PRIVILEGE-MR. COLDWELL REFUSAL OF ACCESS TO PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS BY CITIZENS SEEKING TO INTERVIEW MEMBERS

Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) rose yesterday afternoon at three o'clock to refer to a matter affecting the privileges of parliament and of himself as a member of parliament. I informed the hon. member that I would confer with the Clerk of the house and the Sergeant-at-Arms and that I would give him an answer as soon as possible. I have received the following memorandum from the Clerk of the House of Commons:
With regard to the admission of labour delegates and other persons in the parliament building yesterday, I have inquired from the R.C.M.P. and the house's protective staff and I have the honour to report as follows:
As we expected a large crowd yesterday and only had four constables on duty, I asked Commissioner Wood to send in a few men to help our protective staff. It is well known that the R.C.M.P. is assigned to parliament hill but the interior of the building is under the control of the protective staffs of the Senate and House of Commons.
About eleven o'clock a.m. Messrs. Murdock and Morrow, representing the delegates, called at my office and asked if they could hold a meeting in the railway committee room. I explained to

Privilege-Mr. Coldwell
them that if a member of the house desired to meet them in any committee room 1 would instruct the Sergeant-at-Arms to make the necessary preparations for the meeting to be held. They said they desired to see certain members and 1 directed them to the main entrance where they would be helped to see these members. They did this and Constables Groulx and Gauthier, not acting as policemen but in the capacity of guides, went with them and four other delegates, including a lady, to Mr. Coldwell's room. The men left them in Mr. Coldwell's secretary's office and returned to the main entrance. Some of the other delegates who had remained downstairs insisted on seeing the leaders of the C.C.F. party but were told that the party was in caucus, and our staff never interfered with such meetings. Two delegates asked that their names be sent in to Mr. Maclnnis, which was immediately granted, and the hon. member for Vancouver East came out and saw them.
Hon. Mr. Douglas, Prime Minister of Saskatchewan, told me last night that he was not prevented from coming inside the building. When he arrived at the entrance he was asked who he was and after he had given his name he was immediately allowed to go in.
I am informed by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that, according to "reports he has received, none of his men stopped anybody from going inside the building.
As to the protective staff of the House of Commons, it had not been given any order by me or the Sergeant-at-Arms to keep anybody out of the building. There was some confusion when the crowd pushed in and dispersed all over the main corridor. In order to slow up this rush, the outside doors yvere closed, but not locked, for about half an hour.
It has been said in the press that "parliamentary police bar delegates from the house until members of parliament guaranteed their conduct inside." No such practice has ever existed in the parliament building. The reason why members have to be asked if they wan to see visitors is that they cannot be importuned when attending to their correspondence or other parliamentary duties. If they cannot be seen, the visitor may withdraw or sit in the corridor and wait until there is a sufficient number of visitors to be taken through the building by a guide.
You will realize, Mr. Speaker, that some precaution has to be taken in the parliament building, but our practice in this regard is very broad. The best evidence that no severity was shown yesterday is that apart from the three hundred delegates, six hundred and twenty-two other persons visited the building in addition to the five hundred who followed the debates from the galleries.
Arthur Beauchesne,
Clerk of the House of Commons.


Mr. COLDWELL:: May I say a word, Mr. Speaker? I was not particularly inquiring into what took place within the building. I thought I made that quite clear yesterday. But I want to know by whose authority and instructions people were stopped from entering this building to see members of parliament, or were questioned prior to their entry into this build-47696-5
ing. I have no complaint regarding the protection that is given hon. members against interruption and so forth; but what I requested yesterday was an explanation of why people were prevented from entering the building. I may say that even members of the press gallery who have been in and out of this building for a long time were stopped and questioned as to their business before they entered this building yesterday morning. That is what I am interested in.


Mr. HOMUTH:: That might be an idea.


James Horace King: I understand from the
report which I just read that nobody was prevented from coming in but some of the visitors who presented themselves at the door were asked for identification; therefore I consider the incident closed.


Mr. REID:: Then Douglas was not prevented; the statement was not true.



PRIVILEGE-MR. HEON ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER

[Stage Direction]
"le Canada"
Mr. GEORGE© H. HEON (Argenteuil) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I desire, subject of course to your kindness, to raise a question of privilege in accordance with paragraphs 140, 170 and 183 of Beauchesne's "Parliamentary Rules and Forms".
It has been brought to my attention, this morning, that the newspaper Le Canada published on the first page of its issue of Friday, September 7, 1945, an article entitled "First changes noticed in the Commons". The article reads in part as follows:
The only French-speaking members who sit on the opposition side are: Mr. Georges Heon, Conservative member for Argenteuil, who has been relegated by his party to the last seat of the last row occupied by the Conservatives, in the background of the house and next to the C.C.F. members.
I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, that such a statement is untrue and that if the writer of those lines wanted to attempt an insinuation, the latter is malevolent; if he wanted to play a joke, it is in bad taste. No one but myself bears any responsibility in connection with the particular place where I sit in this house. I say that I occupy my present seat because I did request the distinguished clerk of this house to let me have it.
The leader and all the hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party having shown me every courtesy and regard since my arrival in this house, I could, if I had so desired, use my right of seniority to occupy a seat farther in front.
[Stage Direction]
Privilege-Mr. Heon
[Stage Direction]
However, no person of intelligence and good faith should attach importance to the row where the seat of a member of this house may be. All of us are here in the same capacity.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: I ask the hon. member to resume his seat. I think I have been generous enough toward the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Heon). A question must always be quite brief and to the point. I permitted him to give explanations; he did so and I believe that is sufficient.


Mr. HEON:: Mr. Speaker, will you permit me to ask the writer of the aforesaid article -I have not the honour to know him-to be so kind as to correct the impression he gave regarding me, because it is unfair.


James Horace King: I repeat that this does not concern the House of Commons.


Georges-Henri Héon: Very well, I shall soon take up the matter again.



PROCEDURE IN QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OF THE DAY

['That is roughly so. The $2,000,000,000 was not exactly for five months, but it was substantially that.']
James Horace King: I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to paragraph 297, page 121 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition.
A certain number of oral questions are permitted in practice by members, without notice, before the orders of the day are called; but these are merely allowed by courtesy in connection "with the business of the house or with very urgent and important matters of public concern. They are always brief, no debate being permitted, and the replies are as concise as possible. The minister interrogated may-reply at once or may direct that the usual notice be given (B. 315). Such questions are governed by the same rules of order as questions of which notice has been given. (M. 245, n.4.)
Hon. members will notice that the rules say that questions are allowed by courtesy in connection with the business of the house, or with very urgent and important matters of public concern. I would like to call for the cooperation of every member and ask them not to put oral questions when they are not very urgent. It would be preferable for the dispatch of business that questions be placed on the order paper.



James Horace King: Before the orders of the day are called I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to a practice in debate which

is contrary to the rules of the house. I refer to the reading of speeches. Standing order No. 41 provides for decorum in debate. I would refer hon. members to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, page 102, paragraphs 238 and 239, which states:
Besides the prohibition contained in this standing order, it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking must not (a) read from a written previously prepared speech.
This rule was adopted in 1927, but as long ago as April 19, 1886, a resolution was adopted by the house which I should like to read. It was as follows:
That the growing practice in the Canadian House of Commons of delivering speeches of great length, having the character of carefully and elaborately prepared written essays, and indulging in voluminous and often irrelevant extracts, is destructive of legitimate and pertinent debate upon public questions, is a waste of valuable time, unreasonably lengthens the sessions of parliament, threatens by increased bulk and cost to lead to the abolition of the official report of the debates, encourages a discursive and diffuse, rather than an incisive and concise style of public speaking, is a marked contrast to the practice in regard to debate that prevails in the British House of Commons, and tends to repel the public from a careful and intelligent consideration of the proceedings of parliament.
No doubt it is very comforting that the written word should be before a speaker while he is addressing the house, more especially in the case of a new member, and there are many new members in the house. However, it is my duty to call the attention of hon. members of the house to the practice of reading speeches. I believe a reference to the rule in this formal and general manner will forestall any objections from the house or from the Chair in the coming debates.


WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide that a sum not exceeding $406,000,000 be granted to His Majesty towards defraying any expenses or making any advances or loans that may be incurred or granted by or under the authority of the governor in council during the year ending the thirty-first day of March, 1946, for the purposes and subject to the terms, conditions and limitations set out in the resolution on the orders of the day to provide that sums not exceeding $1,365,000,000 be granted to His Majesity.

War and Demobilization
He said: The first item under government notices of motion relates to an interim vote for purposes of war and demobilization. Ordinarily at this stage I would move that the [DOT]house go into committee of the whole on the resolution at the next sitting, but since it is necessary to have this money voted immediately, and since the subject matter has been discussed with the leaders of the other parties, with the consent of the house I am moving that the house go into committee of the whole to-day on the first resolution appearing on the order paper under government notices of motion.
I may say that His Excellency the Governor General has been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution and has been pleased to recommend it to the consideration of the house.
James Horace King: Do I understand the minister desires that the house go into committee to-day?


Mr. ILSLEY:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This is money that will have to be voted. It is part of a larger amount which will be covered in due course by our war expenditure and demobilization bill which I propose to introduce within a day or two after the debate on the address is concluded. It is on that bill that the accounting will be given of the expenditures that have been made in the past, and the explanations of the intentions of the government with regard to expenditures during the remainder of the fiscal year will be gone into fully at that time. This is merely an interim vote designed to cover approximately two months of war expenditure, to give us some time in case there is a little delay in getting the war expenditure and demobilization measure enacted. I believe the procedure being adopted adequately protects the rights of the house in every way, together with the assurance now being given that there will be the fullest opportunity for discussion on the main bill which will be introduced following the passing of the next resolution, which I do not propose to move forward today.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: It seems to me that this procedure deals only with interim supply as it relates to the war expenditure and demobilization bill which the minister will move later. It does not appear to cover a proportion of the civil estimates. Is that correct?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct; it does not.


John Bracken: What does the minister propose to do about those?
47696-5i


James Lorimer Ilsley: After we finish with this measure, with the consent of the house I shall ask for one-twelfth of the main estimates by way of interim supply. That will come under item No. 2 on government orders; and with the consent of the house I must take up that matter before the orders of the day are called, before the special order and after we finish with this item.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Mayhew in the chair.


Mr. FRASER:: This will not prevent us from debating these matters later on, will it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, Mr. Chairman.


John Bracken: I wonder if the minister would not give us a more complete explanation than he has given so far. For instance, how does he arrive at this figure of $1,365,000,000? I think we should have a little information about that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The general picture is something like this. The amount covered by the war appropriation measure last year was $3,650,000,000, and the amount provided for Mutual Aid was $800,000,000, making a total of $4,450,000,000. Those are the amounts which were voted for the fiscal year 1944-45. Then for the fiscal year 1945-46 we have already voted two billion dollars. This was done at the last session.
It is estimated that an additional sum of $1,365 million will be required to meet the same class of expenditures as were covered by the votes totalling $4,450 million for the fiscal year 1944-45. There will be no Mutual Aid appropriation at this session of parliament. None will be proposed by the government. The two billions of dollars voted at the last session could be used either for ordinary war purposes or for Mutual Aid. Mutual Aid has ended, and it will not be necessary for us to have any further Mutual Aid appropriation. So that the amount of $1,365 million which is covered by the second resolution found on the order paper under government notices of motions will be for ordinary, war and demobilization purposes. I think it can be said that the expenditures are those necessarily made as a result of the war.
When the resolution and bill voting $1,365 million come before the house opportunities for debate will be given, as they have been in the past. To-day I am asking the house for only $400 million.


John Bracken: I wish to thank the minister for the information he has given. As he has said, and as the Prime Minister explained the other day, leaders on this side of the house met him, and the procedure now
War and Demobilization

being followed was generally approved. We approved the granting of interim supply on the civil estimates for one month.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Correct.


John Bracken: And the equivalent of about two months in respect of war expenditures and demobilization requirements.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John Bracken: We did that on the
understanding of the need for so doing at the present moment. We are now in the sixth month of the fiscal year. Five months' supply was granted last session, but within the next few days the government will be running out of money. Money will be required, and if we were to follow the ordinary procedure of the house we would not have it in time for immediate requirements.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Correct.


John Bracken: On those grounds I am
sure all hon. members will approve the granting of an extra month's interim supply of the civil estimates. That is not before us now but I understand it will be later.
Then, with respect to the war expenditures and demobilization supply-
Mr. ILSLEY; It will be known as the War Expenditures and Demobilization Act.


John Bracken: It is my understanding
that it will replace what was known last year .as the war appropriation bill.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, that is correct.


John Bracken: The minister is asking
that we grant him the right to spend what he anticipates will be required for two months.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John Bracken: Without going through
the ordinary procedure in the house.
Mr'. ILSLEY: Yes.


John Bracken: And without taking the
time to examine the whole of the estimates in detail.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John Bracken: That, too, was approved. I think, Mr. Chairman, that new members particularly should understand what we are doing. We are approving completely what has been requested by the government. In other words we are granting the government the money necessary to carry on one month's civil requirements and two month's war expenditures requirements, without our exercising our privileges of debate and discussion, because of the possibility that such debate and discussion

might take too long to have the money voted soon enough. This procedure will make the money available in time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct.


John Bracken: And that was readily granted. However, all members understand clearly that there will be no limitation of debate later on, that there will be opportunity for discussion in detail, in respect of both the civil estimates and the war expenditures.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Correct.


John Bracken: That will be the position, following this procedure to-day.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; I give that assurance
without equivocation.


John Bracken: The only practical question is this:	We are now in the sixth month
of the fiscal year. I understand five months' requirements under these estimates were granted last session, without full examination by members of the house. Now we are granting further requirements, and six months of our fiscal year will pass without our having considered the details in respect of these expenditures. Not only has that money been voted and spent without our consideration, but some of the assets bought with it are now being sold. The practical result of this procedure is the only point with which we are immediately concerned.
We meet here date in the year. Before many more months 'the year will have expired and another session of parliament will be called. After granting interim supply we do not wish to be placed in the position of having to rush through the consideration of a supply bill in respect of either of these items. That is the practical position in which the official opposition finds itself. What I ask from tihe minister, or from the government, is a declaration that there will be no delay in the consideration of the estimates under both these measures, and in the bringing down of the budget. Under other circumstances, toward the end of the session we would be limited and cramped in our consideration of these matters. I hope the .minister appreciates my point.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. First, with respect to
the War Expenditures and Demobilization Aot, I have already given an assurance that the bill will be introduced within a day or two, as I have put it, after the debate on the address in reply is completed. In the normal course of events it will be considered by the house over a period of weeks thereafter. Then the main estimates will be considered from time to time as occasion seems to warrant or make convenient. The house has the safeguard that

War and Demobilization
the government is being granted onily one month's supply. If ban. members are dissatisfied with the course the government takes in bringing forward its main estimates, it will have an opportunity of saying so at an early day, because we have to come back before that month is over for another month's supply under the main estimates. That is a safeguard which I think should be pointed out. When I make these statements I do not mean that there is any intention whatsoever of holding back the main estimates. However, it is something upon which one cannot give a definite commitment which would mean anything.
The third matter touched upon by the leader of the opposition was that of the budget. The date of its introduction wall be announced as soon as it is finally decided upon; it will not be unduly delayed.


Mr. CHURCH:: Mr. Chairman, I do nut
wish for one moment, to ask for a postponement. of the proposed resolution. I have no doubt, it has been considered by the Minister of Finance, with whom, because of the position in which he has been -placed -as a result of the election, I have great sympathy. Might I point out, however, that I believe it is the rule in British parliamentary practice for the chancellor of the exchequer to give a somewhat more detailed explanation on interim supply, now that the war is over, than was given last Friday on the introduction of the resolution. As you know, Mr. Chairman, there is an insistent demand all over the country that the government should make some declaration of policy regarding control bodies and bureaucratic expenditures which are being made over the head of parliament by certain bodies which have been set up. I will refer to this matter for only two or three minutes. For years past we have been told, by Mr. Churchill in the British House of Commons, an)d more or less by our own Prime Minister here, I believe, that once the war ceased these controls and other war expenditures would cease and we would regain what we, the high court of parliament, surrendered when the war broke out, namely control of expenditures. At the present time we have virtually no control. All kinds of bodies, over the head of parliament, are spending money like water. Every principle for which the British nation struggled in the old 'land since the seventeenth century has been surrendered -to the political caucuses. Parliament itself, which came into being to ensure that taxes shall be voted only by those who have to pay them, has become the institution through which those who do not pay them impose them on others.
I want to emphasize to the committee that powers of legislation older even than the right
of taxpayers to determine the national expenditure have been surrendered, and if we are to continue this sort of thing the power of parliament will be gone forever. Whole spheres of activity, involving the livelihood of every man, woman and child in this country, have been removed from the jurisdiction of the law and of parliament and reserved for the determination of tribunals, irresponsible, irremovable, governed by no control and subject to no appeal. I do object, now that the war is over, to the way that business is being conducted over the head of parliament. We are told that parliament is supreme. That is only a myth. If parliament is supreme, why has it not now control over these outside bodies and their expenditures and in the result we will only hold a post mortem as the money is spent.
I come from a very large taxpaying city. The working class have to pay a twelve per cent sales tax and the burden of taxation is very heavy upon them and upon business firms in the district. Some small business men have been put out of business altogether. As I go along the streets in the large city from which I come I get numerous complaints as to the way these war-time organizations have been carrying on. I protest against the continuation of these irksome controls. I wish to assert the supremacy of parliament over these outside bodies. A large number of them have not contributed a snap of the fingers to the winning of the war, yet they continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars. As one goes around the country one sees how the money is being wasted. There is no retrenchment, no economy, no peace yet. We do not know even that the war is over yet. We did not know, thanks to our new status, that the war had started until ten days after it did, but the Canadians who were on board the Athenia on September 5, 1939, when it was sunk, found out that Canada was at war.
One might as well drop the theory that parliament is supreme. We are not supreme, or we would have control. What I should like to see is a reform of parliament whereby members of all groups would get together and decide what is best to be done for the taxpayers. We have put up with the present conditions in war time for long enough, dear knows.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Usley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for national defence and demobilization.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Mayhew in the chair.
Wat and Demobilization
[Stage Direction]
On section 1-Short title.
Thomas Langton Church: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance one question: If we pass this bill this afternoon, is the war over or is it not over? We as a people should know that. The war is over at Washington, it is over at London, it is over everywhere else, and how does it come about that we are asked to pass a bill like this? Would the minister be kind enough to answer?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, the passing of this bill is in no way an assertion that the war is not over or that the war is over. The bill follows the precedent of the bill passed in 1919, called the Demobilization Appropriation Act, 1919. We thought it more proper to call this the War Expenditure and Demobilization Appropriation Act because many of the expenditures that have to be met out of the money to be provided under this bill-I am speaking not just of the interim bill now before the house but of the bill covering the larger sum of $1,365,000,000- will be in every sense of the word war expenditures; that is, they will be expenditures incident to the maintenance of troops overseas, occupation forces, forces in Great Britain and elsewhere, gratuities and expenditures necessarily incurred by various departments of government as a result of the war.


Thomas Langton Church: It was contended by the Canadian Bar Association that when Britain was at war Canada was at war and that when Britain was not at war Canada was not at war. Has the Minister of Finance consulted the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) on the question whether the war is over and the War Measures Act at an end and annulled? Would he consider a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada under the Supreme Court Act of the question whether this parliament has the right to pass this measure? Because we are part and parcel of the British empire, and when Britain is at war Canada is at war.
I contend that we have no power to pass this legislation, and I should like to see a reference to the supreme court, which the minister can order by order in council under the Supreme Court Act on whether the War Measures Act is annulled.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is the opinion of the Minister of Justice that it is within the constitutional power of this parliament to pass this bill. Moreover, this bill, as I say, follows the precedent of the Demobilization Appropriation Act passed in June of 1919.


Thomas Langton Church: I asked the late Minister of Justice, the Hon. Mr. Lapointe, a very respected minister, before this war began whether the War Measures Act of 1914 was still in force if war came. He said, "I think
CMr. Church.]
it was not." I contended that it was. Will the present Minister of Justice, in view of what was said by the Canadian Bar Association, not consider submitting to the Supreme Court of Canada the question whether we have power to pass this act, as the war is over, and with it the War Measures Act; and when Britain is no longer at war Canada is no longer at war. When Britain is at war Canada is at war, but no longer.


John Bracken: Would the Minister of Finance mind answering a few questions on details for purpose of clarification?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is all right.


John Bracken: This bill replaces what in the last fiscal year was called the war appropriation bill?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is the leader of the opposition referring to this interim bill or to the main bill?


John Bracken: The main bill.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It does, yes.


John Bracken: And the war appropriation bill of last year provided for a total expenditure of what amount?


James Lorimer Ilsley: For the fiscal year 1944-45 it provided for an expenditure of $3,650,000,000.


John Bracken: That was aside from
Mutual Aid?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John Bracken: Which amounted to? Mr. ILSLEY: $800,000,000.


John Bracken: And this bill, which you call the War Expenditure and Demobilization Appropriation Act, provides for an expenditure of $1,365,000,000, on top of the $2,000,000,000 appropriated at the last session of parliament?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct.


John Bracken: That means a total for this fiscal year of $3,365,000,000?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct.


John Bracken: As compared with what amount last year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: $4,450,000,000. And the
$3,365,000,000 includes a lot of Mutual Aid, which was provided for in the two bills.


John Bracken: I am trying to .get at a comparison of the expenditures of last year with those of this year.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The estimates, the total
estimates, last year were $4,450,000,000.


John Bracken: And the total this year?

Interim Supply Bill


James Lorimer Ilsley: $3,365,000,000. Those are estimates.


John Bracken: And you are asking now for $400,000,000, to cover two months' requirements, and that is on top of the five months' appropriations already voted?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is roughly so. The $2,000,000,000 was not exactly for five months, but it was substantially that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Mayhew in the chair.
James Lorimer Ilsley: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $29,769,-
000.11, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted, as set forth in the estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1946, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1946.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Mayhew in the ohair.
James Lorimer Ilsley: I move:
Resolved, that towards _ making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1946, the sum of $29,769,000.11 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Usley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 4, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1946.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Mayhew in the chair.
On section li-Short title.
John Bracken: What was the total of the estimates for this fiscal year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was tabled at the beginning. It is about a billion or eleven hundred million; I cannot remember exactly.


John Bracken: Will the minister explain how he arrives at this figure of $29,769,000.11? One twelfth of a billion would be more than that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: In the billion figure are a number of statutory items which do not have to be voted. This figure of $29 million is one-twelfth of the items that have to be voted. If the leader of the opposition will look at the main estimates he will find that after many of the items there appears the letter "S". which means that they are statutory and do not have to be voted.


John Bracken: You do not recall the total of the main estimates?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, but I can get it in a minute.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Is it not $702,000,000?


Mr. GRAYDON:: The total estimates this year are $1,022,000,000.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I accept that. That is what I thought it was.


John Bracken: More than half of the estimates are statutory and do not have to go through the ordinary process of being voted.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is the way it works out.


Mr. ADAMSON:: Now that we are passing interim supply it would be advantageous to the house to know when we may expect the main estimates to come up for debate. When shall we have a full dress debate on the pressing question of taxation in this country. When does the minister expect to bring down the budget?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Those are two entirely different matters. The main estimates are one thing and the budget is another. A few minutes ago I told the house that the estimates which are now before us will be brought forward for discussion as opportunity affords and convenience warrants. I pointed out to the leader of the opposition that the house has this safeguard against any undue delay, namely, that the government must come back before very long for more money. As regards the budget, I also covered that point. I said that the date of presentation would be announced as soon as possible and that it would not be unduly delayed.
War and Demobilization


Mr. SENN:: Will further estimates be
brought down in the form of supplementaries?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; there will be supplementary estimates.


Mark Cecil Senn: Is there one-twelfth of those Fupplementaries in this appropriation?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; there is not.


Mr. COCKRAM:: I suggest that the estimates produced last session be presented to us in this house so that we may know what we are talking about.


James Lorimer Ilsley: They were laid on the table last Friday or Thursday.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide, inter alia,
1.	That sums not exceeding $1,365,000,000 be granted to His Majesty towards defraying any expenses or making any advances or loans that may be incurred or granted by or under the authority of the governor in council during the year ending March 31, 1946, for-
(a)	the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;
(b)	the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada;
(c)	the expeditious demobilization of the Canadian armed forces;
. (d) promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or in any other manner whatsoever; and (e) the carrying out of any measure deemed necessary or advisable by the governor in council in consequence of the war.
2.	That the governor in council be empowered to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, such sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of $1,365,000,000 as may be required for the purpose of defraying such expenses or making such advances or loans, the principal and interest of any such loan to be a charge upon and payable out of the consolidated revenue fund.
3.	That the governor in council be empowered to reexpend, advance or loan moneys that may be received by way of refund or repayment of advances, loans or expenditure under the War Appropriation Acts of 1939 (second session). 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945.
fMr. Usley.]
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Gordon Graydon: If my understanding is correct, this motion should not be agreed to now. We should like to have the privilege, and to reserve the right, to debate if necessary, while the Speaker is in the chair, various matters relating to the war appropriation bill. If this motion were carried it would deprive us of that privilege.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; it is for consideration at the next sitting.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: This just brings it to the orders of the day.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is only notice.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. An announcement reputed to be from National Defence headquarters as quoted in yesterday's papers states what seems to be a rather harsh decision, namely, that released Hong Kong prisoners of war are not eligible for the Pacific star. Would the minister tell the house why these released prisoners, who were the first Canadians to serve in the Pacific theatre and who have suffered so much in their service, should be denied this right?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):: I thank my hon. friend for bringing the matter up. When I saw the announcement it seemed to me unusual that our gallant lads who fought at Hong Kong should not be eligible for this particular star. On making inquiries I find that the regulations which govern the issue of this star, as well as a number of other stars, do not permit their being so included. On being advised of that I asked that the whole situation be reviewed.
As my hon. friend will realize, the regulations governing the award of this star, as well as the Burma star, the Africa star, and one or two others, are uniform for all countries of the commomvealth, and liberated prisoners of war at Hong Kong, British, Australian, and other commonwealth services, if there are any, are likewise not eligible under the regu-

Prisoners oj War
lations as they stand. But I think we can safely say that these regulations will be amended.


Agar Rodney Adamson: May I ask a supplementary question? Would the minister consider having a special decoration struck for the Hong Kong expeditionary force?
iMr. ABBOTT: I will give it consideration. It seems to me as one who served in the last war that we only had two service ribbons, or possibly three. We are accumulating quite a few now. In any event I am glad to have the suggestion.


Major James William Coldwell: Will the minister permit a supplementary question on something I mentioned yesterday? Will these men be eligible for additional pay and allowances that were to be granted to men who volunteered to fight in the Pacific war?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not in a position to
answer that question now. I will take the matter up and give my 'hon. friend an answer to-morrow.


Major James William Coldwell: I think that is more
important than decorations.


John Bracken: I want to thank the minister for his suggestion that the matter will be reconsidered.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The leader of the opposition realizes that it is not a matter that lies solely within the discretion of the Canadian government. I think perhaps the Canadian government might take action if nothing is done by the others.


John Bracken: I am led to understand
the Canadian government is a very important government and probably would have quite an influence.


Mr. CRUICRSHANK:: It is now. DAYLIGHT SAVING



REVERSION TO STANDARD TIME

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: In view of the wide objection
to the continuance of daylight saving, I would like to ask the Secretary of State what consideration the government has given to the transfer from daylight saving to standard time, and what decision has been arrived at?


Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Secretary of State):: I thank the leader of the opposition for kindly giving me notice of his question, to which I would reply by saying that not only has the government given consideration to this matter but it is proposed to revert from daylight 47696-6
saving to standard time at a date shortly to be announced. The hon. leader of the opposition will understand that in the United States the matter is being considered. There is on our part a great desire to synchronize our railway time-tables with theirs to avoid unnecessary difficulty; but having in mind that situation and the convenience of our public generally I hope to be in a position within a very short time to make an announcement as to the date of the transfer.



CADET CORPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth):: I
should like to ask a question of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. Will the government consider turning over to the Sea Cadet corps, Army Cadet corps and Air Force Cadet corps of Canada such technical equipment as is necessary for their training before it is released to War Assets Corporation?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
for Wentworth was kind enough to give me notice of the question; however, I really think the question is directed to the wrong minister. The Sea Cadet corps is the ward of the Department of Naval Affairs; the Army Cadet corps of the Department of National Defence, and the Air Force Cadet corps of the Department of National Defence for Air. The equipment owned by these departments is at the disposal of the respective ministers unless they are declared surplus to the requirements of the department. The only case wherein this might arise is with regard to some equipment that does not originate within the department concerned. In that instance we shall be glad to make the arrangements suggested.


Frank Exton Lennard: May I direct the question to the Minister of National Defence for his consideration?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.
That matter has actually received consideration, I think. I do not know just what equipment the hon. member has in mind, but a good deal of the necessary equipment used by the Sea Cadet corps is made available by the Department of Naval Services.

The Address- Mr. Lalonde



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, September 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. M. Benidickson for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Bracken, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. MAURICE LALONDE (Labelle) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, following the
example given by those who spoke in this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I promise to confine myself to a few very brief remarks. First, Mr. Speaker, I wish to tender you my congratulations, which you deserve because we are all sure that, with your deep understanding of men and things, with your parliamentary experience, it will be easy for you to preserve the traditions of dignity and impartiality which the House of Commons has known under your predecessors. The honour which has been conferred on you, is reflected on your compatriots and on the province which you represent. I am sure that Canada as a whole, and more especially the province of Quebec, is grateful to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and to the house for having selected you as Speaker.
May I also compliment the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. While new'comers in this house, our two fellow-members have shown a self-assurance and a judgment which do them honour and bode well for their political career which I hope will be long and fruitful both for themselves and for the electors who have made such a happy choice in sending them to this house as the representatives of the fine constituencies of Kenora-Rainy River and Gaspe. Incidentally, I also congratulate our colleague from Gaspe on having won his election, thereby adding one more constituency to those held by the Liberal party.
On June 11 last, the Canadian people gave a clear, unequivocal and definite verdict whereby the hon. members of this house were given a clear-cut mandate. That victory of the Liberal party led by the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, was won in this country through the prestige of its leader and also because of the quality of the policies he advocates. Congratulations must be directed to our political leader for the manner in which he conducted that election which put the Liberal party again in power. It is mainly
[Mr. Abbott. 1
because of his administration of the last ten years that the Right Hon. the Prime Minister was able to achieve that victory. His administration, especially since we entered war alongside the United Nations, has placed our country, from an international as well as a national standpoint in the rank it deserves. His attendance, and that of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) at the San Francisco conference, the presence of Canadian delegates at the Bretton Woods conference, and other events in the international field, have put our country in a position such that we can to-day claim that it is one of the great powers of the world and that it can, because of the sacrifices of its children, claim the privileges of an autonomous and free nation among the free countries of the world.
The San Francisco conference, especially, has commanded the attention of the Canadian people because the delegates who represented us there accomplished splendid work. By way of digression, may I be permitted to thank, in behalf of myself and my electors, the Right Hon. the Prime Minister of Canada and his distinguished colleague from the province of Quebec, the honourable Minister of Justice, for having caused the French language to be recognized as official in the discussions of the San Francisco conference. One thing which must also be emphasized is the stand they took at that time when they defended vigorously and successfully the rights of minor nations. Small nations, Mr. Speaker, are not unlike small men. They are sometimes overwhelmed by the physical stature of those who surround them. Thanks to the intervention of Canada's representatives at the San Francisco conference, the preponderant voices of small nations have been recognized and today our country and others of equal rank are empowered to claim their rights in such conferences.
The administration of the Prime Minister, in sending ambassadors to certain countries of the world, has done something which had the direct consequence of making felt in the whole world the influence and the genius of Canada. On this account, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his government deserve conmenda-tion.
In some quarters the present government is charged with not giving our country all the attention it deserves in the field of international emancipation. iMr. Speaker, Canada is gradually being emancipated thanks to our government's policy, although, as far as I can see, the Quebec nationalist publications have refrained from congratulating those who are courageously bringing about the change; true, these men do not'seek the limelight, but they

The Address-Mr. Lalonde
work with an effectiveness which remains unparalleled by any government since the days of confederation.
Mr. Speaker, in the national sphere, as is indicated in the throne speech, our government has promoted peace and order, it has profoundly stimulated our national life, which achievement deserves recognition. Indeed, recent events may have surprised some people, and in order to be understood by my Englishspeaking colleagues, may I say this to them:
(Text): Certain sections of the Canadian electorate were quite surprised at the way the province of Quebec voted in the federal election on June 11 last. Many of our compatriots in the western provinces, and I may add in the central and maritime provinces as well, really felt that we would embrace extreme nationalism. This was the argument used against us on the hustings and in the newspapers of our opponents throughout the whole dominion. Such extremists as Reverend Mr. Shields even invoked the spectre of Roman domination by Quebec over the rest of Canada. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the whole province of Quebec remained faithful to its traditions of order and peace. It voted for the Liberal party because this party, more than any other, offered what I might call the ideal of social and moral security, by applying merely the formula of common sense. In spite of what our good friends opposite may think, the province of Quebec has remained the fortress of political traditions because in those traditions, strengthened by the teachings of the past, are to be found the elements of political economy and social stability. We did not pay heed to calls of integral Toryism, which we believed inspired by doubtful political aims. We discarded the spectre of socialism of the C.C.F. party, whose theories cannot be adapted to the demands of our scholastic doctrines-and I say that in all sincerity to my hon. friends opposite. We remained firmly set in the Canadian federation. We understood the true and only vocation of the French-Canadian people who obeyed the act of Providence, understood and realized that the future of this country is always directly dependent upon the maintenance of the confederation link under the protection of a revived constitution. And all those who believed that we wanted political revolution in order to foster the shameful ambitions of separatism did not understand and have not understood the real and true mentality of my compatriots from Quebec.
We never asked for arbitrary privileges. We are convinced that no progress is possible for 47696-6J
Canada without the sincere cooperation of all the racial elements which make up the Canadian nation. National salvation cannot be attained by imposing excessive and humiliating formulae or by taking arrogant and rigid attitudes. Brutal realism teaches us that our problems can always be solved if we tackle them with a broad understanding of the legitimate aspirations of the sections concerned.
Exelusivism and fanaticism have never produced progressive measures either for the oppressed minorities or for the majorities abusing their rights or their strength. A sincere mutual understanding is the source of all honourable agreements. The unjust demands of a majority, and the violent denunciations of a noisy minority, cannot create the right atmosphere necessary to the acceptance of the mutual agreements required for the progress of the nation. Peace is engendered by mutual sacrifices freely accepted. This is what my compatriots understood when once more they endorsed the King-St. Laurent government. I am convinced that they will not be deceived.
(Translation): Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, an extremely important event took place in Ottawa. I refer to the federal-provincial conference attended by the premiers of all the provinces of the dominion. The foundations were set for a revision of the confederation pact and subjects of discussion were chosen for the next few months.
I do not intend to take up too much of your time, but I am convinced that a serious study of the preliminary discussions will convince us that the various parties are agreed on the necessity of amending the British North America Act.. I am not a sponsor of centralization and I am ready to put up an energetic fight against any useless centralization; however, all constitutional measures, as well as all positive human legislation remain, to my mind, open to evolution and progress. Indeed, by stubbornly refusing to amend the British North America Act for reasons of petty politics would constitute a negation of all progress.
It has become imperative that our constitutional instrument be amended and revised to conform to present needs. It behooves us to open our eyes and forget for a moment, if I may be allowed to say so, those people who are concerned with their exclusive interests and inspired by petty political considerations alone, to apply our minds to promoting the welfare of the community. Such a progressive object will ever remain unobtainable in our country if we rely on a constitutional pact which is obsolete and has become inadequate to solve the problems which face us to-day.
The Address-Mr. Lalonde

Some of our opponents claim that the fact of amending the constitutional act would constitute an infringement of racial and religious rights. Members of the Bloc Populaire are present in this house and I would say to them that the real defenders of constitution in parliament were never the Quebec nationalists but rather the representatives of the government presently in power who have succeeded in safeguarding the rights of my race and religion in the province of Quebec.
Arguments to the effect that our province has been denied the constitutional privileges it enjoys have been too often expounded in this house and outside of it. I trust that, under the wise guidance of the present federal government, if an amendment to our constitution be enacted, the interests of minorities and dissident groups will be fully safeguarded.
Mr. Speaker, now that the war is ended, we must turn our attention to the economic and social reconstruction of our country. Tremendous sums have been spent to eradicate evil and to bring truth out of chaos. I do not regret the tragic lessons of history or the tragic teachings of the war which has just ended, but I am convinced that the events of recent years have opened widely the eyes of some of the extremists of my province and that they shall accept henceforth the brutal reality of the responsibilities which lie upon the shoulders of a self-respecting nation.
(Text).: The awful nightmare of war has disappeared. We are entering an eTa of peaceful reconstruction. Our mandate strictly compels us to forget our political differences in order to think only of Canada's interests. I do not doubt that every hon. member shares my view in this matter. We therefore turn our eyes toward the horizon of peace. The task is immense and difficult. To direct Canada toward its final destiny in a world that is still labouring under wounds left by the war and to maintain it in its proper rank among the union of free nations will be the noble and magnificent work of this Canadian parliament, and all the members of the house.
We will set our whole heart and all our strength upon this task, Mr. Speaker, during the years to come. We will work without respite in order that all our compatriots, from the highest rank to the humblest labourer, can assert, when we appear before the tribunal of public opinion, "This man has deserved well of his country".


Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I trust it will not be considered presumption on the part of one who has been in this house for so short a time to rise thus 
early in the debate on the speech from the throne; but I do so because of my intense interest in the welfare of those old comrades of mine who served in this war and in the first world war-an interest which I believe is shared by all hon. members.
I know that you will realize that a new member standing on his feet for the first time in the House of Commons is under considerable strain. I remember the great men who have sat in these seats before me for many years, and I hope that their wisdom, their courage and their ability will nerve me to do the task which I see before me, to-day and in the months to come.
I represent, sir, the most westerly of all constituencies, that of Nanaimo, on the southern portion of Vancouver island. It is a paradise, but I would not like anybody to feel that it is by any means an old man's home, because there are great industries in that constituency, and great natural resources to be developed which will give employment for our returning service men.
Amongst those industries I would like to refer for a moment to the logging industry. We have a climate which combines bright sunshine and a good deal of moisture; this enables trees to grow to immense height and great girth. That logging industry has been an essential industry during these war years, and will be during the years of reconstruction. It is on the very threshhold of great and new developments, such as the production of plywoods and plastics and the utilization of the various waste products of the forest. Conditions in the camps are infinitely better than they were a few years ago, and they offer to returning men a clean, wholesome and out-of-door life which I am sure will be attractive to a great many of our soldiers, sailors and airmen. New machinery has been introduced. The industry needs outside help, because the men connected with it have been struggling during these war years. The actual loggers, the employees, the members of the I.W.A., have adhered most rigidly during all these years to their nonstrike pledge. The operational branches of the industry have not always been able to select the best timber from their point of view for cutting, but have answered nobly to the request of the government to turn out every foot of lumber that they possibly could. The companies and the loggers themselves have paid large amounts into the dominion treasury by virtue of their income taxes and excess profit returns. Might I suggest that, in order to sustain the yield, the government might see fit to encourage

The Address-Mr. Pearkes
that industry and to help in some measure to remove or lessen the danger of the great bugbear of the logging industry, which is the forest fire. If we can have a sustained yield we can give employment to many returned men.
Another industry I should like to mention is that of our commercial and sporting fisheries. The harvest of our ocean consists of many varieties of fish-salmon, cod, halibut, tuna, pilchards; even the dogfish, for the sake of its liver; the oyster; also the seaweed-all opening up grand opportunities for returning men to follow that particular kind of work. Never before have the fishermen of British Columbia had such fine floating equipment as they have to-day. Science has come to the help of the fisherman by giving him means of locating shoals of fish, of improving the system of transporting to the markets the fish which have been caught, and of presenting them in better condition than ever before.
These fishermen do not congregate and live in the big cities; they prefer to have their families scattered among a number of small towns throughout Vancouver island. But while their floating equipment is better now than ever before, they need protection during the winter storms for that floating equipment. Before the war that industry was largely in the hands of the Japanese, and the Japanese drove many of our white fishermen off our Canadian waters. The money they made they sent back to a foreign land. To-day our white fishermen have captured that trade and are spending their money in Canada. Never again must Japanese be allowed to capture the fishing industry of British Columbia.
I have not time this afternoon to go into any great detail regarding the mining industry and the agriculture of British Columbia. I would like to say one word about the great number of people who cater to the visitors who come to our island. They are in all kinds of little private enterprises, such as the corner grocery store, the wayside garage, the hotel, the tourist camp. Those people have been struggling during this war because, due to restrictions on gasoline and difficulties of transportation, the number of visitors has not been as great as in pre-war days. The younger men from those families have in the main joined the armed services and gone overseas. Their parents have shown commendable courage in keeping homes together during these years and in struggling to earn their livelihood. Their great hopes are that their sons and daughters will soon return from the duties they have undertaken in the defence of their country, and that the burden of
taxation will be relieved so as to enable them to establish gainful business for those sons and daughters when they return.
When V-E Day was declared in Europe it was announced that the Canadian army would be required to provide an occupational force for Germany, also a Far Eastern Force for war against Japan, and that surplus personnel would be' returned to their homes as soon as they could be spared, it being recognized that some would have to remain on in essential positions. The men who volunteered for the Far Eastern Force and for the occupational army were in the main younger men who had not seen quite so much service, had not been subjected to the toils and brunt of battle quite so much as those who had gone overseas either with the 1st or 2nd Canadian division in 1939 and 1940.
It was announced that the surplus which very largely consisted of those men who had borne the brunt of battle for the longest time, would be returned upon a point system, and the points were announced as being two points for every month of service in Canada, three points for every month of service in a theatre of war, and a bonus if a man was married. It was generally believed that the policy of first-in, first-out, would be followed as closely as it was practical for the authorities to adhere to that policy. Everybody realized that it was not possible to adhere rigidly to the first-in, first-out policy but that exceptions would have to be made of some key personnel who would have to be retained overseas, as well as releasing some to industry and other walks of life, of men for higher education, special training and so forth. But the country believed, and the constituents of Nanaimo believed, that so far as possible, the-policy would be adhered to of returning first those men who had served the longest so>
that they might have the first opportunity of becoming reestablished and fitting themselves into civilian life.
Gradually that policy has been whittled down, and I have prepared a list of exceptions which have been made which I should like to give to the house because I think it will show to hon. members that that policy has been departed from far more than the people of this country ever expected it would be.
This is the list of exceptions. First of all, all men who were on compassionate leave on V-E day, provided they were on compassionate leave on V-J day, would be granted their discharge. This and the following exceptions all apply to the army in Canada. So far as the army overseas was concerned we were told that the men were to be brought back on a
The Address-Mr. Pearkes

point-score system, and as an example of how they would be brought back, the official pamphlet gave these figures:
If 20,000 were to be sent back during one of the early months of demobilization, 5,000 would have a point-score of between 225 and 250, 5,000 between 200 and 225, and 10,000 between 175 and 200. I want hon. members to notice the points which an overseas man was required to have in order to expect early demobilization.
To come back to the list, those men of the army in Canada who were on compassionate leave on V-E day, provided they were on compassionate leave on V-J day, may be discharged. The same thing applies to those who were on compassionate farm leave, and to men who desired to go to college or university provided they had a written acceptance from the university officials. They also may be discharged. Men on account of what may be considered their age or low pulhem profile, even though that pulhem profile is not so low as to render them physically unfit, and for whom no employment could be found in the army, may be discharged. Any man who on March 31 of this year had a point-score of 130 may be discharged if he is in Canada. Any man who is returned wounded, any repatriated prisoner of war; any man *who served during the war of 1914-18; any *man who has reached the age of forty-two; [DOT]any man, no matter how short a time he has served in the army in Canada, provided he 'held a job at the time of his enlistment, -no matter for how short a time, if only for one day, may be discharged if he has a score *of 105 points. If he has not 105 points, he may receive long-term leave so that he may, I presume, get thoroughly reestablished in that job before a man with a higher point-score comes back from overseas. Any lad who had not reached his nineteenth birthday; young men, who I suggest might well benefit by a few months in the Canadian army where they could relieve a long-term service man; any man who is still retained at the district depot and has not been passed on to the training camp established at Vernon; any man who can claim to be going to employment of national importance-any man who is illiterate; any man who is unable to speak English or French sufficiently to receive training-all these may be discharged. This Mr. Speaker, is throwing the gates wide open. A soldier may go up to the sergeant-major, and if he cannot speak French, all he has to do is to shrug his shoulders and say, "Me no speak English" and he is out-out to go and seek a job before the long-service men come back from overseas.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have never heard of any such regulation, but perhaps my hon. friend has better information.


George Randolph Pearkes: Any man who is considered by his commanding officer as untrainable because he may be considered unreliable, and any man can pose as being unreliable; any man who is indifferent to service; in other words, any man who does not want to be a soldier, any man who will not respond to discipline-these are the men that you are letting out to go and seek jobs which the men who have been bearing the brunt of this war cannot come back and seek.
I realize that shipping is a difficulty and they cannot come back all at once. But why is any man who is serving in Canada now able to go out and take the jobs which are now available and which are growing fewer and fewer as the weeks and months go by?
It is for these reasons that I charge that the government is demobilizing our service forces to the detriment of the men who have fought the longest. Thirty or forty years ago Mr. Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem which I quote in part:
A man o' four-an'-twenty that 'asn't learned of a trade-
Beside "Reserve" agin' his name-'e'd better never been made.
These men who are overseas went over four or five years ago at the age of nineteen, twenty or twenty-one. They have reached their twenty-fourth birthday and they will find it increasingly difficult to find jobs in which they may learn a trade. Perhaps it is because of that that last week it was announced in the papers that there was to be a continuing army in Canada, a continuing army because of the uncertain condition in the world, because we could not foresee what dangers might arise. Nobody will take exception to that. Service in that continuing army was however restricted to those men who are in the active army or who have recently left the active army and would like to come back again. But there was one condition set, namely, that they must be prepared to serve wherever Canada required them to serve-a reasonable condition. At the same time we are continuing another or second continuing army, a continuing army of fine young men of good physique who have had months of training and who are not eligible for the first continuing army because they are not prepared to go and serve wherever Canada wants them to serve should an emergency arise.
[Mr. Pearkes. 1

The Address-Mr. Zaplitny
I have not the up-to-date figures, but the last figures which were published showed that there were some 16,000 of these N.R.M.A. soldiers still in Canada who were fit for the infantry and some twelve or fourteen thousand who were fit for the other arms of the service. Some of these men will desire to get out of the army, but there are a great many of them who like the security of the Canadian army in Canada. They are provided with three meals a day. They have comfortable lodgings in hutments. They have hot and cold water laid on. They have officers who will endeavour to make their training as interesting as possible. They are provided with free picture shows and all types of recreation. Only two weeks ago a sports meeting was held in Victoria where men of this type were brought in at the country's expense from all over British Columbia in order that they might show their physical prowess.
These men like to serve in the Canadian army provided they are not ordered to go wherever Canada may require them. You may say that if an emergency comes they will then be ordered to go. If an emergency comes it may come quickly and we shall want trained men. But an army is not made up purely and solely of trained men. It is made up of trained units which have been welded together; and I tell you, speaking as an old soldier, that the veteran and the shirker wifi not work in harness together during that period of training in Canada. Therefore efficiency is lost, and all the time additional taxation is required in order to maintain this second continuing army.
The Secretary of State yesterday referred in glowing terms to the contributions Canada had made to this war. We were all proud to hear of that effort. But, sir, I claim that there is one blot on that escutcheon and it is now time to remove it. We should no longer have this bifocal army through which one class of men see it as their duty to go wherever their country calls them while the other class see their duty as lying only in so far as the shores of Canada restrict their activities.
I said that we have in Nanaimo opportunities for absorbing the men who come back from overseas in the reconstruction and in the development of our industries and national resources. I said that the people of my constituency urgently require their boys back from overseas. They desire relief from taxation. It is because, as I have shown to-day, the demobilization as now being carried out is working to the serious disadvantage of our men overseas that I support the amendment which has been put forward by our leader, and I
believe that every returned man in this house, irrespective of the party to which he belongs, should support that amendment for that reason. Furthermore, I believe that the maintenance, the continuation of this futile two-army system should cease immediately.


Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: Several hon. members who have spoken to-day have taken this opportunity to refer to their constituencies. I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will not mind if I take some little time to refer to the constituency which I have the honour to represent here. The constituency of Dauphin has in tradition and in its geographical position certain distinctions. First of all I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members, as many of them will remember, the fact that a former Speaker of this house who occupied the chair that is now occupied by His hon. the Speaker was a member who represented the constituency of Dauphin. I refer, of course, to the Hon. J. L. Bowman, who has now retired from active politics.
I also wish to say that we have, geographically speaking, some distinguished neighbours. To the south of the constituency of Dauphin we have the constituency of Neepawa which is represented here by the leader of the opposition. Immediately to the west of that we have the constituency of Marquette, which is represented by a more recent Speaker of the house, the present Minister of Mines and Resources. Therefore, as I said, in both geographical position and in tradition the constituency that I represent has some distinction, and I hope that in the months to come I may be able to carry out my -responsibilities in such a way that it will continue to have some distinction. Before leaving that I should like to say that on the western side of the constituency of Dauphin lies the province of Saskatchewan, which in more ways than one is pioneering the west.
I should also like to make some reference to the people who live in the constituency of Dauphin. I make no apology for speaking about a single constituency because to speak of Dauphin is to speak of Canada. In that constituency we have a pretty fair crosssection of the population of this country. It is made up of many different racial origins, people who have settled in this country and have adopted this Canada as theirs. They come from many different parts of the world; and I am proud to say, Mr. Speaker, that in my experience I have found that these people of different racial origins and religion get along very well together. They have cooperated in both their political and economic life, and during the course of the war
The Address-Mr. Zaplitny

that has just ended have worked together to make their contribution to the war effort. I think it is only fair to the people of my constituency to say here on my first opportunity that a great deal of credit is due and should be given to the people who have done their bit in the war effort, in the various Red Cross drives, in victory loan campaigns and all through the course of the war.
While I am on that subject I should like to commend the government for two things which appear in the speech from the throne, and the forecasts that are made there., I refer to the provision that is to be made for a distinct Canadian nationality and a Canadian flag. It is all the more a pleasure, to commend the government with regard to these two items since hon. members will recollect that the members of the party with whom I have the pleasure to be associated have advocated these things for a number of years. I hope that when this legislation passes it will be a little more than just a statute on paper. I hope that when we have established a Canadian nationality, something with which I believe all hon. members agree, and when we have adopted a Canadian flag, we shall go farther and give a certain amount of spirit to the fact. I hope that in the future anyone who has adopted Canadian citizenship either by birth or naturalization will be regarded by his compatriots as full-fledged Canadian with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities that are inherent in that position.
I hope that the government will take into consideration in the near future the question of an immigration policy. As I said a few moments ago, the people in the districts surrounding Dauphin.-and I am sure this is general throughout western Canada-are of mixed racial origin. They have made their contribution to the war effort.; they have done what Canadians have been expected to do; they are now to be given the status of full-fledged Canadians. I hope that in the setting of immigration quotas the government will take into consideration the fact that there are people in European countries of the same racial origin as these people to whom I refer who are desirous of entering Canada and who would like to take up Canadian citizenship. It is not that I want to plead the case of any special group, although I think hon. members will agree with me that one part of central Europe which has been devastated more than any other part is that area generally known as the Ukraine. It is not at the present time an independent country, but it is on the map and hon. members can find where it is. That part of Europe has been devastated far more than

many other places because when the wars between the German armies and the Soviet armies were going on it was the battlefield of Europe for a period of several years. The war went on first towards the east, and then back to the west; it seesawed in that particular area. The people there have found themselves without homes, in many cases without any resources whatsoever; and many of them have found themselves in other parts of Europe, some by their own choice and some by force of circumstances. They are desirous of entering this country. I hope that the government will take that into consideration and will make it possible for these people to enter 'Canada and add their contribution to the future life of the country. I want to repeat that I am not pleading the case oil any one particular class or nationality in this house; but as I said before, this is a case where hon. members will agree that a certain section of Europe has been devastated beyond all comparison with any other place, and some consideration should be given to that fact.
I hope, as I intimated earlier, that our Canadian nationality and our Canadian flag will ;be both in spirit as well as in fact a symbol of equal treatment of all.
I should like to refer now to the general picture in this country. In order to discuss it in an understandable way I think it will be necessary to divide it into three parts, namely, the years between 1930 and 1939; the years from 1940 to 1945, and then from 1945 into the future. From 1930 to 1939, as hon. members will remember, we had in this Dominion what was termed a depression; we had a time of economic stress in which there were thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of young men and women without employment, a time in which there was general distress and poverty, and yet no one was able to say that it was due to the fact that we had either a crop failure or some other misfortune which made it im-[DOT] possible to produce wealth. It is true that there were sporadic cases of drought here and there, but that was not the reason why the people in this country were poor. I think it will be generally recognized that the reason why the people were suffering during those ten years approximately was that there was something wrong with the economic system we were trying to operate. We found that out in 1940. Unfortunately, it took a war to introduce some new ideas into the economy of Canada. From 1940 to 1945 we discovered that there were many things that we could do which we thougttt previously could not be done in this Dominion. We found that it was possible to expand the economy of this country to a far greater

The Address-Mr. Zaplitny
extent than any one had ever dreamed before, and to do it through the funds of the public, in other words, through public enterprise. Up to the time of 1940 the governments which were then in power, first one and then the other, had been, pretty well agreed upon the principle of private enterprise and bad never attempted to try anything else. The economic and, I might say, the military necessity that faced us from 1940 on made the government move in the direction of public enterprise, to a certain extent, and we discovered over a period of years that in spite of the fact that we were sending food, ammunition and1 other commodities overseas in large quantities, much of it being destroyed, still what was left in this country was sufficient to clothe, feed and shelter the Canadian people better than ever before.
This gives us food for thought. Surely, people say, if at a time when you are exporting for destruction about half the total production of this country you can still keep the people in better physical condition than before, there must be something wrong with the way we were doing things from 1930 to 1939; and I would commend that idea to hon. members in all parts of this house. Regardless of what our immediate political views may be, I think we can agree that from now on we shall have to be prepared to accept a greater degree of public enterprise than ever before. Something of this I believe was intimated in the speech last evening by the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin), who admitted that it would be necessary to use a certain amount of public enterprise. Naturally we do not think the government are prepared to go far enough, but I think at least they should be prepared to agree to this: If private enterprise, which has been given a good opportunity over a long period of years, both in time of peace and in time of war, from now on fails to provide the food, clothing and shelter necessary for the people of this country, we must be prepared to throw aside our political prejudices, go into public enterprise and produce these things, so that it will not be necessary for labour delegations to come and lay their case before members of the house in times like these.
As a new member of this house I was impressed with the tremendous problem that was posed to us by hon. gentlemen opposite yesterday in connection with reconversion. I want to say quite frankly and sincerely that we realize the difficulties facing the government, and we do not take the position that these difficulties confront the government only.
We as a group and as individual members are willing to do what we can to facilitate the solution of these problems. As I say, I was impressed with the magnitude of what someone called the gigantic problem of reconversion. It is a gigantic problem; but let us make sure when we attempt to solve it that we apply the proper principles, because if we are not careful we can waste a great deal of time and effort and probably get very poor results. The problem of reconversion must be solved by following a certain principle. It must be either the principle of production for use or the principle of production for profit. We in this group, and probably some hon. members who are not in this group, believe that production for profit is not enough, that in future the principle must be established of production for use. I make that statement because during the course of this war we have found it possible, by. applying the labour, the skills and the equipment to be found in this country, to the natural resources of the country, to produce wealth beyond anything we ever dreamed of before. In other words, we have discovered the immense productive possibilities of this dominion. We have found that if we need something badly enough, such as materials for war, we can go to work and get them. Necessity has driven us to realize how rich we are, to put it plainly. In future we shall have to decide whether we are to continue the system we followed up to 1940, which was the private enterprise system of production for profit, or whether from now on we are to turn to the principle of production for use.
There is a tremendous difference between those principles, and I believe that if we adopted the principle of production for use we would have no difficulty whatever in the post-war years in providing homes, food and clothing for all the people of Canada. I do not think anyone will argue with that statement. We are able to do that. We have the man-power; we have the natural wealth, and we have the skills and equipment necessary. If, on the other hand, we capitulate to the propaganda now being loosed upon us to go back to private enterprise, then I am afraid we shall be up against the same difficulties that confronted us before. The government may think it strange for a new member to be giving them so much advice all at once, but in all sincerity I say that if the government capitulates to the pressure now being exerted upon it by private interests to go back to private enterprise in its entirety, we are going to reach a time when we shall be faced with other problems just as gigantic as that which
The Address-Mr. Zaplitny

has been posed to us in this house. I believe in future this government, and all governments, will have to decide whether they are to serve the needs of the people, having regard to the fact that we have so much wealth, so much skill and so much man-power that we can provide good living for all, or whether they are to cater to special interests because it may be good politics to do so. I am sure that on the benches opposite there must be men with sufficiently broad vision to realize that if we follow the course of capitulating to special privilege, some time in the future we are bound to be confronted with difficulties that are perhaps not unforeseeable.
During the course of this war men and women who have been working in war and other allied industries have been paid better and have enjoyed a material standard of living higher than ever before. They have had the knowledge that a very great effort was being made to produce goods for war. In other words, they are beginning to realize the wealth of this country, and no longer will they take no for an answer. We saw what happened here yesterday when the labour delegation arrived. That shows the attitude the working people are going to take. It will be a militant attitude. They will ask the government why we are not able to produce the goods we need in peace time when we were able to produce them in such large quantities and so easily during war time; and the government will have to be prepared to answer that question. So I think it would be far more reasonable for the government to take such steps as will make it unnecessary for labour to go on strike, to stage demonstrations or to send delegates to the capital. To me that would seem the reasonable thing to do.
I should like to refer now for a little time to the speech from the throne. Perhaps the thing that stands out more than anything else is that which is missing; that is, the fact that no fundamental change is being proposed. I am reminded of the boy in uniform who, having stood in line in front of the paymaster's office for some time, turned and said to his comrades, "Never have so many waited so long for so little." I think that is the case here. We expected a great deal from the government in its first pronouncement in peace time. During the years of the war, when things looked a great deal darker than they have looked in recent years, we were told that we were building a new social order. In fact, during the election campaign, if I may refer to it, we saw great placards prominently displayed on billboards carrying the slogan, "Building a new social order."
rMr. Zaolitnv.]
That slogan was endorsed by candidates supporting the party opposite, and I am sure there must have been thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of people who voted for the Liberal party in the belief that they were building a new social order. After carefully reading the speech from the throne- and I have read it several times, as I am sure other hon. members have-I have failed to discover wherein they are proposing anything that even looks like a new social order. There are some commendable things in the speech from the throne, but all I am able to find in this connection is some nibbling attempt to try to do something to tide us over the time of reconversion, so that we can the more quickly go back to the good old private enterprise system and the right to be robbed. If we are to build a new social order there will have to be more imagination on the part of the government and more willingness to put into practice that which the people have been promised. The government has been elected on a programme of full employment and social security for all the people, and during the campaign government supporters also made a great many other very fine promises. With all due respect to hon. members opposite, I say now that unless they are able to produce the goods-and very soon-the people who voted for them are going to ask some most embarrassing questions.
I should like now to refer particularly to a few items which I believe to be of special interest to many hon. members. First of all, we know the government has made some pronouncement with respect to increasing old age pensions and an effort to provide for those who are not of pensionable age at the present time, namely those from sixty-five to sixty-nine years of age.
In proposing a pension of $30 a month with no means test for those seventy years of age, and over it is to be commended. But while making that proposal the government has at the same time proposed a means test for those in the age group from sixty-five to sixty-nine years because, as I remember it, it has been stated that payments will be made to these people only if they are in need. In other words, under the government's proposal there will be a means test for those from sixty-five to sixty-nine years.
I say that, having thrown away the wormy apple, there is no use in introducing a new worm to the other apple. If we are to have old age pensions without a means test, then let us have them without a means test, and let us have them between the ages of sixty and sixty-five years on a decent scale. Let

The Address-Mr. Zaplitny
us not go only half-way, because that would not fool anyone and would be only a sort of window-dressing people would easily see through. I see no reason at the present time why people cannot ask, and with justification, for a pension at the age of sixty years and on a decent scale. It is not only a matter of justice, but also one of good common sense.
We are going to find in the next few years, what is beginning to appear already on the horizon, a condition of unemployment. People who are very close to the age of seventy years are now engaged in work. Between the ages of sixty-five and seventy years there is a large group of people who are now doing active work. It would seem to me only fair and sensible to make provision that they receive pensions at the age of sixty years, so that they might retire on a decent pension, live during the rest of their lives in peace, and let young people who are more able step into their places to carry on in the work of the country. I suggest it would be wise for the government to reconsider its position in respect of old age pensions, and to make a real job of it while they are at it.
I should like also to draw the attention of the government to the situation in connection with hog production. Yesterday an hon. member to my left asked a question of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) respecting the production of hogs. In my view the answer he received was satisfactory neither to himself nor to anyone else interested in the matter, because it did not touch upon the policy concerning which we wanted information. Hon. members realize that it is not a question of a meat shortage in Canada, but rather one of hog production. As I understand it, we have at the present time a system of meat rationing, for which there must be some reason. If there were not a good reason for it we would not have it. Canada has made certain commitments, in that it has undertaken to make shipments overseas. If we are to live up to those commitments we must have hog production.
I have before me a letter from the Dauphin Co-operative Live Stock Producers, over the signature of Mr. W. T. Volkers, the president of that organization. In this communication he sets out information respecting hog shipments at that particular point, and what he has said I believe illustrates what is happening across Canada. At this shipping point in the months from January to June, 1944, a total of 4,295 hogs were shipped. During the same months in 1945 a total of only 2,494 hogs were shipped, or a drop of 1,801 hogs at one shipping point. When one sees such a
drastic drop in shipments of hogs from one point, a condition which is quite general throughout western Canada, he is led to believe that there must be some reason for it. I suggest the Minister of Agriculture would do well to make some statement to the house in the near future, giving us some idea of what he proposes to do to keep hog production at the level it should be.
While on the subject of agriculture I would also draw the attention of the minister to something which I am sure, is in the minds of many hon. members in whose constituencies there has been hail damage. In certain sections of western Canada we have suffered serious damage from hail, and we have expected and hoped that these people who have suffered from hail loss would be included in some measure under the provisions of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I understand, from a communication received some time ago from the minister that, in all probability, the government will declare this an emergency year, so that people suffereing hail damage will be eligible, if they meet the other requirements, for prairie farm assistance.
I should hope that the minister would be in a position in the near future to make an announcement in the house in resipect of these questions, because many people are writing and asking questions. Naturally they are anxious to get all the assistance they can get.
I also make a suggestion to the government respecting industry in western Canada. We have found in Dauphin-and I am sure this is a condition found generally in other towns throughout western Canada-that the town to a great extent must depend upon the farming community around it. In other words, many of those towns - in western Canada, some of which are large, have nothing but the support of the farming community for the maintenance of their business.
In the last four years, because of income greater than that received on the farms in former years business has increased considerably. But if it should happen that the farm incomes in those surrounding areas are drastically cut, many of those towns will find themselves in a bad position. Not only the business sections, but the labourers now employed in jobs in those towns -would be seriously affected.
I should think it advisable for the government to take into consideration the establishment of industries in western Canada, in order to make some sort of back-log or cushion in the event of a depression, so 'that the labourers and small business men in those towns would have something in addition to the surrounding farming areas to lean upon. In that connec-
The Address-Mr. Zaplitny

tion there are mew discoveries in the field of chemurgy, in the making of synthetic substances, including plastics and the like, which might well ibe investigated by the government, and the possibilities of which could be thoroughly canvassed.
There is another reason why increased industry in the west would be desirable. We are finding that in the large cities of eastern Canada a great deal of congestion has taken place. Tremendous numbers of people have moved from western Canada to the east to take part in war jobs. In many instances those people are asked to make up their minds as to whether they will stay in the east permanently or return to the west. If there is nothing to which they can return, naturally they will stay here.
For the welfare of the remainder of the country I believe it would be well to extend industry in the west, so that we can keep a certain portion of our population who would normally drift to the east. I do not believe it is a good thing for the country to have all the labouring people concentrated in one particular area. On the contrary it would be much better to have .the industrial area stretched fairly and evenly between east and west.
I should like also to make reference to another matter upon which I hope the government will take action. I refer to the disposal of the airports which have been established across. Canada. In the neighbourhood of Dauphin we have two first-class airports which are now closed down. The people of that town end district are anxious to know what is going to happen to the buildings, and to the equipment and other materials left there. They would like to know if the government has any plans for the use of the buildings and equipment, and if they are to be put to some useful purpose. We are a little bit apprehensive, because of what we have read in the newspapers about the destruction of war material, that much of this equipment, which has been paid for by the people, and paid for very heavily, is to be destroyed or disposed of in some way which will bring no value to the people concerned. We therefore hope that the government will make some use of these airports in order that they shall be of some value to the community. As a suggestion I might say that, with establishments such as we have near Dauphin, it would be easy to provide an agricultural school, a convalescent hospital or a sanatorium. Instead of allowing these buildings to deteriorate and go to ruin it would be well to put them to some proper use.
I should like to touch on one more point, and then I shall live up to the example which has been given to us here of making speeches brief. The point which I think is so important

that I shall not leave it out is that of federal aid to education. I believe hon. members from all the provinces will have experienced the fact that the education which has been handled so far by the provinces has had a pretty tough time financially for a long period of veal's. I know that in my own province of Manitoba, the schools, especially the rural schools, have been running on a deficit for years and years. We are finding that while the people are demanding, and rightly so, the extension of educational facilities, while the government itself is expecting and exacting higher standards from the young people in the way of education, no financial provision is being made to extend educational opportunities, especially in the rural areas. I suggest that there should be a federal grant to the provinces for the purposes of education, without interfering with administration, which could be left to the provinces, that would help to ease the financial condition in which many school districts find themselves. There is another reason for that which I would like to bring forward for your consideration. Many people are conscious that Canada has now reached what may be called the adult stage. We have definitely become a nation, but to become a nation in its full right there should be, I believe, a little more national responsibility for the education of the children of this country. I do not think money could be better spent than by providing for the children across Canada greater opportunities, especially vocational and technical schools, which to-day are badly needed.
I should also like to see federal grants made in order that students of ability who have not the financial resources would get the opportunity to go to the higher schools and universities. Let me interject a personal note: I have taught school for twelve years and therefore know this at first hand. I have seen a great many young men and women with a tremendous amount of talent and ability who, having reached a certain stage of their education, because they had not the financial resources with which to go ahead, stayed at home, and all that ability and talent were lost. I think that is the greatest loss which can be suffered, because the talents and abilities of our young people are among our greatest national resources. I suggest that a little more money spent on a national scale to assist these young people to go through the universities or to enter the vocations for which they are specially suited would pay big dividends in the future.
With that I conclude my remarks, except to say in closing that I hope it will be possible for us who are members of this house, regardless of what political group we happen to

The Address-Mr. Church
belong to at the present time, to cooperate in the future helping to solve the problems which are before us. I invite all hon. members to join with us in what I consider to be the greatest political objective of all, the building of a better Canada.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I believe that all parties and groups should aid recovery and all of us should be ready to act together as far as we can. I have no quarrel or complaint with any faction or party in the house.
I welcome to this chamber the leader of our party (Mr. Bracken), a gentleman who is very much respected all over Canada for his sincerity of purpose, charity and friendliness, and for his fine life of public effort for the benefit of the country.
I believe that the House of Commons should foe as far as possible a gentlemen's club. We come from all parts of the country and unfortunately we cannot all have the same views; but I have found that the average member of the House of Commons is a sincere man, as he must be if he is to represent the people of such a great country as Canada.
We on this side of the house are fortunate in representing a party which has pursued a most consistent policy since the days of Sir John A Macdonald as to our policy regarding our relations with the mother country and other matters affecting the empire and the dominions.
I think it must be admitted that one of the mistakes made by the fathers of confederation was the creation of provincial legislatures. There should not have been any provincial legislatures at all; it may be said that they were created for political and not for economic purposes. Great Britain does not have them; New Zealand or Australia did not have them until recently. What has resulted from them, Mr. Speaker, is the system of overgovernment and over-taxation which we have in this country.
I have always contended in this house, on my several substantive motions debated here, that one of our main and unsolved problems is that of parliamentary, constitutional, cabinet and law reform. These matters came up in the mother of parliament fifteen or twenty years ago, and as a result many improvements were made for the benefit of the working classes of the country.
I need not apologize for being a Progressive Conservative. I have always had the support of labour in the city from which I come. I was born in that city; I was head of the city in taking over the street railway from private ownership and for single fares, for starting and
finishing the harbour improvements, for giving a better deal to the average taxpayer, for the system of municipal buses, for the removal of all the light, power and transportation franchises in our city and three adjacent counties into a civic system at cost, and for other public municipal services.
I was glad that our leader referred yesterday to two or three matters in which I have been much interested. Coming from a soldier city, I am greatly concerned about bringing back home those boys who have been away for five or six years. All hon. members are just as sincere as I am, and I believe they are doing what they can, but I fear this will become one of our greatest scandals. We halve not risen to the situation on land, sea and air as we should have done, and many of our soldiers who are overseas should have been brought back long ago. I made some suggestions to the government as long ago as July 17, and recommended that they should utilize the merchant marine-which was a forgotten agency in this house for two or three years-as well as grain carriers, aircraft and other means of transport. I referred to this on July 17, the day after the war closed, and made some suggestions, which were reported in the Toronto Globe. I am glad to see that some improvement has been made by use of aircraft and grain carriers.
I do not like to see ships of British registry carrying back far more United States than Canadian soldiers. I have never raised this question in the house before because I believe it is of the utmost importance that we should maintain the most friendly relations with the great country to the south, which has done so much for us and Great Britain in so many ways and which upholds the same principles of freedom. I believe it is the general opinion of the people of this country that the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) has worked very hard and done a very good job in many ways, but a few days after we declared war I called the attention of the government to the fact that they should be able to get some ships from Washington, and they did appoint an agency in Washington to get ships for Canada and Great Britain and charter parties. Why not some more to bring our troops home? They did get many old ships as well as some others. The United States presented fifty old destroyers to Great Britain, but in return Britain gave them a ninety-nine year lease of valuable naval bases all the way from Newfoundland to British Guiana. When the government in war time can do a thing like that, why cannot they do something similar in peace time-get these United States ships to bring the boys back home?
The Address-Mr. Church

Only on Sunday last I was talking to a woman in Toronto who lost her husband in the last war. Her son had been killed and was buried in France in this war. The chaplain who conducted the service was Mr. Appleyard of the Royal Regiment of Canada. This woman lives in my constituency. She asks now for the return of her last son. She has a son-in-law in hospital over there yet. There is hardly a street in my constituency where people are not expecting their boys home from overseas. It is a workingman's district, peopled mainly by those who have come from the mother country, and it has always been a strong soldier district. Soldiers went forth from my district in the days of the Fenian raid, in the South African war, and in the two great wars in our generation. In almost every street in my constituency there is some home in mourning for a soldier who did not come back. This poor woman who lost her boy in France has a son-in-law over there, badly wounded in hospital. I know, of course, that similar cases might be cited all over the country, but I would urge the government and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie), who, I know, is working very hard for the soldiers, to see if something further can not be done to speed the return of our boys from overseas, so that they will not have to spend a sixth Christmas over there. I believe and I hope that something further can be done. I referred to this matter on July 17, in a letter to the press, although I said that it was a most complex matter, urging that nothing be left undone to speed the return of our soldiers and sailors and airmen to Canada.
The first in, first out principle is a good one. but it is not working out too well. We should be using United States ships and the liners of our other allies to help bring our own boys back home. Why have these French ships been given back to the French? We could have used them for a short time to bring our boys back home, but I understand that three of them have been returned to France. Why not release them for demobilization purposes? You, Mr. Speaker, represent a large district, the constituency of St. Mary, and I am sure that you would have been glad to see many of these ships being used to bring our Canadian boys back home.
There is another matter. We have a large number of new members in this house. Many of them have served in the municipalities, which is the best school of public service to begin in, right in the district where you live and people know all about you. I believe that is a good principle, and I have found that

many of those who have given municipal service have more knowledge of public affairs than some others.
There are certain reforms which we should have. I wish to say something about the Gallup poll, which seems in elections to be an agency of the government. I do not know whether the hon. member for Vancouver Centre has a vote in the Gallup poll. I doubt, Mr. Speaker, whether you have a vote in the Gallup poll, or the able and popular Clerk of the House, who has contributed so much to the efficiency of parliament since I was first elected twenty-four years ago. I do not know whether the Clerk of the House has a vote in the Gallup poll, or any member of the opposition or the C.C.F. It is all Gallup, and no poll, and most of the galloping is done for the government, which seems to have a great influence with the managers of the poll. I once asked for a list of the voters in the Gallup poll, and I w'as told I could not get one but that I could be introduced to Doctor Gallup the next time I was in New York. I replied that I had not been there recently, that the only people I knew there on the gallop were members of the Giants and the New York Americans, and people like that who do a lot of galloping of another kind. I do not know whether you have ever seen any voters in the Gallup poll, Mr. Speaker, in your riding of St. Mary?
The Gallup poll even quoted the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Mitchell) as wanting to dump national selective service down the sewers. It would not hurt a bit if it were dumped down the sewers. They also had a poll on daylight saving, a most irksome control-let there be light, and there was light. The light shineth in darkness but the darkness comprehendeth it not.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Langton Church: I shall continue for a few minutes this evening the remarks I was making when the house took recess at six o'clock, and first of all I wish to contgratulate certain members on this side of the house who do not happen to be in the chamber at the moment. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) I knew very well in the last war. I remember the day he came home to our city. I was at the head of the city at that time and we gave him quite a reception. I would refer also to his colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt), another Victoria Cross

The Address-Mr. Church
holder, who comes of an old family very much respected in our city.
May I also congratulate our leader on the speech he delivered yesterday and particularly on what he said with regard to housing and meat rationing. The Progressive Conservative party have had a sound doctrine about housing. I remember when I first brought the matter before the house in the session of 1935, when our then leader, now Lord Bennett, appointed a committee on housing and reconstruction on my resolution to study the state of affairs in connection with a building and reconstruction programme. We had a reconstruction and housing policy which provided for releasing labour materials and the necessary priorities in connection with the scheme and a committee was appointed to investigate all aspects of the problem, urban, suburban and rural. We went into the matter and made a report to the high court of parliament, but that report was not adopted because an election was brought on in the fall of 1935 and our party was defeated. The incoming government, I admit, did do something to adopt our report about the matter. I contended, as the mover of the resolution on the subject, that instead of having a large housing department assembled in Ottawa, with clerks and all sorts of employees, it would be better for the government to guarantee the banks up to twenty-five per cent.
As a result of the policy that was put into force S85 million was spent on housing and there was hardly a dollar lost. I do not believe that one-eighth of one per cent of the money was lost. I congratulate our leader in that connection because there is no doubt that tens of thousands of houses will be needed. I have travelled extensively, particularly in the county of York, and I have seen some of the hovels in which returned soldiers are living. We sat here for months during the war and simply abrogated all our rights and privileges, handing them over to outsiders, with the result that practically no housing was constructed.
I wish to pay my tribute to the Minister of Munitions for the work he did during the war. It is true that then the war was paramount, but housing was neglected. That is a situation which cannot exist forever. There are other matters that I would refer to here, such as the question of a national fuel supply. That is something I have brought to the attention of the house before in 1922, 1923 and 1924. We are going to have cold weather very shortly We have cold weather in Canada for eight or nine months of the year and we should have a national fuel policy to meet our conditions. I proposed in 1922 a national fuel policy, that all coal which we require be mined
under the British flag, whether it comes from Wales or the maritime provinces or Alberta. The government across the way adopted that policy, though rather belatedly, five years later, and nearly a million tons have been moved from the man-times to the head of the lakes. Not enough, however, has been moved. This is likely to be a serious problem in .the coming winter. I do not know how the people will get through the winter and I can only hope that it will be a mild one.
I would ask the ministers in charge of the forces to hand back all exhibition grounds to the people who own them. The various fall fairs that are held and the Canadian national exhibition will do more than anything else I know of to build up the morale of the people, important among whom are the small business men of the country. In Toronto we have the Canadian national exhibition, in which, ground, buildings and permanent exhibits, the city has an investment of S25 million and also the Royal winter fair there. A deputation came to see the government in this regard, but the government did not see fit to hand back the buildings to these people. The air force left the exhibition grounds months ago, moving to Trenton, and the navy is building a large barracks behind Fleet street, while the army is using a lot of buildings as the demobilization depot. I contend that two-thirds of these buildings should be given right back to their owners, the city, at once for these two fairs. That would do more for the farmers and the city people as well as anything I can think of. In this connection I would mention Lansdowne park in this city. These exhibitions across Canada have done a great deal in the past for the morale of the people.
I am sorry the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) is not in his place to-night because I should like to discuss for a moment the question of prison reform; I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon; I see he is here. Now that the war is over I hope he will do something about prison reform and the royal commission's report. I find that the Toronto gaol has been housing returned soldiers. It was condemned years ago as being unfit for civilians, but it is housing soldiers who are convicted of breaches of military and other regulations. The Borstal system should be started at once. A committee should be appointed to visit these places. The time has come when the whole system should be reformed and overhauled.
I hope the minister will reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) with regard to the riots in Halifax, and at the same time he should extend his attention to Aldershot and assure
The Address-Mr. Church


the house that the government will come across for any damage done there. There should also be a general review of these courts martial. I know something about courts martial and I suggest that there should have been publicity about them long ago. Some of the gentlemen filling the position of judge advocate have been to the front, but some have not and I believe the time has come for a general review of these whole court procedures. In our military districts the jobs of press and liaison officers should all be held by men back from overseas and not by former hockey and turf people who have never been out of the province, yet wear uniforms.
I wish to say a word by way of tribute to the transportation employees of Canada, *whether they serve on land, at sea or in the air. I was talking the other day to a conductor on a train who told me he had been working 18 hours a day continuously. These employees have made a magnificent record in this war and should receive ample compensation and reward and all other allowances for a fine work well performed.
Another matter to which I w'ould refer is that of controls. I referred to it this afternoon. I am sorry I had no time to prepare my speech, but the fact is that my remarks to-night are impromptu. We have heard a good deal about controls and what they are doing. Who are these controllers? They are mostly senior civil servants. There is no country in the world which is better served by its public servants than Canada was before and during the war. We have an admirable civil service; it is incorrupt, respected and able, and has done wonderful work for the country at very small pay. The large majority of civil servants are able men working for small salaries,. but when you ask them to do something else for which they are not fitted, such as the bureaucratic control of war work and all that kind of thing, that is another matter. It puts me in mind of the game they used to play; I do not know whether they play it around the House of Commons. It was a sort of game known as "winding and unwinding". I do not know whether the ministers in the front benches ever had anything to do with that kind of game, winding and unwinding. Let me tell you about the game. It consists in making verbal lists of things and repeating them backwards. It calls for a good memory-I do not know whether I have a retentive memory-and close attention to the matter in hand.
I saw my young friend the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) come in here to-night. I welcome him over there to the midst of the elite again now that peace has "ome.
'Mr. Church.]
I see His Majesty's ministers over there, all pleasant looking gentlemen, each in his own department again. His Majesty's ministers have, each in his own department, to accomplish something of the kind if we are ever to be free to use our lives again as we desire, bound as we are by war regulations in an almost solid cocoon of red tape. And the ministers will have a harder task than the players of the old winding and unwinding game, for they have created armies of officials, all of whom are by now honestly persuaded that we cannot live without them, not even the C.C.F., and who are certain to make a hard fight to maintain their control over us.
These controllers or bureaucrats are sincerely convinced that they can order our lives better than the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). They can even tell the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) what he can wear and what he cannot wear. Some of these control fellows are sincerely convinced that they can order our lives and spend our money much better than we can. They think they know what is good for us and for the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) and for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) in that brave new world from the cradle to the grave which lies ahead of us, which can only be created by hordes of officials, miles of restrictions, gallons of official ink, red and black, and armies of clerks and stenographers.
I commend this winding and unwinding game to the hon. members of this house. We now have sixty-five over here, forty-eight from Ontario. I commend this game to those who think we are sitting around here wasting our time, because that is what we have been doing very largely in six years of war. All our privileges have been handed over to Donald Gordon. It is stated in the British North America Act that parliament consists of the Goveror General, the Senate and the House of Commons. We now have an addition, the Governor General, the Senate, the House of Commons, and the House of Donald Gordon. They are going to tell you what you can do and what you cannot do. One day I saw sitting in front of one of the ministers opposite, I think the Minister of National Revenue or the Minister of Finance, when I asked who was to control beef and butter. 'Who are these gentlemen who are in charge of butter and beef? Have they ever had any training in the dairy industry or the live stock industry? Where did they start?" Well, we found that one of them was a graduate of a Canadian university who never was in any industrial calling. He should have

The Address-Mr. Church
been a police commissioner regulating theatres. I remember when Colonel Dennison, the late Judge Winchester and I were on a police commission that had something to do with the regulation and inspection of theatres.
A committee of forty appeared, objecting to the scanty costumes in theatres, like the underwear which these controls allow in war time. 1 asked, "Who are these gentlemen in charge of butter and beef? Have they any training in competitive business like dairy or live stock?" The answer was, "No". I said to the minister, "All that they know about beef and butter is what they consume themselves."


Mr. MACKENZIE:: You were elected on butter once.


Thomas Langton Church: Not me. What is the situation in private business to-day? I referred to this the other day. Business men are conscious of the heavy task that awaits them in reconversion so that Canada may recover quickly. Industry and labour in Canada have worked wonders in war, and can in peace also. Canada needs stability to speed the delivery I of all classes of goods and meet market demands so as to aid peace-time economy in employment, supply civilian needs and restore as soon as possible living standards and defeat inflation and black markets. It should be, with the lessons industry learned in Canada in war, much easier to work out reconversion. All irksome controls must go and we must remove shackles from industry large and small.
Private enterprise must have a clear right of way unfettered by a small standing army of inspectors, examiners, supervisors, card-filing clerks of a worn, out-of-date system of control, most of whom contributed nothing to the winning of the war. Business must have freedom once again to succeed by free enterprise, and we should see an end of government controls by blue-prints and a horde of useless officials, many of whom have never had any training in any competitive business they seek to control. Demobilization should be speeded for these reasons.
We have recently embarked on a programme of employment. There is no such thing as full employment. There is no use in people promising things like that; it cannot be done. If you consult the health statistics of this country you will find a great many people not fit for work. The reconversion policy of the government has been a flat failure and has never been anything else since it started. I will give the government of Canada credit for one thing, namely, the establishment in the city of Ottawa of a great basic industry known as the
" ambassador cure for unemployment." They started embassies all over the seven seas. We had one ambassador who went to Australia. He did not stay there very long. He then went to Newfoundland. Dear knows where he is now. He comes from Halifax. I read of his wanderings around the world. The Emperor Hadrian never travelled around the way he did. By these useless embassies we are making ourselves ridiculous as a unit in this empire. I believe the Minister of External Affairs for Australia is right. America is giving too much appeasement to Japan. The Emperor of Japan should be proceeded against as one of the worst war criminals in the world. He is responsible for all over there and the cannibalism. I remember making a speech in this house on the Pacific question in June, 1937. At that time I wanted rearmament because I felt and said and predicted the coming war between Japan and the United States. I wanted to know what we were going to do about the Pacific question. The result w'as that parliament reduced the estimates and nothing was done.
Now the ambassadors have been holding forth at a place called San Francisco. It was called the other day by a great man in the British House of Commons, "Sham Fiasco." That is exactly w'hat it is. It was never intended to do anything at San Francisco. The future of the world was settled at Yalta by three men, Mr. Churchill, President Roosevelt and Mr. Stalin. Two of them w'ere great leaders of the English speaking people. The result w'as that the whole situation of the world was settled there and then at Yalta. The establishing of another league will not amount to anything. Washington does not believe in it. Read the speech of Piesident Truman; read the speeches made in congress. France was not admitted to the charmed circle of the three. Why? Because she had no military strength. I believe in the old policy that might plus right is right. It has always been so. We shall always have nations. The peace of the world depends on the United States, Britain and Russia working together in peace as they have done so admirably in this war. The more you examine the whole situation- it will be up again in the house-the more you will find that this so-called league of nations will fail. It has failed over the years.
As Lord Milner said in 1919, speaking at Oxford, it was a most strange anomaly to hear that the self-governing parts of the British empire should be joining a league, binding themselves by a formal tie to a number of foreign nations when they had heretofore been unwilling to enter similar obligations with one another. I appreciate what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has
The Address-Mrs. Strum

done in connection with foreign affairs and many social matters. He has been a pioneer in connection with many of these social problems. I suggest, however, as Mr. Churchill has said, that the peace of the world in future depends on power politics and on sea power and a union with the United States, Russia and France. Power politics and Britain's command of the sea kept this world free from war from the battle of Waterloo to the outbreak of the first great war in Belgium in 1914; it gave us one hundred years of peace. Our great hope lies in the cooperation that we may achieve in peace as so well in war with our beloved allies. I named Russia and the United States, and I hope that France will be admitted to the big three as soon as her military strength is sufficient. The institution of parliament has not changed much since the day of Edmund Burke; our functions have not altered greatly.
There will be other opportunities to deal with the other matters which are before us for consideration, but let me say in closing that I hope we may some time have a union of all parties and groups in the house to work well together in order to do the best we can for the taxpayers back home in the constituencies.


Mrs. GLADYS STRUM (Qu'Appelle):: At the outset, Mr. Speaker. I must express regret at your ruling this afternoon. I had prepared what has been referred to by the press as an essay, of which they said we had had several read yesterday. The result may be that I shall have three speeches, the one I had prepared, the one I am about to give and the one I shall wish to-morrow I had given.
In my first words I want to state that I appreciate more than I can say the responsibility that devolves upon me as the only representative of my sex in this house. Mine is a rural constituency which runs from the boundary of Manitoba to the city of Regina, including an urban section; and I shall keep in mind the electors of my constituency as well as the members of the aimed forces, who gave me a larger total vote than they gave my combined opponents. 1 shall remember, too, that I am the only spokesman for my sex, but more than all-this, I shall always keep in mind that I am a citizen of Canada.
Not only have we, the people of Canada, a common destiny; we have a common historical background. I refer now to chapter 2, page 66, of volume 1 of the Sirois report, which tells us clearly that following the birth of Canada as a ration, through the process of confederation-
For twenty-five years the new nation had languished. ... A vast and sudden transformation was wrought by the magic of wheat.
fMr. Church.]
The wheat boom brought a flood of settlers into the west and created two new and flourishing provinces. It precipitated a new era of railway development and spurred on the industrialization of central Canada. Immense capital expenditures were necessary to equip the west and the growing urban and metropolitan areas of the east. Wheat worked a new integration of economic life and linked together the fortunes of the different regions.
On page 68 of the report the growth of population is dealt with. In a period of seventeen years-
Between 1896 and 1913 one million people moved into the prairie provinces and the population increased from 7 to 20 per cent of the total population of the Dominion of Canada.
To quote the report, this resulted in Canada beginning to grow as a nation. As a result of the industry of her people and the ease with which the prairie soil could be brought under cultivation, vast quantities of wheat were produced and on this grain was built the great financial and industrial structure of central Canada. To quote the report briefly:
Tne construction of the railways, the deepening of the canals, and the improvement of the harbours necessary to transport the increasing volume of western grain over Canadian routes stimulated economic activity in the east and gave it a large share in the moving of western products to the markets of the world. The building of towns and cities on the prairies, the equipment of the farms and the consumption demands of the population required a large quantity of manufactured goods. The protective tariff enabled Canadian manufacturers to capture the greater share of the new market, thus giving a tremendous impetus to industrialization in Ontario and Quebec, to the coal and steel industries of Nova Scotia and to the lumber industry of British Columbia.
So you see in our background Canada has been united in its economic and financial development. Our war effort, of which we are all so proud, has proved again that through the utilization of human skill, raw materials, processing plants, financial machinery and transportation Canada has almost unlimited production potentials. We have demonstrated, too, that raw materials plus the application of power and human resources add up to actual wealth. We in this house have seen proved the proposition advanced by the first elected members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, that Canada need not stagnate in a bog of unemployment, under-production and want when we have in our own country all these basic requirements for the production and distribution of goods and services in unlimited quantities. The factories of Canada need not close or slow down as long as there are in this country families still needing homes, electrical equipment, plumbing, house furnishings, food, clothing and transportation. In many areas Canada is still in the first primitive

The Address-Mr. Fleming
stages of development. Indeed, science and chemistry may very well remake our world if we shall but let them.
Before our farmers and workers can buy their share of goods and services, however, we must establish marketing boards, parity prices and crop insurance at reasonable levels for agriculture; and for workers, adequate labour and wage codes.
If our aged people are to establish their claim to our abundance they must have much more than S30 a month. Indeed, a floor under family income, below which no person would be allowed to fall, would be a just and reasonable national safeguard, because no modern industrial nation can afford the luxury of poverty.
It was fascinating, the day of the opening, for me as a new member to observe the pageantry and take part in the practices that have grown up around our tradition of government. I was interested to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) remind us of the customs of Westminster. I submit that all of us in this house will watch with equal interest the actions of the new parliament recently elected there, as they write a new page of history, history in terms of social ownership and human advancement. We in the group I have the honour to represent look forward to the day, not far distant, when Canada will follow the example of the mother of parliaments and instal in office the Canadian counterpart of the British Labour party, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That will never happen.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: It is a good thing to make of our capital city a beautiful memorial, fitting to honour the memory of those who died that we might live. Books will be written and in song and story we shall record their valour. Deeds, not words, will be the measure of our gratitude. People yet unborn will, in some far off day, scan our old age pension schedules, our slum clearance plans, our widowed mothers' allowances, our infant mortality rates, and we shall answer at the bar of history.
We must here take full responsibility not only for our utterances in this house, but for the conditions of our homes, the level of family income in town, city and country, and the health, education and well-being of our communities.
"It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here" to the building of a new day in Canada and a new era of peace, brotherhood and abundance for all mankind.
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in this chamber for the first time I join the company of former classmates. The class of 1928 at Osgoode Hall law school, Toronto, boasts two members in the government in the persons of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chev-rier) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin). That class also boasts a colleague on this side of the house, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Boucher), and in the press gallery, Mr. Francis Flaherty. I make the fifth and express my pleasure upon joining them in this chamber.
I come from a city which I am assured by all is, without doubt, the most popular in Canada. I can assure hon. members that the point of view I bring to the chamber and the attitude I hope to exhibit in all discussions in which I may take part is no narrow or sectional one. I come here as a coast-to-coast Canadian. While I have had occasion to criticize what seemed to be a sectional point of view in other parts of Canada, it is my promise to the house that it will be my endeavour and determination not to indicate any degree of sectionalism in any points of view to which I may give expression.
We meet, Mr. Speaker, following a great victory, a great deliverance. I say it becomes all of us, and in this I speak only as a new member, to acknowledge the debt which hon. members in this chamber, yes, and all people in Canada, owe to those who have stood between us and our enemies on the field of battle.
Democracy has come through. The benefits we enjoy we owe to others, and it is in a sense of consecration that I, for one, intend to approach my duties as a member of this chamber.
I believe it is fair to say that the hopes of the people of Canada concerning this new parliament are high hopes. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) reminded us, in one of his earliest utterances this session, the problems which will face parliament during the years immediately before us will perhaps be the most difficult which have confronted any parliament in the history of our land.
I believe it is correct to say that the judgment which will be applied to the actions of parliament and the policy of the government will be an exacting judgment. We have a great opportunity to make good for Canada, a great opportunity to build here in Canada a land worthy of the sacrifice of those who have stood in our place on the fighting line.
That does not mean that we have come here in any submissive attitude, or that the attitude we propose to adopt in respect of
The Address-Mr. Fleming

government measures is one of mere acquiescence. On the contrary, I think the attitude of all hon. members in this part of the house will be the one enunciated so clearly yesterday by our leader, namely, one of constructive criticism.
I am sorry that in what I have to say tonight I find more of criticism in respect of government policy that I had hoped would be the case in my first utterance in the House of Commons.
I think the first duty to which parliament must address itself is the recovery of the prerogatives and powers which have been yielded up to the government by the last two parliaments.
It may be that legally a state of war continues with both Germany and Japan. Hostilities actually have ceased, and with them any need for exercising the extraordinary powers the government has enjoyed during war time. There must be an end and an end at once, to government by order in council. There must be an end to bureaucracy.
It is disconcerting therefore, to say the least, to find that even on the eve of the convening of parliament the government continued to exercise its extraordinary powers. The use which has been made of; the War Measures Act under these circumstances amounts, in my submission, to an abuse of those powers. In fact, what the government is doing to-day amounts to turning the War Measures Act of Canada into the political war measures act of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh. Ohl


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That is so and you know
it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What do you know
about it?


Mr. FLEMING:: On the very eve of the
meeting of this parliament the government announced by order in council it had effected some amendments to the National Housing Act. With the text of those amendments I do not propose to deal this evening. They may be good or they may be bad; I do not make any comment in that respect. But I do say that the house is entitled to a clear explanation as to why amendments were so urgently required to a statute which had been in effect and on the statute books for fifteen months that they could not wait and be presented in parliament, and that they had to be dealt with at an earlier date.
Another example which surprised some of us was the government's action in connection with hauling down the union jack the day parliament met. We are told in the speech

from the throne that we are to have a committee to go into the question of a design of a distinctive flag for this country. At the moment I am not discussing the question of a distinctive flag. I am saying that the action of the government in hauling down one flag and putting up another, while going through the form of saying that parliament will deal with the matter was high-handed. If they can pull down one flag and put up another, they can pull down the second flag and put up a third and so on. When is this to stop? I say it was a high-handed action, and coming as it did on the day parliament opened it amounted to a flouting of parliament.
There are some lessons which can well be drawn from experience of recent days- yes, from the election itself. Even though my leader is not Prime Minister of this country to-day as I had hoped and expected he would be, I am proud to be his follower. He fought a good fight for a worthy cause and there was nothing he said or did of which he has any cause to be ashamed. I am proud to follow him. I believe that the time will come when our good compatriots in the province of Quebec will come to know John Bracken and will appreciate his sincerity, his honesty of purpose, and will accord to him their support.
During the course of the debate we have heard some suggestions-perhaps they are more than suggestions-that the party which sits to your right, Mr. Speaker, has the unqualified support of organized labour throughout the Dominion of Canada. In the light of the facts such a suggestion creates a certain amount of amusement. In the first place we are told about the Prime Minister's profound sympathy for labour and about his profound knowledge of the problems of labour.
I suggest that it is worth remembering that when a dominion-provincial conference was called in the fall of 1943 to evolve a national labour code which would assure to labour in all parts of the country its right of collective bargaining, unfortunately that profound sympathy did not grasp the opportunity to put into effect a labour code which would apply to all industry throughout Canada. Eight provinces out of the nine asked the dominion to do it; but because one province said "no", the government, notwithstanding its alleged profound sympathy for labour, said, "We will just confine it to war industry". A great opportunity was lost. I hope a similar opportunity will present itself, but I repeat that a great opportunity was lost and an injustice done to labour. I think it is worth while recalling also what happened on parliament hill yesterday. If there are those on

The Address-Mr. Fleming
the other side of the house who feel secure in the support of organized labour, I suggest to them that in my humble opinion it is a good thing for them that the election is past and that they are not facing it again.
We have been told from the government side of the house about the partnership which the government entered into during war time with labour and industry. That may be the government's idea, but it certainly is not the idea of organized labour. Organized labour feels that its offer of cooperation with the government in meeting problems which could be met only by the united action of government, labour and industry in war time was not accepted by the government or used as it might have been.
There is one further observation I should like to make about something that we have read in the papers of recent date. I refer to the reported remarks of the leader of the C.C.F. group (Mr. Coldwell) in the newspapers of last week. He is reported to have intimated that the party which he leads will be the only real opposition to the government in this house. It must have been a very dull evening that required such an extraordinary pleasantry from the leader of that group in order to enliven the hours. If anyone has any doubt about the position of those of us who stand under the Progressive Conservative banner with respect to opposition to government policy and government action they will find an effective answer in the statesmanlike utterances delivered by our leader yesterday afternoon.
Political memory may be short but it is well to remember what happened in Ontario between June 4 and June 11. There are some hon. members opposite who well remember what happened between those dates. There was a shift of support by many thousands of C.C.F. voters to government candidates. In other words, there are at least a dozen members on the other side of this house who owe their seats in this chamber to C.C.F. support which swung the tide in their favour. When we are asked to consider some other group as being the real effective opposition to this government it is well to remember that those twelve seats are essential to the continuance of this government in office. We should not forget where that support came from on that occasion.
It is well also to remember some of the events of last November. It will not be forgotten that in the momentous days in this house in November last it remained for the C.C.F. group to agree sufficiently with the government in connection with meeting the needs of man-power to unite with them by
passing an effective amendment which called forth an expression of appreciation on the part of the Prime Minister. I do not think there is any doubt as to where the real opposition is to be found. The answer is that the real opposition lies right here, and it will be a constructive opposition.
The decade of the thirties surely taught Canada some lessons. One lesson which we ought to have learned is that if we are to avoid great industrial and economic dislocations we must make ample preparation in advance. There is no use in waiting until these great dislocations are upon us to begin to plan measures to cope with them. I have sat in this chamber for only four days and I have followed the proceedings with no little interest. Perhaps the impressions of a newcomer to this chamber are fresh and vivid, but one impression that has been borne upon my mind is the amazing vagueness of the statements emanating from the government with reference to the whole problem of reconversion.
The leader of the opposition made some direct criticisms in his remarks yesterday, and I fully expected that we would have from the Prime Minister or other members of the government-at least one other member has spoken-some clear exposition in concrete form of the programme offered by the government to meet this great national emergency which is upon us. But instead of that we have had only vague and general statements; there has been nothing concrete.
Obviously the government has been taken unawares; obviously the government has been caught unprepared. The Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) is reported in the press as having said in Port Hope on September 3 that the government had not been in a position to foresee that the atomic bomb would have brought the war to such a speedy conclusion and that its plans for economic postwar stabilization would have been more effective had there been more time to put them into effect. Then we have the Premier of Manitoba speaking in the legislature of that province and being reported as saying on September 4:
Premier Garson told the legislature, sitting as a committee of the whole on post-war plans, that all-important negotiations between the dominion government and the provinces were many months away from conclusion. "Instead of just now starting negotiations, we should be in a position to start work," he said.
The only suggestion I have heard from any member' of the government that they have a programme for this period of reconversion was a reference to the dominion-provincial conference and the proposals there made to the
The Address-Mr. Fleming

governments of the provinces. That was a conference held in Ottawa in August last, and it will convene again in December. Apparently we are asked to infer that action on the part of the government must await decisions emanating from that conference. If in the view of the government action must await the conclusion of that conference, why on earth, Mr. Speaker, was that conference not called long ago? There was no reason given to the conference for the delay that has occurred in calling it together. The government of Ontario, from the time it came into office in August, 1943, begged and clamoured for a dominion-provincial conference with this very objective in mind, that the governments of all the provinces and the government of the dominion might sit down together and plan jointly so that this period of conversion might be bridged without loss of employment and without complete dislocation. That request went begging. For two years the provinces have waited, and when finally they were brought together it was on the eve of the conclusion of hostilities with Japan. If the government's plans are dependent on the conclusion of the negotiations with the provincial governments, then this government stands condemned for its long delay, a delay of at least two years, in summoning that essential conference. They should have had their plans complete long ago. They knew that the war was going to end some time and that it would be too late then to start planning. Why not at least get plans well under way beforehand, so that when the war did end, regardless of whether is was sooner or later, the plans would be ready and work could proceed?
There is no problem before this house that is more urgent than the problem of housing. It has two aspects which cannot be dissociated from one another-the emergency aspect, and the long-term approach to the problem.
In the first place it is admitted on all sides that an acute housing emergency exists, the worst of its kind in the history of the country. There never has been a time when Canada faced a housing problem nearly as acute as the present one. It is worth examining into the causes of the problem.
What are the causes? Sad to say, Mr. Speaker, some chickens are coming home to roost. The reason why this country is not better provided with skilled labour and building materials essential to the construction of homes is largely attributable to the failure of the government to apply a courageous and effective man-power policy during the war. The fact that tens of thousands of men were kept in enforced idleness or at least were removed from productive enterprise and were not being used where they were required in

the country's service is directly the cause of the fact that we have this acute shortage of materials and this acute shortage of skilled labour. Lumber production was allowed to fall seriously below the figure at which it should have been maintained. Five billion feet was the production of four years ago, and that figure should and could have been maintained if an effective man-power policy had been applied by the government. Unless the discharges from active service are speeded up and men are available at once not only in the construction industry but in the primary production of the essentials of building materials it will be too late for this winter's production in the seasonal producing areas. Internal production restrictions should be removed at once, and serious consideration must be given by the government to the curtailment of our substantial export of lumber to the United States.
During all this period there has been a government agency called Wartime Housing Limited, which has 'been used by the government in certain ways. It was used by the government in wartime to 'build semi-permanent houses to house certain industrial workers and it is now being used in certain localities to build what are called permanent houses.
Of the operations of Wartime Housing Limited I say only this at the present time: If the government had given private builders the same opportunities to obtain materials and labour that Wartime Housing Limited enjoyed they could and would have done better work more quickly and at far less cost.
The methods of that government housing agency were on many occasions high-handed. We had some experience of that in Toronto. We asked them to come to the assistance of the city, where a critical problem has existed now for a long time, and when they finally consented to come in, it was on the basis of the city giving up to them its best sites. They were not satisfied with anything but the best. Their attitude was: AVartime Housing must not lose a cent. Their attitude was not: There has been a tremendous influx of workers into your city, some 75,000, and we will provide the housing that is required. No; the attitude of Wartime Housing was: AVe are not going to lose one cent on this proposition and we must have your best sites. Even the health bydaws of Toronto had to be suspended to enable AA'artime Housing Limited to go ahead. That was their high-handed and dictatorial attitude.
With this same control-complex this government agency has prevented private builders from making their most effective contribution to meeting the need for housing.
AVe cannot separate the failure of the government to act courageously in this wartime

The Address-Mr. Fleming
housing problem from its failure to bring to the -whole housing problem in Canada a sensible, comprehensive, courageous and long-term view.
This house has been told that the National Housing Act of 1944 was the government's answer to the housing problem. Let us remember in the first place that that measure is administered by the Department of Finance. Let us remember also that Wartime Housing Limited and the so-called emergency measures taken by the government in war time come under the administration of the Department of Munitions and Supply. And now we have the Department of Veterans Affairs coming into the picture and becoming involved in the housing problem. What is needed is not a few more departments involving themselves in this problem. What the situation requires is an active housing policy from this government. We can keep on adding to the departments becoming involved in the problem, but that does not give us a policy; it simply adds to the conifusion already existing. It is time that the government grappled with the problem courageously and realized once and for all that more departments and further interdepartmental competition will not build more houses for the people of Canada.
I offer these observations, Mr. Speaker. First there has been a complete inadequacy of planning on the part of this government. Just-outside Toronto at the present time Wartime Housing Limited is building, at the instance of the Department of Veterans Affairs, six hundred houses for returning veterans-six hundred houses in a city that sent overseas tens of thousands of men who are now coming back! That apparently is the answer of the government to the housing problem in that great-city. My leader yesterday used the expression "too little and too late" as applied to the government's action in this respect. If I may use his language I would go a ste-p further and say that the government's action is far too little and far too late.
In the next place, the government has been doing far too much talking about what it intended to do in the realm of housing, leading the people of Canada to expect great things. The fact of the matter is that, unless they have something which they have not yet shown this chamber, they cannot possibly hope to fulfil the promises they made to the people, and many thousands of people, disappointed Canadians, are going to be living under conditions of great hardship this winter because of the failure of the government to make good and fulfil its undertakings to the Canadian people.
Next, in regard to the government's approach to this problem, particularly as evidenced in the National Housing Act, I say that the approach has been financial rather than social. This housing problem is a social problem. The government has not approached it as such but has treated it simply as a financial problem, and we shall not have a sympathetic and effective approach to the housing problem in this country unless it is seen as a social and not merely as a financial problem.
Here is this National Housing Act of 1944. It is an enabling statute. Consider these terms as found, for example, in section 4: "The minister may enter into contracts"; section 6: "The minister may by agreement" do thus and so; section 7: The minister may make loans; section 8: The minister may make loans; section 9: The minister may make loans to certain institutions; section 10: The governor in council may do certain things. And so on all through the act. It is an enabling statute; and therefore the approach of the administration to that act, and the spirit in which it undertakes to carry out parliament's expectations in respect of that statute, are allimportant, and I say that on the record of the government in the fifteen months that statute has been on the statute books of the country the government has shown itself unwilling to deal with or at least indifferent to the immensity of the problem. It has not taken this statute in hand and sought to give a sympathetic application to it or to make its provisions workable and available to all Canadians.
For example, the government has refused the request of certain municipalities for permission to set up low-dividend housing corporations. In some places, for instance in Ontario, the provincial government offered to share half of the public ten per cent contribution to low rental projects, sharing that cost with the city of Toronto. That seemed a reasonable proposition, where you get a provincial government coming forward hand in hand with a great city and offering to share half the public contribution of ten per cent to a low rental housing project.
What happened? The Department of Finance, administering the statute, simply turned them down, and there has not been a zealous, sympathetic application of the provisions of this statute to meet the housing needs of the country. Far more use could be made of the provisions of this statute than has been made.
The approach that those of us on this side of the house in the Progressive Conservative party make to this housing programme can

The Address-Mr. Fleming
best be summed up in this sentence. We regard it as a social problem which must be approached along with our approach to other social problems, and in working out for Canadians a sensible and comprehensive programme of social security we say that this must have its due place. We bring to this problem certain convictions. In the first place, we say that in any of these social security measures you must first of all avoid duplication of facilities, because that only breeds waste and competition, and I for one have not yet seen the necessity for the dominion going ahead and setting up machinery to administer social measures such as family allowances, while the governments of the provinces have trained staffs fitted to handle social and welfare problems, which staffs have been sidetracked in that matter.
We are all Canadians, whether as members of parliament or of legislatures, whether as members of the federal government or members of provincial governments, and surely to goodness it ought to be possible in these social measures to find some common ground and make a non-political and constructive approach having regard to the needs of the people of Canada, instead of setting up duplication by way of competitive methods of administration. This is wasteful and it breeds chaos in matters of administration.
In the second place, we say that in matters of social security there is never any excuse for hiding costs. In my experience of some years in the city council of Toronto, where we had many housing problems, and socialists and communists from time to time sat in the council, I always observed this with the socialists and communists in their approach to housing problems as in regard to any other social problems, that they preferred not to see the cost segregated and made known. Where it came to municipal assistance to any housing projects the idea always was to cover it up in terms of some low fixed assessment or some low fixed tax. Our obligation to the people to whom we are responsible is to see that they understand what these measures cost. The people wish to know these things, and it is our duty to give them this information. Let us know what the cost is. Do not let us endeavour at any time to hide these costs under cover. Hidden subsidies have no place in any approach to housing. In advocating subsidies in certain cases let us know what they are; let us make them known.
In the third place, we ought to make sure that the benefits of projects which are undertaken by parliament are assured to those for whom they are intended and not provide

measures which admit at any time of these benefits not being passed on to those for whom they are meant. In matters of that kind as in all matters, but particularly in that respect, it is desirable that the local governments be used in connection with administration. We shall get the most efficient, the most effective, yes, and the most understanding administration of these measures if they are carried out by the local authorities who know the local situation and the local needs.
In the fourth place, all these social measures ought to be designed to help people to help themselves. That is the view of people who are experienced in social work and parliament ought to have due regard to that view. In whatever measures we undertake we ought to seek to avoid the discouragement of thrift and enterprise.
Having said that, what is our view in regard to the necessity for a comprehensive and long-range approach to the problem of housing? In the first place it must be comprehensive. There must be no piecemeal approach to the question of social security. We have suffered too long from competition between governments and between sections of the country in matters of social security. There must be a comprehensive plan rather than a piecemeal, political approach.
In the next place, having regard to the constitutional difficulties, whereas the great sources of taxation are placed within the power of parliament, the responsibility and jurisdiction with respect to social measures have been placed in the provinces. This inverted relationship must be corrected by constitutional action or agreement particularly in facing up to the problem of making a contribution or subsidy available to provide housing for those who otherwise are condemned to live in sub-standard dwellings.
We must not forget the constructive benefits on the credit side of the ledger. Bad housing is a source of delinquency, bad health, yes, and even crime. In eliminating bad housing, with the assistance of a dominion government subsidy, we are eliminating this costly source of social ills.
I do not need to take up the time of the house in arguing for recognition of the claims of those in the lowest income brackets who ought not to expend more than twenty per cent of their income on housing, because that class and their need have been recognized by the National Housing Act itself. Section 2, subsection 11, recognizes that class of people who ought not to be expending more than twenty per cent of their income on housing,

The Address-Mr. Baker
because if they spend more than that amount they will be doing so at the expense of proper diet and proper clothing.
These citizens in the low income brackets must have more consideration from parliament than the 1944 act will ever give them. That act was largely brought about by the report of the Curtis committee, an eminent committee. Their recommendations were largely adopted by the government with one outstanding exception. That outstanding exception was the provision for subsidizing housing for those in the lowest income brackets. That committee stated:
For the purpose of meeting the low-rental character of the project, i.e., the essential point that its costs cannot be solely met from rental revenues, an annual subsidy is considered the best and most practicable system. It has the merit of being flexible and subject to variation if circumstances or experience demand. It is straightforward in effect, and understandable as a rent reduction fund applied to a clear-cut social welfare purpose. It seems unquestionable that a substantial part of this subsidy should come from the dominion government.
I would conclude with this observation: In this country we have lagged far behind. There is need for an improvement in this legislation, and it must be made. We ought to follow the example of the United Kingdom. They have been subsidizing housing ever since the last war. We are years behind them. We ought to follow the example of the United States which has had a comprehensive measure of this kind since 1937. There are three hundred thousand substandard dwellings occupied in the Dominion of Canada to-day, as found by the Curtis committee. A hundred and twenty-five thousand of these units are in the larger cities, fifty thousand in the smaller cities and a hundred and twenty-five thousand on farms. If parliament and the government do not grapple immediately, courageously and effectively with this problem they will be called to account by the people of Canada. If we grapple with the problem effectively and with determination we shall earn the thanks of a grateful people.


Mr. L. E. BAKER (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: I am a new member in this house. I had not intended to speak so soon in this parliament as I am doing. However, I have heard a lot of remarks made regarding service men. I do not like to use the first person pronoun more often than necessary, but if I do so to-night I ask the house to excuse me. I was overseas and have been in the army for six years. I have fought in two different theatres of war. I was flown back to Canada to contest the election with a fellow member of parliament, the hon. mem-47696-7
ber for Vancou ver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt) across the way, for whom I have the greatest admiration. Everything was very democratic about the whole thing. In the one plane there were four C.C.F., two Liberal and one Progressive Conservative supporter. Of these four C.C.Fs., three were candidates for the federal house and one was for the Ontario provincial house. As we flew over the Atlantic eventually we had to increase our altitude due to cumulus clouds and we reached a height of fifteen thousand feet. At that time, I thought that was the height of democracy.
I have no intention of being acrimonious or bitter in any of my remarks. I am not a politician; I am a soldier; therefore I do not want anybody to take any personal exception to anything that I may say. First of all, I represent the constituency of Shelburne-Yar-mouth-Clare, which is pretty much the extreme east end of Canada and on the Atlantic seaboard. Some of my problems are the same as those of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), particularly fishing. Therefore both ends of Canada have been represented in speeches in this house this afternoon and evening.
The reason I came back to contest the federal election when I was overseas, and it was after V-E day, was just this and simply this, that I had confidence that the government which had carried us victoriously through the European war would be the government which would carry us through to a successful peace.
May I say here, Mr. Speaker, that the British empire has won many wars. That is why we are all here to-night; but something that is even greater than winning wars is the winning of everlasting peace, which has never been done. I maintain that this Liberal government with its trained leaders is the government which can help to take us through to a satisfactory and lasting peace. Possibly some of the hon. members of the opposition are a little too impatient. We did not work up our magnificent navy, army and air force into the fine and efficient fighting machine that it eventually turned out to be in a matter of two weeks. The war has been over for slightly over two weeks. Perhaps we have not admitted that in the house, but that is so, and therefore we have not had very much time in which to convert ourselves from wartime efficiency to peace-time efficiency. But we have these plans made and I maintain that by being patient we worked out our fine fighting machine and that if we shall only have a bit of patience and not draw red herrings across the trail and turn small issues into main issues we shall have a successful

The Address-Mr. Viau

peace and our men will eventually be properly rehabilitated, and that we shall sit at the peace table and make a satisfactory world peace, or at any rate share in it.
Regarding the war memorial in the form of beautifying a larger Ottawa, I am heartily in sympathy with it. There have been hon. members on the opposition side of the house who have been partly in sympathy with it; but they say: "How about wartime housing, and how about various other matters?"
With regard to people who are in distress, I am thoroughly in sympathy with them too, but I believe that both matters can be taken care of, and I believe that the memorial we should have should be a memorial in the capital of Canada, something in which each province of Canada and the territory may feel that they have an equal part and that we shall have a capital of which we shall be proud.
When I was a small boy I visited the city of Washington.' As I walked around that beautiful city I thought to myself it must be wonderful to be an American, and have a capital like that, because I feel that a beautiful capital impresses people from all parts of the country. In the city7 of Edinburgh, Scotland, there is a Little bit of earth from Nova Scotia, the province from which I am pleased to say I come. So I maintain that each province in Canada might well send some of its earth to this city, and that certain parts of the city might be allotted as representing the various provinces.
I believe the principal thing we must realize is that we must get together from coast to coast; the hon. member for Nanaimo and I, as the member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare must get together and work for the general good of Canada. We must not confuse the vast main issues at stake by merely bringing up small, controversial programmes. There is no such thing as a utopia. Though we may try to briDg about that condition, we shall probably never succeed. However, we will do our best and come as close to it as possible. One thing I would, ask hon. members of the opposition is that they have patience. We have not had very long in which to work. This is not the day of the laws of the Medas and Persians. Laws can be changed if it is found that they do not work to the satisfaction of all concerned, and I believe the government which I support will be prepared to make any necessary changes at the proper time.


Mr. FERNAND  WAIT@St. Boniface) (Translation: 
Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker,
before the vote is taken on the motion, perhaps I should say a few words about the government's demobilization policy, particularly in view of the fact that it has been made the subject of criticism in the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) and in view of the remarks this afternoon of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. PearkesL
I must confess that, after listening with attention both to the leader of the opposition and to the hon. member for Nanaimo I was unable to ascertain exactly on what grounds they criticized the government's policy. However, that is no doubt due to a defect in my own make-up, rather than to the powers of exposition those hon. members 'possess.
Perhaps, however, it might be well for me to review briefly the 'baas upon which we are proceeding with our policy of demobilizing our armed forces. I am sure hon. members will agree with me that that policy must be fair and that it should be as expeditious and as orderly as possible.
As announced some time ago, the basic principle upon which demobilization is based is that of first-in first-out, the principle that the man with the longest and hardest service , shouild be the first discharged. The hon. member for Nanaimo stated very properly this afternoon that that principle must be subject bo some variation, and that one cannot adopt a hard and fast first-in, first-out rule and expect that the thing will work properly or fairly. The hon. member then proceeded to enumerate -and pretty accurately, I think-those various instances in which we depart from that principle.
The first was on compassionate grounds. As an old professional soldier he knows that that has always been a ground for discharging
The Address-Mr. Abbott

men from the armed services. I take it, therefore, that he does not criticize the government's policy in that particular.
The second ground on which exception, apparently, is made to the basic principle is that where a man has been recommended for early release by the industrial release and selection boards which have been set up under the direction of the Department of Labour, with a view to allowing employers to make application for the early discharge of employees who, they submit, are so-called key men, and for whom it is asked that discharges be granted ahead of their turn. In the cases where recommendation is received from that board the military, naval and, I imagine, the air authorities, will either discharge a man or grant him extended leave. If he is granted extended leave the time during which he engages in civilian occupation prior to his final discharge does not count for gratuity or for rehabilitation grants. The hon. member for Nanaimo did not express his preference one way or the other, as to whether we should abandon that principle. I am sorry he did not say whether we should or not; but I can only assume that, since he did not object to it, he deems it is a proper procedure to follow. That is the second ground upon which a man may be repatriated and discharged, or put on extended leave ahead of his turn.
The third and last ground upon which a man may be returned from overseas other than upon the principle of first-in, first-out is, of course, the obvious one of medical grounds. That is one which has always existed, so far as I know, in all the armed services.
We now come to the men in Canada. As hon. members will appreciate, a week or ten days ago we announced certain extensions to the three points I have mentioned. The first is to allow those who can establish that they have been accepted for admission to a recognized university or educational institution to obtain their discharge ahead of their turn. Again the hon. member for Nanaimo did not indicate whether or not he objected to that procedure. However, I would say to him that, judging by the number of requests I have had from supporters of his party, the great majority of them are in favour of that exception.
The second ground is that a man may be discharged or put upon extended leave ahead of his turn if he is to go to agriculture. Again the hon. member did not object. I have not had a written objection from any hon. member to that procedure. If there is objection I hope hon. members will rise in their places and say that it is wrong. They have not done so yet, and no one has made objection to me as Minister of National Defence.

The third group is the one to which the hon. member referred-and here, may I say, not quite accurately. 1 do not for a moment suggest that he did so purposely. His reference was to the discharging or to the putting of men on extended leave to certain essential occupations.
The situation is this, that in certain occupations designated as essential by the Minister of Labour, including the building industry and the packing house industry, the army will discharge men in Canada, or will release them on extended leave in order to go into those industries. That is policed, if I may use that term, by the ministry of labour. We do not any longer detail any men for civilian work, with the exception of farm labour.
Then there was the final group he mentioned, comprised of men who are discharged as unsuitable for training. That has always been the case so far as I know in every army, and no one should know it better than my hon. friend. He made a plea for reduced taxation, but I do not know whether he feels we should continue at the taxpayers' expense to train unsuitable men in the army. However, if he does I wish he would say so.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You have done it for
five years.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He did not say what he
wanted done, but he suggested something should be done with the N.R.M.A. personnel other than what is now being done, that is to keep them in the army to perform essentia! military duties in Canada. He may have intended to say that they should be sent somewhere else, but so far as I know none of his party made that statement before the election.


George Randolph Pearkes: I said1 distinctly that they should be welded into one army.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend says that
they should be welded into one army, but I do not know what particular distinction he would make in the men. He did not suggest that they should be discharged and he did not suggest in specific terms that they should be sent over to Germany as an army of occupation. I think the house and the country can draw their own conclusions as to just how serious or constructive his suggestion is as to what we should do with the N.R.M.A. troops.
I do not recall any other points in connection with our releasing men from the services that he mentioned other than the principle which I have mentioned of first in, first out, and the longest and hardest service. Of course it is true, as he knows and as the house

The Address-Mr. Marquis
knows, that some time ago we began to try to return men from overseas by units and divisions rather than purely as individuals. The hon. member made some reference to the reduction in the point score from an original figure of 150 or 160 to 130. One reason for the reduction ini the point score is that since V-E day we have repatriated from overseas over
120.000	of all three services. We returned approximately 108,000 up to the end of August and, as those who have read the newspapers will have seen, something like
15.000	came in last Sunday alone. Therefore there has been a fairly substantial number repatriated in September. I think it is fairly safe to say that by the end of September there will have been a very substantial additional number of troops repatriated from overseas, I am glad to say many more than we anticipated we would be able to repatriate at the time of V-E day.
I shall be glad to give more details as to our methods of repatriation and that sort of thing when my estimates are up, but I felt that I could not allow the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition and the speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Nanaimo tv'' pass when there had been no evidence offered in this debate that the demobilization policy is unsatisfactory. I should like to know from the hon. gentlemen who criticized it just what policy they would substitute in its place.


Mr. EUGENE MARQUIS (Kamouraska):: As a newly elected member speaking in parliament for the first time I cannot help being impressed when addressing this honourable house. But I know every hon. member is inclined to generosity. I wish first to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, upon your election to the high office you now occupy. I am sure. you will fulfil your duties with the impartiality and with the dignity you have always shown in your private and public life.
I wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Benidickson) and the seconder (Mr. Langlois) of the address in reply to the speech from the the throne. Both of these men are young; both of them are heroes; both of them are brilliant speakers. They have proved that war has brought to maturity a new and brilliant generation. Their attitude during the war was a symbol of strength and courage and their attitude before this house is a symbol of determination to win the peace and to assure prosperity for the future of Canada.
(Translation): Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to address this house to-day.
Speakers throughout the country, and especially the hon. member for Nova Scotia and the hon. member for Saskatchewan who preceded me, both of them members of the active army and heroes of this war, did not hesitate, in accordance with their outlook and the purposes they seek to achieve, to uphold the rights of Canadians and to outline the programme they intend to advocate for the welfare of their country.
As representative of a farming community, a constituency which during the war supplied our armed forces with essentials and which also contributed toil, courage and blood, I have deemed it my duty to express to the government of my country my admiration, my esteem and my devotion.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks I am deeply moved at the thought that I represent to-day the native constituency of a man who was my first counsellor, the idol of his province, who has symbolized the spirit of Canada in its purest and finest form, the late hon. Ernest Lapointe. He was among the first to add lustre to the name of Kamouraska and it was he who courageously and proudly wore the political mantle of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the great Canadian leader whose memory still endures.
I stated a moment ago that the constituency of Kamouraska is an essentially agricultural community. It is composed of parishes where farming is the chief industry and lumbering comes next in importance.
As several are aware, there is in my constituency a classical college of foremost importance, where great men have received their education, and I would be afraid to offend the modesty of several members of this house if I were to single out those who attended Ste. Anne college.
In addition there is a high school of agriculture and fishing.
Agriculture, especially during the period of reconstruction which is now beginning, must enlist the assistance of science and resort to the most modern practices.
We have experts, as well as distinguished and experienced agronomists, we have specialized courses through which numerous technicians have received their training, and who come not only from the district of Kamouraska but also from the region of Quebec city where they have assisted in the agricultural development through their talents, their culture and their scientific knowledge they have won recognition throughout the country.
The Address-Mr. Marquis

May I add, Mr. Speaker, that there is also in my constituency a Dominion experimental station which enables us to engage in practical studies and scientific research in agriculture and constitutes a perfect organization for the prosperity not only of the locality but of the whole province of Quebec.
In the recent election, like most of those who sit here, I was privileged to have opponents. One of them had been a Conservative ever since his early childhood and perhaps since his birth. Probably on account of some political reactions which exist in certain quarters, he suddenly felt an urge of independence which led him to a crushing defeat. The other one was an advocate of Social Credit; he was quite modest and preached a theory which did not succeed in rallying enough believers to save his deposit.
The people of the constituency of Kamou-raska, who are peaceful, honest and hardworking citizens, believed in their country, in their leader, and they gave their full confidence to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King). It is a testimonial much greater than the one I could give myself. The preachings of extremists, the criticism of independents, the new theories of every kind could not sway the confidence of sincere and loyal people who remembered that in our country there is a man who, especially since 1935, when he fell heir to the sorry legacy of unemployment, set about his work, fought and carried out social policies in order to place this country on a basis of progress. At the time when the country was being stabilized, war broke out, a war that threatened not only Canada but the whole world.
We have heard this truth proclaimed in this house, on various tones, it is true, but all agreed that Canada was in danger, that our freedoms were jeopardized, that the survival of Christianity itself was at stake. The people of my constituency, together with most of Canada's citizens, understood that one man, in spite of the heavy burden he had carried in the past, managed to avoid all pitfalls, to overcome all obstacles and to lead us through the whole war to ultimate victory. This man is the Prime Minister of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I know I am expressing the views of my constituents when I say that we are grateful to the Prime Minister for the way he has warded off all dangers and we thank divine providence that he is still in our midst.
There are speakers in this house who, a few months ago, asked for total mobilization of our man-power and who now want the army demobilized even before the war is officially ended. Yet, the programme of the administra-r\Tr. Marquis. 1
tion in this regard clearly provides for as prompt a return of our men as most of our service men themselves would wish. It is a wonder to me that those w'ho purport to vindicate the rights of our soldiers who fought on the various battlefields, should preach a doctrine which is not adhered to by our military men. Never, in a speech from the throne, has there been outlined so comprehensive a programme providing every possible means of reorganization and reconstruction in Canada. Does any one claim that the speech from the throne should specify the exact amounts that should be appropriated for each particular measure? I do not think any member of this house would entertain such an idea. But this programme enables all persons of good will to cooperate in the development of the country, and to contribute to veterans' assistance. This policy promotes the agricultural production, to assist famished peoples. It is the government of our country who offer a helping hand to the poor, the famished and the unfortunate.
Who are those who oppose the government measures? Who are those who fight the adoption of this policy intended to help the peoples of the overseas countries to get sufficient clothing, food and fuel? They are the gentlemen of the opposition, sitting on your left, near you, Mr. Speaker.
At the close of a conflict which has jeopardized not only our freedom of speech and our wealth, but even what I would call our right to live, our right to leave an inheritance, however small, to posterity, we should all unite in close cooperation in order to attain to a spirit truly, fully and solely Canadian in character.
I have never concurred in the opinions of any extremist. They are sowers of disunity, whatever province they hail from. I am more convinced than ever that, in this house, we all aim, now more than ever, at unity and harmony.
Mr. Speaker, while reading magazines, periodicals, newspapers I have often noted with regret the tone adopted by some speechi-fiers and even the ideas they dared to express. May we now say that such incidents are but the exception and that in our beloved Canada, the representatives of the people, maintaining their personal identity, remaining faithful to their race and beliefs and respecting other creeds and races, may we now say, Mr. Speaker, that all of us shall rally as Canadians around a symbol, a national flag which will serve as guide to every one?

The Address-Mr. Merritt
Mr. Speaker, I know of no one in this house or even in the country who does not wish for real unity in Canada. I express the solemn hope that before long, Canada will have a recognized national anthem which all her citizens to sing before a flag around which we will gather.
Some members of the house object to the government's policy. Do they oppose the San Francisco charter, a pact which represents the resultant of the discussions held by the United Nations? Does not the speech from the throne reflect the spirit not only of Canada but of the whole civilized world toward postwar reconstruction when it asks to approve the San Francisco charter? Do these honourable gentlemen oppose the adoption of the address in reply to the speech from the throne because the Canadian government intends to proceed as rapidly as possible with the conversion of war industries into peace-time industries? As some would say, Mr. Speaker, if those gentlemen were in the place of the government, would the reconversion of those industries come more rapidly or perhaps as quickly as some among them transformed themselves into independents in the province of Quebec. Those honourable gentlemen governed this country before 1935, and to my knowledge there were no miracles in political administration during this five-year plan. There were indeed, Mr. Speaker, timely suggestions from some members who sit to your left, and I know that all the members of the government are ready to consider suggestions that may be accepted and adapted to the political conditions as they new exist in this country. I listened with much attention to the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell), who, besides having remarkable parliamentary qualifications, certainly made, in his speech, a few suggestions which may, at a later time, affect this country's policies. I know that the Prime Minister has long since always carefully considered the opinions expressed by the various groups. Besides, those who are quite earnest in their criticism realize that the leaders in the administration cannot always adapt all the suggestions made to existing conditions. Evolution is inherent to politics just as it is to life; and, in the field of soldiers' reestablishment, or of reconversion of war industries to peacetime enterprises, those who urge, for the time being, a fixed and definite plan, and for years to come, a scaled plan, forget that the future is veiled to us, that we cannot know in advance what circumstance the country will face in a few months or perhaps a few weeks. That is what the government must keep in mind while carrying out its policy.
Mr. Speaker, I trust that the government which directed our war effort, maintained peace at home and rallied all Canadian forces to fight the enemy, once again, I trust that this government is qualified to effect civilian reestablishment, to help in the country's reconstruction and finally to grant our working classes the stability and safeguards they expect. The government which allayed the dangers of inflation will prevent deflation. The administration which, during the war, checked capitalistic abuses will not allow capitalism to stand in the way of a proper and just redistribution of the wealth of our country; that is why it has granted family allowances which will allow children to prepare for the future, to be properly clothed and fed, to receive a better education. In fact, the Liberal administration did not wait until the close of the war. At the most tragic periods, when Canadian lives were being lost in battle, our government turned its attention to our manpower and the protection of childhood; it decided to protect the working classes, the little people to ensure that, in our country, the middle class would be immune from capitalistic abuses. That is what the Liberal government has done for the good of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding my remarks I apologize to the hon. members of this house as it is the first time that I have had an opportunity to address them. I admit that I gained my inspiration in the study of Canadian politics, in my love of country, in my admiration and esteem for my leaders, in my faith in their sound policies. I admire their moderation and the efforts which they are making to ensure Canadian unity.
(Text): In conclusion, I thank God for having given Canada our Prime Minister, and for having given him the necessary health and strength to preside over the destinies of the nation during the war and during peacetime.


Mr. C. C. I. MERRITT (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to apologize to the house for intervening in this debate at such a late hour, but I find it necessary to do so for definite reasons. You will excuse a new member for having perhaps misunderstood the purpose of this debate, which is on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the amendment thereto and the subamendment offered by the group to my left. It does not seem to me that the purpose of this debate is fully served simply by rushing to a vote on the question without having canvassed it properly. And this is what I mean by canvassing it properly. It was my understanding that in this debate there would be an opportunity for the ministers of the crown
The Address-Mr. Merritt

to make to this country public statements which they have failed to make all summer on the great and important matters which have been exercising our people during the past few months, whether or not the members of the government know it. Before this debate terminates I hope we may hear not from private members on the government side, replying to the amendment offered by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), but from the responsible ministers of the crown charged with the duty of seeing to it that we have jobs and housing, and that our men overseas get a proper deal when they return to this country. It is these hon. gentlemen whom I feel the country wishes to hear from in this debate.
I was very glad when Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott) rose to speak to the amendment in regard to the service personnel overseas and to answer the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), who made such a telling speech this afternoon. Let me say to the minister at once that I know he was not responsible for the situation in which the government now finds itself in reference to the army. That situation sprang from the evil seed of the man-power policy which has been wrong from the beginning, and the minister has no responsibility for that. When he spoke to-night I thought I was going to hear what the country wants to hear; but all I heard from the minister was a deprecatory statement in reference to the speech of the hon. member for Nanaimo. The minister spoke of all the various ways in which men get out of the army now, as though the hon. member for Nanaimo was complaining, and as though this amendment complained, in regard to specific minor details. The hon. member for Nanaimo read out that list only to show the house the wide variety of methods by which people can get out of the army to-day, ranging from compassionate leave, which may be a perfectly good ground, down to "unlikely to become an efficient soldier," or "not amenable to discipline" which I say here is a perfectly bad ground.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It has been a ground under army regulations for ten years.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Or at least since 1939.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister concluded his remarks by asking the hon. member for Nanaimo what policy he would suggest. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is not the duty of the hon. member for Nanaimo to suggest to the Minister of National Defence what policy W'ould ensure fairness to Canadian soldiers overseas.
[Mr. Merritt.l


Douglas Charles Abbott: If my hon. friend will permit a correction, I asked what different policy he would suggest.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Very well; I accept the correction, but what difference does it make? I say this, and I am going to leave the matter here, as I would not attempt to gild the lily by emulating the hon. member for Nanaimo. In this debate the country does not want questions of that kind; it wants to know from this government how Canadian soldiers still overseas are to be protected in regard to jobs when they get back to this country, after all the N.R.M.A. men and many others have been let out of the army ahead of them.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The answer is that they are not being let out ahead of them.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: Is this the courtesy extended to an hon. member in his first speech in the house?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I thank my hon. friend, but I need no such courtesies; I will answer any question that is asked. I will leave that question to the judgment of the house and the country, and speak now to the other two parts of the amendment. At least we can say that the Minister of National Defence rose in his place. What of the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe), who is responsible, I take it, for jobs and housing? Has he risen in his place during this debate? Not at all; we have not heard from him. The country wishes to hear from him during this debate. Lest he should be under any misapprehension as to the nature of this amendment, I say to this house that the amendment expresses exactly the feeling of this country against the government to-day. The country is both anxious and critical. The war is over, and the country is anxious about the ability of this government to show the way to full employment. The country is critical in regard to the lack of leadership exhibited by this government at the inception of the reconstruction period.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I hear hon. gentlemen
opposite laugh. I say to them that for a long time they have claimed to be the leaders of this country. I say to them now that this country has been carrying the government on its back for a long time. Hon. members opposite may be thankful that this is a great country, and that as such it is capable of carrying even hon. members opposite on its back.
I should like to make another point about the amendment, lest it be thought that it should be allowed to go by default-like jobs

The Address-Mr. Merritt
and housing. The amendment is a criticism striking directly at the capacity of hon. members who form the government to lead the people of the country. I wish to say right now that, unlike my hon. friends to my left, who believe that w*e need a new social order, I have believed for many years-and there are a great number of people who agree with me, and who will always agree with me-that we need no new social order in order to have full employment in our country.
What we do need, and what we have not had in my adult life-and what I fear we can never have from this government-is "action" to give us full employment. The people of Canada are a reasonable people. I do not believe they expect very much, perhaps not as much as they have a right to expect, from the government of their country. I do not think that they call for utopia, or even that they mind being inconvenienced by lack of housing, or being laid off from jobs during a difficult period.
But what they do mind, what exasperates them and prompts them to talk among themselves, as they are talking across the country to-day, is complete inaction on the part of the government to face up to problems which, although they may not be of great concern to the government, concern the people deeply. If the government has no action to offer, as I suspect it has not, then the people might be satisfied if an explanation were offered to them, and I am suggesting that such explanation should be made in this debate, and that the matter ought not to go by default. The government should explain when people might expect to find those jobs, and when they might expect to see those houses.
When the amendment was offered by the leader of the opposition the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) sought to turn it off by expressing his satisfaction in the results of the general election held in June. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Baker), for whom I have very great respect indeed, and with whom I did not expect to take issue so early in the debate, talked about these matters of housing and jobs as if they were only small issues.
I wish to dispel any impression the Prime Minister may have sought to create to the effect that he is protected by the mandate he received from the people on June 11. I should like to recount a little history-even at this late hour-and it will not be ancient history. The history I shall offer will be very modern in the history of Canada, and although it is confined to the city of Vancouver, one of the 47696-8
constituencies of which I have the honour to represent, I am sure it is applicable throughout Canada.
Apparently some hon. members do not realize just what the situation is in Canada with respect to housing and jobs. So that they may do so, let me go on with my history. In May came V-E day, and in June the general election. I am not going to go at all into the history before the election; so that that excuse is not available to hon. members opposite. The people of Canada did not mind being badly housed before V-E day, because they had a war to fight. They did not even mind being badly housed after V-E day because there was still a war to fight. But they did expect-indeed, they have been promised by this government-that there would be action in respect of housing at once.
In the city of Vancouver there has been no action, and I shall recount to the house just what the situation is there. It now has in its population about 60,000 extra souls over its pre-war population. May I point out, in passing, that forty-eight per cent of the male population of service age in British Columbia volunteered for the armed forces. Those men are returning in ever-increasing numbers.
I have heard the over-all shortage of houses in Vancouver estimated as high as 20,000, but in my presentation this evening I shall settle :or a very much smaller number than that. Let us, for the sake of this discussion, say that the number is only 5,000 or 10,000. On a certain day in August there were 1,400 veterans of this war who had served overseas, whose names were recorded on the books of the emergency shelter administration as having been placed in housing so unsuitable that even that harassed authority thought it should try again, if it could, to get better accommodation for them.
Let me place before the house two illustrations of how those men are living. In the first place, they are living in basements and attics. In the second place, they are living in that new and great Canadian national institution, the chicken-house duplex. And when I say that I am not attempting to crack a joke, but rather, have reference to veterans living in chicken-houses.
Let me give another illustration, from another point of view. There was one case of twenty-five men, women and children who were sharing one bathroom. If hon. members will reflect for a while on that situation they will readily realize the inconvenience entailed.
I ask the house this question: Of what use to the country and to the veterans is a veterans charter? Of what use to them is a

106	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Merritt
welcome home and a civic reception, if, when they reach their homes, they must live under conditions such as I have described? What we want from the government is not grandiose plans, white papers and legislation. By offering us those they perform only half their job. We must have executive action to translate those plans into benefits placed in the hands of the men, women and children of this country.
That is all that will satisfy the people of Canada, and it is not too much to ask from the ministers concerned. Let me deal in further detail with the subject of housing. I have said that people might not mind living in chicken-houses, or might not complain about it. But what has the government done? Despite the promises made, the only housing activity of which I know in Vancouver this past summer was an application, by advertisement, for the registration of construction workers, and the throwing of Wartime Housing Limited into the already too small market for supplies.
At the moment the difficulty with the housing situation is not that of low rental housing, or of any social aspect of the question. It is simply a question of shortage of supply. That is certainly the case in Vancouver. So far as I am aware there is no authority in this country which has the job of getting after the bottlenecks in supplies. I made a little pilgrimage in Vancouver just to find out what the situation might be in this respect. I visited the wartime prices and trade board; the controller of construction; the emergency shelter administration; the mayor of the city; the private contractors' association; and I visited other agencies around town. Every one was most helpful, particularly the civil servants. They were all working desperately to try to get around this shortage, but none of them had any power to do a thing, none of them had any full responsibility. I could not find a man in Vancouver who had authority, responsibility or full knowledge about the housing shortage. That is what is at the bottom of this shortage, and nothing else. There has been no action in getting after the bottlenecks and trying to get rid of them.
I go on with my history and I mention what happened in July. In July we had a large and important strike at the American Can Company in Vancouver which supplies all the cans for western Canada. The strike lasted for fourteen days, and by the end of that time almost all the primary producers who tinned their products were desperate because their goods were spoiling. They were losing money day after day. The strike [Mr. Merritt.)
was on that old familiar issue, the closed shop. Did the government take any action? Yes, after two weeks-just in the nick of time-and, after all the agony had been gone through by the people on the Pacific coast because of the fear that their merchandise would spoil; after all the loss they had suffered through having to shut off production-the government acted and called in someone to take over the plant and to arrange a compromise. Why could they not have acted first? Why could they not have taken over the plant as soon as the strike occurred and then adjudicated and thus saved from loss the consumers and producers of primary products who had no concern with the strike? How many times and in how many places are we to have strikes on this old familiar issue without government action?
I come now to August, to V-J day. They rang the air raid siren in Vancouver to signalize V-J day. I wondered why and I soon found out. There had been some small celebration, a natural blowing off of steam which did not last too long. We then noticed an ominous undercurrent of wonder and a little bit of fear on the part of some people that there were to be no jobs in the shipyards or in the aircraft factories. The workers in these factories in Vancouver have done a magnificent job in this war and they now amount to a considerable number.
I tell you what happened, and it came very soon too. Private notices were sent out by these companies laying off the workers. There was no word whatever from Ottawa as to what was to happen to the workers; they were simply laid off by means of a notice from the private companies. The government just ignored the fact that this was going to raise a serious situation immediately. I do not suggest that the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) should have provided each of these men with a job. Under our system these men will find new jobs, but I do suggest that the minister should have laid some plans so that, even if V-J day took him slightly by surprise, he would have been able to make a public statement and give reassurance to the workers in Vancouver and other parts of the country. Perhaps he could have told them that he had been taken slightly by surprise, but to "hold on" because in a certain length of time the plans he had made to bring these plants back into production under other circumstances would bear fruit and jobs would be available. He could have said that in the meantime his advice was such and so. But there was no action; there was not even a statement of reassurance. I may say to the

The Address-Mr. Merritt
house that out there on the Pacific coast we notice that lack of advice from the fountain of all authority in the country. We would be interested in having a little bit of attention paid to our problems.
The public is looking for reassurance. It is looking for leadership at once in this postwar reconstruction period. The record of this government since the general election in providing leadership for the people of this country is a sorry one indeed. I would not say that the people of Vancouver are down about it at all. I do not think they expected very much more. They have maintained their spirit, but they and the people of Canada are high-spirited. They are exasperated; that is the only word for it. They do not want anything too wonderful; they want action, that is all.
I should like to point out one way in which the inaction and lack of leadership from this government has affected things out in that part of the country from which I come. The housing crisis and the job crisis have caused many public statements to be made at many public meetings. The mayor of the city and the provincial government have been badgered by organization after organization to do work that this government ought to be doing. I say to hon. gentlemen opposite that it is not fair that provincial and municipal governments should be badgered, and perhaps lose the confidence of the people, when they have not the power to act before this government has given them a lead. The situation is quite serious and I am sure it will bring unwise political repercussions out there.
What I want and what I say the country wants is action and leadership. And for this reason. I say to the house that laissez-faire is dead. I know the house will agree with me, but let us consider for a moment just what that means. In short, it means this. When the people of Canada gave the present government of this country a mandate on June 11 to form a government, they did not elect them negatively to maintain free enterprise in being as the economic system of this country. They gave them a mandate positively to get in there and to make free enterprise work to produce satisfactory conditions for all Canadians. I want to say to the government that they have made a bad start because what is wanted in order to make free enterprise work is leadership. Leadership in reforming and controlling private enterprise when it does not serve the interests of the public, but, above all, what is wanted is leadership which promotes public confidence in our joint ability to perform the great task ahead. I say to hon. gentlemen opposite that if they 47696-8J
have not that confidence or if they make the people of Canada doubt their joint ability for the tasks ahead, as has been done this summer, this government will not succeed in carrying out what the people of Canada want them to do. If we have not confidence in our ability to create full employment, then all fails.
The end of laissez-faire means another thing. It means that the government are no longer solely the administrators of the affairs of this country; that they can be content just to let things go. The government are ultimately responsible for every part of our national life, and there is no ill which befalls the people of this country which it is not the duty of the government to correct. If they are to correct all those ills, they must get a new outlook. They must give us that leadership and action which I have emphasized to-night. With that in mind I wish in the few minutes remaining to me to offer two concrete suggestions on leadership, and I ask all hon. members who have served in the armed forces to see if they do not go all the way with me.
First of all, I say that the time has passed when ministers of the crown can remain in Ottawa and property conduct the affairs of this country from the capital. The ministers must get out and get around the country, and they can do it now by aeroplane, which is very fortunate, now that we have come to the end of laissez-faire. They must get around the country to find out what the people want and to see how their legislation is working and whether or not the benefits are getting to the people. I liken a minister of the crown and his deputy minister to a general and his chief staff officer. All hon. members who have served in either war will go with me when I say that a general is not a good general if he is not out seeing his troops. After a general has made his decision and given his orders to his chief staff officer, he gets out on the ground and sees how that order is working out, and by personal reconnaissance he gathers the information that enables him to make his next decision. Such a course must be followed by ministers of the crown if they are to lead the people of this country successfully.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sounds like regimentation.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: It is not; it is leadership, but the hon. member would not know the difference. My time is almost up.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The next thing the government must do is to take the people into its confidence. You can never lead them, if I. may
The Address-Mr. Merritt

say so to hon. gentlemen, without telling them what you are going to do and how you are going to do it.
Another thing that one can learn in the armed forces, and even when one is not in the armed forces-but very few people, including myself, do-is the vital importance of time. I say to the ministers of the crown that they must take the public into their confidence-not only in routine press conferences which serve their purposes very well; but also by special press conferences and by specially timed appeals over the broadcasting system and by specially timed visits throughout the country, as these emergencies come up, instead of doing as they have done this summer, just letting things go by default. If you tell the people of this country what you want them to do, they will do it for you. They have proved that veiy well in the last six years. I never saw any troops, and I do not know of any people, who will do anything that you want them to do if you do not first tell them what it is that you want them to do.
If I had time I could make other suggestions as to how hon. gentlemen opposite could give leadership to this country. The suggestions I have made so far are not, of course, exhaustive, and if the ministers of the crown wish to give leadership to the people of this country they can easily find many additional ways of doing it. I would not have the temerity to tell them how to do their jobs. That would ill become a new member and a young man. I know they are able administrators.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Surely hon. gentlemen do not take too much pleasure in that remark. Surely they must be good administrators in order to sit in the high places they occupy; they must have something to their credit. I know they are good administrators, but I say that in this new era after the war they must be more than administrators-they have to be leaders. I want them to carry this message away with them, and I believe I speak for a very large part of the people of Canada when I say this. The government must have a new approach to present-day problems, and if I may say this without being offensive, but simply to make my point, I would say that what the government need is what we needed in the army, a sort of mental "battle drill" for cabinet ministers.
But to come back to the most important point, let the government make a start at giving this leadership that is needed. Let us have from the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply a statement on how Canadians may expect to get jobs in the immediate future. Let

the government tell us what they are going to do about these questions such as severance pay that are vexing labour. Let the government tell us how soon we may expect a housing expediter and how soon action will be taken to loosen bottlenecks in supplies in order that houses may be built throughout Canada.
On motion of Mr. Ross (Souris) the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, September 12, 1945.