canada highway equal to any one of the many excellent transcontinental highways in the United States, otherwise Canada stands to lose her favourable balance of trade and economic world position through the loss of tourist traffic.
Past experience has taught us that many provincial governments are not financially able to construct highways of such high standards 
through sparsely populated areas, and if we depend op the provinces to build such a highway system it is not likely same will ever be completed.
And again:
We propose that the dominion government should embark on a programme similar to the United States federal aid programme, providing approximately ten per cent of the money being spent in the states, namely $50,000,000 a year, for a number of years, on a dollar for dollar basis with the provinces, and thus guarantee the expenditure of at least $100,000,000 a year on approved hard surfaced highways in Canada. We believe an adequate system of highways including a trans-Canada highway w-ould not only satisfy and keep a large percentage of Canadian motorists at home, but attract sufficient motorists from the United States annually to more than repay our annual expenditure for such highways.
The Calgary board of trade is preparing a brief on this subject of a trans-Canada highway. When it is presented to the government I hope its recommendations will receive very serious consideration.


Mr. H. R. ARGUE (Wood Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I want to say what many hon. members have said, that I too am a new member. As some of the other new members have had difficulty in speaking, I am sure I shall be excused if I have even more difficulty, because I happen to be the youngest member in this house. I hope I shall be able to equal the enviable record set by the other honourable young members. Those young members who have spoken have given the lie to the contention held in many quarters that a man must have graying hair and must limp in here on a cane before he is sufficiently mentally developed to make a real contribution.
A number of hon. members have referred to their constituencies, and I trust I shall be pardoned if I give the house some information about the constituency I represent. I represent the constituency of Wood Mountain which is situated in southwestern Saskatchewan. This constituency is composed of people of many nationalities. I was somewhat taken aback when I heard reference made to the apparent conflict between the different nationalities in Canada. I should like to tell the house that the people of all nationalities living in my constituency have learned to live harmoniously together.
I am afraid I shall not be able to boast of the great grandeur of my constituency or of the metropolises situated therein. It is largely an agricultural constituency, and there are only two towns, Assiniboia and Gravelbourg, which can boast a population of over one

The Address-Mr. Argue
thousand people. The constituents of Wood Mountain are not wealthy, and I think hon. members will have guessed the reason why. They are largely farmers, and the farmers of Canada have never received their fair share of the national income.
Another reason is that we are situated in what might be called the dry belt of the west. Because of climatic conditions we suffer periodic crop failures. But let us have no illusions; that part of the west is still a great agricultural area. It has contributed in no small measure to the large quantities of meat and butter and grain that have been used to feed our gallant allies. Wood Mountain constituency can boast of one of the largest credit unions in Canada, the Lafleche credit union. Credit unions in Saskatchewan are growing up like mushrooms because the banks have failed to satisfy the needs of the farmer.
I should like to digress for a moment and say something about banks. As most hon. members know, the banks have the privilege, and they follow it in practice, of lending ten times as much in bank credit as they have in actual cash. Chartered banks also have the privilege of discounting so-called gilt-edged securities with the Bank of Canada. By this means they are able to lend many times the amount of bank credit compared to their actual cash. In 1893 bank assets in this country totalled 302 million dollars; bank assets in 1943 totalled 5,150 million dollars. Bank assets for the last fifty years have increased at the rate of 35 per cent per year.
Banks were first organized for the business of making loans. When they were in business in the early years of this country their assets were composed almost entirely of loans, but starting about the year 1930 the structure of bank assets has changed enormously, until to-day, of the over 5,000 million dollars of bank assets, something over 2,700 million dollars are invested in government bonds and industrial stocks. The banks have not been able to survive in what we have been led to believe to be free enterprise. They are to-day a leech on all the people of Canada to the extent that they have that amount of investments in dominion government bonds and industrial stocks. The banks are no longer content to control merely the currency, the lifeblood of the nation; they want to own and control the whole Canadian economy. We of the C.C.F. believe it is time that the people of Canada owned the banks, and not the banks own the people as they do at the present time. For that reason I would suggest to the government that they take into very serious consideration the question of giving to the credit unions the full privileges
and rights of the chartered banks. If that is done the people of Saskatchewan will have their own banks and will no longer have to go hat in hand to the banking institutions of Canada.
I might add that the banks are not to-day satisfying and have not satisfied since 1930 the credit needs of the people of Saskatchewan, and in particular the farmers. In 1926 there were 427 branches of the chartered banks in Saskatchewan. According to the 1943 report in the Canada Year Book, the branches of the chartered banks in Saskatchewan number now 213. That is, over half of the banks in Saskatchewan have closed their doors since 1926. The people of Saskatchewan are not sorry that they have closed their doors, but we do want to have banks of our own, and we can have them if the credit unions are given the full privileges of the chartered banks.
There is one part of government financial policy to which I should like to refer, and that is income tax. First I want to assure this house that we in this group are not opposed to the principles of income taxation. We believe that those best able to pay should pay. But we believe that the burden of the income tax has become too difficult to bear for those in the lower income brackets. Consequently, as the leader of this group suggested in his first speech in this new parliament, we feel that the income tax exemptions should be raised to $1,200 for a single man and to $2,000 for a married man.
A word as to how the income tax affects the farmers. In 1939, when war broke out, the farmers of Saskatchewan and of almost all parts of Canada had just come through a very serious economic depression. Consequently the farmers of Saskatchewan have been labouring under a terrific load of debt. According to the present income tax law, a man cannot count as an exemption from his income the amount he pays off on his mortgage. We believe, Mr. Speaker, that the difficulties and hardships and the economic depression which the farmers suffered in the hungry thirties should be considered in the income tax law, and that the law should be revised so that the amount of principal which the farmer pays off his mortgage shall be exempt from taxation.
There is another aspect. We believe very strongly, particularly those of us who come from areas in which crop yields fluctuate tremendously, that the average farmer's yield for one year or even two years is not good enough as a base for calculating income tax. The farmer's yield should be averaged over a period of at least five years, and on that
The Address-Mr. Argue

basis the income tax should be calculated. I am sure I speak for all the members of this group when I say that we intend to do everything in our power to see that the inequitable income tax laws are amended so that the common man in this country shall have a chance to make a living and maintain his family in decency.
A word about professional agriculturists. We have from time to time in this debate heard that many of our scientists are underpaid, and that there is great danger that we shall lose them to the United States. I assume that the scientists spoken of were chemists, physicists and engineers. I want to put in a plug for agricultural scientists. I happen to be myself, a graduate of an agricultural university. We in Saskatchewan know in a very real sense the benefits that come from research in agriculture. Professional agriculturists have recently given to us rust-resistant wheats, smooth-awned barleys, and royal flax. We now anticipate that in the -not distant future we shall have a sawfly-resistant wheat. I would suggest to the government that the salaries of agricultural scientists be increased so that we may retain in Canada those now here and give some encouragement to young farmers to follow what I believe to be an essential and noble profession.
I should like at this time to express my pleasure at the unanimity shown by all speakers in the hope that we shall get a real measure of social security. There should be .ncreased benefits in the way of provision for aealth, old age pensions, jobs for the workers and houses for the people. I am sorry to say, however, that the government's method of handing over the house-building programme to private enterprise has already failed. We in the C.C.F. believe the measure of prosperity which Canadians have had during the war, when two millions of our best workers were taken out of the production of consumer goods, gives an insight into the kind of Canada we can have if our economy is organized and planned so that its basis is production for use and not for profit. I would press for a comprehensive house-building programme, and in doing so may I suggest that all the slum conditions are not in our largest cities. I venture to say that every town in Canada has a shortage of houses. I protest against the slum conditions in which many farmers are forced to live. The government should formulate a comprehensive housebuilding programme which will guarantee to every family a decent house compatible with the real wealth which Canada can produce.

I want now to make reference to the newly announced government policy of a floor price on wheat basis No. 1 northern at Fort William. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) assured the house that the SI per bushel for wheat is but the initial price, but the history of floor prices of agricultural products has been that the floor price becomes in effect the price the farmer receives. I am sure the government believes that the price of wheat in the near future will fall to $1 a bushel, or if not, why was the floor set so low?


Mr. GARDINER:: I do not want to interrupt, but may I just make this correction? I did not say one dollar was the initial price. I said one dollar is the lowest initial price that can be set under the policy. At present the initial price is SI 25.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: At the moment.


James Garfield Gardiner: And until it is changed it remains at that.


Hazen Robert Argue: Pardon me; $1.25 is the
initial price for the crop delivered this year, but the assurance we had was that SI per bushel would be the lowest initial price until 1950.


James Garfield Gardiner: That ever will be set,
but it may not be set lower than $1.25.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, yes; but judging from
the government's record in the past we are afraid that $1 per bushel will in fact be the price. Another thing I should like to add to that is that $1 per bushel is not on all the bushels of wheat-necessarily-that a farmer can raise, but on the authorized deliveries, and we have had no assurance as to what those authorized deliveries will be. Consequently, if the government should see fit to decide that five bushels per authorized acre is the total amount of wheat a farmer can market in one year, this government will certainly assure economic death to all farmers in western Canada. We in the C.C.F. have always contended that the farmer should receive for his products a price based on parity, a price in line with the prices of goods a farmeT has to buy. The farm management department of the University of Saskatchewan calculates that parity to-day is more than $1.40 per bushel. The government, instead of raising the price of wheat near parity, has announced a floor price very much lower than parity. The price which a farmer pays for fuel, for machinery, for interest on mortgages is relatively fixed. These are "stick-y" prices, and if in the future-and we of this group certainly hope it will not be the case_

The Address-Mr. Argue
the prices of agricultural products fall, the farmer facing fixed costs will find it almost impossible to survive.
We hear a good deal of talk from the government about social security, about public works programmes timed to prevent depression, but in its policy of agriculture it is dealing a death blow to security and prosperity. It is saying in effect, "We herald a new depression with a floor of only $1 per bushel for wheat." If labour is to be forced1 to take wages lower than those of the. last few years, and if the farmer is to receive a reduced income, I am convinced that the government's scheme of timing public investment is doomed to complete failure. We in this group will be satisfied with nothing less than full production, and labour and the farmer receiving their full share of that production.
I want to bring before this house changes which we believe should be made in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The act was passed as a measure bo alleviate suffering in areas of the prairie provinces and the Peace river which periodically suffer crop failure. That these areas are an important part of our agricultural productive system is well known, because of the large quantities of meat, butter, eggs and grain which have been produced in the war years-quantities which have contributed in no small degree to the successful feeding of the allied armies, and will contribute in like degree to feeding the starving people of Europe. This year large areas in Saskatchewan and Alberta have an almost complete crop failure. I have tried1 to obtain some statistics as to crop conditions in Alberta, but was unsuccessful. However, the Minister of Agriculture intimated last night that about half the farming area of Alberta is experiencing this year, a crop failure.
Before me I have the last estimate of crop yields coming from the Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture, under date of September 17, and- looking over the map I would say, that about half of the area of Saskatchewan is this year experiencing a crop failure to the extent that yields for wheat will be less than ten bushels per acre.
The Hon. L. F. McIntosh, the Minister of Agriculture for Saskatchewan, as reported in the Regina Leader Post of recent date, stated that farm income from grain in Saskatchewan this year will be forty per cent less than last year. Surely a crop failure area of that size, and a drop in farm income from grain to the extent of forty per cent for Saskatchewan, warrants a comprehensive study of the inadequacies of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
There is a common belief that Saskatchewan farms are of enormous size, but such is not the case. In southwestern Saskatchewan the average size of farm is 325-2 cultivated acres, and in the north the size is 143 cultivated acres. The P.F.A.A. payments to be made to farmers in the prairies in any year declared an emergency year, and if the yield is from 4-1 to 8 bushels per acre, is $1.50 an acre for half the cultivated acres up to 400 acres. If the yield is 0 to 4 bushels, the payment is $2 an acre on half the cultivated acreage up to 400 acres. But to calculate the amount of money the farmer will receive under P.F.A.A., let us assume that a farmer is fortunate enough to have a crop failure when 171 townships in Saskatchewan have yields of less than five bushels an acre, that is, when the crop failure clause comes into effect. Let us assume that in the area under five bushels the average yield is half of five, or 2i bushels per acre. If wheat sells at SI a bushel at shipping point and harvesting costs are low, the farmer may have something like $1 an acre, or $162 over and above harvesting costs. Then the average farmer in southwestern Saskatchewan, the area of largest farms, would receive $2.50 an acre on 162-6 acres, or $406.50. If besides he has a crop of 2i bushels an acre he receives a total income from grain and the P.F.A.A. of not more than $569.
Calculating farm operating expenses as three-quarters of the cost of hiring the work done, that is allowing the farmer no wages, then seeding and summer fallowing for the coming year would cost at least $659. This leaves the farmer, then, on operating expenses alone nearly $100 in the red, besides owing the municipality for taxes, owing interest to his creditors, and, what is more important, with no income for himself and his family.
The argument might be put forth that in times of crop failure the farmer can sell some of his live stock and in that way supplement his income. But in years of crop failure shortage of grain and fodder makes the retention of live stock a costly matter. It may well be that the farmer is forced to reduce drastically the numbers of his live stock and still have insufficient moneys from that source to pay for the wintering of his foundation stock. That was the experience of farmers in 1937.
The federal government has of recent date set out its proposals, many of which are admirable, before the dominion-provincial conference. At page 6 of the proposals the government of Canada states:
The Address-Mr. Argue

The achievement of greater stability in the flow of consumption expenditures is dependent, to a significant degree, on the policies that are adopted to protect the basic incomes of the groups whose position is most precarious.
Again, on page 7:
In familiar terms, our objectives are high and stable employment and income, and a greater sense of public responsibility for individual economic security and welfare.
Again, on page 17, speaking of agriculture, the dominion's proposal states:
No industry has made a greater contribution to the Canadian war effort than agriculture. This achievement has left problems of conversion to peace-time conditions comparable to those of manufacturing industry. Many branches of agriculture were greatly expanded in response to war needs and over-all production increased to levels far exceeding those of the past. This accomplishment drew heavily upon agricultural resources, resulting in heavy depreciation of machinery and equipment and great strain on the depleted farm population. The dominion government feels it has a responsibility to assist the industry in making the necessary readjustments to peace-time circumstances and to work in cooperation with the provincial governments, to provide for a greater degree of stability in farm income, and a greater measure of security than has prevailed in the past.
Then on page 28 we find:
A significant volume of social security payments, flowing into the consumer's spending stream, will stabilize the economy of the country as a whole and work against a fall in the national income. Social security payments therefore become, in these circumstances, a powerful weapon with which to ward off general economic depression.
Here the federal government has stated very definitely that it will seek to prevent violent fluctuations in the farm income. It has stated that social security payments will work against a fall in the national income. This is admittedly a good policy, but nowhere in the dominion's proposals, or in the speech from the throne, is there even a hint that the P.F.A.A. payments will be increased. The P.F.A.A. as it is now constituted is wholly incapable of maintaining even a minimum of security for the farmer.
Surely the government would be well advised to do more than pay lip service to social security, and implement comprehensive security for the farmer against crop failure.
I have shown that payments under the P.F.A.A. will not meet even next year's operating expenses, and in no way can it be conceived that the act now provides one dollar towards feeding, clothing and sheltering the farm family. The hard cold fact remains that in time of crop failure the farmer has no security.

Speaking of the P.F.A.A., a report submitted in 1944 to the Saskatchewan reconstruction council states:
Of the five years in which the act has been in force, three of the years were more or less average. For the prairie provinces as a whole, one, 1941, was a very poor year, and, one, 1942, was the largest crop on record.
I have made a few calculations from that statement. For the three average years the payments totalled $22,864,272. The average payments for the three years of average crop were $7,621,424. The collections for those three years totalled $7,602,948 and the average collections per year were $2,534,316. The average cost of awards was $5,000,000 a year in round figures. We in the C.C.F. ask that the maximum payment be raised from $2.50 an acre to $6 an acre. This new figure would then cost the government about $15,000,000 a year.
I believe that Canadians have come to realize that prosperity, like peace, is one and indivisible. If labour and small business is to prosper, then agriculture also must prosper. Indeed prosperity in Canada generally depends in large measure on a prosperous agriculture. Prosperity cannot be built on an impoverished agricultural economy. If agriculture in the west is to be prosperous, farmers must be guaranteed an income in time of crop failure sufficient to give the farmer and his family a reasonable living and sufficient to carry on farming operations for another year. The sum of approximately $15 million a year would go a long way toward doing that, and I suggest that that is indeed a small item in the modem Canadian budget.
I should like to mention some proposed changes in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act:
1.	That the payments be increased to $6 per acre for a zero to a four bushel yield, payments to be increased to $3 per acre for a 4-1 to eight bushel yield, and that elevator deductions be not greater than three per cent, which is three times present deductions.
2.	That the payments be made to include all bona fide farmers to ensure that the man who has borne the expense of seeding and summerfallowing shall receive the payment.
3.	That payments be made on an individual yield basis rather than a township yield basis, to ensure that every farmeT who has a crop failure receives the full benefit.
4.	That the minimum payment when the crop yield is less than four bushels per acre be $500. and that the minimum payment for a yield of 4 [DOT] 1 to eight bushels be $300.

The Address-Mr. Jaques
The government has committed itself to a programme of social security, and to a programme that will prevent violent fluctuations in income for the farmer. An adequate Prairie Farm Assistance Act would assure the farmer against a falling income from one source, that is crop failure. A $6 per ucre payment in time of crop failure is surely very little. It would mean for the average farmer in the area composed of the largest farms an income of still less than $1,000. Surely such a payment is but simple justice. I would suggest to the government that there is no single piece of legislation so universally demanded and so essential to the farmers of Saskatchewan, Alberta, and to a lesser degree Manitoba. I suggest that the measure I propose is essentially a social security measure. It would prove to western farmers that when the government says that social security measures will be implemented, it means what it says. Farmers demand a substantial increase in the P.P.A.A. payments, at least to the extent of $6 per acre in a year of crop failure. Farmers in the west will not rest content until their demands for adequate protection against crop failure have been met.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: I wish to make a few general remarks which I hope to elaborate during future debates. First of all, I should like to deal with the criticism or the remarks made by the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Case). He made them in a very generous and pleasant way and I hope that he will accept mine in a similar spirit. The hon. member said, as reported at page 369 of Hansard:
I wish to say to my hon. friends that I do not think Canada, of all countries in the world, is in a position to give leadership in monetary reform.
May I say at the beginning that social credit is not only, or even mainly, a system of monetary reform. Social credit is a philosophy of life, and the monetary proposals are designed to make possible a Christian way of life, of individual freedom and individual responsibility.
The hon. member for Grey North went on to say:	.
We produce a tremendous volume of goods in this. country, and we must find a market for them in the markets of the world. The home market could never consume the amount of goods we produce, because we produce enough for 50,000,000 people. The productive capacity of this nation during the war absolutely staggers human imagination.
I am not quite sure what that 50,000,000 means. I do not think it can be meant that
11,000,000 Canadians produce enough goods
for 50,000,000 people because, if you take the total production of Canada in the last year or so, you will find it certainly would not be sufficient to give even the bare necessities of life to 50,000,000 people. It is true that of some articles we produce a great deal more than we can use, and naturally we must find a market for the surplus in order that we may be able to bring back in exchange goods that we do not and cannot produce in Canada. That, of course, is understood, but apparently many hon. members are still of the opinion that there is a necessity for increased exports over imports. As they have said, "we live on our exports." Social Crediters simply reverse that and say that we live on our imports.
We Canadians are not the only people in the world who, under the pressure of war, have stepped up our powers of production. That is true more or less the world over. When I was in England the winter before last I met some prominent manufacturers, and one of them, who was one of the largest producers of aeroplanes in Great Britain, told me that the factories in Great Britain alone could produce in one week the world's peace-time needs for aeroplanes for five years. I think those figures are impressive.
At this time I should like to explain the fundamental difference between the economy of Major Douglas, or social credit, if you prefer that, and the ordinary orthodox economy. I think the basic difference is this, that the orthodox system of economics is founded on the idea that production automatically finances consumption, and that the wages, salaries and dividends distributed in producing, or in connection with whatever is produced, will equal the sum of the prices which must be charged if the producer is to recover all his costs.
Douglas denies this. Perhaps I might put it into the language of Mill, that great orthodox economist. His statement is one which I believe stands as one of the foundation stones of orthodox economics, and goes something like this: It is sometimes asked if there can be a shortage of what is known as purchasing power. Those who ask this question cannot understand what is meant by purchasing power. Every seller is, in the end, a buyer. Could we suddenly double the production of the country we should double the supply of goods in every market, but we should by the same stroke double the demand. Therefore there cannot be a shortage of purchasing power.
The Address-Mr. Jaques

Some years ago I put that statement to the committee on banking and commerce, at a time when Mr. Towers was a witness. He said that it was some time since he left school, but that he agreed with it and thought it was perfectly sound. Then I said that I would like to put it in a slightly different form. Every birth in the end is a death. Could we suddenly double the number of children in the country we should double the supply of babies in every nursery, but we should by the same stroke double the deaths. How, then, does the population increase?
That is a perfectly fair statement of Mill's axiom. Mr. Towers excused himself by reason of his modesty for not answering the question. Seriously, however, how does the population increase, when every birth must end in death? Mr. Stevens, who was a member of the committee, answered at once that the birthrate was greater than the deathrate; and, of course, that is the answer to the statement of Major Douglas. It is that the rate of flow of prices is greater than the rate of flow of purchasing power. Once that idea is grasped, it can be seen easily that in normal times- not in war time-there is chronic shortage of purchasing power. It is for this reason that all orthodox governments, or those governments operating under an orthodox system of economics, demand, and plan their economy on increased exports. It is for this reason that they send goods out of the country. The wealth leaves the country, but wages and salaries remain behind. In that way to some extent they get around the chronic shortage of purchasing power.
But every industrialized country is in the same position; they all try to export more than they import. Hence you have tariffs, dumping duties and every other means to keep other people's goods out. That is why they speak of a favourable balance of trade when we send out of the country more than we bring in. The orthodox economist considers that this condition is one which indicates a favourable balance of trade-which as Euclid used to say is an absurdity. So much for that.
Our C.C.F friends to my right have been criticizing private enterprise. Apparently they place upon private enterprise the blame for our troubles, and say that we should produce for use and not for profit. Well, for the greater part of my life I have been a farmer, and it always seemed instinctive and a selfevident truth that the most profitable thing to produce would be that which would be most generally useful. If you can supply a universal demand, then there is no doubt
fMr. Jaques.]
about your profit; but if you produce some-thnig which people do not want, you may have to take a loss.
In criticizing the capitalist system our C.C.F. friends refer to it as a profit system. It is a great deal more than that; it is a system of profit and loss. I know of no other way by which dishonesty, inefficiency and, if you like, stupidity, among producers can be penalized than by allowing them to take a loss when they are inefficient or stupid, or produce something that is not wanted.
A word about nationalization, something which many people seem to think is a cure-all. I suggest that the acid test of nationalization is this: Will it lower production costs without lowering wages? Will it guarantee employment without curtailing individual liberty and freedom? That, to me, is the acid test of any new economic idea.
There is one thing about the C.C .F. I never have been able to understand. Coming from *an agricultural community, I have never understood why farmers should "fall" for socialism when, of all people in the world, surely the farmers are the most individualist-ically-minded people. At hundreds of meetings throughout western Canada I have asked farmers why some of them support a proposed system of socialism. Invariably the answer is, "But of course socialism will not apply to us farmers." I have had a wide experience in the west, and I think I can say that the reason why the C.C.F. party won in Saskatchewan was that they managed to convince the farmers in that province that under a C.C.F. government they would not be socialized. On the other hand in Alberta, where I suggest the people are more wideawake and better informed, the farmers were convinced that under a C.C.F. government they would be socialized. Therefore they voted for Social Credit rather than C.C.F. candidates. Socialists make an appeal to the masses and I think, I believe the reason is that the mentality of the masses is not the sum of the knowledge, or mentality of the individuals composing the masses; it is merely the lowest common denominator of the mentality of the individuals comprising the masses.
Then we have planning. Socialists seem to think we do not know what we want; we do not know when we want it, and we do not know in what quantities we want it. They say there must be some centralized authority in Ottawa or some other place to tell the people not only what they want but when they want it and when and how they are to get it. Social Crediters cannot agree with that. As a matter of fact, we have the most perfect system of planning in our monetary system.

The Address-Mr. Jagues ___
If we regard money, dollar bills if you like, as economic ballots, so that every time we spend a dollar we are voting for the reproduction of what we buy, then we have what I would call economic democracy. But the supply of money is no longer, if it ever was, controlled by the people as a whole. It is controlled by some tiny minority. We know before the war you could go into a store and see the goods piled on the shelves, and there they stayed because the general public did not have the necessary economic ballots or dollar bills in their pockets to indicate to the manufacturer that he could go ahead and produce some more.
What does social credit propose to do to remedy that situation? I am not going to apologize for saying this again, because there are over one hundred new members who have not heard this before and it will not hurt some of those who have heard it before to hear it again. We propose simply to find out the total production and the total consumption of the country, and the difference between the two would show the shortage of money or purchasing power. We would equate the two by distributing the difference, so as to make them balance, by means of national dividends. I am not going into the ethics or morals of national dividends at this time, but that is the simple proposal.
Of course our opponents will say that when you distribute so many million dollars or a billion dollars, whatever it is, you would then have nothing but inflation and the extra money would be used in paying the extra prices. Douglas is a Scotsman; he is a very great Scotsman, and he knew enough to get around that trouble. He proposed to kill inflation before it started by having part of the dividend, or all of it if that were considered desirable, distributed in the form of price discounts or, as some say, compensated prices.
This simply means that retail prices would be reduced by a given amount, and then the retailer would be compensated the amount he was out of pocket. I remember when that was proposed in this house ten or so years ago. At that time it met with great ridicule, but as a matter of fact that system very largely has enabled Great Britain to carry on during this war. When I was over there I was told that the money paid out to retailers in the form of compensated prices amounted to three-quarters of a billion dollars. Not only was it used in Great Britain, it was used in this country but to a much lesser extent. For instance, the consumer of milk has been able to buy that product for two cents a quart less and the retailers have
been compensated. That is pure social credit; that is a compensated price. The only difference is that in war time and under orthodox economics, the money to pay it is derived from taxation. That is necessary because in war time there is too much money floating about. However, in peace time the money for that purpose would be created by the Bank of Canada without debt and without interest.	.
Just a word on old age pensions. I should like to add my support in the strongest possible way to everything that has been said during this debate in favour of increasing the old age pension. I would not trust my language to say what I really think about the way the old people of this country have been living and are forced to live. It is a national and an international disgrace. I can only hope that when the readjustment is made these old age pensioners will receive at least a decent living pension. I am not going to say how much it ought to be, but I certainly would not have it less than $50 a month and I would not have the age limit oveT sixty years.
To change the subject a little, I should like to endorse what was said yesterday by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka). When I was in England the winter before last I spoke to many Polish and other soldiers and refugees, and since then I have read everything I can lay my hands on about this matter. I am not going to say anything at this time except to quote from a statement which was issued not long ago by the former premier of Poland, iMr. Tomasz Arciszewski. He said:
The government that has been formed in Poland is not new'. It consists of sixteen communists and crypto communists under fraudulent party labels. The new premier is a soviet citizen and an official of the Comintern for the past twenty years.
And again:
Poland to-day is ruled by the N.K.V.D.
That is the soviet secret police.
The Polish army now is controlled by officers of the red army. Thousands of Poles are being deported daily to Siberia because they are Polish patriots-those deported include women and children. As an old socialist I can say that under the regime imposed on Poland by Moscow Polish democracy is doomed and the entire struggle of five years against totalitarianism will become a mockery.
That was a statement issued by a former premier of Poland.
On August 20 last, Mr. Bevin, Foreign Secretary in the British Labour government, speaking of Hungaria, Bulgaria and Rumania, said:
These governments which have been set up do not, in our view-, represent the majority of the people, and the impression we get from recent developments is that one kind of totalitarianism is being replaced by another.
The Address-Mr. Jaques

The whole world is now being deluged with details of German atrocities. Those atrocities are not due to the German people as Germans. They are due to the German people as totalitarians, and the result of totalitarianism is the same wherever it controls the lives and fortunes of the people. Propaganda during the war has, of course, been put out for war purposes, and very little truth has been made available to the people of this or any other country. The whole purpose of propaganda is, of course, to confuse the people and to hide the truth, and when it comes to lying propaganda of that kind our C.B.C. need not apologize to anything they have over there in Europe. There has been a steady propaganda day after day, week after week and year after year ever since the war started, to put over the idea of socialism and communism at the expense of our democracy.
I have here a statement issued by the Social Credit Association of Canada, constituency of Vancouver South, from which I quote:
As the facilities of the publicly-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have been made available to Mr. Elmore Philpott and he has used these to verbally support the armed insurrection of the Trotskyites in Greece, and " addition has openly condemned the actions of Churchill and General Scobie, head of the British army there; and whereas Mr. Philpott has been an ayovied advocate of a centralization of power scheme known as federal union, of which Dumbarton Oaks and Bretton Woods are a part; and whereas the facilities of the C B C has not been placed freely at the disposal of the oocial Credit Association of British Columbia in order that the other side of the story might be presented to the people, we' have therefore taken this, the only means at our immediate disposal, to place before you some essential facts of the power politics of those who crave world dominion and whose propaganda at times has been considered openlv seditious.
With regard to the free publicity given by the C.B.C. to the various political parties and their leaders I would say that the free publicity given to the leader of the C.C.F. is out of all proportion to his importance either as a citizen or as the leader of a party. I do not mind saying that I hardly ever listen to the C.B.C. news but what I am informed of Mr. Coldwell's opinion on this, that or the other matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Norman Jaques: That is all right, but what about the other leaders? I have never heard Mr. Low's name mentioned over the C.B.C., and we have as much right to free publicity as the leader of the C.C.F. I think we might 'hear a good deal more of the views of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) over 
the C.B.C. I think his ideas and his proposals should be put before the Canadian people more than they are.
I do not mind how much radio time a party buys. If the C.C.F. likes to buy hours of time, that is all right, for all know that what they are listening to is C.C.F. propaganda, and they are not deceived. But when there is all this free advertising-the C.B.C. is supposed to be absolutely non-partisan, almost ex cathedra-and people hear these ideas put forth day after day, it has an effect in time. Even during the election the Social Credit party, which then had as many members in the House of Commons as the C.C.F.-and we have had a Social Credit government in Alberta for ten years, whereas the C.C.F. have had one in Saskatchewan for only ten months -got only four one-quarter hours, the same as the communists got, a party that was banned during the war for subversive activities. I repeat, we got just the same amount of time as the communists. I understand, and I have heard it on good authority, that the ex-minister of national war services was let out because he opposed this propaganda which has been put over by the C.B.C.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Who let him out?


Norman Jaques: I can understand that he would object to it. I know I do.
Finally I wish to quote from "The Road to Serfdom", by Professor Hayek, and I hope that every member of this house and everybody outside the house will read "The Road to Serfdom". Professor Hayek says at page 184 of this book:
And, undoubtedly, not merely the ideas which in Germany and elsewhere prepared totalitarianism but also many of the principles of totalitarianism itself are what exercises an increasing fascination in many other countries. Although few people, if anybody, in England would probably be ready to swallow totalitarianism whole, there are few single features which have not yet been advised by somebody or other. Indeed, there is scarcely a leaf out of Hitlers book which somebody or other in England or America has not recommended us to take and use for our own purposes. This applies particularly to many people who are undoubtedly Hitler's mortal enemies because of one special feature in his system. We should never forget that the anti-Semitism of Hitler has driven from his country, or turned into his enemies, many people who in every respect are confirmed totalitarians of the German type.
I now conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, but I hope to elaborate them in future debates as the occasion arises.

The Address-Mr. Michaud


Mr. BENOIT MICHAUD (Restigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with all those who have congratulated you upon your elevation to the high position which you now occupy and which you seem to discharge with such distinction and impartiality.
I also wish to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address upon their splendid performances. At the same time, I apologize to them for having been unavoidably absent while they were speaking.
As a newcomer to this house I did not intend to participate in this debate. 1111 when I see so many young members rising in their places and speaking with such ease, such assurance, and in many cases such eloquence, I feel that I would be remiss in my duty if I did not raise my voice to speak some of the things which I have to say, particularly since nobody from New Brunswick has as yet spoken. In addition, when I look around me I find so much food for thought that I cannot hold my peace any longer. I find, so far as I have been able to make a calculation, that there are ninety-seven new members like myself entering this twentieth parliament; that sixty-one members entered this house during the last parliament, and that fifty-nine more came in between 1935 and 1940. This leaves but twenty-nine members of the present parliament who sat in this house prior to 1935. Political life in this arena appears to be so short that unless one speaks his mind while a new member he may never have another opportunity of being heard.	_
As a new member, I presume I should introduce myself. I have the honour to represent the constituency of Restigouche-Madawaska, formerly represented by the ex-minister of transport, who is now Chief Justice hlichaud of the king's bench division of New Brunswick. Incidentally, another namesake, Mr. Pius Michaud, of Edmundston, sat in this house for eighteen years. Those who sat with him-and I think there are still seven or eight of them-may be glad to hear that Mr. Pius Michaud is still enjoying good health.
At this moment may I remind the house that a part of the riding which I now represent, Madawaska county, was once represented by a gentleman who holds, I believe, a unique record in the history of this parliament. I refer to the late Senator Costigan, who came to the House of Commons in 1867 and sat continually until 1906, when he was elevated to the senate and sat in the senate until 1917, or a total of fifty years in both houses of Parliament. I think that is a record in the federal parliament.
At this stage, I feel I should pay a tribute to my immediate predecessor, who discharged in a most commendable manner his mandate, first as a private member, and then as a minister of the crown. Upon assuming his succession as a member for Restigouche-Madawaska, I feel that he has set for me a very high standard of service and efficiency, a standard which I shall do my utmost to emulate, and in this undertaking I shall welcome the cooperation of every member of this house.
Many hon. members have spoken with gratification of election results in their own constituencies. Others have expressed the view that as a matter of chivalry we should not bring to the attention of the house the fact that one or two or more opponents lost their deposits. I shall heed their suggestion. I wish to say, however, than in my campaign I appealed for an over-all majority over the three opposition candidates, and I am pleased to inform the house that the constituents of Restigouche-Madawaska supported this government in the proportion of fifty-five per cent. For the confidence which they have placed in me so generously I am most grateful; at the same time I consider that I have great responsibilities toward the good hard-working people whom I have the honour to represent. These responsibilities I propose to discharge to the utmost of my ability, and I trust that Providence will make it relatively easy for me to do so.
The people of my riding were satisfied1 with the present administration and expressed that satisfaction at the polls in no uncertain terms. I cannot illustrate that fact any better than by relating an incident which occurred to me two or three days before the voting. A settler, well known to me for his staunch Tory affiliation, came into my office and said that he wanted to speak to me privately. What he said was short and to the point*. "I did not vote for you last summer", referring to the occasion when I was a candidate in the provincial .election, "but I am going to vote for you this time. Mackenzie King, that's a good man"; and he went on to tell me in a few short sentences why he thought the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is a good man.
May I also take this opportunity to offer my sincere congratulations to the newly appointed Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bridges). Thirteen years ago this very day, I was working with him in his office pending my admission to the bar. Two years later he was elected to the legislature of New Brunswick. The Liberals elected on that occasion were so numerous that he did not have a chance of
The Address-Mr. Michaud

getting into the cabinet. However, on the opening day he was elected, sir, to the honourable position similar to the one you now occupy. The hon. member for York-Sunbury, who served for three years in this war, comes from a distinguished and highly educated family, one held in high esteem all over New Brunswick. His father was chief superintendent of education of New Brunswick for many years, and enjoyed a most enviable reputation. His grandfather on his mother's side was a brilliant jurist who adorned the supreme court of IS/ew Brunswick for many years.
While making allowances for differences, I cannot help remarking that the career of the Minister of Fisheries and my own have had many points in common, and thirteen years ago little did we dream that we would be sitting together in this house. We both started teaching school, then drifted into law and finally into politics, provincial and federal. During the few years I practised law in Resti-gouche county we had occasion to meet in court on opposite sides, and I am pleased to state that I never came across a more loyal and more gallant opponent. Possibly because he is nine days my senior, he always managed to get ahead of me in life, in teach-mg, in law and in politics, matrimony being the only exception. The new minister has had a very successful career at the bar, and for that reason he should prove to be a valuable addition to the cabinet. I rejoice at his elevation to the responsible position he now occupies and I wish him continuous success and good luck.
I suppose I should say a few words about my constituency. Restigouche-Madawaska is the largest constituency in New Brunswick. It is the third largest from the point of view of population. It is 210 miles from one extremity of the riding to the other The mam industries are, first, farming, including potato growing to quite a large extent. Incidentally, Senator Pirie, potato king of the British empire, began his phenomenal career >
growing potatoes in the parish in which 1 was born and brought up and now he carries on extensively in my own constituency.
We also have lumbering, including three arge pulp mills. Veneer logs are cut and processed in Saint John, New Brunswick the largest mill of its kind in the British empire. Fishing is also one of our main industries, particularly in Restigouche county where salmon, smelt and lobster fishing is carried on. We have some of the most valuable angling licences in the world. It will be recalled that last summer the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were guests in the Resti-	. ,	' r
gouche river district and, according to newspaper reports, they gave a good account of themselves.
May I refer briefly to the record of enlistments from both counties of Restigouche and Madawaska in the present war. Voluntary enlistment was second to none in that part of New Brunswick. I know of no case of desertion which is hanging fire at the present time. I know of only one case of absence without leave, and since I have had no requests from anyone, I have every reason to believe that those who are in trouble with the Department of National Defence are very few. Of this record I am proud. A few days ago when an hon. member representing one of the Winnipeg constituencies was speaking he made reference to the Royal Rifles. I may say that a great many young men of Restigouche county were in the Royal Rifles regiment and a few of them who were well known to me will never return. We all rejoice in the reunions that have taken place or that are about to take place after almost four years of horror, but we must not forget those who made the supreme sacrifice. To this day I know of families who have never heard from their dear ones and do not yet know whether those men are alive.
During the course of the debate reference has been made to the housing problem. We have quite a housing problem in a few of the towns in my riding-Campbellton and Dal-housie for instance-and at this point I would endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) some time ago on the recent amendments to the rentals order, whereby owners and purchasers of homes have been denied the right to possession on the giving of notice as in the past. It seems to me that this recent amendment has not brought any great measure of redress; on the contrary it has worked a great hardship in many cases. I am unable to concur in this most extraordinary interference with the civil rights of individuals. The order as it stood prior to July 25 was irksome enough, but it was justified in view of the war emergency, and it had a fairly good effect in bringing about a number of transfers of property. I hope that the matter will be reviewed at an early date and that the order will be amended so as to enable bona fide purchasers to obtain possession of their homes as was the case prior to July 25.
I should like to mention something about the difficulties which I have experienced in New Brunswick in obtaining loans from lending institutions under the housing act. Apparently the lending institutions are not eager to make loans. I have written and in a great

The Address-Mr. Michaud
many cases have not received a reply. Of late, however, I did receive a reply from one of the companies together with their application form, but on glancing over it I am inclined to think the conditions are so hard that very few people will be able to meet them. For that reason I shall welcome any amendment to the housing act. To my mind the government should finance the building of homes somewhat along the line advocated by George Creed, president of the league for Economic Democracy, in his recent book entitled, "Money, Master or Servant". An editorial along the same lines also appeared in the Liberal Advocate of May, 1944, I believe.
It was my intention to say a few words about my good friends of the Social Credit party who took such an interest in my constituency recently.


An hon. MEMBER:: You were not afraid, were you?


Benoît Michaud: No. Glance at the results and you will see that there was no reason to be afraid. As early as 1938 Mr. Louis Even organized a huge meeting in my native parish and on that occasion I took the trouble to travel 125 miles to listen to him. From then on I did not pay very much attention to their activities, but I know that for a period of three months prior to the election in Restigouche-Madavvaska they carried on a passionate courtship and my constituents were honoured' by the visit of none other than the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Kuhl), and the Hon. Lucien Menard, attorney-general of Alberta. I attended two of their three meetings. I happened to be unavoidably absent from my home town on the third occasion.
I have no time to-day to refer to any of the utterances of these gentlemen in this house, but I wish to make my position clear on a few fundamentals. In the first place, I do not believe that a single member on this side of the house favours full employment as an end in itself. Just a few days ago the hon. member for Jasper-Edson asked us what our aim was as regards full employment. I think we are all agreed that we are seeking full employment as a means to an end, as a means to acquiring purchasing power, but I do not suggest that it is the only way to acquire purchasing power. It is one which cannot and will never be done away with completely. To what extent the acquisition of purchasing power will depend upon employment in the future remains to be seen. It is a fact that working hours have decreased within the past twenty years, and in my opinion they will eventually be further
reduced. When I see so much work remaining to be done in Canada, work which cannot be done by machines alone, I cannot conceive the possibility of any substantial reduction in working hours until all useful projects are completed in this country, and I have my doubts whether this condition of bliss will ever be achieved. Just what this full employment should mean in terms of wages or income I am not in a position to say. I cannot give any expression of opinion any more than to say that wages and income should be such as to make possible a substantially higher standard of living than that at present enjoyed by the average thrifty worker. I just wish to add that I firmly believe in the principle that all that is physically possible is financially possible. As 1 see it, the only limitations to our accomplishments are materials and man-power. If materials and man-power are not sufficient to meet all the demands of the people then priority should be established.
I was very much amused at the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Ashby) when he said some time ago that the people from the east are becoming enlightened. I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment. With his statement I heartily agree. Indeed the people from the east are becoming enlightened, and they proved it quite well on June 11. In the maritimes, out of twenty-six ridings, government supporters carried nineteen. In Quebec there are at least fifty-eight sure supporters out of sixty-five members. Not being very familiar with the geography of Ontario, I am not in a position to say how many Liberals were elected east of Ottawa. By looking at the map I am inclined to think we have quite a few supporters from Ontario east of Ottawa.
Reference has been made to the proposed income tax reduction in Australia. I understand that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) gave some figures on the income tax structure of Australia and New Zealand a year or so ago. According to a statement published in the Toronto Daily Star on June 27, 1944, a married man with two children with an income of $1,200 would pay $96 in Australia and $150 in New Zealand. One with an income of $1,500 paying $24 in Canada would pay $188 in Australia and $229 in New Zealand. Take off twelve and a half per cent from this, and have your choice. I am sure that this government will allow anyone to pay according to the rates in Australia.
We have heard a good deal about living conditions in these countries. I do not mind listening to hon. members from the prairies telling us about their own problems concern-
The Address-Mr. Michaud

ing wheat and irrigation projects, and I hope they will bear with us when we talk about our maritime problems. I am not very much interested in hearing about New Zealand or Australia, because I think very few people know exactly what conditions are in those countries. I daresay none of the hon. members who speak in such glowing terms of far distant countries would take the chance of exchanging this country for any one of those foreign lands. I believe that we live in a most wonderful country, possibly the best in the world, and I say it with all the sincerity at my command. Let us not belittle it by comparing it with other lands unless we are positive that such countries are better governed than we are. Let us have faith in our country. It is true that it may not be all that we should like it to be, but I would ask my good friends across the way to stop looking for a depression bear behind every bush. Let us all get together in a true spirit of cooperation and offer constructive suggestions to the government instead of trying to embarrass it.
To my mind there are two big problems confronting this government, namely, housing and unemployment. The speech from the throne discloses that the housing act will be revamped. I am glad to hear that because I think it requires material amendment. According to statistics given by the Department of Labour I believe that we still have more jobs seeking men than men seeking jobs. Apparently labour is unwilling to accept a cut in pay. We had this situation in Camp-bellton a short while ago when approximately 120 men were out of work as a result of a small shell factory closing down. I believe that most of them have now taken other positions and very likely at reduced wages. All this was done without too much commotion. Naturally the problem is more difficult of solution when a large number of men are involved. In order to arrive at some equitable solution of this big problem, both labour and industry will have to compromise in their demands. In this connection I find an editorial in the Ottawa Journal of September 11 very much to the point. It is long and I shall not trouble the house with reading it, but I wish to emphasize the main ideas contained in it. It suggests that full employment does not mean selected employment. It also suggests to industry not to take advantage of labour, and it concludes with this principle:
The fortunes of workers and of industry in this country are indivisible.
It will not be long, however, before the people seeking jobs will outnumber the jobs available. In my opinion, if and when this

situation arises, and if private enterprise is either unwilling or unable to cope with the situation of providing jobs, then it will be the duty of the government to come in with enterprises of a public nature. If the lending institutions are not reasonable in granting loans to prospective home builders, then the government should make the money available for the urgent task of home building. If the building of homes cannot take care of all the unemployed, then there are plenty of public works urgently needed; and may I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to suggest a few public projects which are badly needed and would be greatly appreciated in my own constituency. First and foremost is the interprovincial bridge between Campbellton and Cross Point. This project has been under consideration for upwards of twenty years. I understand that an interprovincial bridge is generally built under some sort of three-way arrangement between the two provinces concerned and the dominion government. Negotiations between the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick have taken place at different times in this connection, the latest occurrence being less than a year ago. At that meeting there were two ministers of the New Brunswick government and at least one from the Quebec government, besides provincial members from the two provinces. I take the liberty of bringing this matter to the attention of the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) and I urge that as soon as materials are available the project be given immediate attention. There is no question that the man-power will be plentiful when the steel and other materials can be released.
There is also urgent need for a new post office building in Campbellton. The present one has served its time and could be used to shelter other departments of the government at present located in rented buildings. I do not know whether there is a scarcity of building material for such constructions, but a time will come in the near future when materials will be available. There is one project, however, which in my opinion should not be difficult to undertake, because materials and labour for it are easily obtainable right on the spot. I am referring to the Dalhousie wharf, which is in a deplorable condition. There is plenty of lumber in Restigouche county as well as labour.
A new ferry service was reinstated last spring between that town and the Quebec side. It is urgently needed and should never have been discontinued, after having been in operation for a great many years. But unless

The Address-Mr. McLure
some repairs are made to this ferry wharf it will be very difficult for the ferry service to continue with any success. To my mind there is no justification for allowing both wharves to remain in their present state of disrepair, and I warn the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) that I shall never miss an opportunity to bring this matter to his attention unless I receive the assurance that repairs will be undertaken in the near future.
Before resuming my seat I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I am highly honoured in having the privilege of occupying a seat in this House of Commons with such distinguished citizens from all parts of Canada. Judging from the tone of the remarks which I have heard up to this day, I feel that every hon. member in this house has but one aim and objective, namely, the welfare of the greatest number of his constituents. Unfortunately, we differ, and at times radically, on the methods of approach to achieve our common aim. I shall always try to remember this point in the course of the discussions in this house. If it does occur to me to criticize the views of other hon. members who do not see eye to eye with me on matters of public interest, I wish to assure them that I do not question the sincerity of their motives. In return, I hope that fellow members will do me the same courtesy. With this attitude of mind, I believe that we can tackle with confidence the ardous task ahead of us. By an honest and sincere exchange of views during the coming four or five years, we should be able to make this Canada of ours a land wherein it will be easier to live in peace and contentment.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): Mr. Speaker, you have listened to speeches by hon. members from every province in this Dominion of Canada, save one. As representative of that province I felt it was my duty to say a few words about the garden of the Gulf. Let me state two facts at the beginning of my remarks. Prince Edward Island is the banner province of this dominion, bar none. Prince Edward Island is the province which the dominion government has neglected ever since we came into the union in 1873. During my rambling remarks I shall attempt to give my reasons for making that statement.
In rising to speak on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I do so because this debate affords an opportunity to a member to speak on any subject without his remarks being termed irrelevant. I feel I would be remiss in my duty as a member of this house if I did not offer a few words of congratulation at this time. My first desire is to congratulate you, sir, upon being raised to the position of Speaker of this house by your peers in this chamber. Your appearance, your qualifications and your experience fit you admirably for that position. But I regret that I was the first member of this house to be called to order by Your Honour. However, I bowed to your ruling.
I should like to say to the mover (Mr. Benidickson) and the seconder (Mr. Langlois) of the address in reply that any adjectives which I might use by way of congratulation would be simply a repetition of the fine things that have been heaped upon them. I concur in all that has been said regarding them, but I wish to add that this was a well planned honour to the service men of Canada.
I would have desired the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to be in his place at this moment because I should like to offer him a few words of congratulation. When I entered this house a few days ago and as I looked across to the other side from time to time since then, I could not help noting the pleased expression of the Prime Minister. I could not say whether that was due to his being in the same old position of Prime Minister of Canada, but I did have another thought in mind. I wondered if the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) had piped him in as king of Glengarry.
I wish to offer my sincerest congratulations to the leader of His Majesty's most loyal opposition (Mr. Bracken). May health and strength be granted to him-and likewise to the Prime Minister-to aid him in the great task of restoring responsible democratic government to our dominion. When the Prime Minister was speaking the other day he cracked what was perhaps a good joke about my leader. The Prime Minister said that it took him only two or three weeks to enter parliament after being defeated in his constituency, whereas it took my leader two or two and a half years to get into the House of Commons. I have it on the Prime Minister in two ways. It took me ten years to get back into the house, and that surpassed him. But I did not leave my constituency of Queens because I knew that sooner or later the electors would find out that I was the better man. Had they found it out sooner I would have been delighted.
If time permitted I should have liked to extend my congratulations to the leaders of all groups in the house and also to the young members who have spoken for the first time. All I can say is, congratulations and carry on.
The Address-Mr. McLure

When one returns to this house, after a period of years, one glances around and sees a great many new faces and perhaps regrets that some of the older ones are not here. As I glanced around I saw one of those great masters of the universe, the hand that rocks the cradle, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum). Congratulations. And let me give this old toast in her honour:
Here's to our lovely women
Who fill our lives with little bees and honey;
They break our shocks;
They mend our socks.
But, oh, you bachelors,
Aren't you afraid how they will spend your money ?
I wish to make a few remarks on the great and glorious news that flashed around the world during the last few weeks of victory, the cessation from war-victory, with unconditional surrender over the nazi gangsters whose thought was world domination; and victory once again on the Pacific coast over those human rats who thought they were the elect of the world and could destroy our civilization. Now we have a liberated Europe and a controlled Pacific, and I thank the overruling Providence for the victories that have come to our armed forces. I give thanks to those of our nations and to those of the allied nations, to the countless heroes among the men and the women who faced capture, faced shackles, faced crippling injuries and faced death itself to make your freedom, Mr. Speaker, and mine secure. To those heroes of our nation and our allied nations I bow in sincere gratitude. To those who made the supreme sacrifice and passed out of the sight of man on to the paths of glory I have no words adequate to express my thanks and devotion. May we one and all be worthy of the price they paid.
While giving thanks to the Divine Ruler of the universe for our great allied victory, I am inclined to believe, as I read the papers from time to time of the atrocities of the Japs, that the Great Ruler may never fully pardon the American nation or the British nation for not absolutely destroying and driving into the sea those human rats of the Pacific. God forbid that our nation should ever allow one of them to set foot on Canada again. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you may think I am bitter, but let those atrocities that have been written up come home to you, and there is not a member of this house, I believe, but will say: Away with those human rats.
I have noticed by the different speeches which have been made in this debate that it is customary for a member to introduce

himself to the house. In case hon. members may not know it, may I say that I have the honor to be one of the representatives of that dual constituency of Queens in the Garden of the Gulf. I wish to inform this house that I am the Progressive Conservative, and not the Liberal representative of Queens as the press stated a few days ago. However, I pardon them for a slip of the pen more easily because I happen to be one of the owners of that great standard of news, the Charlottetown Guardian, and I know how easy it is for a writer to make a slip. The Charlottetown Guardian is known for its worthy and careful writing, and it has the slogan "It covers the Island like the dew." Since we are a prohibition province, that means the morning dew, and not rye.
The chief topic in this debate is the address in reply to the speech from the throne and for a few minutes I wish to direct my attention to it. As I read and re-read the speech from the throne, I considered that it was quite academic. It would make good propaganda for a political thesis on war-time doings and the war. The speech from the throne is a governmental document prepared by the cabinet and placed in the hands of His Excellency by his constitutional advisers. Therefore any criticisms of mine or of anyone else's in this house of the speech from the throne do not reflect upon His Excellency the Governor General either in person or in public affairs.
The speech from the throne can best be described as a synthetic speech. Do not mistake me. I do not mean sympathetic; I mean synthetic. Let me draw to the attention of the house one brief sentence, from page 8 of Hansard, which is to be found in the document placed in the hands of His Excellency. It states:
The government has received a definite mandate from the people of Canada.
To have a definite mandate from the people a government must win a majority of the seats so contested. Did this government win a majority of the seats contested? Decidedly no.
In the speech from the throne it was expected by the people of Canada and their representatives in this house that the government would deal with live issues, issues of the present time, and not the morbid history of past doings or misdoings of a government which does not now represent the majority. Why did the speech from the throne nor contain something definite on such subjects as jobs for the jobless, taxation reform, hospitalization for veterans, encouragement for

The Address-Mr. McL/ure
the industries of Canada in order that private enterprise may be able to develop and make jobs for the jobless?
Besides the definite omissions which I have mentioned, here is one more of many omissions. Hon. members all know that sins of omission outweigh by far sins of commission. Here is one great omission. Now that the war is over, the duty which faces this government and parliament in priority over everything else is to remove with all convenient dispatch those block-busters of business, industrial and agricultural production, and free enterprise. The nation has stood for regimentation from 1939 to 1945, for government by control boards of all kinds and descriptions, for government by orders in council. During the past war years a reign of dictators has developed through war-time controls in Canada. Now that the war is over, this must not be permitted to continue, or it will undermine and destroy the rights and liberties for which we have so long struggled. Controls and controllers may have been necessary in some things during the war, and Canadians patriotically stood for them in the interests of an all-out -war effort. But now that the war is over, let us not permit these controls and dictatorships, which are insidiously and definitely becoming part of our every-day life to continue. These controls in their particular branches are nothing less than dictatorship. To a large extent they have taken away from us our civil rights and have denied the right of the citizen to appeal to the courts. It should be the first duty of this government and this parliament to see to it that the hard-earned civil rights of the people are restored to them, and that these dictators -or call them what you will as long as you use parliamentary language-shall be scattered to the four winds of oblivion, and responsible democratic government restored to Canada.
It is not my intention to criticize further the speech from the throne. It has been torn asunder, with the government which produced it, by other speakers, and parliament is waiting to learn what the ministers of the crown are going to do.
I said a while ago that, if time permitted, I would refer to my own constituency of Queens county and to Prince Edward Island. First, let me ask this question: what representation has my constituency or my province in the federal cabinet? Here is the answer. The official announcement made by the Prime Minister a few days ago was to the effect that Prince Edward Island, the cradle of confederation, is deprived of representation in the inner councils of the federal government. It was generally believed by the people of 47696-29
Prince Edward Island, when a shuffle of the cabinet was made prior to the election, with the Prime Minister's own statement that every province including Prince Edward Island would have representation in the cabinet, that after the election was over, the Liberal member of the dual constituency of Queens would receive the portfolio of fisheries, a position which, from his practical business experience, he could have filled admirably. But no, Mr. Speaker, we as a province are neglected and left out in the cold. The Prime Minister forgot that when he was looking for a roosting place to enter parliament my province of Prince Edward Island gave him his only opportunity. It is also true that when the Prime Minister was looking for seats for the Hon. Charles A. Dunning and the Hon. J. L. Ralston we gave them our suffrages. But perhaps some hon. member may be saying to himself, or thinking, "Well, Prince Edward Island had good representation with high ranking men in the cabinet." But no, Mr. Speaker, they were mere bagmen, serving their own private interests and had not the interest of Prince Edward Island sincerely at heart. Under the terms of confederation, when a province has elected members of parliament, especially a parliament controlled by men of its own political complexion, it should not be debarred from representation in the councils of the government. But that representation is denied us. Can you call that democracy in any degree?
Let me say a few words with reference to confederation. In 1867 the Dominion of Canada was confederated. The aims and objects of that union were consummated and joined together by a documentary agreement with all classes and creeds, all provinces and races and all territories that went into that union. Confederation had a birthplace and a cradle. It was fitting that my province of Prince Edward Island should be that birthplace, and some time in the future I may have an opportunity to give to this house some of the details of the birth of confederation.
But Prince Edward Island did not choose to join the union in 1867. Why? Because the terms offered were not considered fair and equitable to that province. We therefore remained out of the union and we paddled well our own canoe. Something comes in here that may be of a little interest, namely, the question of unity. We have heard much of late, and especially during the election campaign, of the need of unity in Canada. If we presuppose that men are honestly talking about unity, what is the greatest need today with respect to unity? Simply that we all, in all the provinces, should know what

The Address-Mr. McLure

we mean, each in his own province, when we demand a square deal from the government of Canada.
Each province is now a part of the great Dominion of Canada, and my province, as the cradle of confederation, is an essential part. The personnel of my province is the acme of good citizenship since it embraces the four great races of the world: the diplomatic, governing Englishman; the shrewd, canny and industrious Scotsman; the fighting and industrious Irishman; these three great races combined with the joyous, light-hearted, home-loving Frenchman, giving to our province a unity that should be not only greatly admired in that province but greatly desired throughout Canada.
The people of our province live in a land that is worthy of -respect and admiration, a land fertile and productive. There is no land more pleasing to the tourist to look upon, a land where the industrious farmer is offered the best soil for farming which is to be found in Canada. All these things, all this beauty in Prince Edward Island, are bathed in the waters of the Atlantic, rich with fish of all kinds, herring, cod, mackerel, lobsters all in abundance, and besides that the great bivalve fish now produced by aqua-farming, the oyster. These are the endowments of Prince Edward Island, and I could mention many more such as the ponds and bays that bring ecstacy and joy to the men who follow the art of the great fisherman Izaak Walton.
Notwithstanding all these endowments, and many more I could mention, which a kind nature has bestowed upon us, we must demand justice, mercy and a fair and square deal from the dominion of which we are a province.
I said a moment ago that our province did not choose to enter confederation in 1867, but after we had been wooed for six years by the dominion the union was consummated in 1873, our province having secured better terms, especially with regard to our transportation. There was this unique clause in that documentary agreement, namely, that we should have continuous, efficient and adequate communication with the mainland. That part of the contract has never been implemented to the full by any government.
Time does not permit me in forty minutes to give all the details of- the treatment which my province has experienced in the matter of winter communication. Suffice it to say that until 1910, and even later, the only sure waiy of continuous communication to and from the mainland in the winter time was by small iceboats provided with runners, hauled and propelled by passengers and crew across the strait of Northumberland, a distance of some

nine miles. True, we had during that time such steamers as the S.S. Stanley, S.S. Minlo and S.S. Earl Grey, plying in the winter time between- Pictou, Nova Scotia, and Georgetown, Prince Edward Island1. These boats gave some measure of transportation, but often they were held up for eight or ten days at a time and ve had neither mail nor anything else from or to the mainland. Every election, for as long as I can remember, politicians would come to- us with the same old promises, although some of the promises had more sugarcoating on them. In the election campaign of 1911 the two great leaders of the two great parties, the Eight Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurie-r and the Right Hon. Sir Robert L. Borden, came to our province. They studied our transportation problems, and they realized the injustices we had suffered. The electors of our province at that time were determined to have a definite commitment from either or both of those great men. I might say that Right Hon. Sir Robert L. Borden pledged himself and the party he represented to inaugurate a ferry between Cape Tormentine- on the mainland and a point nine miles distant across the Northumberland strait- on the Prince Edward Island shore. This place- is now named Borden in honour of Sir Robert. What was his pledge? He pledged to give Prince Edward Island a service- that was long overdue, and that we should have some continuous winter communication. Accordingly docks were built at Tormentine and Borden and an icebreaking ship was built on the Clyde for this ferry service. This was the first-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member but I have to remind him that he has spoken for forty minutes. With the consent of the house he may carry on.


Mr. McLURE:: May I continue?


James Horace King: If it is the consent of
the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Continue.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Thank you, Mr. Speaker
and- hon. members. I said we had our docks built at Borden and Tormentine, and a ship built on the Clyde as an icebreaker. This was the first real attempt to give us justice as a province of the dominion. The docks and boat were built in 1915, and a steamer, the S.S. Prince Edward, demonstrated that continuous winter communication could be solved. This boat has done wonderful service, and let me say to you, sir, that she is still the only boat we have on that ferry service. She has been in the service for thirty long years.
Under the Bennett government we had another good steamer built in 1931, the S.S.

The Address-Mr. McLure
Charlottetown. Hon. members know the fate of this ship in 1941. This steamer has never been replaced. Why? No one knows except it be the ministers of the government opposite. Excuses of the most frivolous kind were given. Some of the excuses were lack of material, no yard space available to construct a ship of this size; but all of those were not good excuses. The government could have built a ship for us in United States yards where they were crying aloud for work at that time. The United States had not entered the war and did not enter the war until five or six months after the S.S. Charlottetown was lost.
Prince Edward Island has been promised a boat since July, 1941, but as yet we have no definite knowledge as to when she will be in service. I may say here and now that I hope to place on the order paper some questions that will elicit an answer of some assurance with regard to this boat.
We are under the greatest handicap of any province in this country. Look for a moment at our freight rates; look for a moment at how we are subjected to delays in the transporting of goods. Let me cite one example, the handicap to which our producers are subjected. It can be pointed out that to take a five-ton truck laden with farm produce from Borden to Tormentine, and to bring back that truck loaded again, probably with coal or something else, another distance of nine miles, costs over $50; I think, to be exact, $50.65. It costs that amount to move five tons of produce a distance of eighteen miles, while on land in the other provinces, and even in our own, to move that truck and freight would cost not more than $4.50.
Our contention is that according to the terms of confederation we, the province of Prince Edward Island, should have the Northumberland ferry treated as a highway, and that whatever charges are to be made for freight over it should be and must be borne by the dominion government.
There is a great deal more that I could say with reference to our transportation problems, but I wish to say that in this house there are a great many men who know Prince Edward Island. I know that any remarks of mine with reference to our transportation problem will have the fullest support of the other hon. member for Queens (Mr. Douglas), the hon. member for Prince (Mr. McNaught), the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Grant), all of Prince Edward Island. It would also receive the unanimous support of a number of hon. members who have visited my province and know the conditions. I should like to mention the 47696-29J
men who I know will support us in getting a square deal from this dominion. They are as follows: The hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Black), the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black), the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris), the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen), the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Ilsley), the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman); the hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria (Mr. MacLean), the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. McKay), the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black), the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton), the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), the hon. member for Stan-stead (Mr. Hackett), the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Hatfield), the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth), the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. McCulloch), the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews), and the hon. member for Colchester-Hants (Mr. Stanfield), and the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce). Probably there are some other members whom I have omitted.
I would say in conclusion-and I wish to be careful in this-that if the Prime Minister were in his place at the moment I would say to him and to the members of the cabinet, to all hon. members of this house and to this parliament that if you do not know the facts concerning my constituency and province it is to your discredit. We are penalized in our province. Hon. members should know, and will know if I am permitted to speak in this chamber, about the burdensome restrictions, conditions and discriminations under which my province struggles. To hon. members I say that if I have underrated their knowledge, then I crave their pardon. But it is different with the cabinet; if they know, it is to their shame as a government that they do not at once give us justice and a square deal.
Here is something that this government dias known during the past six years: the part my province played in an all-out war effort when we were first in enlistments; first in the buying of bonds; first in the buying of war savings stamps; first in contributions to the Red Cross, Russian relief funds and other funds; first in the production of
The Address-Mr. Bentley

foodstuffs-first in everything for an all-out war effort. On all occasions my province exceeded its quota on a per capita basis, accepting the last census of about 88,000 souls as the figure from which to work.
Much of the publicity from my province has been of a boasting, halting, or apologetic nature, just as if we were on the defensive, and not a part of this great dominion. Why should there be a gradual decrease in our population from 109,000 in 1873 to 88,000 in 1941? Some say that this is on account of the burdensome restrictions, conditions and discriminations imposed upon us; but I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house that it is owing to the fact that the terms under which we entered confederation in 1873 have never been implemented. The dominion has not lived up to the signed document. My province is not asking any special favour; we are not seeking gifts. But as a province we demand justice, fair play and equal rights through 4he implementing and the long delayed fulfilment of confederation. If the dominion does not wish to recognize us as a province, then I say, give us justice by our liberty.


Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker, I am another one of those new members.
Mr. CRUICIvSHANK: But do not ask for an hour and a half.


Thomas John Bentley: I can assure my good friend from the peach country that we from the wheat country are not even as long-winded as they are out there, let alone those in the spud country.
Before proceeding to the few things I should like to say to-night, may I pay my compliments to you, Mr. Speaker, upon your accession to the position of Speaker of the House of Commons. May I go further and congratulate the house upon having acquired so gracious a gentleman as yourself to act in that capacity. As host you have on several occasions, and indeed quite recently, been most tolerant and gracious to hon. members who have overrun their allotted time. I shall try to avoid that this evening, but I may possibly offend in some other direction; and in such event I hope Your Honour will realize that iny offence I might commit would be through gnorance, certainly not through intention, and that under such circumstances you will show tolerance.
May I add my word of praise and congratulation to those of other hon. members who have referred to the young gentlemen who moved and seconded the address in reply,

from whose observations this long debate has developed. If they continue in public life- and I assume they will-they have many years of great public service ahead of them. I believe the evident sincerity of their utterances bears out that contention.
May I make one further observation in this strain before proceeding farther. It gives me pleasure to congratulate by predecessor from the constituency of Swift Current, Mr. Graham, upon his appointment as assistant to the Clerk of the House. Mr. Graham is a highly respected citizen in that place about which I shall speak later in my speech. I appear as member purely because of a change in political ideas, and not because of anything in his character which would make him unfit to continue as member, so long as he cared to do so.


An hon. MEMBER:: Eskimos.


Thomas John Bentley: We have not any of those up our way.
Many of the speeches have been encouraging to those of us who are new in the house. The general feeling of good will has been helpful. With one exception, I believe those belonging to this group come from western Canada. Perhaps through the fault of no one, there have been times in the past when there appeared to be great division between east and west. Why this should be so, I could never understand. Hon. members from all parts of the house have stated during the debate that they are most anxious to see an end of national di visions among Canadians. My view is that there should be no more hyphenated Canadians, and that we should go even farther than that. Not only should we not recognize English-speaking Canadians or French-speaking Canadians as such, but there should be no such thing as western Canadians and eastern Canadians. Let us all be Canadians, although living in different geographical centres.
Statements along this line have been ex-presed from all sides of the house, and I have been pleased to see that spirit prevail. Hon. members from all quarters have said, too, that they share the ideas expressed in the speech from the throne. Hon. members in this group join in that expression of agreement.
May I draw the attention of the house to one slight difference between the views held by other groups, and those held by this one. No hon. member from any other group has indicated a willingness on the part of his group to adopt some other methods if at any time during the course of this parliament it becomes evident that such action is necessary to implement what is promised

The Address-Mr. Bentley
in the speech from the throne. However, my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), when he spoke in the debate made it clear that this group was prepared to support every measure which, either in whole or in part, will bring about any of the good things foreshadowed in the speech from the throne. He made it clear, too, that this group does not believe that that machinery can be made to operate, or that .plans can work properly under the present system of so-called free enterprise, something which in our opinion more nearly approaches monopolistic enterprise.
However, despite our lack of confidence in this free enterprise system, and because of our anxiety to have a prosperous and united Canada, we have indicated our willingness to sink our differences, and to do our best to help make the present machinery work. I have heard no other leader or member of any other group indicate that if time and circumstances prove that the machinery of the government to do the job they said they were going to do should fail or break down, he would be prepared to give up his ideas and tiy new ones. I am going to explain what I mean by that a little later on. I will exemplify it in connection with one particular item of our national business which is close to western hearts.
Before I do so I wish to introduce myself and my consituency. In the first place I am a Canadian citizen. My people settled in Halifax in 1753 and, so far as I know, since that time all of them were either born here or came over with the United Empire Loyalists or were of some other local North American stock. I am not bragging about that because I had nothing to do with it, but I am not the least bit ashamed of it. In fact I like the old province of Nova Scotia very much.
I was glad to hear some of the speeches that have been made by my fellow countrymen. I am such a Canadian citizen that I suppose I have broken the laws of this country more 'than most hon. members. But I could not avoid doing so, I had either to lie or to break the law. The law of this country does not permit me to be a Canadian citizen. When I joined the army, which I did last time; when I registered the birth of one of my children; when the census taker came around; when I had my national registration card made out, which by the way I carry all the time, I was asked to give my nationality. In each case I said "Canadian", but the interrogating gentleman undertook to make me name some other nationality. I could have told him Chinese, but I would have been lying because I am not a Chinaman. I could have told him
anything but I would have been lying. I refused to give any national category but Canadian. I hope this parliament will put me within the pale of the law so that I do not have to break it or lie any more.
I represent the federal constituency of Swift Current. Some hon. members have said that their constituencies were the best in Canada. Mine is to those who like it; it would not be to those who do not. We are a bald prairie constituency and many of us like it, so we stay there. We do not blame other people from other parts of the country for not liking it. It is a good thing that this is still a free country. You can move from Swift Current to Prince Edward Island if you want to; I think they will still let you go in there. You could certainly go to Prince Edward Island and we are allowed into Alberta. There are many places we could go to, but many of us stay in Swift Current because we like it.
The people there are mostly farmers. There is only one large urban centre and that is not large in the terms of some of the centres in eastern Canada. I believe Swift Current City has a population of possibly 7,000 people now, but normally its population would be between 5,000 and 6,000. Most of the wholesale houses and retail businesses cater to the agricultural trade, except that we are a Canadian Pacific railway terminal with a good C.P.R. payroll. However, the great bulk of our population of 40,000 are farmers or those who are directly serving the agricultural community.
They are good people. Again I will not say on their behalf that they are the best in Canada because they do not want to be classed in that way. They just want to be classed as being as good as the rest of the people of Canada. They just want to be assured that they will have the same opportunities to live their kind of lives with a degree of security commensurate with their ability to engage in enterprising and useful work, which as I have said is farming in the main. I would be doing them an injustice if at any time I claimed for them any greater rights than that. But I do assure you, sir, that we will certainly claim those full rights and I will do my best to see that they are obtained.
We are in the middle of a dry farming area. Like the young hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Argue) who spoke this afternoon and the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. McCuaig) who spoke last night, my constituency is in that area south of the Saskatchewan river. We have some lovely wheat land; we have some fine ranching land and we have some very good mixed farming
The Address-Mr. Bentley

land if we only had adequate and constant supplies of water. We would be more able to undertake mixed farming or live stock raising if along with adequate supplies of water for the stock we also had sufficient water to assure our being able to raise continuous and adequate quantities of fodder for the live stock.
The prairie farm rehabilitation association has undertaken a project to dam up Swift Current creek at a place called Duncaim. That project will eventually be completed but we hope that eventuality will not be too far away. We hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and his P.F.R.A. officials will not forget that there is a vast difference between human time and eternity. We hope sincerely that the 30,000 arces which can be irrigated will be irrigated and that the project will be completed not later than this time next year, as it could be. These are some of our little local problems. I will not weary the house with the many more that we have, although I may deal with them later on. However, I should like to bring to the attention of members of this house another problem that is important to us and to the west.
I am not saying this because we in the west want to chisel something out of other parts of Canada. I am not saying this because we think other hon. members are likely to be antagonistic. We do not understand all the problems of the peach producers of British Columbia, of the apple growers of Ontario, of the industrial workers of Ontario and Quebec and of the fishermen and farmers of Nova Scotia. We do not pretend to. We expect to learn and to learn with sympathy of their problems while we are here. We expect to lend our voice and aid as much as we can or as much as we are allowed to in helping them to improve their position and to solve their problems. We are asking only for the same measure of sympathy and help from the other people in this house.
I mentioned a little while ago that this group does not believe that the present administration at Ottawa have the right ideas or the right machinery to do the job they forecast in the speech from the throne. We are prepared to help them do it. Let me produce some evidence to show why we believe this is so. Purely on the basis of the operating economy of this country and in fairness to all its citizens I wish to submit the following evidence.
We from the prairies of the west got a distinct jolt the other day when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) announced that the price of wheat for export would be pegged at $1.55 a bushel, basis No. 1

northern at the contract point of delivery, and remember that is Port Arthur or Fort William or Vancouver, not where it is delivered to the country elevator. We have no objection to that, nor will the farmers in the west object to it. As a matter of fact they will respect this government for giving that measure of protection to the people in the old country. Many of the settlers in the west came from some of those old countries or have relatives who were left behind when their parents came over here before they were born. So that they are glad to be able to make some contribution to the requirements of those people and not hold them up or-put a gun to their heads because there is a scarcity. We have no objection to that contribution. That announcement did not give us a jolt. The jolt to the chin came when it was announced-not as compensation for foregoing a possible sharp rise in the price of wheat because of the extremities of Europe, because such compensation is not needed, but as compensation for the loss of what might have been a very good market for w'heat now-that the government would undertake to see that the price of wheat would not fall below $1 a bushel, basis No. 1 northern, Fort William, Port Arthur or Vancouver from the beginning of next year until the year 1950 on the authorized deliveries.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce, on being questioned in the house the other day, said that there was nothing in the order in council that stated that they were going to operate for the next five years on the quota system. Whether or not he thought that we did not understand the terminology well enough to understand what was meant, he said that in the order in council there was no such thing mentioned as a quota system. In the order in council there are no words about quota system, it is true, but the terms "authorized deliveries" and "quota system" are synonymous in the minds of every western farmer, and the Minister of Agriculture, who is here to-night, knows that is so. It was therefore futile for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to endeavour to make us believe that because there was no mention of the words "quota system" in the order in council it did not mean just that. It says "authorized deliveries," and authorized deliveries are the quota system in the minds of every western farmer who sells wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: Would my hon. friend not admit that that system was first asked for by the Saskatchewan pool?

The Address-Mr. Bentley


Thomas John Bentley: I frankly admit that, and will go into that Later. But the point I am making now is that we know that the quota system and authorized deliveries mean the same thing. It means that someone in authority-and this has to be so, and there is no quarrel with it-the wheat board officials presumably-and we hope they are competent officers-will be authorized to tell the farmers each year what their authorized wheat delivery shall be. With the guaranteed price of SI a bushel below which wheat is not allowed to fall, if the Winnipeg grain exchange is still operating, and if the wheat board is not continuing to take all deliveries, it is quite within the range of possibility, and past history indicates to us that this will be so, that the open market price can conceivably hover around that $1 a bushel, which means eighty-three or eighty-four cents to the bulk of the farmers in western Canada at their local elevator point of delivery for No. 1 northern; and remember that No. 1 northern does not comprise all the grain we deliver because we sometimes get grade 5 and grade 6, and even feed wheat in years of frost, and there is a very heavy spread between the price of No. 1 northern and the lower grades. If the wheat board officials or those in authority say to the farmer this year that he can deliver only six or seven bushels you can readily see, Mr. Speaker, that it will be utterly impossible for the farmers of the west to finance their operations. It cannot be done.
I would point out that we are not opposed to the authorized deliveries or the quota system. I believe that that is the general feeling all over the west. There may be some farmers who do not like it, but I am speaking for the bulk of the farmers who are in the big farm organizations there. Here I should like to point out to the government where they might sometimes learn a little from those institutions. I am not going to tell the government to-night why many of us from the prairie provinces have no longer a great deal of faith in their foresight or ability to foresee for some years ahead, but as the minister has said, a request was made in 1932 by the western farm organizations to have the federal government, then under Mr. R. B. Bennett, set up a wheat board to take delivery of western wheat and market it direct. Mr. Bennett did not see fit then to do that. As a matter of fact, when the first forerunner of that demand from the western farmers came as early as 1930 in a resolution passed by the United Farmers of Canada at Saskatoon, asking for a floor or peg price of 70 cents a bushel for No. 1
northern wheat, Fort William, Port Arthur or Vancouver, Mr. Bennett refused and said that he and his administration had no intention of interfering with the free marketing of wheat. From that time on there was constant debate between the Bennett regime and the officials of the organized producers, and in 1932 the western farmers made their request for a wheat board, with power to set up quota deliveries, so that in years of tremendous surpluses, which we were told was our great bugbear at that time-we were told that we were too good at the job; that we raised too much wheat-the wheat board would accept for delivery that volume which could be comfortably sold on whatever export market our Department of Trade and Commerce could find for us and fix the price of that exportable surplus at something approaching the cost of production as near as could be estimated, and the balance of the farmer's surplus production would be left in the granary on his farm as a very fine safeguard against a future bad crop. If you were a grain farmer, Mr. Speaker, you would appreciate just how comfortable a feeling it give you in a year like this or 1937 if you can look out into your yard and say: Well, the crop has gone, we will not get our seed back, but thank goodness last year or the year before we were able to save 1,500 or 2,000 bushels which were not required on the market that year. It gives a feeling of security to the wheat farmer when he can look at his bins and know they are not all empty.
In that year we asked for the quota system. But the Bennett government did not give it to us. In that same winter we sent to Ottawa a petition signed by 107,000 Saskatchewan citizens. Mr. Bennett and his government would not grant that request. It was not until the dying days of his administration in 1935, when he had to face the whole of Canada in an election, that he finally acceded to the request of the western farm organizations and brought in his wheat legislation. Had he and his administration not been so arrogantly certain that they knew better than a bunch of old farmers what should be done to market their wheat, they would have listened and taken advice from the organized farmers at that time, and undoubtedly one would have thought that the Liberal administration that took over from the Tory administration in 1935 would have learnt that lesson. But no. For the next five years until 1940 the western farm organizations continued to make their representations. I am saying this now to the government across the floor, and I am saying it in all sincerity, and can prove it, if proof
The Address-Mr. Bentley

is wanted. I shall not have time to do so to-night, but before this session is over I can produce the documentary evidence necessary to prove every statement I make. This organization came to the administration time after time and asked them to operate a wheat board on its behalf to protect the wheat growers of western Canada, but the request was refused time and again. Within a year after the new administration of 1936 took office, the wheat board ceased operating as an active agent in the marketing of wheat, and the peg was held at ninety cents a bushel. Later, in 1938, the price was fixed by the wheat board, through government action, at eighty cents a bushel. The following spring the present Minister of Agriculture came west and told the western people that we could no longer expect to have a pegged wheat board price of eighty cents a bushel; that it was too big a load for this country to carry, that it was costing Canada too many millions of dollars, and that we would have to submit to a drastic reduction, in other words from eighty cents a bushel to sixty cents a bushel, basis 1 northern at the point of delivery at terminal elevators, Port Arthur, Fort William or Vancouver.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sure my hon.
friend will agree that the second proposal was an initial payment, not a price; eighty cents was the fixed price.


Thomas John Bentley: 
Mr. C. W. HODGSON (Victoria, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate, I wish first to congratulate you on your elevation to the chair and, second, to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on his long term of office and of service to the country. I am sure we all wish him good health to finish out his term of office. Next I wish to congratulate the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Bracken) and to congratulate the people of Manitoba on having seen to it that he was their premier for twenty years. I wish also to congratulate the constituents of his riding on having seen fit to send him to Ottawa to represent and to lead our party. He was very wise, I believe, in not coming into the house on receiving the nomination, because in that period he travelled across Canada, saw all the different parts of the country and made a study of them, meeting people and gaining a wealth of knowledge which will certainly be of benefit to Canada in the future. So far as our party is concerned, it was not suffering from lack of leadership because it was being ably led by my genial friend the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon).
I am somewhat like the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who spoke last night.

The Address-Mr. Hodgson

He said he came here with a majority vote. I am in the same position. I want to congratulate him on coming here on that basis. He said he had only one opponent. I have him beaten, because I had two and I still came here with a majority vote. My Liberal opponent had been a friend of mine for years and I could not say a thing bad about him. He served the country for ten years prior to this year.
In the house we have 103 new members, and 149 members are here on a minority vote. I believe my hon. friends to my left outstrip us all in that regard, because out of twenty-eight members, twenty-five are here on a minority vote.
In introducing my riding, I may say that I did not know that one could come to the House of Commons and do so much advertising. I will avail myself of the opportunity for a few minutes, but I will make it short. I have the honour to represent the riding which was so ably represented by Sir Sam Hughes, who was our member for about thirty years. He was minister of militia in the last war.
My riding is made up of two counties. Victoria has fertile soil and a climate that is adapted to farming, and the farmers are great producers of hay, grain, meat and dairy pro-iucts. While I am on this subject, I may say that this year one of my constituents made quite a nice shipment of Holstein cattle to Mexico, thus opening up a new venture in trade along that line.
The county in which I live is Halliburton. I happen to be the first member ever elected from that county either provincially or to the dominion house. It comprises the pre-Cambrian rock area and we have the finest stand of timber, bar none, left standing in Canada to-day. We have also in that rock deposits of uranium, which was the basis of the atomic bomb; in the whole area of Victoria-Hali-burton we have the Kawartha lakes and the Trent valley canal system, and in Haliburton county alone we have 559 lakes. We have everything that goes to make a tourist country.
The tourist industry in Victoria county is fairly well developed, but in the north it has just been scratched. It would have been developed more fully if the war had not come along, resulting in shortage of labour and materials, with government regulations putting a stop to buildings in that class of industry.
In this municipality, made up of small villages and small towns, we have the town of Lindsay with a population of 10,000. We have some thirty sawmills, four planing and finishing mills, and so on. We have a large
EMr. Hodgson.]
tannery, a large woollen mill and many other small industries, and we have two large chemical plants. We have also the dominion arsenal. This plant is one of the finest in Canada, one of the best equipped in the country. I hope the Minister of Defence (Mr. Abbott) can keep that plant running, and if he cannot, I see no reason why the Department of Reconstruction cannot put in some peace-time industry there.
We have a riding made up principally of private enterprise. We have a lot of good labour. It is a railroad centre, and I take my hat off to labour any day in the week because I have been a labour man myself all my life. The reason why I say they favour private enterprise is that ninety per cent of our farms are operated by their owners, as are all our industries with the exception of the dominion arsenal. We have never had any labour trouble; we have the finest group of labour men that exists anywhere.
Anything I say here or any part that I play in this parliament I feel I should do it as my constituents would want me to do it. Although I was sent here with a majority I consider that I was sent here to represent all the constituents of my riding. That will be my thought and view throughout my parliamentary experience.
I think I would be remiss in my duty unless I said something about the flag. Someone has taken upon himself the responsibility of pulling down the old union jack from this parliament building and sticking up another flag in its place without consulting this parliament. That I think was a mistake. However, probably the time has come when we need a new national flag; but, speaking for myself and for my constituents, we think the old union jack is good enough for us.
I should like to say a word about national selective service and the war labour board. But before I do that I should like to welcome all or any hon. members who wish to visit my riding. They would be only too welcome, and if they do not believe what I say about its possibilities and beauties I ask them to come and see for themselves. If they cannot come let them ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), because they both had a good look at it in the last election campaign. I welcome them back at any time and I hope that they will not wait until the next election rolls around. In fact I should like to have the Minister of Finance there this fall. Although we may differ on politics at times, we do not differ when it comes to a victory or peace loan.- If the Minister of Finance

The Address-Mr. Hodgson
came there and opened the victory loan campaign I might have the honour of introducing him, and I will guarantee him a larger audience than he had when he spoke at Lindsay before June 11 last.
With regard to national selective service, they have been short-sighted and inefficient. That is also true of the war labour board. On August 31, 1942, all the operators and lumbermen received a notice to appear at a meeting in my town under penalty if they were not there. Lists of prices and wage schedules that we could pay to men, both loggers and cutters, were laid down. We tried to live up to this as well as we could, but it was inadequate to fill the bill. I told the board so at that time. However, ten months later, after the operators were put out of business so far as cordwood is concerned, we were paying $3.75 and the war labour board said that we must cut it down to $3.40. The result was that our men left and disappeared into other work, and our organization was broken up so far as producing wood was concerned. At that time I was producing 500 cords of body hardwood a month, and for the benefit of hon. members from the fishing areas on the coast, a cord of body hardwood is the next thing to anthracite coal.
Ten months later I received another notice to meet in the town of Huntsville in an adjoining riding. At that time they told us to go out into the bush and get out cordwood because there was a crisis at hand, and that we could do it at any price. They said to us: "If you have not the money we will finance you; if you have not the men we will give you internees." Well, the house can realize the position I was put in living in a riding comprising people of English, Irish and Scotch descent with a really first-class bunch of workmen in that area. If I had started to bring in internees I do not think I wTould be here to-day. However, the policy adopted was short-sighted because the operators who were taking out the cordwood saw the crisis coming in January and February, 1942. The government or the department did not see it until June, 1943.
I should like to say a few words on housing, because it affects us too. To-day housing is being handled by two departments of the government. I think one would be sufficient. They have been fumbling the ball more or less back and forth between the two departments. If they had one improved programme of housing they might go through for a touchdown. We do not need wartime housing. If they gave private enterprise half the chances that they gave wartime housing, private enterprise would build more houses and build them 47696-30^
better and more economically. We have no wartime housing in my riding, but houses are being built by private enterprise, by soldiers who are coming back from overseas and by citizens. Those houses and that programme are being held up at the present time because of the freezing of materials for wartime housing. Wartime housing is not producing materials of construction; it is stealing them from the producers with the help of the government, and the net result is production of a number of houses at public expense in an uneconomic way at the cost of the building of a greater number of houses by private enterprise at private expense. Wartime housing is not making more labour available; it is only adding competition for the scarce supply existing. The performance of labour on government projects is proverbially less efficient than on private projects. The net result of the intrusion of Wartime Housing Limited is to increase the cost of houses. It has been demonstrated that in the temporary house field wartime housing cannot build as economically as private enterprise. The government would be well advised to release some of these controls and let our returning soldiers, and our citizens go ahead and build their houses.
I have a neighbour living across the road from me. He is not a wealthy man but he gathered together a few dollars to build a house. He started that house in the spring; he worked a lot of the time on it after he had his supper; he worked at night and he finally got the house to the position where he could live in it. He had an order in for windows, doors and the like. He moved in after I had lent him a few windows, and after he had patched up some with paper and so forth. Then he received a notice that his order for windows and doors had to be cancelled owing to government control. That is the situation in many cases, and it is certainly wrong so far as private enterprise or anybody who wants to build a house for himself is concerned.
I could go on and talk for quite a while yet and touch on a lot of other matters, but I have had an opportunity of advertising my own riding and an opportunity of inviting all hon. members to come to my riding at any time and I shall close with these few remarks.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, while we are waiting, and before the question is put, I should like to say briefly that we intend to vote against both the subamendment and the amendment-


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Good.
The Address-Mr. Coldwell


Major James William Coldwell: -and to vote also
against the motion for the adoption of the address.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not so good.


Major James William Coldwell: We are going to do so because, if one reads the Progressive Conservative amendment, as amended by the Social Credit party, he will find that it reads this way, and this has not yet been put on the record in full:
We ^respectfully submit to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's advisers have:
(a)	failed to demobilize our armed forces on a fair basis and, in particular, have failed to prevent serious disadvantage to overseas service personnel;
(b)	failed to provide a speedy and effective plan ot reconversion from war to peace, and failed m particular to join in partnership with labour and industry in devising a workable scheme to provide jobs, with fair wages, for discharged service personnel and war workers;
(c)	failed to take adequate and timely action to meet the ever-mounting housing crisis.
And then, to this the social credit subamendment is attached, and would therefore /ontinue:
(d)	failed to meet the needs of Canada for a prosperous peace and in particular, to provide a means of ensuring that the national production shall be kept at a sufficiently high level to provide every Canadian with a standard of living commensurate with Canada's ability to produce;
(e)	failed to provide this country with an effective and scientific financial policy for distributing to all Canadians their fair share of the national production without increasing the burden of taxation or the national debt.
Now, as we see it, both criticize the government for a series of failures. The word "failed" appears a number of times in both the amendment and the subamendment. But neither the amendment nor the subamendment contains any understandable suggestions to meet those failures. And none of the speeches in support of the amendment or subamendment have offered the government any effective suggestions to meet the criticisms which they both make.
Our subamendment, which I am not discussing, because it was defeated, did that. We suggested that certain fundamental changes must be made, and offered to the house nine different proposals which we believed would assist in meeting the situation. In other words, we tried to place before the house some suggestions and proposals to meet the problems facing us.
The subamendment, which will be dealt with first this evening, among other things condemns the government for failing to provide the country with a scientific and effective financial policy. What do my hon. TMr. Mackenzie.]
friends to the left mean by that? What do they actually suggest? In none of their speeches can I find an answer to that question. For example, last week when the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Kuhl) was speaking he was interrupted by one of the hon. members opposite. I noticed that the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) both made answer. The hon. member for Lethbridge said, "That is the thing you have to learn", and the hon. member for Peace River said, "Just keep your ears open, and you will hear." These are the replies to similar questions we all invariably receive from hon. members sitting immediately to my left.
Since voting for the subamendment and the amendment merely involves supporting the destructive criticisms of the two parties who have made them, we do not intend to support mere criticsm without some constructive suggestions to meet the criticisms thus made. Moreover, to vote with either of the two parties would mean that we have confidence in them and in their proposals, proposals which have not been placed before the house.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the C.C.F. party in the house I wish to say before the vote is taken that we intend to vote against the subamendment and against the amendment for the reasons I have given, and of course to vote against the main motion because w'e endeavoured to amend it and because we believe it to be inadequate as it stands, and therefore insufficient to meet the situation which has developed in this country. I am going to leave it at that.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Hansel!) negatived.


Mr. ISNOR:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Colchester-Hants (Mr. Stanfield). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: Mr. Speaker,
before you proceed with the motion I desire to offer a few remarks.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I had the
floor.


James Horace King: I give the floor to the
hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross).


James Arthur Ross: The speech at the
opening of this twentieth parliament on September 6 did not contain any reference whatever to floor prices. During the days from September 6 to September 19 many hon. members, some of them possessing considerable knowledge of agricultural matters, spoke on the address in reply to the governor general's speech and the amendments thereto, and therefore would not have an opportunity to speak on this matter after the passing of order in council P.C. 6122, copies of which were presented to this house on September 19, and which provided a floor price of not less than $1 a bushel during the five-year period ending July 21, 1950. The government by order in council has instructed the Canadian wheat board to offer wheat for sale for export over-
Rinfret
Rose
Ross (Hamilton East)
St. Laurent
Shaw
Sinclair (Ontario) Sinclair
(Vancouver North) Sinnott
Smith (York North) Stuart (Charlotte) Strum, Mrs.
Thatcher
Townley-Smith
Tremblay
Tucker
Viau
W arren
Weir
Whitman
Winkler
Winters
Wright
Wylie
Zaplitny-163.

The Address-Mr. Ross (Souris)
seas at prices not higher than the current export price now prevailing of $1.55 a bushel, basis No. 1 northern, Fort William, Port Arthur or Vancouver. One dollar a bushel means approximately eighty cents net to the producers on the prairies, which is considerably below cost of production for the average producer, while during the early stages of this war we asked for at least $1.25 a bushel. That was on the basis of pre-war parity. Since then, the cost of living to farmers has risen approximately twenty per cent and implements of production now cost twenty per cent more than at that time. Farm labour wages have doubled. I have no complaint about that. In the last parliament on several occasions I asked that the same consideration be given farm labourers as was given organized labour and I wish it to be clearly understood where I stand on that point. Yet, instead of increasing the floor price in keeping with the cost, the government to-day, by order in council and while parliament is in session, have reduced the floor price by another twenty per cent.
I well remember a few sessions ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), speaking on the question of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, stated that it was his desire to see a family on every half-section of land. I think he will realize that a family on a half-section cannot produce wheat for approximately eighty cents a bushel net. More than that, this will be a very live issue for those members of the armed services now returning who wish to settle on the land.
With respect to cost, I used the chart which was prepared in the last parliament by the department of the Minister of Agriculture. Reference was made this evening to the difficulties the western farmers had in marketing their wheat during 1932. During that same year one of the minister's departmental officials, Doctor Hopkins, an able civil servant, conducted a survey throughout the western prairies, picking out individual farmers and experimental farms. As a result of those findings he prepared his chart. He proved conclusively by those findings that on a quarter-section a man with five horses, threshing hired, had a cost of $1.02 a bushel to produce wheat at eighteen bushels to the acre, which is away above the average of Canadian production. On a half-section the cost to a man with seven horses was 73-5 cents; in the case of a man with a fifteen horsepower tractor and two horses the cost was a little under that, or 66-5 cents; in the case of one section and two men with fourteen horses, the cost was 77 cents.
I do not think I should take up the time of the house in putting that chart on the

record; I did so in the last parliament. But these findings by the minister's own department proved conclusively that the most economical farm to operate was the two-section farm, and the official in question investigated farms from a quarter-section up to three sections of land operated with tractors and horses.
Under mass production you can produce wheat cheaper per bushel, but certainly not on a half-section. You must have mass production. In the year prior to the declaration nf war a survey was conducted throughout Saskatchewan by the professor in charge of farm management at Saskatoon university. His finding was that, taking into account the cost of production and interest, those people had to have ninety cents a bushel for wheat produced at fourteen bushels to the acre, and that was then a higher production figure than the average prevailing throughout that section of the country.
More than that, there was a chart prepared by Mr. Lattimore, a professor at Macdonald agricultural college, setting forth the acreage of farms by individuals in some of the principal countries at the outbreak of the war in 1939. In Canada the acreage was seventy-six acres on the average; the United States, fifty acres; Great Britain, 30-5; Ireland, 17; Denmark, 14-7; Norway, 14-7; Spain, 12; Sweden, 11*4; Switzerland, 11-9; France, 10; Poland, 5-7; Italy, 5-2.
I think that should be conclusive proof that the minister's desire cannot be realized with the floor price which he has suggested. During the first years of the war, when we were pleading with the government year after year to set at least on a basis of parity $1.25 a bushel for wheat in this country, the Winnipeg Free Press, which conducts the most partisan editorial page of any newspaper in Canada and which I have never seen taking the part of the western agriculturist, chastized, in an editorial during that time the then hon. member for Qu'Appelle, Mr. Perley, the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair), and the member for Souris, myself, for asking for blood money at the expense of the servicemen when we requested an initial price of $1.25 a bushel. When, later on, the government acceded and set the initial price at $155, according to the Free Press it was a different story. It was not then a case of blood money; there was no criticism of anything that this government under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) might do in Canada.
Speaking in this house yesterday on the question of meat for overseas, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), as reported at page 394 of Hansard of September 24, stated:

The Address-Mr. Ross (Souris)
From the beginning of the war this country tried to do its part in the struggle, and has been most conscientious, I believe, in doing so. We have been obliged and have found it advantageous and in the interests of all concerned to make what might be called partnership arrangements with other countries, particularly Great Britain and the United States.
For many years in the past I have argued that very point with the minister and the government, pointing out that I thought the united nations should have some basis on which to trade, supplying the materials so essential for the prosecution of the war. and yet throughout those years the agricultural producer of this country received less for his products than the producer in any other of the united nations.
In this respect may I say that throughout these war years, while the agriculturists of the United States paid less for implements of production than we in Canada have paid, they on the other hand have received from thirty to fifty per cent more for their produce, especially wheat, cattle and dairy products than the Canadian producers received for his or her products. To-day in the United States wheat is sold for export overseas at a price of $2.10 a bushel at U.SA. seaboard, and statistics show a significant increase in the wheat acreage of the United States.
Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture, speaking on meat production, is reported at page 408 of Hansard of September 24, 1945, as having said:
This simply means that a farmer in the west must make a decision, and must have an argument with himself as to whether it pays best to feed barley or to sell it, and that is exactly the position in which we wanted him. The reason is that the farmers of eastern Canada, from lake Huron to the Atlantic, cannot grow sufficient grain with which to feed their live stock. They must get it from western Canada. If we should create conditions in the west under which all the grain was to be kept there, these live stock men in the east would have to go without their barley, and the extent to which they would get out of hog production would reduce production in this country very much more than would be the case if a number of farmers on the western plains decided to sell a certain quantity of barley rather than to feed it.
That statement is an absolute contradiction of statements I have heard the Minister of Agriculture make during the last session in this same chamber. But in answering questions the Minister of Agriculture said that it is more economical to feed grain to live stock on the same farm upon which the grain is grown and produced than to transport the same grain-


James Garfield Gardiner: I said that last night, but only slightly better.


James Arthur Ross: I will admit that the Minister of Agriculture is a very fine speaker and quite a rabble-rouser, and I enjoy listening to him in the chamber, but when one reads his statements the following day they do not always analyse the same as they appear when one is listening to his fine flow of words.


James Garfield Gardiner: Which may be because I do not read my speeches.


James Arthur Ross: I have listened to speeches delivered by the Minister of Agriculture in this house during the past session when he read every word. He will admit, I think, that with the most efficient feeders on the farms in Canada to-day it requires at least five pounds of grain to make one pound of pork; and if you can feed that efficiently I think you will readily realize the saving in transportation and man-power in this country if your stock is fed on the same farm on which the grain is produced.
During the war years Alberta made great strides in hog production until 1944, when they produced more hogs than any other province in Canada. They also grew the grain feed on these same farms. A great deal has been accomplished along these lines in each of the prairie provinces; but in the past year in my native province of Manitoba hog production has gone back considerably over forty per cent. There is a very great increase in beef cattle, as I have mentioned before in this house, and the producers cannot properly market their live beef cattle. At the present time the price for these cattle is off three cents a pound or three dollars a hundredweight, and as yet the Minister of Agriculture or the government has not allowed us even to ship beef cattle to the markets in the United States, even under permit or otherwise. As I have pointed out before, he has been requested by responsible officials in this country at least to allow them, in the case of heavy runs on the stockyards, a permit by which they might export cattle; and the difference in price, which is often fifty per cent higher than in Canada, might be pooled for the producers on the same basis as was barley and oats exported from this country and the difference in price pooled for them.
During the earlier years of the war, industry, organized labour and others, operated on a cost-plus basis, but not agriculture; this floor price of SI a bushel for wheat is definitely the first deflation move by the government on agricultural products of Canada.

The Address-Mr. Ross (Souris)
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn), that the motion be amended by adding the following words at the end of the said address:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that, pending the establishment of a more stable and equitable price structure for Canadian farm products based on parity of income for farmers, immediate consideration should be given to establishing for a period of years floor prices for all basic agricultural products at levels not less than ninety per cent of parity.
Some hon. members may wonder why we are. saying, "at levels not less than ninety per cent of parity". As I have argued ever since coming here, in 1940 at the declaration of war, our neighbours to the south attempted to create a parity price for their agricultural producers, based on a given period, thereby assuring them that no matter what happened in the future they would not let the price go below ninety per cent of parity, and that they would strive to keep those prices at parity or better at all times. Therefore that is why we have set that figure in the amendment.
The Minister of Agriculture, in speaking last night, said that 1944 was an abnormally big year of agricultural production in Canada, and that this year with our greatly decreased production that was all we could expect over a period of years in this country. I remember questioning the minister in this house on February 18, 1944, when the United States had asked their people to increase their wheat acreage. I took some time to go over the situation then and pointed out that I thought our people should be asked to increase their acreage of grains of all kinds, and more especially as the people in the United States were doing so. Had that been; done, the Minister of Agriculture would not have been able to give as gloomy a picture of our grains on hand in Canada to-day as he did last night.
I shall not take the time to repeat all the remarks I made at that time and the answers which he gave me, but I wish to emphasize this matter at this particular time. Some hon. members on the government side have pointed out that in their opinion there was no urgency about this matter. Let me say to the Minister of Agriculture-and he probably knows what I am about to say because he keeps in touch with his people-I was privileged to be home last week. I was there when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) announced this order in council. I can tell the house that my neighbours were a disappointed lot of people. They had expected more than that from this government. These people who find great difficulties in marketing their
[iMr. J. A. Ross,]
live stock to-day are not given any assurance of over $1, basis Fort William for wheat, which means practically eighty cents to them. Many of them claim that they are going to quit farming as soon as their crop is off this fall. That is the urgency of the situation. More than that, before many days have passed, when we discuss some of the other minister's estimates and difficulties that already prevail to-day with respect to the rehabilitation of our servicemen, and especially those young men who want to settle on farms under the Veterans Land Act, if the government can assure them nothing more than this for the future years they will not be very eager about settling on the land.
The only limit to our realization of to-morrow will be our doubts of to-day. Let us move forward with a strong and active faith.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I offer you all my good wishes. I am sure that you will follow the tradition of your illustrious predecessor who is now Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen), and of other great Speakers whose presence in this house is still remembered by all.
I welcome all new members, and it has been a pride for me to be a member of the house, as it is now. I have been a member of parliament for twenty-one years, and I have never seen such a large number of bright colleagues as those who have already shown their ability in this debate. I wish the best to all of them on all sides of the house. I am sure that so long as we are working together we shall do our best for the community.
However, I wish to express my regret that two of my colleagues have not returned. One of them was as perfect a deskmate as the one I have now. I refer to the Hon. Cyrus MacMillan, who did more for the airmen than did anybody else. I express my deep regret that he has not come back. I would say the same of Mr. Crete, who represented in the last parliament the constituency of St. Maurice-Lafleche. He was a man of courage, and it is only because of the strength of his convictions that he did not get the reward to which he was entitled. I pay that tribute to those two gentlemen who are still remembered by hon. members who sat here during the last parliament. Besides that, I can tell my colleagues that I shall be only too pleased to cooperate with them, whenever I can.

The Address

Mr. Pouliot
It is a very good thing that the government has been reelected. (Now the war is over, and there is nothing like the good old Liberal party to govern this country. It is my earnest hope that in the very near future some hon. members from the other side will follow the great example that has been given them by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson), whose predecessor was a very great man.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: What about yourself? You did the same thing.


Mr. FAIR:: And the hon. member for
Temiscouata, too.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. But now I will tell something to my genial friend, who has just said a word. It would be this, that another fervent hope of mine is that now that the war is over the demarcation line between Liberal-minded members and Conservative-minded members will be clearer and more distinct. The mark should be seen by all. Liberal members should stand together for the defence of Liberal principles-and the others may do whatever they wish.
I understand that during the war, because there were Conservatives as well as members of the Liberal, C.C.F., and Social Credit parties in the army, the government could have accepted some suggestions with political background from its opponents. But now there is no reason for that.
My intention was to leave the floor to new members who have shown ability, and who have spoken just as well as have the older members. But now the Question is obvious. Are we to sit for a post-war session? Is the war ended, or is it not? I have read in the press that Germany capitulated in May; that Hitler is dead; that Mussolini is dead, and that Japan capitulated a month ago. Are we to continue the war in this country, now that the war is finished in Europe and in Asia?
I am just back from home. Do you know, sir, that there are twenty-six military provosts at Riviere du Loup, my home town, to look after a handful of deserters, men who came from the farms and who should never have been in the army.
I can speak as I do because my county did exceptionally well during the war. Six thousand boys from there enlisted in the three branches of the services. Every time victory loans have been oversubscribed, and1 sometimes doubled. War organizations have done well. But now that the war is over, we see those provosts disturbing the peace. They are not
elderly men, nor are they returned men. They are youngsters of about eighteen years, looking just as young as Baby-face Nelson. They drive their jeeps at a speed of about sixty miles an hour even at night, with their headlight and searchlights burning. Other drivers have to risk going into the ditch when those youngsters come along. They disturb everybody by searching every house to find delinquents.
There are plenty of complaints about those men; and now that the war is over, the general impression is that those people should' not infest any constituency, and especially in view of the approaching victory loan. My people are ready to do in connection with the next victory loan, the same as they have already done. It is their hope that the government will pay no attention to the suggestions and insinuations which have come from1 hon. members opposite, because we realize that they are made with the intention of depreciating the government in the, eyes and in the minds of the people.
The reason why Mr. Arthur Meighen is not any more popular in Quebec is precisely because he kept the war going in this country after it was over on the battlefield. I hope, sir, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), for whom1 I have great regard and admiration, will see to it that the government takes the necessary steps to stop this, at the earliest possible opportunity, so that people in my constituency who have done their duty may breathe in peace and shall not be disturbed by those youngsters who, I suggest, should not be permitted to stay there any longer.
I have every confidence in the Prime Minister so long as he takes advice from his supporters, not one only but all of them, and so long as he pays no attention to any suggestions that may come from the opposition. Sometimes the C.C.F. are not bad. I hope the Social Crediters will be good in the future and they will be- better if they cross the floor like the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I tell the Prime Minister to be careful of all suggestions with a political lining that are made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and others. I had only to mention their speeches in my county to be sure of winning. I know the hon. member; I know also that if he wishes to do well he can, and I hope he will do better in the future.
On motion of Mr. Quelch the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 11.04 p.m.
Meat Rationing

Wednesday, September 26, 1945.