PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if the government has under consideration the disallowance of any acts of the Saskatchewan legislature. If so, what acts are being so considered, upon whose petition, and what procedure is proposed to give to the Saskatchewan government and other interested parties an opportunity to make representations?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I received notice of this question from the leader of the opposition just a few moments ago, and I can give him from memory the information desired. I may not have the exact titles of the acts, but I think I have them sufficiently so to identify them.
The government has under consideration petitions which pray for the disallowance of certain acts of the legislature of Saskatchewan. These are the farm security act; the mineral taxation act of 1944 and an amending act of 1945, and an act to amend the local government board (special powers) act.
The Dominion Loan and Mortgage Association petitioned for the disallowance of the farm security act and the act to amend the local government board (special powers) act,
[Mr. Campbell.1
and in sending in its petition asked for an opportunity to add some oral representations, which I assume to be along the lines of the material set out in the petition. They were told that on October 11 I should be glad to hear such oral representations as they might wish to submit.
The Canadian Pacific Railway Company filed a petition asking for the disallowance of the mineral taxation act of 1944 and the amending act of 1945, and also asked for leave to make oral representations in support of the petition. October 15 has been fixed as the date on which they will be permitted to make such representations. The petitioners were immediately asked by the deputy minister of justice to supply the attorney general of Saskatchewan with a copy of their respective petitions, because there would have been delay had we taken time to copy them here and forward them, and we have been informed that they have supplied the attorney general with these copies. In addition he was at once advised of the dates we had indicated to the petitioners on which their oral representations might be heard. The Hudson's Baj^ Company have sent in a petition, which was received this morning, also dealing with the mineral taxation act of 1944, and they are also being asked to send a copy to the attorney general of Saskatchewan. They have not asked to be heard orally in support of their petition.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: If I may ask a supplementary question, when was the attorney general of Saskatchewan notified that these petitions had been received? The time between now and October 11 and 15 is very short for a government to prepare a brief in reply to something which probably has been carefully prepared by clever and competent lawyers.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would not like to give exact dates, but notice was given as soon as we were notified.


Mr. COLDWELL:: When was that?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The first petition came in more than a week ago.


Major James William Coldwell: The time is very short for the provincial government to prepare a statement in rebuttal.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Perhaps it is, but I understand that we have only the period from now until November 10 within which to decide whether to allow the provincial legislation to take its course or to recommend the disallowance thereof.

Canadian Army


Mr. COLD  WELL@: The petitioners themselves allowed very little time for consideration by this government or the government of Saskatchewan.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The legislation was already under consideration by the law officers of the department., after it had been officially received from the government of Saskatchewan; and I assume it is the privilege of a citizen to file a petition at any time. We had not waited for the reception of the petitions to give consideration to the legislation of Saskatchewan generally.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: That was done on the initiative of the department itself?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is always done. We always receive provincial legislation for examination and there are law officers of the department whose function it is to examine that legislation, and to prepare memoranda for the minister to submit to council.



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister make a statement on the dismissal of the editor of the Canadian overseas army paper Maple Leaf for criticizing the repatriation policy, as reported in to-day's press; and will he also state the policy of the government on repatriation of N.R.M.A. soldiers?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):: My hon. friend was good enough to inform me of his intention to ask this question, and I am very happy to answer it.
May I preface what I have to say by stating that the action which General Simonds took in removing the editor of the Maple Leaf, and the statement which he issued giving reasons for that action, were entirely on his own initiative, and without any instruction or request from Ottawa to do so, but that both action and statement have my entire approval.	.
Perhaps it would be useful if I gave the house first a statement of what the policy of Maple Leaf is with respect to matters of this kind. When the various editions of the Maple Leaf were first established, Colonel R. S. Malone, assistant director of public relations, (army) discussed what the policy of the paper should
be with the various interested parties, including General Crerar, commanding officer overseas, and the then Minister of National Defence.
As a result a signal was sent overseas which is referred to in one of the signals from General Simonds, which I shall read later, and which summarizes that policy. I shall give the house an extract from that signal, as follows:
1. No editorial directives, regulations or policies for the Maple Leaf have at any time been issued by either military authorities or from Canadian government sources. Decisions on editorial matters rest entirely with the Maple Leaf staff. On the founding of the various editions of the Maple Leaf, however, the A.D.P.R. Lt.-Col. Malone in each instance set forth a basic policy to be followed as long as the Maple Leaf functioned. This policy involves two principles only and was accordingly registered with Field Marshal Montgomery, General Crerar and the defence department in Canada. They in their turn agreed to a policy of non-interference. This policy which must be maintained at all times is as follows:
(a)	There will be no holding back of actual news at any time either domestic, military or foreign events. All factual stories considered of interest to the troops will be published with a prominence according to reader interest. No such stories will be deliberately overplayed if such treatment could result in loss of morale or friction within the army or political controversy, i.e., troops within the army are entitled to their own political views whether Liberal, Labour, Conservative or C.C.F., etc. As there is only one newspaper available to the troops, there can be no special emphasis given to news of one particular political body, racial group or provincial division.
(b)	Editorial comment and opinion appearing in the editorial column proper of necessity represents the official view of the Maple Leaf. The basic purpose of the Maple Leaf is for assisting troop morale and at the same time keeping our forces up to date with the news as well as providing some interest and entertainment.
2. For the above reasons the following subjects will not be dealt with editorially:
(a)	Any comment or opinion on domestic, political issues in Canada which would cause friction within the army and between the troops overseas and people at home thus injuring army morale.
(b)	Any internal military question which would tend to cause antagonism and set one group, formation or service within the army against another. This applies equally as regards other national interests within the Canadian army, i.e.. subjects which would cause friction between Canucks, Limies, Poles. Yanks, etc. Rather the governing principle should be that the Maple Leaf should be a strong medium for binding our army together and maintaining a team spirit throughout. The strength of the Maple Leaf lies entirely in that direction.
Then follows another paragraph relating to letters to the editor, etc., which I heed not take up the time of the house in reading.
Canadian Army


Howard Charles Green: If that is to be done, I thinK it would be fair to place the editorials on Hansard also.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should be glad to do that, but they have not been cabled to me as yet. The Maple Leaf is not published here. I shall be glad to see that those are placed on Hansard as soon as we can get them. I shall ask that they be cabled at once. I have seen only the extracts which appeared in the Canadian papers.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest that they all be placed on Hansard together, General Simonds' statement and the editorials.


Douglas Charles Abbott: All I am talking about now is General Simonds' statement and the statements which appeared in the Maple Leaf which have been referred to in this morning's papers. I want it on the record here. I am trying to give a full explanation of this matter. I thought it would save time, but

Canadian Army
I am prepared to read it. This is the message which came on Saturday to General Foulkes from General Murchie:
Reference my GS. 2091 following is text of statement issued by Simonds to the Maple Leaf with copy to Canadian Press under heading "Statement by Lieutenant-General G. G. Simonds commanding Canadian forces in the Netherlands". Statement begins.
On September 21, 1945, I reluctantly ordered the removal of the editor of the Maple Leaf, Major J. D. Macfarlane, M.B.E. I give you below my reasons for so doing.
Freedom of the press is a vital principle which we are all concerned to uphold. But the position of the Maple Leaf differs from the ordinary newspaper in that it holds a monopoly. It is the only daily newspaper regularly presenting its views and news to the whole Canadian army overseas. .Ordinarily in our country or community there are a number of newspapers presenting news and providing editorial comment on current problems. In this way important and controversial subjects are presented and discussed from many angles-if one paper or group of papers emphasizes one aspect and advocates certain action others will independently present other and contrary angles. A balance of views is available and each individual is enabled to form his own opinions based upon all the information and arguments available through the whole press.
Because of the monopoly position of the Maple Leaf-because it is the only newspaper regularly serving the whole Canadian army- it is inherent in its charter that its editorial columns must present all points of view and a balanced statement of the subjects with which it deals. Particularly is this important when it deals with the subjects in which all soldiers are acutely interested. It is quite wrong for the editor of the Maple Leaf to give a biased view or what is his own personal view in disregard of the views of others on internal military questions which would tend to cause antagonism and set one group formation of service within the army against another.
So long as the editor of the Maple Leaf adhered to his charter and presented unbiased and impartial argument in his editorial comment he was free and would always be free from any interference by myself or any other commander. But on September 19. 1945, there appeared an editorial entitled "On this repat question the Maple Leaf reveals" and on September 20, 1945. a further editorial entitled "To continue" both of which in my opinion made biased and most unfair comment upon an issue affecting every soldier awaiting repatriation. I met the editor and told him that though I had no quarrel with his statement of facts and no desire to suppress or hide them I thought his comment biased and unjust and far from doing any good could only cause unhappiness and dissension in the ranks of the army. I gave him what I considered "The other side of the picture", which I give in full below, and told him he was under an obligation to present those aspects as well as his own personal view's in an editorial in the Maple Leaf. This he refused to do and he further stated that he refused to adhere to the principle that a balanced expression of opinion as opposed to his own personal opinion should govern the editorial policy of the Maple Leaf. Under these
conditions I considered I had no alternative but to order his removal as editor.
It is with deep regret that I have had to take this step. I do not believe that anyone has a greater appreciation of all Major Macfarlane has done than I have myself but in a newspaper holding a practical monopoly I cannot concede the principle that the editor may use it as a medium of expression of his own views regardless of the views of others. I have no personal antagonism towards Major Macfarlane-on the contrary I offer him my personal gratitude and thanks for all he has done since the inception of the Maple Leaf. I would be the very last to suggest that the fact he holds strong personal views is any detriment to his personality or character. His point score entitles him to repatriation now and in arranging this I wish him good luck in his future undertakings.
"The other side of the picture."
I have said that I considered the editorials in the Maple Leaf of September 19 and 20 presented a biased point of view and were unjust.
I am not challenging the facts as presented and have no desire to suppress them.
I consider the editorial of the nineteenth unfortunate, first of all because the very title of it and the whole tone implies that the Maple Leaf has unearthed something that the authorities are trying to conceal.
Every soldier in the Canadian army overseas ought to have known long ago that the plan approved by the Department of National Defence for repatriation of the Canadian army, the plan for the execution of which I have been made responsible, envisages units returning as such with personnel of point scores between 150 and 50. This was stated in the official publication "After victory in Europe" issued last May. It w'as repeated in General Crerars circular letter of July 10. and I have personally so informed officers, N.C.O's and men when speaking to them on this problem. The fact that a concession has been made to high point scores by inserting further Canada drafts between the moves of successive divisions has not changed the policy that units when they move as such will take with them all personnel on their strength with point scores of between 150 and 50. There can be no "revelation" in that it has been known and published in the Maple Leaf and discussed for months.
The real issue by the Maple Leaf and the real reason why I condemn the editorials of September 19 and 20, is that they advocate that N.R.M.A. soldiers should be treated differently from volunteer soldiers for purposes of repatriation. It may be unfortunate that the individual cases referred to in the Maple Leaf editorial of September 19, 1945, were posted last June to a unit of the first Canadian infantry division but to remove them now I am convinced would be unjust for it would mean that for soldiers with equal points the volunteer and N.R.M.A. soldier must be treated differently. This would be wrong from both the practical and moral point of view.
Of soldiers who started their service in the N.R.M.A. some after being called up and while still serving in Canada volunteered to come overseas. Some who were sent to the United Kingdom as N.R.M.A. became "active" volunteers whilst in the United Kingdom, some sent to reinforcement units on the continent became "active" volunteers after reaching the continent. Some sent as reinforcements to the continent never became "active", they were posted forward
Canadian Army

to infantry battalions and fought as N.R.M.A. men. Of this last group, i.e., those who never changed their N.R.M.A. status, sixty were killed in action, 192 were wounded.
When we were hard pressed last autumn and spring and the N.R.M.A. were sent over as reinforcements I believed the feeling of the whole army was that if they "did their stuff" they would be accepted as equal members of this army. They did "do their stuff" and it would be morally wrong at this time when the fighting is over to say that they should be treated differently from other soldiers.
If the criterion is taken as to whether or not a soldier served in an operational theatre, what about volunteers who never served in an operational theatre. A comparison of risks run is not valid at this stage for those of us who are awaiting repatriation, have in fact survived, we are here alive and well regardless of comparative risks to which individuals might have been exposed. There are both volunteers and N.R.M.A. men who have fought in battle. Some of both have been killed. Some of both have been wounded. Some of both have come through the battle unscathed. There are both volunteers and N.R.M.A. men who have never served outside Canada. There are both volunteers and N.R.M.A. men who have never served in an operational theatre. Length of service and length of service abroad are the only proper individual yardsticks at this time. Two points for a month's service in Canada, three points for a month's service abroad discriminates in favour of the man who has served abroad. But between men of equal points there cannot be further moral discrimination.
I have used the term moral discrimination because there must be some practical discrimination between individuals. There are many with high scores who- must be prepared to wait because duty so requires.
I consider it my duty to see that those who have to wait the longest before returning home are at_ least as well served as regards health, education, sports, welfare, recreation and leave as those more fortunate ones who have returned to Canada in the earliest drafts. To do this I must retain, sufficient experienced staff and regimental officers, warrant officers, N.C.O's. clerical staffs, cooks, administrative specialists and tradesmen and units of the services to ensure that a proper standard of administration is upheld until the end. That is why it is impossible to let the point score be the only consideration in the order of return home. Some with very high scores, others with medium group scores must subordinate their own personal wishes to return home to their duty to the group as a whole.
Feeling as we do about this question of return lome it is not difficult to find individual cases here and there which appealing to our emotions give rise to feelings of indignation and injustice that our particular turn has not come sooner. But the few individual cases do not really affect this problem which is still to be solved in terms of many thousands.
I assure you that it is my intention to work tl}e,repot plan with the greatest possible degree of fairness to the individual providing that this does not react to the serious detriment of the remaining groups.
My hon. friend asked me to give a statement on the repatriation policy. The broad
[Mr. Abbott. 1
details of that policy I think are pretty well known and are as indicated in General Simonds' message. They were outlined in the pamphlet which was issued after VE-day early in May.


Howard Charles Green: What I asked about was the policy of the government on repatriation of the N.R.M.A, soldiers.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is pretty well indicated too in General Simonds' statement. But may I point out to the house, as I indicated in the statement I gave to the press last night, that this repatriation policy is not a policy which was adopted here in Ottawa and imposed on the army overseas. That policy was evolved overseas, by the men over there, by General Crerar and his officers. It was, of course, approved in Ottawa, but neither my predecessor nor I, nor for that matter the staff here in Ottawa, initiated or designed that policy. It was worked out overseas. It was felt here that the policy would be more satisfactory if it were designed by the men on the spot who knew the problem. I want to make that perfectly clear, because this editorial indicated, as some others have since, that this was a policy imposed by somebody here in Canada. That is not the case.
The policy from the very outset with respect to these N.R.M.A. men has been this: Once they stepped on a ship there was no distinction made between the N.R.M.A. man and the volunteer soldier. They were all going over to fight. There has been a lot of talk in this country-not by me, let me say-of two armies, but so far as overseas service is concerned we have never had two armies. There has been no distinction made between the volunteer soldier and the man sent over under the National Resources Mobilization Act. Once the N.R.M.A. man got over there he took his place in the reinforcement pool, and when his turn came he went over to France as part of the reinforcements and was posted to a unit, just the same as any other soldier. General Foulkes told me only this morning that when people asked him over there how the N.R.M.A. men were doing, he replied, "I do not know, because I do not know who they are. So far as I am concerned they are soldiers just the same as any other soldier."
So there has been no distinction made, and so long as I am minister there will not be any distinction made, between the soldier who is over there compulsorily and the soldier who is over there voluntarily. And to old soldiers it is obvious why that must be so. There must be mutual trust and confidence in the man be-

Canadian Army
side you when you are fighting, and to make a distinction between the men who have volunteered and the men who have been sent over under the N.R.M.A. would be indefensible.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not a fact that the
complaint made in the editorial was about NjR.M.A. troops who were never in the fighting at all but went over to the continent after the fighting had ended and"are now being sent home ahead of the men who did the fighting?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As General Simonds indicated in his message, it was perhaps unfortunate that a few N.R.M.A. men should have been posted to the first division on or shortly after VE-day. That was the case, although I believe there were very few. But having been posted to the first division in the ordinary course, not by any process of special selection but just in the ordinary course, they were no longer N.R.M.A. men but just soldiers who had been sent over from England to reinforce a particular unit. As General Simonds has indicated, perhaps it was unfortunate that that step was taken, but it was taken, although not by the Minister of National Defence or the government here in Ottawa. That step was taken overseas. That may be a subject for criticism; I do not know. However, I am advised that relatively few in that category were posted to that division. Having been posted to that division, if the men had a point score in excess of 50, between 50 and 150, they would come back with their units. If they have not that point score, they will not.
I do not know that I should go into details to justify the present system. The reason, to anybody who understands the problems of repatriation, are obvious. If you did not follow that system you would soon, for instance, be without any cooks, senior officers or N.C.O.'s. It was felt after most careful consideration by General Crerar and his officers overseas, and this has been known to the troops overseas and to this country for the last four or five months, that there should be no distinction made-and this is the policy which is being followed-both as to the volunteer soldier and the so-called N.R.M.A. soldier, provided he has the required point score.


Howard Charles Green: Am I to understand that the minister will obtain copies of the editorials and-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this is a question arising out of the minister's statement.


James Horace King: Order. I think I have already been very generous to hon. members.
I would call their attention to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, page 125, also May, 245, on standing order 44:
After a minister has answered a question asked by a member when the orders of the day are called, no discussion of any kind should take place. Mr. Speaker Lowther laid down the rule about this on the 5th July, 1915, in the British House of Commons, where the practice is practically the same as ours. He said: "All supplementary questions are irregular and are not provided for at all in any standing order. It is entirely a matter of grace. I may say generally that the object of supplementary questions is to elucidate any ambiguity in the reply of a minister or to seek for some further information if he can give it; but supplementary questions should no, ue put, and ought not to be put, to embarrass a minister or to lead him to give an answer in a hurry which at a subsequent time he might be sorry that he gave. I will gi-ve as much freedom as I possibly can, but at the same time there must be some limits."


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I was not
intending to carry on the discussion. All I wanted to do was to ask the minister to make sure that he had given his undertaking that he would obtain copies of these editorials and place them on Hansard. That is all I ask.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have already given that undertaking, Mr. Speaker.


Howard Charles Green: That is all I want.


John Bracken: May I ask the minister, arising out of the statement he has just made, what body determines the official policy of Maple Leaf? The minister may have mentioned that in his statement.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, I did. The Maple Leaf, as the leader of the opposition knows, is purely an army newspaper set up by the department of public relations, headed overseas by Colonel Malone, and in discussion with public relations officers overseas Colonel Malone worked out the method of editing and publishing the Maple Leaf. Following those discussions the policy was laid down which I have outlined and which is contained in this signal from which I have quoted. It was approved by the other defence ministers, by General Crerar, and by General Murchie, chief of staff here. That is my information as to the manner in which the policy was determined.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, September 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. M. Benidickson for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Beaudry
at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Bracken, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Hansell.
Mr. ROLAND BEAUDRY (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some diffidence to undergo what might be termed the "baptism of speech" of a member new to this house, since the constituency I represent has nothing at first sight to single it out. It is a constituency of Canadians who believe in Canada as an entity achieved almost eighty years ago, and who have lived, thought, acted, and at the last election voted, as free men aware of the fact that living in a free country is one of their most precious prerogatives, and desirous above all of retaining their prerogatives and of taking pride in their citizenship.
When I say that St. James has nothing to single it out I am perhaps a bit inaccurate. St. James is the constituency which gave this house one of its finest exponents of the graces of parliamentary eloquence, and one of its outstanding former cabinet members, the late Fernand Rinfret.. It is the constituency which recognized the qualities of heart of his successor, my predecessor in this seat, Eugene Durocher. His span of life, all short as it was, allowed him to endear himself to a good many in this house and to everyone for whose hopes, interests and wishes he stood in this chamber.
In one respect, Mr. Speaker, St. James stands out in almost paradoxical relief. By its very lack of singularity it becomes singular. In point of population it is one of the largest constituencies, if not the largest, in this dominion, and it is probably the most clearly outlined cross-section of this country's component elements. Representing as I do one of the largest bodies of people who may send a representative to this house, I am fully conscious of the responsibilities entailed, and fully aware of the hopes, desires and needs of these Canadians of various origins who make up the entity which, since the beginning of our political history as a nation, has been, with Quebec East, the bell-wether of Canadian Quebec's opinion. This I say, Mr. Speaker, fully cognizant of the fact that each constituency claims equal importance, but also mindful of history and tradition.
Through my voice, sir, St. James speaks its hope, its desire, its determination that Canada shall become the country which it was meant to be by the French settlers, to whom selfsacrifice was the means to an end; by the English conqueror, upon whom through the taking over of this vast territory devolved the

duty of meting out justice and of recognizing rights; the country which has been the promised land to so many new Canadians.
Of course-we on this side of the house, and I trust those on the other side, are aware of it-rights, prerogatives and their enjoyment [DOT]entail duties-duties of understanding, duties of commission, duties, if I may so term them, of omission and remission, and duties stemming from divine law. Since the opening of this parliament there have been many statements on both sides of the house which hearten me in my belief that this country at large intends to discharge its duty of understanding -of understanding that in matters of language and of religious tolerance numbers do not necessarily imply right; that in matters of controversy arising from different viewpoints- viewpoints of necessity dissimilar because they spring from a dissimilarity of antecedents and precedents-both sides at times may be right; of understanding that abuse cast by either party at an ideological opposition will never bridge a flow of opposite thought; understanding that under the present circumstances the problems of government may often find a solution, not ideal perhaps to each individual but' reasonably acceptable to all. This duty Mr. Speaker, the people of St. James, the French and English speaking, the Catholics and the non-Catholics, the old Canadians and the new Canadians of different origins, living together in harmony in the largest constituency in the largest city of our country, have lived up to and will continue to live up to. I am equally sure that they have noted the utterances of many in this house with a renewed assurance that we may yet achieve the unity of thought and purpose which this party has set as its goal, and for which the leader of this party stands out as a symbol.
The duty of omission and remission is perhaps not as easy to define, but certainly its performance can be far more of a daily occurrence and the opportunities for its discharge far more numerous. May I define what I term our duty of omission and remission as being: omitting to take offence at provocation, whether it be just or unjust in all spheres of thought, and, in such cases of provocation, as omitting to condemn before or without a full hearing; of refraining from verbal or factual behaviour such as may lead a fellow Canadian to believe that his rights to full citizenship are being disputed. May I suggest that we remember at all times that if we have reason to be spurred on to greater nationalism, or to become the nationalists which the new glory, the new opportunities,

The Address-Mr. Beaudry
the new horizons which open before Canada justify us to be, our nationalism may take different means of expression.
Let us not condemn our neighbour's form of expression because it does not fully coincide with our own. If both are sincere, if neither is inspired by selfish motives of local sublimation, both have their place in our spiritual economy and both should with time be merged into one common means of expression. Both should eventually have one sincere, one all-encompassing joint purpose, the happiness of all Canadians to whom religion, language and custom shall not prove an obstacle to a common interest, a common sense of citizenship, and a common flag.
The accomplishment of the duty which I have termed that of omission and remission has at times been difficult for the people of St. James; yet they took the opportunity offered by the last election to recall to the country at large that they saw their duty. Their overwhelming vote in favour of one who, in our minds, is the symbol of tolerant yet firm Canadianism, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), proves it. And, Mr. Speaker, many were there to influence them, in some cases to urge them that now was the time to mingle their voices with the cry for separation, with the cry for isolation of mind and of thought if not of corporeal presence, and that cry had not always found its accents from sheer selfishness. At times it may have been provoked by what seemed to some, and not the least enlightened, sound justification for their attitude.
The men and women of St. James proudly discharged their duty of omission, anxious to remain free citizens in a country of freedom. They were oblivious, if not forgetful, of the castigation of a few and of the blandishments of a fewer still, to whom Canada is not an end, not an achievement, but an instrument and a means. St. James, sir, did a magnificent job of discharging its duty of remission and omission, and it omitted all considerations other than the furtherance and aggrandizement of the destiny of our homeland.
I shall not dwell on the duties stemming from divine law, but all this country should be thankful for the family allowances act. The men and women of St. James are grateful for the family allowances act, and have accepted family allowances in the spirit in which they were proffered by this government: For the purpose of making the citizens of Canada who are in process of growth both physically and mentally, such as they may become wider in their horizon than the boundaries of Si. James, than the boundaries of
their province; that they may become citizens of a closely knit yet far-reaching Canada, masters of the two languages which are recognized as the twin tongues of this land, masters of both mentalities which spring from this duality of languages, and above all masters of themselves in their own land.
May I now, Mr. Speaker, submit my views on our approach to the performance of our duty of commission. Here I say that full understanding of the importance of the duties I have outlined previously is imperative if we are to agree on our various duties of commission, and I submit that it is imperative for our future that we do agree. There are many in this land who have advocated in word, and others in thought if not in word, that the greatest tangible evidence of the discharge of one's duty of commission to this country is military service for war purposes. I agree that military service for war purposes is not only commendable but necessary; and that it definitely represents a duty of commission. But they in turn surely will grant me that this performance, no matter how heroic it may be, no matter how great its repercussions, no matter what it entails in loss of that which is dearest to man, his very life, is not necessarily given to each generation. Let us hope that it shall never be given to the generations to follow. They will also grant me that the performance of many other duties of commission is no less important to national life and survival. When I say this, it is farthest from my mind to detract one whit from the greatness of the sacrifice, the hardships that accrue, the sorrows that follow, to lessen the glory, the merit- or the gratitude which they deserve, of those who a quarter of a century ago, and more recently in the last six years, have shed their blood or have given their lives in the accomplishment of their duty. To those with heads bowed St. James pays its debt of gratitude for their part in saving Canada. And so that I may be understood by all of those who shared in the battles for the survival of Canada as an entity, and for the safeguarding of our way . of life, I say: Nous vous sommes profondement recon-naissants.
I regret I cannot repeat what I feel in the language of origin of every Canadian who helped to save civilization, but to every one of these goes my deepest admiration and gratitude in the knowledge that for minorities as to language the obstacles and the sacrifice were, of necessity, greater.
In St. James as everywhere else in Canada we have cause to honour a great many of our
The Address-Mr. Hlynka

own who gave up years of blood and life; but in St. James as everywhere else in this country there are a great many more who will never reap glory except in their own hearts, whose everyday prosaic task is known to but a few, and who are yet- daily deserving of their country and who daily carry out the acts of commission which they owe to their country. Of these too many are slighted in times of war, too many forgotten in times of peace. They are the workers, the labourers, the consumers, the taxpayers, the artisans of our daily bread, the fathers and mothers of the present and of the future generation, who perhaps do not always see their duty of commission as their neighbour sees it, but who are none the less sincere in its accomplishment.
When we shall all have in this country a similar interpretation of our duties of understanding, of omission and remission, of divine laws, we shall better understand, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, what the duty of commission means to ourselves and to our neighbour. To those and to others Canada also owes tangible recognition. For those and all others it is the duty of this parliament and the avowed intention of this party to enact such legislation as may ensure unity, peace and security.
I am gratified that old age pensions become part of our individual economy. I am not fully in accord with the limitation of time set upon their enjoyment, and would strongly advocate that within the bounds of our financial ability to meet our obligations, the men and women of Canada should receive old age pensions at the age of sixty in cases of dire need and at the age of sixty-five in all other cases. I believe and advocate that plans for our physical construction and reconstruction should be laid not in the light of a bounty but in direct consequence of the immediate needs of our people, and that the realization of these plans be unhampered by the dictates of what I hope may soon become the unnecessary evil of bureaucracy.
I appreciate that this is not all easy. Certainly the contradictory statements and suggestions on this score coming from the opposite side of the house will prove of no great help. Just here may I suggest to hon. members of the opposition that to them is given at once the opportunity of carrying out their duties of understanding and omission for the true benefit of this country. In connection with the demobilization and rehabilitation in civilian life of our forces, those non-combatants who owe a debt of gratitude are perhaps more desirous than anyone else of prompt
CMr. Beaudry.]
and effective action. May I be allowed here to call attention to what seems to be an anomaly, this, that men who enlisted for general service, and who through no wish of their own but because of the necessities of military discipline and organization did not see service overseas, are not granted rehabilitation treatment equal to that of front-line men. I submit that all non-commissioned ranks, at least, who enlisted with an equal sense of duty and an equal willingness for self-sacrifice, should be treated with an equality of recognition. If it is true that circumstances may alter cases, I believe it equally true 'that in the main the ends of fairness to all may be best served in this way.
This house already has been too kind to me, and I should not like to wear out my welcome. I conclude with the hope and faith that the immediate future will see the development of Canada not only as a member of the community of nations but as a land of fruitful realization for all those whom the Almighty has placed within its confines; and for that purpose the additional duty devolves upon us of helping every Canadian in the task of fulfilling each of the duties I have outlined earlier. Let us keep constantly in our minds the thought that we as individuals hold our fate in our hands, and that the fate of each of our fellow Canadians is at all times inseparable from our own if we are to be true to our own interests and shall be worthy of Canada.


Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the past twelve days we have had the privilege of listening to some very fine contributions to this debate, dealing with the problems mentioned in the speech from the throne. The most important and immediate problems, of course, are those which have arisen directly as a result of the war. Our domestic problems should be less difficult of solution, particularly in view of our fortunate geographic position, since Canadian soil has not been ravaged by war. But in war-torn Europe the problems of providing food, clothing, shelter and medical supplies, finding refuge for millions of displaced persons and their rehabilitation, are matters of great magnitude and extreme urgency. It is my firm conviction that on humanitarian grounds alone we have a moral responsibility to those unhappy people, particularly when we consider the tremendous sacrifices and limitless contributions they made to the winning of the war. It is true that the lion's share of this gigantic task is being discharged, and with some success, by such

The Address-Mr. Hlynka
official organizations as UNRRA, intergovernmental committees, the International Red Cross and its auxiliaries, and so on. However, I am more concerned with that phase of the problem which extends beyond the scope of officialdom but which is by no means less deserving of the most sympathetic and humanitarian consideration.
Before proceeding further I should like to say that I have nothing but the highest admiration for the organizations to which I have referred and for the work they are doing with the limited resources which have been placed at their disposal for such a colossal task. I believe, nevertheless, that we have fallen short in our humanitarian response to that other phase of this gigantic problem which, as I have said, extends beyond the jurisdiction of the organizations I have mentioned. I would refer to the situation which exists in regions where complications have arisen due to racial or political differences. In order to alleviate the situation with respect to food, clothing and other supplies in regions where complications do exist I should like to make the suggestion that societies, private individuals and relatives of displaced persons be permitted to make direct gifts to those needy people so that all such articles may be received by those for whom they are intended. Under the present arrangement all articles of food, clothing and so on are collected into a common pool and distributed in the various zones by local officials and agencies as they see fit. Should the suggestion of direct gifts be adopted I am certain that additional aid would be forthcoming, both from those who are interested in their own relatives and from many other public-spirited individuals and societies on this continent.
Speaking in this house on March 26, 1945, in a debate on the San Francisco conference, I suggested then that there was a great need for some mechanism to be devised whereby stateless peoples and persons would be provided with the means of voicing their own *opinions on their own behalf, when and if they consider themselves not represented by the various de facto governments. To-day, in the light of what is taking place in the Soviet sphere, I am convinced more than ever that there has become a still greater need for the setting up of such mechanism. For it is [DOT]quite obvious that any problem which involves millions of people cannot and must not be lightly dismissed or brushed aside. To substantiate my contention that the magnitude of this problem has reached serious proportions, may I quote from an editorial which 47696-25
appeared in the Ottawa Evening Citizen of September 15,	1945, under the heading
"Estonian Odyssey." The editorial says:
A small Canadian press item from London tells of the setting out in a 37-foot sailing yacht of a group of sixteen Estonian refugees from the west coast of Scotland. The destination of these seven men, five women and four children is the United States. Three times already the small craft has set out, but it is in an earnest of the determination of the group not to return to their native land that a fourth attempt is now being made to reach the new world in the hope of a new life.
The desire to go far from their own land will surely raise problems on this side of the Atlantic if they complete their desperate voyage. It emphasizes the plight of many thousands of what are now known as displaced persons.
Such lands as Estonia and Latvia, and other territories in Europe where governments have changed, inevitably leave numbers of former residents unwilling to return to their former homes. In the case of the Estonian group they are unwilling to return to the land which is now incorporated under the Soviet union.
It will take a great deal of wisdom and understanding to deal with this class of refugee. The war has been fought in the great cause of freedom. It would be a negation of that struggle to be a party of the unwilling return of such refugees or other displaced persons-they include victims of nazi forced labour from Poland and even Russia-to former homelands. The united nations, particularly the big three, have a test of their ideals in stern realities to face.
I have other reports describing in the most pathetic and desperate terms the fate of these homeless millions. Here is another extract found in the Czech press service bulletin of June 28, 1945. This bulletin is published in London, England. The article is entitled "News From the Crucified Continent," and the subheading reads, "Be Communist or Perish." It states:
According to information received from Trieste, the western allies are forcing large numbers of people -who escaped the wrath of Tito communists to return to the parts they ran away from. Thousands of Croats and Slovenes who sought refuge in the British-American zone in Karinthia, have been handed over to Tito. They were stripped naked and executed by the deadly fire of machine guns. The Bishop of Lubljanja, together with 161 Slovenian priests and clerics, made their way into the American zone beseeching protection. It has not yet been decided whether they will be given up to Tito or not.
There is silence over these horrors in the press of the Christian civilized countries in the west. It seems almost as if a decision has been taken that the peoples of the European continent must be communist, or else perish.
It will readily be seen, Mr. Speaker, that the two quotations which I have cited reveal the desperate situation which faces so many freedom-loving people of the world. I may say further that the fate of the continent of Europe is in the hands of the English-speaking nations-Canada included.

The Address-Mr. Hlynka

According to the figures of the international labor office there are no less than 40 million displaced persons as a result of the war. A good number of these persons will return to their former homes of their own free will, but in the case of what I call "stateless persons" the word repatriation has a different meaning. To them it means penal servitude, concentration camps, or, to use the favourite Soviet term, liquidation. This group of stateless people comprise several millions of Ukrainians, Jews, Czechs, Slovaks, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Finns, Poles and others, and the most tragic and ironic thing of all is that this group is made up of persons who hold democratic views, and, as the quotation says, democracies are forcing them to become communist or perish.
I find brief reference to this subject of repatriation in the British Hansard, for August 20, 1945, wherein Hon. Ernest Kevin, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the British government, asserts "that over 600,000 Russians," as he calls them, "have been transported from the British zone to the east," and, "that it was expected that by autumn only 645,000 will be left, of whom 500,000 will be 'Poles'."
During the past several weeks desperate letters, messages and pleas have been reaching many of our Canadian homes, and we have read press dispatches to the same effect, that the group of displaced persons who are found in American and British zones are being repatriated by force to their former homes. Many of these displaced persons commit suicide rather than return under the Soviets. Still others go so far as to resist the British and American military police in self-defence, and we learn from the latest reports that the situation is growing worse. In dealing with this question I should like to ask: Is repatriation by force a solution to the problem, and is it in conformity with the principles proclaimed in the Atlantic charter and later endorsed at Yalta, namely: "the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live," and also "afford the assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want?"
Representations have been made to me, Mr. Speaker, by many of our Canadian veterans zf world war II, who have met many of these displaced persons and who have personal knowledge of the situation as it exists with respect to the question of repatriation; and being of Ukrainian origin themselves, they asked me to plead the cause of these unfortunate people, among whom there are many Ukrainians. In addition to this I have been receiving letters and telegrams almost daily

from all parts of Canada, sent by Ukrainian church bodies and other Canadian-Ukrainian organizations, requesting that I bring this matter to the attention of the Canadian government and to the attention of this democratic tribunal.
I should like, therefore, on behalf of Ukrainian refugees who are involved in this repatriation, and on behalf of others, to submit a plea to the Canadian government to transmit through its high offices to the British and United States governments an appeal to cease forceful repatriation of displaced persons, and in addition to give sympathetic consideration to the following specific requests:
1.	That permission be granted to representatives of Ukrainian relief committees to visit various camps and districts where Ukrainian refugees are found. These representatives to act on instructions of the British and United States commanders in their respective zones.
2.	That where the number of Ukrainian refugees warrants it, they be organized or granted permission to organize themselves into Ukrainian refugee camps, and that they be permitted to organize their own welfare committees. If this were done, all material aid meant for Ukrainians would be more likely to reach them.
3.	That radio news and information broadcasts-now being transmitted to Europe in many languages, but not in Ukrainian-be also given in the Ukrainian language. For at present all authoritative information is broadcast in languages which are not adequately understood by Ukrainian people.
4.	That British and United States military governments alone issue and announce statements of policy in regard to problems respecting refugees, instead of permitting Russian and other representatives to confuse the Ukrainian refugees.
5.	That permission be granted to Ukrainian refugees to edit, print and distribute a "news letter" in the Ukrainian language for the benefit of Ukrainian refugees, as is being done in Russian, Polish and a few other languages.
From the five specific requests which I have just placed before the government and this honourable house it will be quite evident that not only do Ukrainians share the unfortunate fate of a refugee life, but they also have been overlooked in respect to the privileges granted to Polish, Russian and other refugees. It is in the light of all these cruel and horrible conditions and because of the tragic fate of the Ukrainian refugees that I make this plea.
In conclusion, I should like to read an extract from Mr. Churchill's speech which he

The Address-Mr. Jackman
delivered in the British House of Commons on August 16, 1945 and which is recorded in the British Hansard of that date. This extract describes a scene which appears in the tragic world drama of to-day and which I could not even hope to describe in my own inadequate words. Mr. Churchill said:
It is not impossible that tragedy on a prodigious scale is imposing itself behind the iron curtain which at present divides Europe in twain. . . .
I cannot conceive that the elements for a new conflict exist in the Balkans to-day . . . Nevertheless not many members of the new House of Commons will be content with the new situation prevailing in those mountainous, turbulent, ill-organized and war-like regions . . . for almost everywhere communist forces have obtained, or are in process of obtaining, dictatorial powers. . .	. We must know where
we stand, and we must make clear where we stand in these affairs of the Balkans and of eastern Europe, and indeed of any country which comes into this field.
Our idea is government of the people, by the people, for the people-the people being free without duress to express, by secret ballot without intimidation, their deep-seated wish as to the form and conditions under which they are to live. At present ... a family is gathered around the fireside to enjoy the scanty fruits of their toil and to recruit their exhausted strength by the little food that they have been able to gather. . . . Suddenly there is a knock at the door and a heavily armed policeman appears. ... It may be that the father or son, or a friend sitting in the cottage, is called out and taken off into the dark, and no one knows whether he will ever come back again, or what his fate has been. All they know is that they had better not inquire. There are millions of humble homes in Europe at the moment, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia, in Austria, in Hungary, in Yugoslavia, in Rumania, in Bulgaria-where this fear is the main preoccupation of the family life. . . . "Freedom from fear"-but this has been interpreted as if it were only freedom from fear of invasion from a foreign country . . . but that is not the fear of the ordinary family in Europe to-night. Their fear is the policeman's knock. ... It is for the life and liberty of the individual, for the fundamental rights of man, now menaced and precarious in so many lands that peoples tremble.	*
. . . Democracy is now on trial as it never was before, and in those islands we must uphold it, as we upheld it in the dark days of 1940 and 1941, with all our hearts, with all our vigilance and with all our enduring and inexhaustible strength.
Yes, democracy is on trial. No atheistic philosophy of force, torture and extermination shall ever restore the God-given democratic right to humanity unless the surviving democracies write a new chapter of history founded on Christian principles.
47696-25i


Mr. H. R. JACKMAN (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, there are many of us in this house who feel that the sooner we can wind up the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the better, because we wish to get on with the important topics of reconversion and the rehabilitation of our armed forces. If at the moment I trespass on the time of the house I dio so because. I wish to speak on a subject which I think has a great deal to do with rehabilitation and reconversion, that is, the financial measures which the government will bring down. It is not that I have any fore-knowledge, but I do wish to give some ideas which are uppermost in>
my mind and which I believe are requirements in the budget which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) will bring down, we hope in the very near future.
Although the elected Speaker is absent from the chamber at the moment I should like to offer my sincere congratulations upon his elevation to the high office be now holds.
Inasmuch as parliament was not called for some two weeks after the first appointed date because of the intervening of V-J day, one might have expected that the financial proposals of the government would be made known, at least as far as principle is concerned. However, we find that whatever the government did during that period it is not ready to make this announcement, to parliament and to the people of Canada. One would have thought that with the ending, of the Japanese war our expenses would be curtailed substantially and therefore the amount of revenue to be raised would also be curtailed substantially. One would have thought that when parliament was called the government would have made known something of its plans. The only reference to the budget in the speech from the throne was this short sentence:
My ministers' proposals with respect to taxation measures will be disclosed in the budget.
Those of us who have followed the workings of government in, this and other British countries for many years realize that the position of the budget has changed considerably, particularly since 1939. There are two reasons in my opinion why the budget should be mentioned, in principle at least, in the-speech from the throne. The first is the changed character of the budget proposals. There was a time when the budget had merely to do with the ways and means of raising for the government money to carry on the ordinary administration of the country. In pre-war days the budget seldom ran over $500,000,000; now
The Address-Mr. Jackman

it runs to many times that amount, and represents a substantial proportion of our total national income. In other words, there was a day not so far distant when what a man earned in open competition with his fellow men, or what he could induce his employer to give him, was his take-home pay. But that no longer obtains. What a workman gets or what an industrialist may earn bears little relation to the amount which he may take home to spend. He must wait until after the budget is announced before he can know, and this year, here we are in September, still waiting to know what the budget for the year 1945-46 is going to be. Soi far as one can- see, the Minister of Finance is taking his own good time before he brings down the budget and acquaints the people and the business men of this country, who must do the planning, with what the incentives and budget measures are likely to be for 1946.
Everyone I think realizes that budgets now are much more far-reaching than they ever were before. They go right down into the very life of the people. I can think of nothing of greater consequence, because the whole industrial and agricultural fabric of our nation is determined by budget measures. Everyone in this house knows that the power to tax is also the power to destroy, and it may very well be that if the budget measures are on the scale which we have seen during recent years, and are wrong in principle or in incidence, they may very well destroy the whole economic life of our country. I hesitate to think what the results may be if this government, because of ill-founded budget proposals, causes us to have great unemployment in Canada.
The second reason for speaking on what I would term budget principles at the present time is conveyed in a sentence that was uttered by that staunch supporter of the Liberal government, the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Bertrand), who in the early days of this debate said:
As we all know, when the budget is announced it immediately becomes law.
I am not against the old principle of the budget becoming law the day it is announced, because there were times, and there may again be times, when tariff or other changes could be taken advantage of by some if they knew of the measures before they actually became operative. But that is hardly so to-day, and inasmuch as the budget ramifies through our whole economic life and determines virtually our daily bread and butter, I believe it is the duty of the people's representatives to have some say and to interpret

the will of the people in the framing of the measures which determine how the money shall be raised. The government which takes the responsibility for the budget is, of course, aided by certain economic experts, for whom generally speaking I have the highest respect. Nevertheless these so-called experts are not in touch with public opinion, nor do they know how business functions in the same way that members of parliament know, because the members have an intimate acquaintance with the daily life and the welfare of our people.
It is my recommendation, Mr. Speaker, that we should have a committee of this house to decide the ways and means by which the amount of money shall be raised which the government decides must be raised, instead of having brought before the house, as is the practice now, a series of proposals from which no deviation whatsoever is allowed; for only in the minutest detail is any deviation permitted, according to my experience in this house. Unless we resort to such a system, the government becomes in effect a dictatorship, and we have little better than a totalitarian state. The budget is now all too important to be decided by the government and its technical staff rather than by the representatives of the people.
I should like also to say that we are interested now in the budget proposals not simply as a matter of percentages, whether this tax shall be at a certain rate, but we should know the principles, we should know exactly what type of taxation we are to have, and whether taxes are to be increased or lowered in certain brackets, and how business is to fare; for without that knowledge the business men cannot do their planning.
I could also make a plea, and I think on sound grounds, for some relief from taxation. Certainly the people of Canada are expecting relief from taxation. Everywhere one goes he finds that the Canadian citizens believe, and I think the Minister of Finance will agree with them, that they have done a wonderful job in the raising of war revenue. There has been no quibbling and no lack of good will in connection with it. But I am not so much concerned with the relief of the taxpayers, necessary as that is-I believe the government will have to pay some heed now to public opinion because the government's narrow majority in the house will not permit them to railroad measures through, irrespective of what the people think. The second reason we should know now what budget principles the government has in mind is this. The budget has a great deal to do with jobs, and it

The Address-Mr. Jackman
is to that aspect of the matter, rather than from any feeling in regard to relief from taxation, that I wish to address my remarks.
What is the history of our present high taxation? At the beginning of the war, taxes were raised substantially. They were raised higher in subsequent years, first of all for the purpose of raising revenue, and secondly for syphoning off spending power, so that there would not be too much pressure on inflation. The revenue was necessary, and so was the syphoning off. But the main reason for the high taxation was to stifle and check any increase in civilian production. The reason for that was that we had a war on our hands, that we must fight for liberty, and all our materials and all our man-power must be transferred to war account for the production of the needed munitions of war. In that regard we have done a grand job. The government proceeded to freeze the profits of industry and of business generally, so there was no incentive to produce more for civilian consumption. The average profit for the four preceding years was ascertained and under the Excess Profits Tax Act no one could earn more than that. Shortly after profits were frozen, wages in civilian industries were likewise frozen. But when it came to starting a new aviation plant or a gun plant or some other plant for war production, wages not having been paid before in such industry, there was no level at which to freeze them; consequently substantially higher wages were paid. This had the effect of inducing workers to leave civilian industry and go into war industry at higher rates of pay. That was the natural working of economic law. People who had never worked before went to work in war industries in order to turn out the goods for beating the enemy. So civilian production, as I have mentioned, was frozen in order to make available for war production, all the resources of this country which we could possibly spare, apart from maintaining some standard of civilian welfare. But now, sir, we are happy enough to have won victory both in Europe and in Asia. We no longer need manufactured goods for war; we no longer have that insatiable demand, and we must manufacture for civilian use. One would think therefore that if the government during the war saw fit to adopt certain measures in order to get war production and stifle civilian production, they might now adopt the reverse procedure, undo those measures and reduce taxation in order once again to provide the stimulus for civilian production, which means jobs for our returning men and for our people coming out of war industries.
We should at the present time put every stimulus on production. The whole accent
of our budget legislation and all other legislation should be on production, because it is out of production that we pay for our daily bread; it is out of production-not out of money-that we pay for our social services. Does the government lack courage to reduce taxation and bring about increased production through once again restoring incentive? I think we in this house should know whether or not the government expect that result irrespective of any lowering of taxation or restoring of incentive. Do they count on a small boom in order to make up for the pent-up demands which have grown during the war period, and then perhaps we may go into a slump? What is the government's idea?-so that business may do its planning and so that we may know what are the proper tax measures to be brought before this house?
Let us centre our fiscal thinking on job creation, not primarily on lessening taxation.
In my opinion, and I believe the house will agree with me, jobs are made up of two parts. First, there is the creator of the job; secondly, there is the seeker after work. Both must be considered in any reconversion or rehabilitation plan. Taxes must not be a wet blanket on incentive or on production.
So far as 1945 is concerned I do not think it necessary, however desirable it may be, that taxes, so far as they are to be paid in this year, be reduced. If they need to be reduced at all it is in the lowest brackets. Carpenters and other workmen will not work on Saturday mornings because the pay they earn is not worth their while; they would rather stay at home and do nothing than work for such a small rate of pay. Perhaps consideration should be given at once, considering the housing shortage, to the workman getting as-good a return for himself in the forty-fourth hour of his work as he gets in the first hour. But for 1946 there must be a real promise of reward for effort and some return for risk-taking; otherwise we cannot expect business men and leaders of industry to do the planning necessary to bring about the full employment or even the high rate of employment which is essential and desired by all.
I could say much about the value of leaders and leadership in the economic field. Without them there is no direction. Jobs do not occur of themselves. Jobs arise because someone has an idea of manufacturing something or providing some service and is willing to put his savings in that enterprise. In the making or the providing of that service he creates jobs, but there must be some incentive to men in order that they may do the planning and take the risk. Without planning and leadership our standards of living in this
The Address-Mr. Jackman


Mr. IRVINE:: A premium for the soldier
having taken the risk, or you?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: If the hon. member
wishes to speak at another time-


William Irvine: I am going to.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: -he may do so, but his remark is irrelevant to the point I am making.
I say, the four per cent difference is nothing

The Address-Mr. Jackman
more or less than a risk premium. If a man put his $1,000 in an enterprise of the kind I have described, he takes a chance on that business failing, so that the four per cent is additional to what he would get if he invested in a government bond, as a compensation for the risk he takes, because when we are dealing with these small industries, far more businesses of that kind fail than succeed. That four per cent, which has nothing to do with income, is a risk premium and is taxed by the government as if it were income, so that very little if any is left. Perhaps not as much as one per cent of that risk factor is left to a person in order to encourage him to put his money into risky enterprises or businesses. I am not suggesting to the minister that I have any way of levying the tax so that it shall fall only on the true income of three per cent. I am saying, however, that the effect of the present rates of taxation is to take nearly the whole of the amount of the risk factor. If you applied the same principle to life insurance, within a year or less the insurance companies would be bankrupt.
The result of all this is that the man who has money with which he might open up the north country, or start new industries, or back someone who has a new idea, says to himself, "It is no use trying to get seven per cent on my money, because if I do succeed the government will take practically all of it away, and if I lose, the loss is entirely my own. I am better off if I stick to government bonds." That policy may have been all right during the war years when the government provided all the employment necessary owing to the demands of war, and when they wanted all the money they could get in the form of subscriptions to government bonds; but now comes the time when the minister and the government will want to have businesses created as far as possible so that we may provide employment. Production is what counts. It is the sole objective which any modern budget should have in mind.
During the last five years we have had great increases in production in this country, and notwithstanding the stifling measures which the government sought to put into effect we have had an increased and a better distribution of the standard of living than we ever had before. And we have achieved that high standard of civilian living notwithstanding the fact that there were one million of our people engaged in war industry and 750,000 in the combatant services. So that we have at least one million workers, according to the white paper, available to increase the civilian standard of living if things are properly handled by this government. In other words, the machinery is there to provide a higher standard, and if we cannot provide that higher standard under the system of free enterprise, if it is spoiled for political considerations, we no longer deserve to operate that machine.
Let me say however that no machine will run without motive power. There must be a spark-plug somewhere; there must be a generator to impel activity. You have state-controlled totalitarianism plus the concentration camp as one form of motive power. People will do what they are told, unwillingly, half-heartedly, and ineffectively in that way; nevertheless you will have full employment with everyone working and a high measure of production. On the other hand you can have freedom of enterprise, opportunity and an adequate incentive as another motivating power, and that is the motivating power which this government has a mandate to put into operation immediately.
The country has chosen. Let the government implement that mandate. Let the government not fall, for want of courage, between two stools, one of control through taxation and the other of free enterprise, giving businessmen their head, so to speak, in order that they may get on with the job. The government may try to ride both horses and so fail in its objective. It must decide, and so must this house decide, which motivating power is to be behind the industrial and agricultural machine so that we may get on with the business of the country and achieve a high standard of living.
Business men now have confidence. In fact, they have a superabundance of confidence at the present time, and if they are given some idea of what they may expect to receive in the way of returns and compensation for the risk factor, that confidence will not wane. I can assure the minister however, and he knows this thoroughly, that business confidence is a plant of very tender gro-wth. While governments may easily put on the brakes when it comes to economics, it is very difficult for the government to stimulate the economic process because you are up against the human factor, and if men are afraid, if they feel that it is not worth while, and that they are likely to lose whatever little capital they have available for risk, you will not attain your objective.
We have the refusal of workers, skilled craftsmen, to work on Saturday mornings because the higher tax brackets have destroyed . all incentive. Why have the farmers reduced the hog population of the country by a third? I was interested in the remarks of the member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce)-and I do like to hear occasionally from the C.C.F., because I
The Address-Mr. Ilsley

find that if you scratch a little under the skin you will discover that we are all brothers. The hon. member told a story of a dairy farmer who had some cows. He and his family looked after the cows before breakfast and after supper in the evening. But he did not file an income tax return. One of the inspectors called upon him and said the creamery had reported that he had sold them $400 worth of cream, and the farmer found he had to pay a tax on that amount. After a while he said he was going to get rid of his cows, because, to use the words of the hon. member quoting the farmer, "I will never milk cows for Ilsley." That goes not only for that farmer in Selkirk, but for men occupying much higher positions. It runs through the whole economic structure. People are not going to work for nothing, particularly now that the war is over. If I may quote from the minister himself, when he delivered his budget address in 1942 he said this, at page 3579 of Hansard:
There is a danger that high progressive rates of income tax may interfere with the incentive for harder and better work for efficient production. We can and must rely upon other than economic motives to a large extent these days. Nevertheless, we cannot afford to dispense entirely with the incentive of improved earnings as a stimulus in the continual week-in week-out production work of a nation at a time when production is of vital importance.
. 1 suggest- to the minister that if we needed incentive in those days we need1 it all the more at the present time. The question might weU be asked, why work beyond1 the bare minimum if there is no adequate reward for extra endeavour and sacrifice? In the dominion-provincial relations booklet of the government we find the same idea expressed, that something must be done; yet the government has not given to business men, who must do their planning for 1946 well in advance, any indication of the rules under which they must operate. In the proposals of the government of Canada to. the dominion-provincial conference in August, 1945, we find this:
. ?-?le. creation of conditions under which the initiative and skill of private enterprise will result in new investment on a scale far exceeding pre-war levels is one of the principal problems of reconstruction policy. The tax policies of all governments can be a fundamental factor in the removal of undesirable and unnecessary obstacles.
The government wrote this; I hope they will elucidate it themselves.
The elimination or reduction of taxes on costs, the removal of tax penalties on enterprise, and the effect of taxes upon the taking of risks, are basic considerations in determining a satisfactory system of dominion-provincial financial relations.
IMr. Jackman.]
Yet I find that the speech from the throne merely mentions taxation in the barest possible manner. It should be one of the principal items in that speech. We in this party, and I think all Canadians, are for as generous a measure of social security as may be possible but we can have social security only if we have production; we can have increased standards of living only if we have increased production, and any measure which prevents increased production is bad legislation.
In the' speech from the throne we have only the barest reference to trade policies. What are we going to do to maintain the market in Great Britain for Canadian bacon after the wonderful job the farmers of this country have done? Foreign trade is essential. It is true that we have taken some measures to help in a small way, but the business men do not ask for such assistance as this. Business men ask that incentive be restored, and they will do the business without government interference and without any of these paternal measures. We must give our men in industry incentive to maintain and enlarge all our foreign markets. We have the capacity and the brains; the incentive must be restored. Trade makes jobs; jobs make high employment and give our people full prosperity. The road to depression is through a high tax on a small and diminishing volume of business. The road to prosperity is through a moderate tax on a large and increasing volume of business.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), speaking in reference to meat rationing, asked if it would not be possible for me to place before the house a detailed statistical statement relating to meat in storage, shipping facilities needed and probable slaughterings. My purpose in participating briefly in this debate is not to prolong it, because I hope it will end to-morrow, nor is it to discuss generally the speech from the throne, but primarily at least to comply with the hon. gentleman's request. I have had some figures put in form for presentation to the house. The information is not new, in that it has been given on other occasions, but possibly not as part of a single statement.
Following the tri-partite food conference called by the late President Roosevelt in the spring of this year, Canada undertook that in addition to the amounts previously contracted for she would make an effort to provide an additional quantity of meat to bring her total shipments for 1945 to the United

The Address-Mr. Ilsley
Kingdom and liberated European countries up to at least the following amounts: Beef, 225 million pounds; pork, 450 million pounds; canned meat, 114 million pounds, a total of 789 million pounds. During 1944 Canada actually provided for the same purposes 129 million pounds of beef; 692 million pounds of pork; 39 million pounds of canned meat, a total of 860 million pounds. In addition Canada exported moderate quantities of meat sufficient to supply the essential requirements of Newfoundland and the British West Indies.
From January 1 to August 31, 1945, the Canadian meat board actually exported approximately 85 million pounds of beef, (carcass weight), 350 million pounds of bacon and ham; and 44 million pounds of canned
meat, a total of 479 million pounds. That means that we would need to ship another 310 million pounds of meat in the last four months of the year in order to meet our 1945 objective.
While cattle slaughterings are running considerably in excess of 1944 there has been a sharp drop in hog slaughterings and total meat production in 1945 is less than in 1944. Total slaughterings of beef, veal, pork and mutton in inspected packing plants for the first eight months of 1945 are estimated nt 1180 million pounds as compared to 1450 million pounds for the same period in 1944- a drop of 270 million pounds or a little more than 18 per cent. Details are given in the following table:
Actual inspected	Estimated cold
slaughterings	dressed weight
Jan.-Aug.	Jan.-Aug.	Jan.-Aug.	Jan.-Aug.1944	1945	1944	1945Pounds	Pounds
782,688	985,508	393,921,000	476,820,000
476,016	570,407	50,612,000	60,445,000Sheep and lambs	
460,256	458,785	19,990,000	20,946,000Hogs 	
6,120,701	3,942,207	986,000,000	622,547,000Total ..	.. 1,450,523,000	1,180,758,000
On the other hand our export requirements are only about 70 million pounds below our actual shipments last year
Meat in storage in Canada at September 1, 1945 was approximately 49 million pounds. The corresponding figure for September 1, 1944 was about 70 million pounds. When rationing was discontinued in February 1944 storage stocks were about 150 million pounds. Details are given in the following table:
Meat in Storage Sept. 1,	Sept. 1,	March 1.Storage	1945	1944	1944Pounds	Pounds	PoundsPork	
23,692,900 40,722,000	98,793,000Beef	
17,497,000	21,429,000	40,043,000Veal	
5,390,000	6,491,000	2,982,000
Mutton and
lambs ....	2,147,000	1,922,000	7,740,000
Total____ 48,726,000 70,564,000	149,558,000
These figures include some meat in process but intended for export. To that extent they overstate the amount available for domestic consumption. However, they do clearly indicate the trend of supplies.
Cold storage facilities fall into two categories, the sharp freezing facilities into which meat to be frozen must first be placed; and secondly the ordinary holding cold storage space in which frozen meats can be stored.
Due to the heavy cattle runs of the past three weeks the sharp freezing facilities are being used close to maximum capacity and in some localities, there has been congestion, but it is fully expected that this will be cleared up this week. There are no serious problems in respect of ordinary holding cold storage space.
At the moment cattle runs are at an all time high. The inspected kill for the week ending Sept. 1, 1945, was 41,477 which set a new record. For the week ending September 15 the figure increased to 46,293. The figures for the week ending September 21 will not be available until to-morrow or next day.
As long as there is reasonably orderly marketing of cattle, it appears that the slaughtering facilities of the country are adequate to handle the expected slaughterings of cattle which for the last six months of 1945 are estimated at about 900,000 head.
Hog slaughterings, however, will continue to be considerably below the record figures of 1944, as the following table shows:
Actual	Expected
inspected	inspected
Slaughterings Slaughterings July-Dee., 1944 July-Dee., 1945
Cattle	
783.147	900,000Hogs	
3,627.468	2,500,000Calves	
306,672	350,000Sheep and lambs.. 631,502	775,000
The Address-Mr. Ilsley

With respect to transportation facilities the United Kingdom Ministry of Food is prepared and able to provide ample shipping for all the meats we can export. The supply of refrigerator cars for movement to seaboard also presents no difficulties. There is therefore no reason to anticipate the kind of bottle-necks that occurred early in 1944.
For the current year, 1945, meat consumption per capita has been running at the rate of 145 pounds per annum. The scale of rationing is designed to reduce consumption to the annual rate of about 130 pounds per capita. This is a figure about twelve per cent below 1944 but about twelve per cent above pre-war.
It has occurred to me that, as I wish to make this brief statement presenting to the house the information requested, I might add a few words in which I might state in simple language, and without technicalities, the reasons why the government is rationing meat.
One must have some conception of the background of our relations with our allies during the war. 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.
The fundamental principle underlying these arrangements has been that each of these countries would bring forward and put into the common effort what it was able to bring forward. We have been dependent upon the United States, particularly, and to a smaller extent upon parts of the British commonwealth, for certain things we had to have which were vital to our very existence.
In that connection I might mention such non-food commodities as coal, gasoline and cotton, which we have obtained from the United States, and also sugar which we have obtained from American controlled sources of supply, and from various parts of the British empire. Our allies and partners have treated us with great fairness and have striven, as we have ^ striven, so far as possible to base our contributions upon the principle of equality of sacrifice.
I believe I should read to the house, so that the picture may be somewhat clearer than I have been able to make it in these few words, an extract from a speech delivered over the radio the night before meat rationing was introduced. This was the speech of Mr. K. W. Taylor, foods administrator, who has been
IMr. Hsley.3
closely associated with the combined food board, and whose words carry weight in this connection. He said at that time:
Meat supplies are part and parcel of the whole international food problem. No country is completely self-sufficient in food. For example, we in Canada have surpluses of wheat, meat, dairy products and fish; but we depend upon other countries for all or most of our sugar, tea, coffee, cocoa, spices, rice, and practically all of our vegetable oils used in soap, shortening and salad dressings.
Most of these items are in short supply, and will be short for some little time yet to come. In order to see that the available world supplies are distributed as fairly as possible among the united nations three countries-Great Britain, the United States and Canada-set up a body in 1942 called the combined food board. Each year this board examines each of those food items which are in short supply, finds out what supplies are available, and then allocates these supplies fairly to all the countries that need them. Through this board each country is a receiver as well as a contributor. The success of the board-and it has been a notable success-depends upon each member country playing its part; that is, each country must make its maximum contribution to the common pool, in return for getting its fair share of things it needs but cannot produce.
If we want our fair share of sugar, tea, vegetable oils and many other imported foods, we must be prepared to contribute our fair share of meat, cheese, canned fish and other items which we have in abundance.
I can speak with some personal knowledge of the work of the combined food board, because I have been quite closely associated with it. For instance, earlier this year I had to spend several weeks in Washington assisting in the working out of the allocations for 1945. After a lot of very hard work, we reached a series of agreements, which set up our fair share both of the things we wanted and of things we should contribute to the pool.
In the ease of meat, Canada undertook to do its very best to supply 225 million pounds of beef, 465 millions pounds of pork-
Which would include shipments to the British West Indies and Newfoundland.
-and 114 million pounds of canned meat. It has become clear in recent months that we will fall short of these obligations, unless n ore definite restrictions are placed on meat consumption in Canada.
It seems to me that the first reason why we should ration meat in Canada, and continue with the rationing we have introduced, is in the discharge of our obligations. These obligations are not clean-cut in the sense that contractual commitments are; but if we are to carry out the spirit, if not the letter-in this case it is both the letter and the spirit- of our understandings with our partners and allies, we must, I think, put forward reasonable endeavours to make available as much meat as we can, provided, of course, that we do not ask our people to accept any unreasonably low ration.

The Address-Mr. Ilsley
Apart altogether from that, if we had no commitments, if we had no such arrangements with our partners and allies as I have mentioned, I believe this country would want to do something along these lines for humanitarian reasons alone. As a country whose government must be internationally minded, as a country which is a great exporting country, as a eountry which has a good reputation and which must maintain that good reputation for breadth of view and humaneness in its attitude toward other countries, I think this country in its policy should Have regard to humanitarian considerations. I have not the temperament or the language to make a powerful sympathetic appeal, but I think it is the sensible thing for this country to have regard to humanitarian considerations.
That brings us to the consideration of what the need is for meat in what we call the liberated countries. We have tried faithfully to get a picture of the situation and it seems to be something like this. In the United Kingdom the weekly meat ration is one shilling and two pence worth per person and three ounces of bacon. The bacon ration was reduced from four ounces to three ounces in May. I am told that the ration there is such that it makes possible only two or three decent meat meals a week. At any rate it is a small ration and it has been reduced. It will have to be reduced again if we do not come somewhere near fulfilling the undertakings I mentioned in the earlier part of my remarks.
In France the meat ration was reduced in May to 400 grams, which is fourteen ounces a month. The outlook is bleak and the shortage is the worst since the beginning of the war. In some areas the ration has been as low as the equivalent of one thin slice of ham each week, and sometimes even that is not available to the consumer. It will take about four years to build up the cattle herds to the pre-war level. Meat is not evenly rationed over the whole of France; it varies as between cities such as Paris, where our information is that the ration is about one-tenth pound a week, to other cities where it is about a quarter pound a. week. In Saturday's papers there was a dispatch to the effect that the United Kingdom was flying some meat to Paris in an effort to relieve the great shortage of meat there. Those who are acquainted with conditions in France paint a very dark picture of the extent of anaemia, malnutrition and so on among the population. It is impossible to get statistics to bear that out; nevertheless that is the fact.
In Belgium the meat ration is thirty-five grams, which is just over one ounce a day.
47696-26i
In Holland the ration at the present time, that is in September of this year, is reported to be one hundred grams or about one-fifth of a pound a week. In Greece and Yugoslavia meat is not rationed because no supplies are available. In Yugoslavia eighty per cent of the live stock has been destroyed by the enemy. In Czechoslovakia the ration is reported to be about ten ounces a week.
In a comparison of meat rations in the different European countries it is important to bear in mind that the official ration does not really indicate the amount of meat available to the individual consumer. Frequently no supplies are available to meet the ration, while at the same time many consumers supplement their rations by supplies obtained on the black market.
The representatives of a number of these European countries were interviewed just before meat rationing was instituted in Canada and the substance of those interviews was given to the press. It would take too long to read them all, but a summary was presented to the press in the form of a release by the wartime prices and trade board. This sets out the situation in Europe somewhat more graphically than do the figures I have just given. It reads:
Tens of millions of people in the war-ravaged areas of Europe are starved for a taste of meat, a survey of conditions made through the embassies and legations concerned on the eve of meat rationing indicated last night.
In countries like Greece and Yugoslavia there is no meat rationing, for there is no meat to ration. In Holland the ration is about one-fifth of a pound per person per week; in Belgium it is a little over an ounce per person per day; in Paris the people are entitled to one-tenth of a pound per person per week. But rationing, the representatives of these countries made clear, does not necessarily guarantee that the consumer will be able to buy the amount of the ration.
The picture, except in degree, is the same in all the liberated areas to which Canadian meat will be going. Ambassador, minister, charge d'affaires representing the different countries told of the confiscation and annihilation of the live stock by the enemy so that herds were depleted. They told of malnutrition and disease resulting from famine; they told of the serious loss of strength and vitality on the part of the people. They pointed out that the live stock that remained were unfit for slaughter because they w^ere lean and food for them was unavailable. They said it would take years to rebuild the herds and that the problem was complicated by fields sown with mines, lack of fertilizer and lack of farm implements.
The most serious need in the liberated areas is meat, fats and dairy products, the representatives stated. Any meat that Canada can spare from her table to share with the starving millions, they emphsized, would help to repair the damaged bodies and restore the vitality necessary for the people to rebuild their countries.
The Address-Mr. Ilsley

In Belgium, which has been more fortunate than some of the other liberated countries, the Hon. Alexandre Paternotte de la Vaillee, ambassador to Canada, reported that the Germans had confiscated two-thirds or more of the cattle and that nine-tenths of the chickens had disappeared. Slaughterings, he said, were now forbidden because of the shortage of feed and in order to reconstitute the herds. He was deeply concerned over the health of the children; the number of tubercular children, for instance, had doubled.
J. J. Poelhekker, director of the Netherlands information service, related how people everywhere were being treated for hunger oedema. The Dutch, he said, had lost sixty per cent of their hogs, one-third of their dairy cattle, nearly all beef animals and eighty five per cent of their poultry.
In France, Michel Dumont, director of the French information service, said there were fifteen million people without enough food for normal requirements. Infant mortality is up fifty per cent over pre-war; anaemia affects fifty per cent of the children, tuberculosis is forty per cent higher. The situation in the cities is particularly bad. Sundays and legal holidays are the only days on which meat may be served in public eating places.
While conditions are appalling in many parts of France, Belgium and Holland, they are worse in the countries in southern Europe where Canadian meat is scheduled to go. In Greece, Yugoslavia, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Albania, to whom meat is being supplied through UNRRA, the health of the people has been so seriously undermined that very many deaths are still taking place due to starvation. In Greece, Philon Philon, charge d'affaires, reported that half the population was suffering from anaemia, recovery from which could be greatly aided through the vitamins and protein supplied by meat. One hundred per cent of the pigs have disappeared, ninety per cent of the dairy coivs, sixty-five per cent of the oxen, sheep, goats and asses, and fifty per cent of the horses, mares, mules and buffaloes, he said. Pero Cabric, charge d'affaires, the Yugoslav legation, said, "We have nothing for ourselves, and we have nothing to help other countries which wrere dependent on us for much of their live stock. Eighty per cent of our stock was destroyed by the enemy."
Doctor Frantisek Pavlasek, minister from Czechoslovakia to Canada, stated that nearly everyone in his country was suffering from anaemia.
One after another of the representatives of the various countries expressed their gratitude to the Canadian people for sharing their meat supplies with the less fortunate peoples of Europe. Meat, they said, would help to restore both physical energy and national stability. As Doctor Pavlasek said:	"When Canada
rationed meat before, she did so in the interests of her own people. Now Canada is to have meat rationing to give help to the liberated countries of Europe. The moral uplift which this gives our people cannot be too strongly emphasized. This sacrifice has a great appeal to those who receive the help."
Therefore, on humanitarian grounds I believe we should continue with the rationing of meat. But there are other grounds as well.
[Mr. Ilsley.)
The economic recovery of the continent of Europe is in our interests, and political stability on the continent of Etirope is also in our interests. We must not, if we can avoid it, let malnutrition and starvation arrive at such a stage that it generates revolutions and possible wars; nor must we allow the populations of these countries, if we can avoid it, to drift along in an aimless sort of way, not able to do the work they otherwise would do, and thereby postpone too long the economic recovery of these countries. I said before, and I say again, that this country is not a self-contained country at all. It is a world trader. It imports tremendously and exports tremendously, and must continue to import and export tremendously after the war. Therefore we have a selfish interest, if I may put it in that way, a prudential interest in the rapid economic recovery of the continent of Europe.
While the United States has not the same dependence upon foreign countries and is not as great a trading country per capita, I think the United States takes the same view. It has *been said recently that it looks as if the United States would go off meat rationing. But the other day President Truman was reported as saying that the United States government would let nothing stand in the way of supplying the liberated countries with the supplies that they required to permit their recovery. I thought I had the press clipping but I do not seem to have it. Any official information that we have been able to get indicates that the United States intends to look at the matter in the same light in which we are looking at it and to continue to make available to the extent of its ability the food and other supplies required by the liberated areas.
I have not very much more to say to the house on this subject. We have a great many people in Canada who are impatient with this step that we are taking, and some of them even more than impatient with it. But that arises from a feeling that the war is over, so why continue these vexatious measures which might have been borne with toleration in time of war but which cannot be borne in time of peace? The war is over in one sense only. It is over in the sense that the shooting has stopped. But the consequences of the war in a very direct way are still with us.
This nation should not be a quitter. This nation should see the job through to the end. It cannot be said that we have seen the job through to the end when conditions such as I have described exist in so many of the liberated countries of Europe. I think our people, perhaps the majority of our people, are disposed to look at it in that way. If one were to get out his pencil and try to prove mathe-

The Address-Mr. Irvine
matically that we would in the short run or in the long run gain materially by cutting our consumption of meat down from 145 pounds per person to 135 pounds, he might not be able to prove it. But when we act in character, when we keep our word, when we fulfil our obligations, when we act with humaneness and charity to other countries, when we help not only Canada but the world to some extent to get on its feet, I am sure that we are really adding to what I may call the national heritage. We are giving ourselves and our children and our children's children just cause to have pride in the fact that they are Canadians. We are making the name of Canada respected and honoured.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that all hon. members will be in substantial agreement with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), who has just completed his speech.
During this debate there has been, as is usual, a good deal of advice offered to the administration, and a good deal of criticism. It will be the duty of the government to pay due heed to the advice given, especially since it has all been given quite freely, and to attend to whatever good there may be in the criticism offered. I hope that the government will hear in the expressions of opinion from hon. members in all parts of this house the actual voice of the nation, and in hearing that voice I hope it will not hesitate to make alterations in its policy and introduce the legislation that may be required to meet the demands of the voice of the people of Canada.
I am naturally in entire agreement with the opinions expressed by my hon. leader and by other hon. members of the C.C.F. party, and of course I have found myself in agreement with many of the things that have been said by other hon. members.
The major themes of the speech from the throne, including such matters as reconversion, full production, an adequate income in the pockets of the consumers to buy that production which they are assured we are competent to produce-all these matters have been thoroughly covered by pther hon. members, and I do not intend to repeat view3 which they have already expressed so adequately.
But I note that there is in the speech from the throne a significant sentence which seems to have escaped all other hon. members, at least those that I have heard speaking. I shall read it:
. . . we seek to bring into being a new order founded upon world security and social justice.
I do not remember reading anything so imaginative, so daring as that, in any other speech from the throne. I remember as far back as 1921, when the great J. S. Woodsworth first came to this house, that was one of the reasons he came, to encourage and help the initiation of the new social order; and while that hon. gentleman in his day was highLy respected by his contemporaries here because of his fine character, I can well remember how very often, when he made allusion to a new social order, he would be greeted with jeers and sarcasm. But now it is in the speech from the throne, written in by the Prime Minister, (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his cabinet: a new social order to be based on social justice and world peace. I have no knowledge of course to what extent the government propose to translate this rhetorical phrase into practical human life; but even though they should) do little about this at this session I still welcome it as a harbinger of progress. I do not believe that this sentence would have been in the speech from the throne if the government had not been pretty well convinced that the people of Canada want a new social order. In putting, that sentence in the speech from the throne the' government has, I believe, correctly interpreted both the spirit and the temper of the-Canadian people.
But I may suggest that the Canadian people-will not long be satisfied' with the new social order on paper, they will not be long satisfied with it in words. They will want that new social order to be translated into beautiful and comfortable homes for every family in the dominion; they will want it to be translated! into higher living standards commensurate with our capacity to produce the wealth which is required for -human life; they will demand that new social order in equality of opportunity in education, in equality of opportunity to obtain health services. They will require that new social order in new and better schools, in new and better hospitals, in more and better highways, in better bridges and railways and all the other things which go to- make up an. economy in which people live a fuller life.
The new social order promised is to be based-on social justice. I believe that this phrase requires defining; I do not think I should take-up the time of the house now in defining it,, but I might say one thing which I believe' most of us will agree that it is not. I do not believe any hon. member will regard it as being social justice that, for instance, this country's hydro electric power, its great mineral resources in coal and iron and copper and gold, its oil fields, its timber, its means of transportation,
The Address-Mr. Irvine

its financial institutions, should be owned and controlled by private corporations for profit while great masses of the people are in want. That is the kind of social justice which we have witnessed in Canada heretofore. That is the kind of social justice spawned by free private enterprise. It was free private enterprise which we had in this country from confederation to the "hungry thirties"; and I hope that no member of this house will suggest that it is social justice to give the ownership and control of all the means of the life of this country, for an ulterior purpose, into the hands of private corporations. I hope we do not suppose that the profits of private corporations are of greater concern to the people of Canada in our coming new social order than the wages of the workers who work for such corporations.
Seeing, then, that it was free private enterprise which we suffered-not enjoyed-during the hungry thirties and prior to the war, there must be some change if we are to have the beginnings of that new social order which the government foreshadows in the speech from the throne. I welcome that pronouncement not only because I believe it is a true interpretation of the spirit and temper of the Canadian people, but because by implication it repudiates the pledges of the orthodox to adhere to free private enterprise; for as I have said, that was what we had before the war, that is what we have had throughout the war; and now we are to have something different. It cannot be free private enterprise, for in that case there would be no need of a new social order. So that there is to be a change.
Frankly, I am sceptical about the change. I do not see how any government that is pledged to retaining the very essence of the old order can be entrusted with the establishment and the building of a new. I am also a little bit sceptical about it because, if hon. members notice the phraseology, the government is going to "seek" a new social order, as if it were some elfish creature that was fond of hiding itself in dark corners for fear somebody might find it and in order that statesmen might spend their time in hunting it in a game of hide and seek. That is not the character of a new social order. A social order will have to be created if it is to be a new one. It will have to be created by us. It will have to be built by us. To the extent to which the government proposes to initiate that new social order which is adumbrated in the speech from the throne, to that extent, as my leader indicated, this group will be here to help them, andl if they do not move in that direction we shall be here to push them to the best of our ability. r\Ir. Irvine.]
Speaking of this new social order reminds me of a humorous remark-it was humorous to me at least-made by an hon. gentleman who sits to my left. In his criticism of socialism he tried to argue that it should not be considered because it was so old. I have of course much respect for a great deal that has been said by hon. members to my left. I think they are to be congratulated on having brought to the attention of this house and of Canada a phase at least of our economic problems. But I would point out to my hon. friend that if he has no better argument against socialism than the one referred to he had better stop. Surely private enterprise, which he himself champions, is older even than socialism, which we have never had at all in this country. But I would say to him that if we are to have full production and ample income for every consumer in Canada it will take more than a monetary patch on the worn-out breeches of so-called private enterprise to bring it about.
As I wish to turn now to another subject, Mr. Speaker, would you mind calling it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


William Irvine: 
An hon. MEMBER:: Was that before an
election?


William Irvine: Yes, getting pretty close to one. Then Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, speaking I think in Winnipeg in the same year, said:
I have always urged that the north country should have railway relief.
That is not much of a promise; it is like a fish winking at the bait. Then he went on to give a sort of clip on the ear to his opponent, when he said:
I cannot be accused of making futile promises such as the Honourable Mackenzie King promised in the speech from the throne at the opening of the last session of parliament, when he stated he was going to give railway relief to the north country but nothing has been done.
Then I come to the pledge given by Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, now Lord Bennett:
We pledge ourselves to the improvement of the whole scheme of Canadian transportation, northward by the completion of the Hudson bay route and the construction of such branches as may be necessary to render it most readily
The Address-Mr. Irvine

available to every part of Canada; to the Pacific slope by a Peace River outlet and east and west by the development of the St. Lawrence waterway.
Then I come to the statement of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, which I believe he will stand by to-day:
I believe to-day, when we are going to consider entering upon gigantic projects of public works in the near future, there is, regardless altogether first of partisan considerations and second of the various reports that have been made by engineers, an obligation of honour resting upon this chamber to carry out the promises that were made as long ago I believe as 1924, ten years ago.
That is twenty-one years ago now.
There are other party leaders in the house. I cannot quote them, but I know they have gone on record as favouring this project. I know the hon. gentleman who leads the official opposition has gone on record as favouring the building of the Peace River outlet. My own leader has also definitely said that he was in favour of it. Then the hon. gentleman who sits to my left and who leads the Social Credit group is the member for the constituency of Peace River and, as all members will have noticed, he introduced the subject in his speech when addressing the house during this debate. He also made it clear that this would be one of the things he would strive to achieve while a member of the House of Commons.
So that this makes it unanimous, so far as party leaders are concerned. It is, Mr. Speaker, a matter of honour in this chamber; there is no question about that. But it is more than that; it is also a matter of urgent necessity for the people living in the territories concerned, and a matter of great importance to Canada as a whole. This is a local thing in one sense; but it is such a great "local thing" that it touches all Canada. I believe it has been the major issue in every election, provincial or federal in the Peace River district, at least since 1911, and undoubtedly the promises made have induced many settlers to come in there.
Those settlers have pioneered that great country under severe hardships, and while enduring almost unbearable difficulties. It is the duty of this parliament to see that the people living in the Peace River block, especially those in the Cariboo area, shall not suffer these difficulties any longer, and that they shall no longer have to nurse their disappointment.
Settlers from the dried-out areas of southern Alberta and Saskatchewan came into the area which the proposed railroad would serve. Those people had suffered extensively before they left their old homesteads. They have 
striven to build new homes in this new country, the Peace River block, and it is not reasonable to ask them to put up with any more misfortune.
As I say, this is not merely a local thing. Surely it is not presumptuous for me to suggest to the government that it is high time it adopted a definite national railways policy in respect of Canada, a policy which will see to it that every part of the community is reached and served, and it will not be a question then of whether this little branch or that little branch pays, but rather whether the whole system pays because of the service rendered to the nation.
It is a very extensive area which would be served by the Peace River outlet. According to a pamphlet issued by the Department of the Interior some years ago, there are 10 million economic acres in the Peace River area alone. Mr. Kennedy, when debating this matter in the house, said that this acreage would allow 6,000 economic acres for every mile of railway, whereas on the prairies only 5,000 economic acres are served by each mile of railway. In addition to that there are the territories which embrace the Prince George country; the Cariboo with its mining, and its extensive ranching, and the Lillooet country still farther south with its agriculture, fruit growing and mining.
The Peace River district therefore, is only a small part of the great territory to be served by a railway of this sort. The resources of the total area are vast and varied. As I have said, the hon. member for Peace River when introducing this subject, referred to the richness of the soil, the advantages of climatic conditions, the growing of all kinds oft field crops, and the raising of. live stock. The figures will verify his statements.
The 1943 agricultural census is not yet available, so that I cannot give the latest figures. But in 1934 Mr. Kennedy stated in the house that in that year twelve million bushels of wheat were raised in the Peace River country alone. In 1911 Sir Henry Thornton had promised that when the Peace River country produced ten million bushels of wheat for three years, or an equivalent tonnage, it would be economical to build the Peace River outlet. May I point out that the Peace River country alone has had that tonnage since 1925.
As to the quality of the grain raised in that area, one has only to refer to the fact that world championships have nearly all gone out that way. Eighteen world championships were won at Chicago in eight years following 1926, a fact which put Peace River in the forefront of the grain growing areas of the world.

The Address-Mr. Irvine
British Columbia has published some facts about this area, and the adjacent country, which would be served by the railway. It speaks of one town, namely Dawson Creek, which has five huge grain elevators, and states that 2.000 head of cattle and 25,000 hogs are shipped out annually. The publication continues:
Hudson Hope area is noted for its mineral wealth, especially of the exceptionally fine Peace River coal and for its production of fur-bearing animals. It is rich in minerals with definite promise of oil production.
Then as a power site the possibilities of the canyon-
That is, the Peace River canyon, which would be tapped by this proposed railway.
-are outstanding. Engineers thoroughly familiar with projects of this nature, have expressed the view that the canyon is capable of developing power for a city of one million people.
Then, as to coal:
It is reliably estimated that in British Columbia Peace River district there is in the neighbourhood of three billion tons.
The coal is second to none and superior to most in any present producing or known field in North America.
It may be extracted at comparatively low cost and loaded in cars at a price permitting it to compete in any west coast port.
And as to timber:
British Columbia Peace River district is estimated to contain 48,000 acres of merchantable timber; 90,500 acres of immature timber of all species, about 160 million board feet in spruce and 32 million board feet in jack pine.
Then, summing up in respect to the resources of the British Columbia Peace River section, the government publication says:
While this folder devotes itself mainly to the agricultural aspects-the opportunities from the industrial standpoint are many and varied. The following suggest themselves as industrial enterprises for which the field is already ripe and waiting: Refrigeration plant, packing plant, dairy products, mill work, coal industry, oil industry and the pulp and paper industry.
Thus it will be seen that there is a vast area of very rich country to be tapped by the building of the Peace River outlet through the Peace River country to the coast.
In passing, might I mention the great productive possibilities of the Cariboo, with its mining and its ranching. That country has been served in a sort of way by a railway known as the P.G. and E. It is a railway which began in the middle, and goes nowhere at each end. I happened to attend a conference of cattle men in the town of Clinton last summer, and there was universal protest against the P.G. and E. for its failure to give
proper service. Their greatest objection was the cruelty to the cattle in shipping and the shrinkage caused by the time taken.
I am going to propose to the government that this railroad be taken over as part of the Canadian National Railways; that it be built through along the coast to Vancouver or that it be built south to join with the Canadian National Railways; that it be extended in the north to join at Prince George and that a line be built from there into the Peace River. There would thus be provided an outlet for the Peace River people direct to the coast and a servicing of all that vast territory right through down the valley of the Cariboo.
That is a reasonable proposition. There have been many routes proposed for building this road, but to-night I am not particular about that. A route has been surveyed through the Aggie Obed pass, through the Monkman pass, through the Pine pass and through the Peace pass. At the moment I am not particular through which pass it goes so long as it goes through one of the passes. When the government decides to build the line I shall have something to say as to which pass it should go through, although I would be willing to leave that to the government engineers to settle.
There are rumours that the present government of British Columbia is proposing to offer part of the natural resources of the province as a bait to a private corporation to build this road. This may be just the ordinary preelection stirring up that has occurred in British Columbia for many years. I have no doubt that some private company may grab this opportunity to get these natural resources, to some of which I have referred to-night. The people themselves want this railroad; they want it so badly that they may even be ready to have it built by a private corporation. However, I assure the house that if they had their way they would have it made part of the Canadian National Railways.
The people are entitled to this road as citizens engaged in economic pursuits essential to their own lives and essential to the whole national economy. They are entitled to it because of the large population which was settled in the area on the strength of promises made by every party leader in Canada for twenty-five years. They are entitled to it because of the volume of wealth that they are producing already, and they are entitled to it because of the possibility of greater wealth through new industries and untapped resources awaiting means of transportation. They are entitled to it, to use the words of the Minister of Veterans Affairs,
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

because it is a moral obligation. Promises to build this road have been made to the people who live in that section of Canada.
There is no question about the practicability of the proposal. There is no question about our ability to find the money. There is no question of the obligation. There is no excuse left to be used for not acting now to do this thing. Therefore I ask that the government include this project as part of its rehabilitation programme and that it proceed at the earliest possible moment to keep its promise to the people of the Peace River and Cariboo districts. It would be a splendid thing if in the crowning years of the Prime Minister's long period of service to the people if Canada he were privileged, not only to introduce a new social order to this country, but to fulfil his pledge to the people of the Peace River district and the people of the Cariboo district made in his election speech in Edmonton in 1924.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with all those who have spoken in this debate in congratulating you upon having been chosen for the high honour which has been given to you by this house. I wish to associate myself with all those who have spoken in glowing terms of the speeches made by the mover (Mr. Benidickson) and the seconder (Mr. Langlois) of the address in reply. I wish particularly to associate myself with all the remarks of approval that have been made with regard to the speeches of many of the young men, particularly those who have been associated with the armed forces, who have come into this house for the first time. I think I can say without any fear of contradiction from any of the old-timers in the house that never in the experience of any of us has a more promising group of young men come into this house. I apply these remarks to members from all parts of the house who have spoken.
Having extended my congratulations to others, I think in extending a welcome to the fourteen new members from my own province I should congratulate myself upon being here at all. Since this debate began, a number of hon. members have suggested that I have reason to be thankful for the majority which was mine. I must admit that the road over which I travelled during the election was much more difficult than the one I travelled when I contested a constituency with the last speaker. On that occasion I entered this house for the first time as an elected member, and I wish to express to him my appreciation for the opportunity given to me to come here on that occasion.

The election through which I have just passed was made difficult for a number of reasons. One of these was the fact that I was one of I think seven candidates in Canada who had only one opponent. Under our system it is a little more difficult sometimes to get elected when you have only one opponent than it is when you have seven or eight. But when you are all through with such a campaign there is one thing that stands out: if you get here at all you must have had a majority. The fact is that I stand here as one of the minority in this house who reached the house through an absolute majority. With that majority small as it is I wish to address myself to the house on a number of questions which I think are of considerable importance, one of these being the question which was introduced into this debate for the first time by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) and which was spoken to this afternoon by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley).
Before proceeding to do so, I wish to put on the record one reason why my majority was not as great as it might have been. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), I think it was, called attention to something that he considered to be a fact-I do not know whether it was a fact or not-that some twelve members sitting on this side of the house owed their seats to the cooperation of the C.C.F. party. I can assure the house that I do not owe my seat to the cooperation of the C.C.F. party because, as they will all admit, I had the decided opposition of the C.C.F. Then, too, I had the opposition of my good old friends, the Conservatives. I think I got some of their votes, but that was through no fault of the party as this document which I have in my hand will demonstrate. I have here a circular letter which was sent to the whole mailing list of the Conservative party in my constituency. It opens with a news item in which this statement appears:
The cabinet ministers being asked to speak in Neepawa include the Honourable J. G. Gardiner . . .
Then it continues:
As you will note by this item that every effort is being made by the Liberals in the constituency of Neepawa to defeat Honourable John Bracken, so why not, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?" . . .
Why not, for once, defeat the Honourable J. G. Gardiner in the Melville constituency? It is not necessary to become a member of the C.C.F. party to vote Mr. Gardiner out of office on June 11, 1945.
Sponsored by the Melville Progressive Conservative Association.
It is signed by the President: Philip Goll.

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
I put that on the record in order to assure the hon. member from Toronto that there is no doubt about how I was elected in the constituency of Melville. It was not with the cooperation of the C.C.F. party; It was not with the cooperation of the official Conservative party, although probably I had the votes of a number of Conservatives who did not agree with their own party.


Major James William Coldwell: Who was the other
member of that party besides the president in Melville?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are not very
many but there are some.
Having placed that on the record and cleared up any doubts as to whose support I had and whose opposition I had, may I proceed to a discussion of the address in reply to the speech from the throne; and in so doing I call attention to two or three statements made in that speech. On page 8 of Hansard of September 6 of this session, I find this statement in the speech from the throne:
To the promotion of national well-being, cooperation and good will between the dominion and provincial governments are as essential as these attitudes, between nations, are to the maintenance of world peace and international prosperity.
That statement is made after the speech has reviewed1 the accomplishments of our armed forces and of our people during six years of war, and I am sure that those references in the speech are concurred in by everyone in the house.
The speech goes on to refer to the relationships which exist between the national government and the governments of the provinces, which by inference call attention to the relationships which exist between the peoples of the Dominion of Canada as such and the peoples of the- different provinces. Coming as I do from: Saskatchewan, I want to pay a particular tribute to one group of the population of that province which I shall not refer to as a class in that province but as a part of the citizenship of Saskatchewan and a part of the citizenship of the Dominion of Canada, and I wish to connect up my reference to them with this other statement which is made in the speech from the throne:
The government also considers that it is advisable to revise and clarify the definition of Canadian citizenship, and to bring the legislation respecting national status, naturalization and immigration into conformity with the definition of citizenship. You will be asked to approve the required measures.
I know of nothing which I have heard more criticized during my association with the people of Saskatchewan throughout the more
than thirty years in which I have represented a constituency in that province than the fact that it is very difficult for us to convince a court or any official organization in the Dominion of Canada that we have a right to call ourselves Canadians. Therefore I hope that when this legislation is brought down it will make it perfectly plain to everyone in this house and outside it that we as a people in Canada have at least the right to designate ourselves as Canadians wherever we may appear. In associating myself with that point of view, I wish to say something with regard to the service of our people in this war.
Our population in Saskatchewan is composed to about forty-six per cent of people who came there from the continent of Europe or whose fathers and mothers came from the continent of Europe. I have in my constituency people who have come from every nation that has been fighting in this war on one side or the other, and they all want to be called Canadians. I want to say to this house now what I could not have said during the war-and I emphasize it now because we could not speak as openly during the war as we can now-that I want to associate myself with everyone in Saskatchewan and everyone outside it who have throughout this war resented the position that was taken in relation to the first great war and in relation to this, that men who have been naturalized as Canadian citizens were called upon to report to the mounted police throughout the last war and in the early period of this war. That is one of the reasons why we in Saskatchewan want to be designated as Canadians and feel that we ought to be treated as Canadians.
In addition, I wish to associate myself with those who during this war found themselves called up to serve in the N.R.M.A. forces or any other place when they had to submit to the indignity of having their parents told that they were aliens and could not receive naturalization in this country because they could not read or write either the English or the French language. Any parents in Canada who are willing to be citizens of this country and who are prepared to raise sons who enter the armed forces of this country ought to be considered capable of becoming Canadian citizens, whether they can read or write or not.
In order to impress upon the house my point of view in relation to these matters at this time, when we are congratulating ourselves upon the service which has been given by our people throughout the length and breadth of the land, may I say that when I look for the record of the heroes of this war
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

I do not look among the civilian population, many of whom are to be congratulated upon their very great and effective service in helping to prosecute the war. When I look for the heroes in this war I do not look in the headquarters staff or in the groups of men extending from the city of Ottawa to the city of London, filling important official positions, which are necessary in connection with the administration of affairs having to do with the war. Nor do I look in the N.R.M.A. forces or in the forces of those who have . volunteered but who for one reason or another have not found it possible to get to the front lines. All glory and all honour to them for having attempted to do so in their own way. I look for the real heroes of this or any other war in the front lines, in the air, on the land and on the sea, and when one puts that test to the people of Saskatchewan I do not care whether the man says, "Me no speak English". While a little over forty per cent of the population of our province bears the names of nationalities that had their origin on the continent of Europe, a little under forty per cent of the men who gave their lives for this country from Saskatchewan bear those same names. That to me, Mr. Speaker, is the reason why I glory with these people in the fact that they can come to me and you and say: I have lost my son, too. We are all on common ground; we are all on a common level; we all have given a common service, and out of that common service have come all the honours that are due to all men who have served overseas, whatever their nationality or however they got to the front line.
Having said these things with regard to the war itself and our association with it from the province of Saskatchewan, may I call to your attention the fact that there is another matter here which has been referred to indirectly on a number of occasions. A bill to merge the Department of Munitions and Supply and the Department of Reconstruction into a single Department of Reconstruction and Supply will be introduced. If I understand that bill correctly, it is a bill which sets up a department to be presided over by the minister who down to the present has been the Minister of Munitions and Supply, a department which is to be provided with funds in very much the same way as the defence departments were provided with funds during the war, and other departments of government which are associated with reconstruction will have to convince those connected with that department of the necessity for doing

certain works in which they are interested in order to have an expenditure of money made upon them.
In so far as my own department is concerned, one of the outstanding ventures upon which we have been urging that money should be spent, and for the expenditure of which we have had the support of quite a number of hon. members from western Canada who have spoken up to the present time, is the expenditure of money upon water conservation and irrigation. In my reference to this I include hon. members of every party, because the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act was introduced first in 1935 by my predecessor the Minister of Agriculture in the Bennett government, and one hon. member sitting opposite was a member of the first committee appointed and remained a member of that committee until he became a member of this house after I took over the Department of Agriculture. We have had it constantly urged by those from western Canada who belong to other parties that the rehabilitation work under this act is most important. Therefore I would say that while, since I took over the department, we have spent $20 million upon irrigation work and the re-graasing of lands and the fencing of sub-marginal lands, we look upon that as only the beginning of a very important development in the western part of Canada. I can assure the house that the support which has been given to these operations up to now has been greatly appreciated by those associated with me in this work.
I said in the beginning that one of the reasons why I wished to speak to-night was to deal with a question which has been before this house in one form or another during the greater part of this session. It has to do with meat. In order to have meat at all you must have it produced, and our association in the Department of Agriculture with meat is that we are responsible for direction in connection with policies having to do with its production.
In order that I may place the facts with regard to meat production before the house, I consider it advisable that I should recall one or two of the criticisms which have been made of policies followed down to the present time. The first of these I find in the speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), when he stated, as reported in Hansard, at page 31:
If there is need for rationing, the government is, to a great extent, responsible for it.
In leading up to that statement the leader Df the opposition dealt with the matter of price for hogs in relation -to prices of grain, and called attention to the fact that we have a

The Address-Mr. Gardiner _
reduction in hog production in Canada in 1945 as compared with 1944. I wish to deal for a few moments with the position taken.
The leader of the opposition raised three questions: the need for rationing, government Policy on production, and the relation of price to production.
With regard to the first, the need for rationing, I think it is unnecessary that I should say very much to-night. This afternoon the Minister of Finance '(Mr. Ilsley) gave the house the statistics with regard to our position, and in giving them placed before hon. members the real reasons for the establishment of rationing in Canada. But I want to put the matter in the manner in which I heard it put yesterday by the minister of one of our leading churches in presenting the same problem to his congregation; and in putting it in the manner he did, he said he was only repeating the statement of a leading minister from New York who spoke the other day in Toronto. What he finally said was this, that after we have produced all the food we can produce in Canada and in the United States; after there has been produced in the other countries of the world which are favourable to such action, all the food that they can produce, and after we have rationed ourselves to the limit, according to our present information over 300,000 children will die in Europe this winter for want of food. Statements of that kind may not have as much of reasoning behind them as some of the facts which we present in this house, but they appeal to the hearts of the people of Canada as they do to the hearts of the people of the United States. I know that the flying men who flew over Europe thought more of the children whose lives they might save in the end than they did of anyone else. I know that the fighting men and those who sailed the seas had the same feeling; all
one had to do was to look at the many pictures brought back from the front and placed upon the screen, in order to see that anyone who desired to work upon the feelings of our people had only to place before us a little child; and if over 300,000 children in Europe are threatened with death this year, the question of whether there should or should not be rationing should not worry us very much if we feel that rationing and production will provide them with more food.
As a matter of fact the question which arises in this regard is whether rationing interferes with production. Some people argue that it does; some argue that it does not. But the government has decided that, whether it does or not, there will be a greater amount of food supplied to the needy nations under rationing because of the reductions in consumption than would be kept from the people of Europe because of any reductions in production owing to the fact that we have rationing; therefore, on balance, more food will be available under rationing.
That is the first point I wish to make in connection with this discussion, namely that rationing would have been necessary to meet the shortage in Europe, no matter what the production.
I have before me this evening the figures of production. I have the facts with regard to the accomplishment of farmers in Canada in meat production during the war. In answering the question as to what are the facts, I shall confine myself to two main classes, namely, beef and pork. There have been similar results in the others. The table which I am going to ask the privilege of placing upon Hansard is one that indicates production, exports and estimated consumption from 1938 to 1945. If I have the permission of the house I will put it on Hansard, as follows:
Production and Distribution of Meat
Year
1938..
1930..
1940.. 1941. .
1942..
1943..
1944.. 1945 *
Beef
Total	
production 1	Exports 1
000 lb.	000 lb.
700,478	67,096
714,002	102,897
717,467	77,921
812,073	99,327
822,530	94,735
892,969	43,343
960,991	165,323
1,008,146	162,678
Used for	
canning	Total for
and by	civilian
non-civilians	consumption
000 lb.	000 lb.
1,274	638,184
1,972	599,151
32,639	614,931
49,344	654,550
60,123	671,592
69,411	774,157
78,727	695,228
158,896	686,572
1 Source.-Official figures of Dominion Bureau of Statistics on Meat Production. Estimated dressed carcass weight of animals slaughtered in Canada plus estimated dressed weight of
animak e ^ carcass beef plus exports of live cattle converted to a carcass basis.
3 "Civilian consumption" does not take into account what was used by non-civilians or the amount used for canning.
* Estimate.
The Address-Mr. Gardiner


An hon. MEMBER:: 1944.


James Garfield Gardiner: . . . 1945, established the peak production of meat which is possible under normal conditions upon our farms.
The year 1944 was an abnormal one in hog

production and cannot be considered as anything else in establishing a sound agricultural policy for this country; and in order to show why that is so it will be necessary for me to place other statistics on Hansard with regard to grain production. The figures are as follows:
Production of grain crops in Canada 1938-44 (Millions of bushels)
Wheat Oats Barley
1938	
360-0	371-3	102-21939	
520-6	384-4	103-11940	
540-1	380-5	104-21941	
314-8	305-5	110-51942	
556-6	651-9	259-11943	
284-4	482-0	215-51944	
435-5	499-6	194-7*1945	
321-4	388-2	161-1
* First estimate Sept. 5/45.
Live stock production and finishing of live stock in Canada depends upon grain production in Canada. Eastern farmers never do produce and cannot produce the feed grains necessary to feed all the live stock they have facilities and other feeds for. Live stock production is therefore limited by the production of feed grains in western Canada. The general production figures for the same years are contained in the table which I have just placed on Hansard and which is much shorter than the previous one.
It will be noted that the production of oats and barley in 1942 was more than double that of any previous year. It will also be noted that wheat production was only slightly lower in two previous years if hon. members will refer to the table I have placed before the house.
Those who claim that wheat production has been encouraged at the expense of live stock production should also note that the reduction in wheat production for the years following 1942, as compared with those before,

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
is much greater than the reduction in feed grains. In other words, these statements made with regard to the trends in the production of meats and other live stock products as compared with wheat are largely picked out of the air and based upon nothing.
Prior to 1942, when we were producing from
305,000,000 to 384,000,000 bushels of oats annually and from 102,000,000 to 110,000,000 bushels of barley, we completed the period right down to July 31, 1942, with only one month's carryover of feed for the live stock we had in this country. Therefore everyone who wanted greater live stock production in order to assist in the war was delighted when in 1942 we came to the end of that season with twice as much feed grain as we had ever produced in this country in any one year previously. It is that feed grain which we produced in 1942 which has not only carried this country to the greatest heights of production in live stock products which it has ever experienced but helped to carry the United States to the same heights of production in order that we might be able to place at the disposal of Britain and her allies the supplies of meat necessary to feed her armies and her civilian population. But in doing that, hon. members will note by the figures which have been placed before the house, the production of coarse grains has gone down year by year since 1942. Some people say, "Yes; that is because you have encouraged the production of wheat."
But the production of wheat has gone down even more than that of coarse grains. I have hsa/rd men in this house, since this debate began, calling attention to the fact, or stating that it was a fact, that because hog production is down the income of farmers in Canada is down. The income of farmers from live stock in 1945 as compared with 1944 is down by $14,000,000, but the income of farmers on grain production is down by $44,000,000. In other words, our grain production has been going down year by year since 1942, with the result that we enter the year 1945-46 with only two months' supply of feed grains in the bins of the country, sufficient to feed the live stock we have for two months. On top of that we h^tve the most limited production of grain we have had in the dominion for some years and particularly since 1942.
That brings me to this statement, that when we are considering a policy for agriculture in a country like Canada, with 700,000 farmers, the best policy for us to follow is one of placing the facts before the farmers from one end of the country to the other well in advance of the new season, and we have been
doing that in December of the previous year, ever since the war started, and then telling them our desires and asking them to try to meet those desires.
I am sure the leader of the opposition will agree with me when I say that no man knows more about how to run a farm than the man who milks the cows. I am quite sure he will agree with that. The man who milks the cows and feeds the pigs, if he has all the information, knows more about how to run a farm than anyone else. When 700,000 farmers see their bins filled to capacity they increase their production. When 700,000 farmers look into their bins and see their supplies going down day by day, week by week and month by month, the only sensible thing for them to do is to try to feed fewer live stock. So we have tried to place the earnings from live stock on approximately the same basis as the earnings from grain. Then we have said to the farmers, take stock of your conditions. When you have taken stock remember that until now you could sell every pound of any live stock product you produced, but until now you have found it difficult to market your wheat in the volume you have been producing it. Therefore we have said the tendency ought to be to get down on wheat and up on feed grain and live stock production. In 1943-44 hog production increased because the bins were overflowing.
But no farmer can produce more live stock without grain; and I can say to the house now, without fear of contradiction from any farmer in Canada, that unless we have a more bountiful crop in the summer of 1946 than we have had in the summer of 1945 it will be absolutely impossible for our farmers to increase their live stock production before the end of 1946.
With these facts before us we came to the conclusion that while it was all very well to use the argument last spring in February, March and April that rationing might reduce production we are now looking at the present crop; and we know that meat production cannot be immediately increased. We know that the statement made in the question asked me the other day was absolutely correct. In western Canada this year we have the poorest crop we have had since 1937. For an area taking in almost half the Saskatchewan grain growing area and a little more than half the Alberta grain growing area the crop this year is poorer than during any of the 1930's with the exception of 1937. With that fact before us we know there is not the grain in this country to produce more live stock, even
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

if we had all the other facilities necessary for such production. So that our policy for 1945-46 must be governed by those facts.
Then I said that one other question had been raised, having to do with price as related to production, and I wish to take a few moments to deal with that point. At page 28 of Hansard the leader of the opposition is reported to have said:
Some two years ago the government announced an export equalization bonus of fifteen cents per bushel for barley and ten cents for oats. Immediately farmers started to cut down hog production.
Then a little further down the same page he said:
This is chiefly due to the government's policy of keeping hog prices so far out of line with feed prices as to discourage hog production.
I have already attempted to show the house that the real reason for the decrease in hog production is associated with the fact that grain supplies have been going down steadily. I personally went to the United States twice in 1943, when the Americans were pleading for more feed with which to feed their live stock, and announced to them that we had
900,000,000 bushels of grain stored in our elevators and on our farms in Canada. As a result of those two trips we did make an arrangement under which, in the fall of 1943, our grain went to the United States in great volume to assist in the finishing of their cattle as well as our own. In making that arrangement we provided for these bonuses upon feed grain. One only needs to quote the figures, which are published weekly and are available to all farmers * and agricultural experts throughout the country, to indicate that the policy followed does not keep hog prices out of line with feed prices. The last issue put out by the meat board on September 20, 1945, gives these figures:
Hog-barley Hog-feed Hog-feed ratios Winnipeg Toronto Long-time average..	17-4	6-7Last week	
22-9	(19-5)	7-7	(8-3)Previous week	22-9	(19-5)	7-7	(8-3)August, 1945	
22-5	(20-6)	8-0	(9-1)Note: Figures in	brackets indicate	ratio	when
15 cents added to barley price at Winnipeg and dominion premium on hogs added to price at Winnipeg and Toronto.
I am sure every authority in this house will agree when I say that before the war, when that ratio was above 17-4, which was the long-time average, it was always considered that it paid a man to feed the barley to the hogs rather than to sell it. Since the beginning of the war, however, because of the higher cost of labour, we have been FMr. Gardiner.]
inclined to say that the figure where farmers would question hovered somewhere around 20, which is about the position of those in western Canada who have had grain to sell, if you add the 15 and 10 cents to the ceiling prices. The ratio was 19-5 last week and the week before and 20-6 for the month of August. In other words, the relationship as between barley and hogs in western Canada is almost exactly what it ought to be to permit of farmers deciding, to feed or sell barley, and that is where we have been trying to keep it.
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. So that we say our policy has benefited feed grain prices as compared with live stock prices to the extent necessary to make it possible for us, over the whole period of the war, to set an all-time record for the production of live stock and live stock products throughout the dominion.
Now, for a moment I wish to call attention to the contracts with Britain, because, after all, those contracts have established the floors right from the beginning of the war down to the present time. We have made six contracts so far, and I want to give the figures for the first five, because they bear upon the statement made by the leader of the opposition, who said we gave a sort, of belated support to the hog producers by making possible a $3 premium on grade A hogs in the spring of 1944. Well, we did more than that, as the figures will show. The British contracts have set the floor prices of hogs since the beginning of the war. The first was on the basis of $17.70 per one hundred pounds of bacon and ham. The second opened at $17 and closed at $19.60. The third was on the basis of $19.90; the fourth was at $21.95 and the fifth at $22.70. That will indicate that there was an increase of seventy-five cents in the 1944 con-

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
tract, as compared with 1943. In addition to that, the government paid a premium of $3 and $2, which made the increase to the farmer as great as the average increase in any previous contract. And that was the contract signed eventually to cover the period down to December 31, 1946. So to-day we are committed to send to Great Britain not less than 450 million pounds of bacon and ham, based upon that particular price. The table I have already placed upon Hansard will show that we estimate at this time that with rationing we shall probably be able to send to Great Britain about 451 million pounds. This is very much less than the 717 million pounds we sent in 1944; but the 717 million pounds we sent in 1944 amounted to just about 75 million pounds more than anybody ever expected we would be able to send. It was our abnormal year.
If we in the Dominion of Canada can produce 450 million pounds of bacon a year over and above what we require in this country, for the years that are ahead of us we shall just about be able to supply that part of the British market which we hope to retain after this war is over. Therefore we are asking every farmer in this country who has been accustomed to produce hogs, who likes to produce hogs, who has the facilities for producing hogs, and who can produce hogs on the present return-and more particularly if he can produce them at a lower return, and stiLl make a profit-to stay in the business and help us to retain that market which we have done so much to build up during this period of war.
May I say in conclusion that we have made exactly the same kind of arrangement with regard to cattle. That contract extends down to December 31, 1946. There is no one in Canada who needs to have any fear that the price will be cut in the marketing of these live stock products between now and the end of 1946, below the minimum which the contract establishes, if the stock is marketed orderly and the plants operate at capacity.
After that we have the floor price measure to help us. After that we have family allowances. After that we have all the social services that have been organized by this government for the Dominion of Canada.
We are asked: How are we going to finance it?
Not by policies that have been presented to this House of Commons by the socialists; not by policies that have been presented to this house by the Social Crediters; not by policies that have been presented to this house by the official opposition.
We intend to meet that problem by the good old policy of Liberalism. It is based, it is true, upon Manohestrian free trade, as our C.C.F. friends claim. But, Mr. Speaker, it is on the revised edition of it-brought out first in 1906 by Lloyd George, applied to Great Britain in the form of unearned increment taxes-about which my honourable friend from The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell) spoke the other day; applied through income taxes upon earnings; applied through unearned increment taxes of all kinds.


Mr. ROWE:: The highest protection we
have ever had!


James Garfield Gardiner: We in the Dominion of Canada have followed the same plan from the time the present leader of the Liberal party became its leader down to the present time. During the war we have developed it to a point to which it has never been developed by any other country in the world.


William Earl Rowe: Because nobody understands it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, my hon. friend
does not understand it.


William Earl Rowe: Neither do you.


James Garfield Gardiner: His thoughts are
governed by old-time Tory doctrines. He never looks at it with the mind of one who could understand Liberalism.


William Earl Rowe: The highest protection we
have ever hadl


James Garfield Gardiner: The people of the world understand it; other nations of the world understand it.


William Earl Rowe: But you do not.


James Garfield Gardiner: And they have eulogized this government and this country upon the great assistance we have given in the prosecution of the war. How has it been done?


William Earl Rowe: By noise.


James Garfield Gardiner: The people of the world understand it; other nations of the world
understand it, and they have eulogized this government and this country upon the great assistance we have given in the prosecution of the war. How has it been done? While my friends opposite have been talking about doing something, this government has gone into the treasuries of big business and small business and taken out all unusual profits in the form of excess profits taxes, in the form of corporation income taxes, and in the form of individual income taxes. In the total they have taken out $1,600 million. We have spent a great part of it to perform those services which every one in this house who has spoken
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

has eulogized, in prosecuting the war in the manner in which it has been prosecuted. They have spent another part of it in providing funds to establish social services; and the final effort of the government in that direction has been the placing of floor prices under farm products, to the extent of $200 million, and the placing of opportunity in the hands of the people of Canada to attain purchasing power, by distributing $250 million in family allowances.
So that Liberals, as usual, have been acting while others have been talking. I submit that the expenditures we have arranged for will not take all the $1,600 million, and that therefore it is still possible to lower taxation and perform the services.


Major James William Coldwell: Just to have one point clear, I should like to ask the minister a question. He has mentioned figures concerning exports of meat. Did those figures include exports to our armed forces, or do they appear elsewhere?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I think all the meat which went overseas was included in the agreement we made with Great Britain.


Major James William Coldwell: That is, Great Britain supplies our troops overseas.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is my understanding of it, that under the agreement all bacon and beef that go overseas go over under this agreement.


Major James William Coldwell: And go to our army afterwards.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are included in those figures.


Mr. C. E. STEPHENSON (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak for the first time in the House of Commons I wish to say I consider it an honour to be one of its new members, and trust that I shall be capable of contributing in some small measure to the task of governing this great country of ours, Canada.
First, permit me, sir, to congratulate you upon being elected to the high office you now hold. Upon assuming the office of Speaker of the House of Commons on the opening day of the session perhaps you felt slightly nervous, as I do at the present time.
To the two new supporters of the government who moved and seconded the address in reply, and who so recently served in His Majesty's forces, may I also add my congratulations.
With the kind indulgence of hon. members I shall endeavour briefly to express my views on a few matters which I consider are of paramount importance at the present time.

Many hon. members who have spoken during this debate have referred to their constituencies-their locations, their industrial production and their human and economic problems. In this way we in the central provinces of Canada have learned something of the eastern and western provinces and the conditions that there exist. We have thus all been enabled to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the over-all problems we shall be called upon to deal with in the near future. Therefore I should like to say a few words about the district, and particularly the county I have the honour to represent.
Durham county, one of the fine counties in Canada, is situated in Ontario about 225 miles west of this city. It fronts on the north shore of lake Ontario. Durham is predominantly an agricultural county and it contains many fine farms where the raising of pure bred stock is carried on. There are also many fine orchards in the county which grow some of the finest apples in Canada. About five years ago it was discovered that there was a fairly large acreage suitable for the growing of tobacco and to-day tobacco growing has developed into a large industry.
Scattered throughout the county are several prosperous towns and villages. News is supplied to Durham county by weekly and daily newspapers, one being the finest weekly in Canada, the Bowmanville Statesman. There is one daily paper, the Port Hope Guide, which has been published continuously since 1831. In the large centres are situated several factories, one being a large rubber industry which produces great quantities of synthetic tires. Other factories produce plumbers' supplies, conveyers, fertilizers and other commodities. Located in Durham county is the only file factory in the British empire.
Here also is located a great radium refinery that contributed much to the making of the atomic bomb which brought the fanatical Japanese nation so speedily to its knees and won a victorious conclusion of the war for the allied nations. Hon. members may be interested in hearing something of the part the radium refinery in Durham county played in the making of the atomic bomb. Some years ago while prospecting in the Northwest Territories Mr. Gilbert Labine landed his plane near Great- Bear lake and by following around the east coast of the lake discovered a vein of pitchblende ore from which radium is refined. The discovery was of great interest not only to Canada but to the whole world, because it was well known that only a few countries in the world possessed deposits of pitchblende ore.

The Address-Mr. Stephenson _
Shortly after the discovery was made a refinery was built in Durham county. The concentrated pitchblende ore wms flown out by plane to the head of the great lakes and shipped from there to the refinery. Monsieur Marcel Pochon, who I understand is the only living pupil of Madame Curie, the great scientist, came to Canada to take charge of the new refinery which in a few years was supplying the rare metallic element known as radium to the world. Also produced from pitchblende ore is the heaviest element known, uranium. This was produced in quantity at the refinery and was first used for the glazing of earnthenware, but we are now given to understand that it is from this element that the atomic bomb was created.
It may be asked why the refinery was located in Durham county when the pitchblende ore deposits were hundreds of miles away up at Great Bear lake. As explained to me, the reason is that it requires about seven times the amount of chemicals in weight for the refining process as the weight of the concentrated ore itself, and it is therefore more economical to fly the ore out from Great Bear lake than to transport the necessary chemicals to the location of the pitchblende deposits. We have all read of the might and destruction of this new discovery, which is almost incomprehensible. While we are fervently thankful it was the scientists of the united nations who first learned how in some measure to control this energy, let us hope that it will be controlled so that in the future it may be used, not. for destruction but for the good of all mankind. I trust that what I have had to say of Durham county has been of interest to hon. members.
With regard to the conditions and problems that face the people of Canada, I believe at the present time the housing situation is of first importance. The need for houses is desperate, and especially is this so in the county I represent. With your permission, sir, I should like to read from an article which appeared in the Bowmanville Statesman of September 6. This reads:
Too little and too late has been the charge most frequently laid against the Ottawa government. Its recent emergency orders covering the housing situation have come too late for at least one returned soldier of this town. Here is the story. Born in Bowmanville this lad enlisted the week war broke out. Married in England, he fought in Italy, was captured, suffered from malaria in a German prison camp, was repatriated, got a job at home. His wife and small child rejoined him here, have since lived in temporary, emergency quarters. With winter coming on they have sought to find a suitable home.
But none were available. The article continues :
His reaction was as characteristic as the impulse which led him to enlist. He resigned his job and has booked passage with wife and child to return to England. There, among friends still suffering war's privations they will seek both a job and a home. These are the simple facts in the case, just one case by the way, that points to the indifference of a government and a people whose boast was that we should make this land fit for heroes to live in.
The rehabilitation committees and building contractors are doing their best to alleviate these conditions, but they find they are running into difficulty because no priorities for building materials have been granted to build veterans' homes. This being the case, why does the government not come out and make a plain statement to the public as to the actual conditions that exist? No doubt thousands of letters are being written every day to the various departments of government and to members of this house making futile efforts to find out the real answer to this housing problem.
There also seems to be no understanding in the smaller municipalities as to just how the various housing schemes work. I have had several individuals and small contractors write me to inquire, "Where do we go from here?" It is true there has been different housing legislation enacted and published, but what could John Jones, say, learn from reading subsection 27 of section 2 of the National Housing Act, which reads:
(27) "Minister" means the Minister of Finance and includes, in paragraph 6 of this section, paragraphs (b), (c), (g), (i), (j) and (k) of subsection 2 of section 4, paragraphs
(a)	, (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j) of subsection 2 of section 8, subsection 2, paragraphs (a),
(b)	, (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) of subsection 3 and paragraphs (a), (c), (e) and (g) of subsection 4 of section 9, paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of subsection 2 and paragraph (a) of subsection 3 of section 11, paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection 2 of section 12, paragraph (a) of subsection 1 of section 14 and subsection 1 of section 15 of this act, a person designated by the minister to act on his behalf.
This may be good practice in learning the alphabet, for it seems that only a few letters are left out., but I imagine John Jones will be asking the $64 question, "Who is what?"
It must be remembered that the men interested in building houses are business men, not Philadelphia lawyers, and I suggest that simple and concise instructions be published to guide them, with regard not only to housing but all other government rules and regulations with which the ordinary business man must deal and to which he is subjected. I
The Address-Mr. Stephenson

venture to suggest that if free enterprise were given a free hand we would soon have the houses built which are so urgently needed.
I should also like to deal for a short time with the subject of controls. It is but reasonable that in war time any government is justified in setting up certain central controls. Such controls were set up by the present government, and it might be said that on the whole the people of Canada complied with the regulations admirably, in spite of all with which they had to contend. The government has informed us that these controls are being removed as speedily as possible, but that some will have to be retained and perhaps other emergency controls added. We trust that this is not just a way to retain these bureaucratic offices. No doubt many hon. members have been amazed at the attitude of some of those who were appointed as inspectors and officers in charge of the wartime prices and trade board offices throughout the country. These appointees were no doubt put in their offices to assist the public and to serve the people, but many have assumed the role of dictator. To bear out my statement, I will cite an incident which happened in my constituency.
The roof blew off a building in which were stored perishable goods. The owner went to the wartime prices and trade board office with the request that he be granted enough roofing to replace the damage. After considerable humming and hawing the answer was: "Why do you guys have to bother me on a hot day like this? I will think about it."
Another instance. I appealed to the board on behalf of a man in my constituency for a tire for his car. This man lives eight miles from town and drives in each morning, bringing with him two sons to attend school. This man is a diabetic case, but in spite of his handicap was working in the flour mills all day. At night lie picked up his boys and returned home. I think hon. members will agree with me that this man was doing a real job working under such conditions and trying to educate two sons, but I was informed that he would not be granted a tire, and that if I encouraged such requests I would only be adding to their work. If we are still to be harnessed with controls, surely the government can issue instructions to the employees in these offices to be reasonable, and at least civil to the public.
In connection with youth training, I should like to speak for a few moments of a situation that has arisen in my constituency. We have located there the Bowmanville boys' training school, with an average of 500 or 600 boys to be looked after annually. This boys' training

school was conceived as a foster home for underprivileged children generally lacking proper home environment, and it has achieved a magnificent record. Pupils are cared for between the ages of seven and sixteen, and records show that after graduation literally hundreds have joined the armed forces and served with distinction and, coming home, have voiced their appreciation of the gifts given them by teachers and supervisors. Others have gone on to college for professional careers, while hundreds more have entered honourable occupations in various spheres as first-class citizens.
It will be seen, therefore, that the school deals in human values of the highest character. This school has been the means of doing some very useful work from its inception, but in 1941 the dominion government took it over and converted it for use as a camp for German officer prisoners, and it was so used until April, 1945, when these prisoners were removed to other accommodation. Since then the main buildings and grounds have been empty and neglected and now present a scene of utter desolation. Doors and windows swing open to the elements; birds nest among the fixtures; lawns and gardens are deep with weeds.
I understand that the dominion government, under a signed agreement with the government of Ontario, undertook to restore the property to its original use immediately the German prison camp was done away with, and restore it to the same condition in which it was prior to 1941. I trust that the dominion government will take immediate steps to fufil that agreement in order that the splendid work of the Bowmanville boys' training school may be carried on under suitable conditions.
There is a matter of importance, Mr. Speaker, which I think should be discussed by the dominion-provincial conference when it resumes this fall. It is that of conservation and reforestation. Considerable study has been given to this matter, and action should be taken as soon as possible to remedy the serious degree of soil erosion that is taking place in certain districts throughout Canada.
I realize that during the war it was impossible for the government to give this matter attention, but I hope that as a post-war measure the dominion government will give every assistance possible to the provinces and municipalities in reforestation and flood-control measures in order to check the ever-increasing depletion of the best of our soil, on which we depend for our very existence.

The Address-Mr. McCullough
la Durham county a survey of the Gana-raska watershed has recently been completed, and I have had the honour to be a member of the advisory board. This watershed covers the greater part of the county. The turbulent Ganaraska river drains the watershed, and it has been revealed that in one year 32,000 cubic yards of top soil has been dredged from the Port Hope harbour into which the river empties. It has also been revealed that there are over 20,000 acres of land in the county resembling a miniature desert, which must be reforested as soon as possible to prevent the blow sand from covering up adjoining valuable acres. The property damage caused by one flood has been estimated at $100,000, and to remind hon. gentlemen how serious soil depletion can become, I need only remind them that history informs us that the Sahara desert was once the granary of the Roman empire, and it is still to-day encroaching on the fertile lands surrounding it. We are anxious in Durham county that speedy action be taken by the dominion and provincial governments to remedy the conditions of which I have just spoken.
There is another matter of importance which I think should be discussed at the coming dominion-provincial conference. It is my opinion that there should be a national minimum wage act covering the whole of Canada, and the wage set should be sufficient to enable every one in this country, no matter what his or her occupation, to live decently and enjoy those things in life to which he or she is justly entitled.
Another matter which I feel should be given consideration at this conference is the extending of our research efforts in Canada, and lending every assistance possible to the universities engaged in this work. We have in Canada great natural resources, but it would appear that we have been content in the past to barter and sell them in their natural state rather than to process them in this country. I believe that through research many new uses may be found for those natural resources with which Canada has so generously been endowed. We could then encourage factories to locate here, and in this way we would supply labour as well as be adding to the national income.
In closing, I just wish to say a word about a distinctive national flag for Canada, about which we have heard so much. It reminds me of questions which are asked in this house on the order of the day and with regard to which you say: "There is no urgency about the matter." I feel that there is no urgency about
the selection of a new national flag in Canada.
I think the people of Canada as a whole should be given an opportunity to say whether they want a distinctive flag or not. I am not unmindful that in 1940 all that stood between us and possible destruction was the union jack of old England.
I should also like to pay tribute to all those members of the house who served in the last war or in this war, and finally as a member of parliament I wish to pay my tribute also to all those who have served in any of the armed forces of Canada. I am sure that hon. members will join with me in remembering those who have paid the supreme sacrifice and in expressing our deepest sympathy with those who sorrow for their loss.


Mr. E. G. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with great humility to speak for the first time in this house, recognizing the great responsibility and the honour which have been placed upon me. I arrived in this city on September 2 and came immediately to this building. The beauty and majesty of it thrilled me, and I rededicated myself, sir, to carrying out with the best I have within me the new responsibilities which have been entrusted to me.
The speech from the throne indicates that it is the intention of the government to beautify Ottawa and district. This project is to be highly commended, for things of beauty are in harmony with man's highest ideals and deepest longings. But I am also reminded of little fishing villages where fishermen and their families eke out a living; of the slums in our great cities; of farms which have become derelict and of farmers and their families who, through a vicious, outworn and outmoded system, have had to leave their homes. I remember these conditions which I have seen. I submit to all hon. members that, when we are thinking of a memorial to those who have suffered and sacrificed in this war, and when we realize that the heartaches and sufferings are not only for the duration of the war but will continue for years to come, all of us should dedicate ourselves to building a memorial in the form of a new Canada based upon a system which will give opportunity and security to all our people.
During the debate many hon. members have spoken about their own constituencies, but I should like first to focus the attention of hon. members upon our national and our international problems. I believe I voice the unanimous opinion of the party to which I have the honour to belong when I say that the winning of the war and the winning of the peace are two aspects of the same problem.

The Address-Mr. McCullough
Winning the peace-a part of this problem- lies before us, and as Dwight D. Eisenhower is reported to have said when he arrived in the United States a few weeks ago, it is the bigger job which still lies before us. To-day, when the sacrifices of this war have given us another chance to win the peace, in my opinion it is the real emergency facing us.
Referring to the speech from the throne, I am a little disturbed at the vagueness of its allusions to what may or may not be put before us in the way of legislation. To begin with I would point out that in the building of a new Canada we must recognize that we are not French Canadians and English Canadians, but Canadians, and that we are not only citizens of Canada but also citizens of the world. We must recognize that in formulating a domestic policy for Canada we have a responsibility to the world.
The problems of housing and employment which face us to-day are tremendous and pressing; but at this time I desire to deal with some other questions. First, there is the idea of an emergency. As I understood some hon. members, in discussing the present emergency their idea seemed to be that if we could muddle through in some way for the next year or two, if we could deal with reconversion and the housing shortage, somehow or another we would get out on the broad plane of economic stability. In my opinion we could make no greater mistake, because while we have these immediate problems to-day, the biggest problems will arise after the pent-up purchasing power which exists to-day is exhausted. After the accumulated domestic and foreign demands for consumer goods have been dealt with, then what? Therefore, I say that to-day we should be planning for making fundamental changes; we should be establishing the four freedoms, recognizing the implications of the united nations food conference at Hot Springs, Virginia, where a minimum standard of living was set up for all the peoples of the world. We should so establish the Canadian economy as to be able to fit in with any plans for world order or world peace which may evolve out of the San Francisco conference.
During the war our government has failed on many counts. I would point out something which has not been mentioned here this session, namely the government's responsibility for moral leadership. It is a disgraceful thing that during a period of national dislocation the government has allowed the liquor industry of this country, controlled by private enterprise, to undermine the morale of our people. We are threatened with a serious condition of moral decay, for 
which in future we may have to pay in a wave of crime and a weakening of citizenship and leadership. The time has come to do away with corruption in high places. Parliament through this government should take responsibility for moral leadership.
One thing which disturbs me is that many hon. members want to remove all controls and get back to good old pre-war capitalism. Well, pre-war capitalism is as dead as the dodo. We are now in a new stage of capitalism. To-day we find the government underwriting the risks of the so-called free enterprise system. .This is a crucial stage in Canadian history. To-day the government is underwriting these risks of capitalism; for instance, we have the national housing plan, the industrial bank, family allowances, unemployment insurance.
May I first deal briefly with family allowances. It is a good thing as far as the wage-earner in the low income bracket with a large family is concerned, but it does not take the place of decent jobs and adequate wages. In this regard it appears to me as though the government intends to allow private industry to go into lucrative forms of enterprise and exploit them, and then step in with the taxpayer's money to look after papa's children.
With regard to national housing, there again we find not very much of free enterprise; again we find the government underwriting any risk that is involved. The question is, where are we going to stop? When we speak of planning, the fact remains that to-day we are to have planning whether we like it or not; but the point is, who is to do the planning? Here we have a capitalist-government planned by big business, whereas we in the C.C.F., who also have a plan, propose a democratically planned idea for Canada, instead of allowing industry to take all the lucrative enterprises with the government stepping in and assuming the responsibility for capitalism's failures. To-day this is what happens. Private enterprise assumes no responsibility for unemployment; it has no responsibility for the real needs of the people, but the government steps in when unemployment becomes acute. That is the system under which we are operating at the present time.
The C.C.F. plan is that if the government is supposed to use the taxpayers' money to carry on vast social services it is only good sense that the government should also participate in the remunerative and revenue producing industries and thus be enabled to give the people a high standard of living. In.

The Address-Mr. McCullough
that way, through co-related planning, we would do away with duplication and the wasteful system of capitalism.
It would seem to me that this government is concerned in preserving the special privilege of private enterprise. I am more concerned in preserving the industry of our period.
I should like to give some idea of my conduct in future in this house; and while I recognize that hon. members on the opposite side of the house will have the whole say in any legislation which is passed, nevertheless, on occasion, when measures are brought in I shall vote for those that provide some alleviation to the distress and to the worry and trouble of our people resulting from the vagaries of this system which the government seems to wish to uphold.
I wish to deal for a few minutes with agriculture, and first of all let me say that there is no group in Canada more willing to make the sacrifices that are necessary to build a lasting peace than our agricultural community. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) presented order in council 6122, paragraph 4 of which deals with stabilization of the economic and political life in war-tom countries.
In the sixth paragraph it is stated that as a further means of stabilizing wheat prices during the post-war period it is the intention that steps shall be taken to ensure that producers will not a>t any time up to July 31, 1950, receive less than SI a bushel, basis Fort William, Port Arthur or Vancouver.
The point I wish to bring to the attention of the house is this. Here we have an appeal from the government, from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), asking for cooperation. I can assure the house that western farmers will be ready to cooperate in the fullest measure to attain stability and lasting peace, but here by this order in council we have SI a bushel being assured to the farmers, basis Fort William and Port Arthur. This would mean, with twenty cents freight rate, that the farmers would receive as low as eighty cents a bushel. Again may I say that we may be scraping our bins, and from the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to-night it would seem that, with a short crop next year, 1946 may bring that condition.
I do not agree with the minister when he states that it is impossible to increase production or that we can bring any form of stability to agriculture by means of the plan which is being submitted to this house by the government. I wish to put before the house a plan which in my opinion would bring some stability to agriculture, and that is a plan
whereby we would establish the principle of the ever-normal granary by storing in our bins one thousand million bushels in years of plenty, whereby we would have a granary on which to draw in years of scarcity which we might face in the future. It is clear to this house that if the war had gone on for one more year we would have been in a crucial situation in Canada. Therefore I say that it is a good sound plan to have the principle of the ever-normal granary. In years of plenty we would store for years of scarcity. I would ask the government to advance the farmers money to buy cement and building materials to build proper storage facilities, and I suggest that the Canadian wheat board be continued and that it take deliveries, or advance storage on the same basis as is paid to the elevators at the present time. In this way the farmer in a few years would own these storage facilities, and if we had scarce years our live stock production would not be jeopardized. In this way we could establish a stable agricultural policy for the country. But if we adhere to the old policy of trying to dump surplus wheat as soon as we have a few hundred million bushels we shall always remain on an unstable agricultural economy.
I wish for a few moments to direct my remarks to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie), and at this time I would refer to those veterans who served in the last great war as well as in this one. I would ask very respectfully that a pension of S50 a month be granted to those veterans. Second, I would ask that they receive complete health insurance and, third, that the means test of securing a pension be done away with.
I make this appeal on the ground that these men, who number over 2,000, have given up civilian employment and gone out to give service to their country. Moreover, it would mean that well over 2,000 of these veterans would be relieved of the necessity of seeking employment and would have some measure of security. I would point out further that there is an injustice to be remedied so far as these people, who are living in a state of insecurity, are concerned. Let me state a case so that the members of the house will be in a position to sympathize with my suggestion. I have looked into the case of a veteran who served in the imperial army and who again served in the last war. As a matter of fact, in the last war he was a prisoner in Germany and he entered this war as A-l but was let out as an E category man. For the last three years he has been trying to get a pension, and although he is suffering from an injured knee, from hernia and rupture, he has not been able to get a pension up to date.

The Address-Mr. McCullough
While I might be able to make this appeal on grounds of service rendered by these veterans, I would say that they should be given the pension out of simple justice.
Still directing my remarks to the Minister of Veterans Aifairs, I should like for a moment to deal with the matter of veterans wishing to settle on the land. I believe we should recognize that the best advice we can give our returning young men and women is to go on farms, away from the congested areas; but under the land settlement act as it is set up to-day this is not happening. A recent survey, which shows that very few of these young people wish to go back to the farm, would indicate that something must be done. As far as I have been able to find out, those coming under the Veterans' Land Act may receive a maximum of $6,000, of which $4,800 is for land and $1,200 for equipment. I am a farmer, and I think I can speak from practical experience. In the first place $4,800 is too small an amount for land, and $1,200 is totally inadequate for equipment. Here is what a lad going on the land must pay for his equipment. He will have to pay $1,700 for a modern small combine, $1,500 for a small tractor and $1,200 for a modem small truck, or $4,400 for these three major pieces of machinery. Therefore it is clear that this total of $6,000 is quite inadequate. I have tried to find out if there is any other way in which a veteran may get further assistance, but I find that the veteran, having hypothecated his land under the Veterans' Land Act, cannot get any help under the farm improvement act of 1944.
In this connection I should like to make some proposals to this house. My first suggestion is that $10,000 be the minimum amount given to veterans wishing to settle on farms.
I further suggest that those showing good faith by remaining on the land for three years should be given a five per cent discount on the original loan; those staying five years should be given an additional ten per cent, and those remaining for ten years another fifteeen per cent, or a total discount of thirty per cent over a period of ten years. Then I submit that this amount should be amortized over twenty-five or thirty years. If any hon. member thinks this is an unreasonable amount I would remind him of what we were able to do during the war. We found $25,000 to train each pilot, and we found $50,000 to $100,000 for a plane in which to put him. Therefore I respectfully submit that these recommendations should receive consideration.
I should now like to direct my remarks to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). Today we find a great deal of unrest in the ranks

of labour, which seems to have very little faith in what the future may hold. I quote from page 223 of Hansard, where the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) said:
I see nothing disturbing in the present situation as far as employment is concerned. . . .
Then he went on to say that there were 132,520 jobs and 73,150 applications. I wish to point out that many of these jobs are of a temporary nature. For example, I should like to mention a veteran who went into the employment office at Regina to look for a job. The official told him there were many farmers who wanted combine operators and asked the veteran if he could drive a combine. He replied that he could not, that he had been in the transport division of the army. The official replied, "Well, if you can drive a truck you can drive a tractor, and if you can drive a tractor you can drive a combine." Then the veteran said that he had a wife and two children and that he was concerned, about getting something permanent because winter would be coming on in a couple of months. The official said that this work was permanent for the next few weeks, and that he had better take it. I do not want to give the rest of the conversation, because it would not look good in Hansard, but hon. members will understand that this statement by the minister does not in any way reflect the real situation. I have in my hand a little pamphlet which was put out by the Department of National Defence, which says that no man wants to be a square peg in a round hole. We will all agree with that; but now that peace is here, at least we should be able to do for our people what the government has done for our boys in the services, and that is what I am asking.
Further in regard to labour I should like to mention the need for a national labour code and the extension of the already existing though perhaps temporary order in council P.C. 1003. In my constituency I have great coal fields. A year ago the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) was there, and was reported to have said that Bienfait was the coming Pittsburgh of western Canada.
I visited those mines about two years ago, and I know something of the conditions which exist, and something of the need for labour legislation of a permanent nature. For the benefit of those who have never been in a coal mine or who have never come in contact with the needs of labour I should like to repeat some of the things brought to my attention at that time. We have both dominion and provincial laws giving certain rights to workers in the mines, but I found that some of this legislation has not been carried out. Prior to 1939, when there were large numbers of unem-

The Address-Mr. Lesage
ployed, if any person, working in the mine tried to impress upon the management the need of doing something and carrying out this legislation, he immediately received his discharge notice. This shows the need for collective bargaining, so that workers may gain recognition and have something to say about their hours of work, rates of pay and the conditions under which they are employed. I submit that this would only be establishing two of the four freedoms, freedom from fear and freedom from want, for labour.
I should now like to refer to the War Assets Corporation. This was a highly contentious question in my constituency during the election campaign; and since it involves over $800,000,000 of plant and equipment belonging to the people, for which we have paid, and around $3,000,000,000 worth of surplus war material, I say that what is to be done with it should be the concern of everyone in this house, for this is the property of the people. We believe a lot of it is being destroyed. A week ago I had a telephone conversation with one of the high officials of War Assets Corporation. Without any solicitation on my part he admitted that some of this equipment had been destroyed.
I do not wish to spend too much time on this subject, but I should like to submit a plan to the government for the disposition of surplus war assets. I would point out that many of them could be used for civilian uses. When I was speaking to that official I suggested to him-and I now suggest to the house -that in addition to the plan which, I have been told, is in operation, under which aeroplane parts may' be assembled in a field- parts such as fuselages and wings-'and sold at a nominal fee, wings and frameworks may well be used on farms as cabs for tractors and the like. Hydraulic jacks could be used to make small hydraulic presses.
I would ask that consideration be given to my suggestion, and that when surplus war assets are being sold the government should advertise widely so that the public would be informed.
In this my first speech in the house I have tried to submit some of the plans offered by the C.C.F. But I believe that if we will seek to build a new order based upon the needs of the people and the inherent right of every person to a job and to security, we shall be able to say in the words of Tennyson:
Ring out the thousand wars of old;
Ring in the thousand years of peace.


Mr. JEAN LESAGE (Montmagny-L'Islet):: (Translation) Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will allow me to express publicly the congratulations which I have already had the honour of tendering you on your elevation to the very high post of Speaker of this house. We are all assured-and you have given evidence of that fact during these last three weeks-that your dignity and impartiality betoken the preservation of parliamentary freedom in this country.
I also wish to join in the chorus of praise which was occasioned by the speeches of the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the speech from the throne. They gained the admiration of each and every member of this house.
It is my privilege to be the representative of the constituency of Montmagny-L'Islet. That electoral district is composed of two provincial counties. One of them, L'lslet, is represented in the provincial legislature by the Hon. Adelard Godbout, leader of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec, and the other, Montmagny, by Mr. Fernand Choquette, K.C., president of the Quebec City Bar Association.
I scarcely need to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the task of representing such a constituency weighs heavily on my young shoulders. From the bottom of my heart, I thank my electors for having given me such a mark of confidence, and my sole desire is to remain ever worthy of it.
My constituency has flourishing industries, large and small; farming is prosperous and progressive and land settlement is gradually developing. All classes of the population are enjoying, thanks to the present government's policy, a standard of living which had never been known heretofore. That is due to the government's policy, it is true, but also to our faith in the future, a faith which enables us to contribute, in a truly Canadian spirit, to the development of a truly united Canadian nation. My constituents are primarily and above all Canadians, and it was because I expounded Canadianism and advocated the political and economic independence of a united Canada, that I was elected as a member of this house.
The greatest evidence of patriotism on the part of my constituents is to be found in the number of those among them who volunteered for active service, went overseas and fought for our democratic freedom. All honour to the heroes from Montmagny-L'Islet who sacrificed their lives in order to save their fellow-citizens and who lie in foreign soil, in the glory of their eternal sleep!

The Address-Mr. Lesage

(Text): Mr. Speaker, new members have come to this House of Commons in a very critical time. We are just out of a global war, in which all our economic standards have been upset. The people of Canada do not want to go through years such as we had between 1930 and 1939. Something must be done, and we have a strict obligation to prevent the reappearance at our doors of the monster of depression.
I respectfully submit that it is possible to achieve economic stability through what we call full employment. As a matter of fact, in the last few years we have gone beyond what we usually thought of in peace time as full employment. That was due in great part to the fact that our export trade had reached a peak we could not have attained in the past. But the majority of these exports belong- and I quote the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon)1- to the category of temporary, abnormal wartime trade:	A considerable percentage has
been financed by mutual aid appropriations, and thus has been paid by the government itself. If upon the one hand it is impossible to maintain our export trade at such a cost, we must not forget upon the other hand that under present conditions those countries which have suffered directly from the devastation of war are not in a position to pay us in cash, or by imports which would be needed for the help of our internal economy.
However, we must have a greater volume of exports than we had before the war. It is the only way to full employment, or anything near it. The present index of employment and the index of the immediate future is not a normal one. Our reconverted industry will employ thousands of people to produce goods of which the population has been deprived during the period of war. For that reason the index of employment should remain very high and, consequently, the national income should also remain at a high level. But the demand for those goods the population wants so badly now will lessen, and employment will go down to a low level, if we are not in a position to export.
It is important to know that the goods required by the people of Canada at the present time are not the goods we may expect to export over a long period of years. Let us not forget that the nations devastated by war will do their utmost to reorganize their industries and become self-sufficient, and even exporters in the industrial field. If we ignore foreign prospects until domestic demand has been satisfied we shall wake up in two, three or four years without foreign customers. We must

direct our industrial power toward the constant needs of the exterior which will serve at the same time the import needs of our Canadian market.
In my humble opinion we should do our utmost to seize every opportunity of selling outside Canada the products of our natural resources, which are mostly agricultural and animal products, lumber, paper and minerals, including non-monetary gold. The net profit these products bring to the nation is the highest. I respectfully submit that it is the duty of the government to assure full production and the opening of new markets for these products.
In order to expand our foreign trade the government should, first, guide Canadian production and economy; second, cooperate with the other nations of the world in a programme of free multilateral trade and monetary stabilization and, third, open credits to other nations.
First, the government should guide Canadian production and economy. The common good of the nation does not reside in the addition of the good of each and all of the citizens, but in coordinating the good of each citizen with the good of all otheTs. The advantages and sacrifices of each and all toward the common goal must be coordinated. By themselves men are seldom ready to make the sacrifices necessary to the common good. Every man naturally seeks his personal advantages. If private enterprise is free of all controls, if we give free rein to competition as requested by so many members of the Tory opposition, we shall find, as experience has taught us, that we are heading straight to economic dictatorship.
The state must regulate the economic life of the nation, but it cannot provide equality for all. It is fair to distribute production according to the needs of each individual, but it must also be according to his merit. The Social Credit theory that every citizen should not have to work for more than four hours a day is not applicable. None of the hon. members of that group will ever prevent an individual from earning more by his talents or his capacity to work. As I have said already, the individual naturally seeks his personal advantage. We cannot change the natural law or the law of God that some forget in their arguments. When I heard the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Kuhl) say last week that instead of looking for full employment we should look for full enjoyment I said to myself, "That is an old gag, thousands of years old." The hon. member for Jasper-Edson must be a great reader of the classics, because it reminded me of the

The Address-Mr. Lesage
cry of the decadent pagan Romans as they yelled in the circus, "Panem et circences." We are not a decadent state and, if the government controls the economic life of the nation to prevent economic dictatorship and assures a fair distribution, it must leave to the individual sufficient liberty to allow him to be interested in helping the state by his talent.
In conclusion, national economy and production should be controlled in order to ensure for every citizen a decent standard of living, but room must be left for competition which is generative of great achievements.
I said that the government must cooperate with the nations of the world in a programme of free multilateral trade and monetary stabilization. Canada more than, or at least as much as, any other nation is dependent on her foreign trade to ensure her economic life. Therefore, Canada is most interested in the expansion of free total world trade. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is the most far-sighted Canadian of all because, since the beginning of his long and fertile stage at the head of. the nation he has always looked for friendly political and economic relations among nations and the disappearance of all obstacles to a peaceful and important world trade.
The Prime Minister has always understood that we stand to gain more from multilateral world trading than from bilateral trade treaties. Multilateral world trading will be a precious advantage to Canadians especially if exchange rates are stabilized. The articles of agreement of the conference of Brett-on Woods announcing the establishment of an international monetary fund and an international bank of reconstruction and development are of special interest to us Canadians who have so often had to pay for our surplus imports from the United States with the depreciated money paid to us by others for our surplus exports. That point in our monetary relations in international trading is so often forgotten by our teachers of Social1 Credit in their evolutions in the clouds of theory.


Mr. LOW:: Did you ever read Social
Credit?


Jean Lesage: I had an opponent who was a Social Crediter and he lost his deposit.


Solon Earl Low: Did you ever hear him speak?


Jean Lesage: I heard him speak, but he
could not convince me because he was in the clouds.
Third and last, I said that we must open credits and' that for many reasons. As Christians we have no right to let our brothers 47696-274
of other nations starve, even at the cost of depriving ourselves of some of the things we would like to consume. What is rationing when misery is the best ground for the seeds of revolution and1 totalitarianism in aid its forms? Our faith in democracy commands us to avoid the formation of a bloc of nations, even by one of our allies, to stand against a bloc of democratic nations. These reasons are apart from the fact that we must create good will for our foreign trade and take the place that we have so dearly earned in the world markets. Experience has shown us, paradoxically enough that even gifts to other nations ensure us a high national income. We must pay for them, it is true, and that is where our financial and monetary difficulties begin.
The government should take the money from a high national income in order to open credit to other nations. There are two ways of obtaining that money, loans and taxes. We cannot expect to go on for very long with loans of the importance of victory loans. Too much of the money

I am sure this will please hon. members of the Social Credit group- comes from the chartered- banks and financial institutions, as was said by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley).


Solon Earl Low: Where did you learn that?


Jean Lesage: I certainly did not learn it
from my hon. friend. This is what the Minister of Finance said:
These are sobering facts because to the degree that the government has had to borrow from the banks rather than directly from personal savings, to the degree that the spending power of the government has been increased and the spending power of the public has not been reduced by an equal amount, we have contributed to the pressure on prices and on supplies of necessary products.
That was said in 1943.
We must limit government loans to the saving public; otherwise we go directly to inflation and then depression. It is exactly the same as if we tried to put into practice the Social Credit theory of inconsiderate issues of currency.
The government must face its responsibilities and convince the people that we cannot have a high national income and social security without a level of taxes somewhat higher than before the war. Canadians will be ready to make sacrifices and to pay taxes if they love their country as their only motherland. It is by nurturing a true Canadian patriotism that the people of Canada will best discharge their responsibilities toward the country. The people of Canada are now more Canadian-minded than ever. In this connection I shall not minimize, as some Tory newspapers have done, the importance of
The Address-Mr. Lesage

having a Canadian flag and a Canadian citizenship, and also, I pray, our own national anthem.
I am not of those extremists who proclaim that we should be a republic or one of those who say that we should 'be governed by Downing street.
I do not approve the partisans of La Laur-entie, but I do not approve either those who will not recognize the fact that we are a bilingual state.
One of my electors, who is a manufacturer of saws, sent a statement of account to a customer in another province which I shall not name. It had four words in French on it. It said "facture" instead of "invoice," and "manufaeturier de scies" for "manufacturer of saws." Clearly it wras not a cheque which anybody would accept in whatever language it was written. It was a statement of account, and the answer sent back was: "Make out your account in the official language of Canada. I do not recognize French."
As long as we have men like that, of either French or English language, who will not recognize what I will call the "Canadian fact" or, if you like, Canadian unity in diversity, we shall not be a nation. The government should do its utmost to spread the idea of a bilingual state. For instance, should not the family allowance cheques be bilingual all over Canada? Why should cheques be written in French for Quebec and in English for the other provinces? All the provinces are part of the same country, which is bilingual. No province must be regarded as a reserve. I live in the province of Quebec, but I am at home everywhere in Canada. My ancestors came here three hundred years ago, and I am here to stay with my faith, my language and my traditions. I am tolerant, but I want tolerance. The unity of Canada is a sine qua non condition of its future.
The other condition is its high ranking among the nations of the world. Canada will reach its place only through political and economic independence. Canada has everything to lose by being tied up to any other country or group of countries; it has everything to gain if it is free to join as a free nation in the deliberations of international conferences of all the nations of the world. There is our future. There lies the prosperity and the greatness of our beloved country.
In conclusion, may I say that I believe the present government will achieve the common good of the nation. I have faith in the Prime Minister. His glorious past, in the most difficult days our country has seen, is a guarantee

that he will steer the ship of state to a safe port. May God keep him long for Canada, to which he has devoted all his life.


Mr. D. J. McCUAIG (Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, as a new member of this parliament, I realize that I have been given a stewardship and a responsibility.
I am not a manipulator of words or a maker of phrases; I work with my hands. I represent the federal constituency of Maple Creek in Saskatchewan, in the southwest corner of the province. Eastend is my home town. I have farmed there continuously for thirty-three years.
Being now a full-fledged commoner, I take it to be my bounden duty to work for and to serve all the people of Canada, regardless of race, colour, creed or political faith.
First, I should like to acquaint the government with certain conditions in the part of the country wffiich I represent, conditions brought about by drought. We are experiencing the second worst drought in the thirty-three years that I have been in that country. Wheat will not average over two bushels to the sown acre. That means that on thousands of acres there will not be one bushel at all. The year 1937 was our worst year. In that year the grass never got green and the soil blew and drifted all summer. There was not one dollar of return for all the seed planted, the wearing out of equipment, the year's living expenses and labour, and there was no seed for the spring of 1938. We are hearing now about the 1938 seed grain.
The year 1936 was just about like this. Conditions were disastrous for stock-men. Trainloads of stock were shipped out at one and two cents a pound, and someone made a harvest on the stockmen's misfortune. Feed was the problem then. Feed and water constitute the problem now.
The stock-man is trusting the government to give him a stabilized price. He can see no reason for wide price fluctuations-more times down than up-when the demand is steady and meat is urgently needed. In my opinion, government control is the only thing which will attain the desired end. Company or monopoly control would do just the opposite in this kind of situation for their motive is: In business to make money.
The way the set-up is at present, shipping and slaughtering facilities cannot handle the offerings. The pastures are brown and bare. The water situation is bad, and the people are clamouring to ship their stock. Before I left Eastend to come here the shippers told me that shipping was restricted. The longer they

The Address-Mr. McCuaig
keep this stock, the poorer the quality will be. This is a waste when meat is so badly needed in Europe, where people are starving. We fought to save humanity; now they need food to live. I hope the government will move with all their war-time efficiency, speed and energy to take care of this situation.
After seeing the accomplishments of Mulberry, after reading about radar and atomic power, it seems to me that by comparison the achievement of many of these things would be very easy. If these men who are endowed with such wonderful gifts and training, the knowledge of science, of engineering and planning, almost likened unto the infinite, were given the job of making the world a fit place for all peoples of the earth to live in, what a world it would be! "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth" would surely come to pass. This basic fundamental was ignored by Mussolini, Hitler and Tojo and their followers. Six years ago they were the biggest men in the world. To-day they are no more. What an ignoble end was theirs! They did not recognize this basic fundamental of life, and if we in Canada do not recognize it, can any man in this parliament say where we shall be six years from to-day?
I have not been able to find in the speech from the throne any basic solution which will take care of the problems of the great masses of the people, the producer, the men who must work for a living from the age of sixteen to seventy. Family allowances and old age pensions, desirable and indeed necessary under our present economy, are only props to hold up an unworkable system. We must get down to the basic fundamentals of life. The army could not get very far without basic training. The farmer would not go far without knowledge of basic agriculture. On the plains of Saskatchewan the .record of thousands of years is found in the top foot of soil. That record tells a man whether he should break up land and how much he may expect to receive from that ground over a period of years. If he ignores that record it is just too bad for him; in other words he requires basic knowledge. In my humble opinion we must deal with basic principles if we are to have a prosperous, happy national economy. It is not only cooperation with our fellowmen; it is cooperation with God, carrying out the purpose of creation. I say these things in plain, farmer's working-man's language, because that is the only language I know. As I see things, there are four institutions in Canada, four main arteries through which the very lifeblood of Canada flows. They have to do with the welfare of every one of us. They are natural resources, industry, transportation and finance. The men who, by company or monopoly control, sit in the seats of the mighty and pull the levers, hold the economic destiny of every man, woman and child in Canada in the hollow of their hands. They exercise power and control that defy governments. They are the invisible government of Canada.
To support this contention, I will use Hansard. In June, 1939-before the war- there was brought down provision for a defence purchasing board under the War Measures Act. The profit was to be five per cent on capital, which apparently was not accepted. From page 179 of Hansard of September 12, 1939-after war was declared- I quote the words of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe):
I can say to my hon. friend that from that day to this the defence purchasing board has done its very best to place contracts on that basis and has used every pressure that could be brought to bear in the form of patriotism and so on, but to date it has not succeeded in placing a single contract on that basis.
Who was the power in Canada? Big business staged the first sitdown strike. We were at war. Our men needed the tools to do the job. It is evident that big business got their own price. Would you expect men who would not accept five per cent profit to bid against one another for a less amount? I do not know what they got: But here we have an exhibition of monopoly enterprise.
Lord Tweedsmuir had something to say about this in his book, "A Prince of the Captivity," at page 308. I quote:
There is a great and potent world which the government do not control. That is the world of finance, the men who guide the ebb and flow of money. With them rests the decision whether they will make that river a beneficent flood to quicken life, or a dead glacier which freezes wherever it moves, or a torrent of burning lava to submerge and destroy. The men who control that river have the ultimate word.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), too, speaking prior to the 1935 election, as reported in the Western Producer, said:
Canada is faced with a great battle between the money power and the people, a battle which will be waged in the new parliament. I plead for a sweeping Liberal victory to carry out my policies of public control of currency and credit. Until the control of currency and credit is restored to the government, all talk of sovereignty of parliament and democracy is idle and futile.
On October 9, 1942, in speaking to the convention of the American Federation of Labour at Toronto, the Prime Minister is reported also to have said:
The war has shown us that the way of monopoly, of unrestricted power, is a way that leads to destruction, desolation and death.
The Address-Mr. McCuaig

I am at a loss to know who is the supreme authority in Canada. I, as a citizen of Canada, have always been of opinion that the people's democratically elected representatives were the supreme power and authority; that it was their democratic duty to lay down policies, and that the government was the executive of parliament to carry out those policies.
Yet, in the last few days, I behold a minister laying down a policy, making a definite regulation that affects the most vital industry in Canada, the raising of food. He does this without any consultation, so far as I am aware, with the people in this industry, nor has he received any mandate that I know of from this parliament. The democratically elected members of this house have had nothing to say about it.
Is this the kind of thing that is to take place in all our departments of government? If it is, we might as well go home. No excuse, not being able to consult the people; the people's representatives are right here now. Is that the kind of thing our boys fought and died for? No.
Whence comes this minister's authority or motive power? Could it, by any chance, come from the "invisible government", the powers that ride on the backs of the poor?
A fitting citation from the prophet Amos, in 720 B.C., goes:
Forasmuch, therefore, as ye trample upon the poor, and take exactions from him of wheat; ye have built houses of cut stone, but ye shah not live in them.
Wheat and other farm products are the farmers' money. It is not the price of a bushel of wheat, but what a bushel of wheat will buy, that concerns me. I have in my hand two notes given to Bussie Brothers of Gull Lake, Saskatchewan, dated March 9, 1914-one for an 8-foot McCormick binder, price $165; one for a 20-run double disc drill, price $125-for the two implements $290, f.o.b. Gull Lake. Wheat was then sixty-five cents a bushel. It took 446 bushels of wheat to pay for those two implements. The binder now costs $400, on rubber, and the drill, power lift, $317.50 or a total of $717.50, f.o.b. Eastend, and it takes 850 bushels of wheat at eighty-four cents to pay for those two implements at $1 floor price, as announced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Farms were mortgaged in 1914 to carry on under much more favourable conditions than now. What will happen this time?
We have in Canada to-day, a mechanized industry which has eliminated fifty per cent of man-power, as compared with twenty years ago. The machine is doing the work. How

are we to take care of the remaining fifty per cent? We carried on the biggest production Canada ever had from 1940 to 1945 without any help from our young men in uniform, who numbered 800,000 by the end of the war. This God-given gift to man was to take the toil, back-break and slavery out of his life and put it on the machine. But under our economy it starves him.


Mr. HANSELL:: You should be sitting over here.


Duncan John McCuaig: If the hon. gentleman will be quiet-


Ernest George Hansell: It is a good speech you
are making.


Duncan John McCuaig: I am not used to this kind of thing. The last reason why the people back home sent Duncan McCuaig to Ottawa was my ability to make a speech, but they had confidence in the C.C.F. and they were certain that I would carry out their philosophy.
The Tories did not recognize the basic fundamental, and they were absolutely floored in 1935 and nearly had their very name wiped off the map of Canada.
The Liberals did not recognize it from 1935 to 1940. In that very short time Canada was on the way out. In the thirties the national income dropped to a low of $2,723,000,000 as against $9,186,000,000 in 1944. Thousands of our boys were riding the rods, and as late as January, 1940, more than 3,000 older men were being fed in a soup kitchen on Princess street, Winnipeg. That is what the man at the desk there told me. I was in the place and personally talked with those men on several occasions. Another thing. In the ten years from 1930 to 1939, of Canada's children 166,972 died under one year of age, in a land of great potential wealth, food and other materials. A terrible indictment against our civilization!
Along came the war and snapped us out of it. War is the only thing that has ever saved the capitalist system. It gave us money and prosperity. It was blood money.


James Horace King: Order. It is eleven o'clock.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: I would ask the unanimous consent of the house that the hon. gentleman be allowed to finish his address.


Duncan John McCuaig: I thank the house for its courtesy.
To-day, Mr. Speaker, nearly every invention that science and industrial development have given us is owned or controlled by companies and monopolies, who use them with one end in view, one motive, namely, to make money, not for the use and needs of men; because, if

Labour Conditions
the money is not forthcoming, man can darn well go without, and he did go without, between 1930 and 1940. This is the kind of thing this government was elected to solve. It is the biggest job any government in Canada ever undertook, and in my opinion they will have to implement social ownership of the means of production whereby the people will produce first for the needs of the people, as a first principle, or compel the present owners of the machine to do that very thing. The people of our country produced almost unlimited supplies for war and could continue to do so, and would continue, if the war went on. By the same token, if the government so wished we could keep every man at overtime work, for there is no end to what the people of Canada need and could do with. (Listen to this from the book of Proverbs, chapter 29, verse 18:
Where there is no vision, the people perish.
We need half a million new and improved homes, with everything that goes with them. Good homes, good churches, well equipped schools'-these are the very foundation of the nation. We need parks; not only the beautification of Ottawa but the beautification of Canada. Thousands of miles of good roads are needed. We require irrigation. We are only spending crumbs where a billion could be well spent in the restoration of lands and forests and the irrigation of thousands of acres in the west. We should harness the great Saskatchewan river; the water that flows from the mountains in the divine plan should be used, but we have not had enough sense to use it. We should have vocational training; recreational centres; the arts, crafts, drama, music and forums. All these would be real wealth and real value, and the very best kind of security for the Bank of Canada to have. Once again I hear a pleading voice coming from the dismal past and saying:
I plead for a sweeping Liberal victory, to carry out my policy of public control of currency and credit.
It is my very soul's desire, Mr. Speaker, that this parliament should do this very thing; and should the Prime Minister make to this house the appeal that he made to the people of the country, I believe this parliament would support him and this Canada of ours would go places.
On motion of Mr. Blackmore the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Tuesday, September 25, 1945.