Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That standing order 63 be amended by striking out the -words "and international" in subsection (j) and adding after subsection (k): (1) On external affairs, to consist of 20 members, 8 of whom shall constitute a quorum.
He said: Hon. members will recall that it was suggested by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) a few days ago that the committee on industrial and international relations should be divided into two separate committees, one having to do with labour and industrial relations and the other with commonwealth and foreign relations-I think those are the words my hon. friend used. I mentioned that at a previous session of parliament the same suggestion had been made. It was, I think, by my hon. friend the leader of the C.C.F. group (Mr. Coldwell). At the time I intimated that that course might be advisable.
As I said the other day, I think it is desirable to have two separate committees, one on industrial relations and the other on external relations. I chose the words "industrial relations" and "external affairs" as being sufficiently comprehensive to include all that has

been suggested. The leader of the opposition suggested, if I remember rightly, a committee on "labour and industrial relations". Of course, labour is one party to industry, and by using the expression "industrial relations", other parties, which would include management, capital and the community, would be included. I should think the more comprehensive designation would be the preferable.
In regard to international relations my hon. friend suggested "commonwealth and foreign relations". Here again I feel that the term "international relations" or "external affairs" would be broader and would include everything which is suggested by "commonwealth and foreign relations". The term "external affairs" has been used by different governments of the commonwealth in dealing with matters pertaining not only to relations between the different nations of the commonwealth, but also with regard to matters that relate to foreign countries. It is important that the distinction should be kept between foreign affairs and those affairs that might be regarded as interimperial or commonwealth. But all are included in the term "external affairs". The term was used when the Department of External Affairs was created to cover both relations within the commonwealth and relations .ith foreign countries. I therefore feel it would be preferable to use the term "external affairs rather than commonwealth and foreign relations".
The conference which was held in London in 1926 drew up a statement of the relations as they now exist within the commonwealth, and^ defined the position which had been attained by the dominions as well as by the United Kingdom. In what is known as the Balfour declaration the term used is "domestic and external affairs," there being no subordination one way or the other between the dominions in regard to the control of their own affairs, whether domestic or external, and the United Kingdom and its control of its affairs, domestic or external.
In these circumstances I would suggest that to use the term "industrial relations" in the one case and "external affairs" in the other for the names of the two committees would be the more appropriate; and may I say that the government is only too happy to have these two committees established in place of the one which at present exists.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I am veiy glad to see this motion moved, and I think the Prime Minister's suggestion as to the naming of the committees is a good one. It seems to me accurately to portray what those committees should be concerned with.

Canadian Navy	______
But there is one phase of the motion which I want to draw to his attention-that it provides for only twenty members, eight of whom shall constitute a quorum. I think that this is a very important committee; more members of the house are interested in external affairs than in some of the other committees where the membership runs up to well over fifty. Indeed there is only one standing committee with a smaller number of members, and that is on debates, where we have twelve members.
The proposal for the industrial committee is, as I take it, that it remain at thirty-five members; and it seems to me that this very important committee on external affairs should have a membership at least equal to that of the industrial committee, because many members of the house will want to be on that committee.
Then, too, there are in the house at the present time several parties, all of whom will want some membership on that committee, and twenty, it seems to me, does not give the necessary representation.
I do not want to move that "20" be struck out and "35" substituted therefor. I believe that one has only to draw the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister and a satisfactory solution will be arrived at.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to
my hon. friend that after the notice was placed on the order paper the Clerk drew to my attention the fact that the numbers he had inserted were "20" and "8", and I really intended to mention that if the house wished to have a larger number, a larger number could be immediately substituted. With the consent of the house I would have "35" substituted for "20" and "10" for "8" in the resolution, which would make the membership of the external affairs committee the same as that of the committee on industrial relations. Motion as amended agreed to.



CANADIAN NAVY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: I wish to ask the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services a question in regard to a statement which appeared in the Vancouver Daily Province to the effect that recruiting for the navy was to be opened for 4,000 out of a post-war total of 12,000. It pointed out also that those who were applying were largely civilians, but that increasing numbers of those now being demobilized were anxious to get into the permanent naval service. Would 
the minister be good enough to make a statement with regard to this, as tcv whether it applies all over Canada and whether these recruits will enter direct into the Royal Canadian Navy or, as hitherto in recent years, into the volunteer reserve?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services):: I did
not see the press item to which my hon. friend refers, but the position, as I think the house is aware, is this. A week or ten days ago-it may be two weeks-recruiting in all three services was authorized in what was referred to as an interim force, the term of enlistment to be for a period to expire on September 30, 1947. No definite number for these recruitments has been fixed, and so far no definite decision has been taken as to the size of the permanent force in any of the three services. The enlistments for these interim forces are being taken from those who are now serving. One of the main purposes in arranging for such enlistments now was to give men who might be interested in serving in the permanent forces after the war the assurance that over the next two years they would have a definite engagement and they would be able to decide, after the conditions and the size of the permanent forces were known, whether or not they would wish to serve in them. The statement which was issued at the time this type of enlistment was authorized indicated that men who enlisted for this special term would be given special consideration for enlistment in the permanent forces.


Mr. FRASER:: Further in regard to the
question asked the Minister of National Defence by the member for Yale, will the minister say whether the boys who wish to sign up in the Royal Navy have to sign for seven years, or has that been reduced to five?


Grote Stirling: The Royal Navy?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The Royal Canadian Navy.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think it is still seven
years, but I will make inquiries and give an answer to-morrow. I believe it is still seven years.



MEAT RATIONING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister or the responsible minister in charge of the department under which this matter comes. Owing to differences of opinion and
Meat Rationing

some misunderstanding which I think exist throughout Canada to-day with respect to the rationing of meat, will the government undertake that the conference which is to be held to-morrow between government representatives and the Retail Meat Dealers association be held in public, so that the widest possible information regarding meat rationing may be available to the people of Canada? I know a number of members who would like to attend that gathering.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should wish to consult with the Minister of Finance before giving an answer to that question. There are advantages in having the conference in public, and there are distinct advantages also in having some conferences held in private where matters of a technical character are being discussed and where suggestions are being put forward by different sides. In most of these matters, I think, the government usually leaves it to the parties themselves. In this matter I should think that it might be advisable to ascertain in advance the opinion of the members of the wartime prices and trade board, since they will have a good deal to do and say in the matters that are being discussed. However, I am not giving any final word at the moment.


Mark Cecil Senn: Would it be possible for us to be informed in time to attend if it is decided to hold the conference in public?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should not like to say that the government would make an announcement on the radio, but we might have it understood that if hon. members will inquire of the officials at the front door the information will be given to them at least an hour before the committee meets.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: In view of the interest in this subject and the lack of knowledge on the part of members of parliament of the real situation regarding both meat in storage and shipping facilities needed and stock available for slaughter, might we have a detailed statistical statement placed before the house by one of the ministers? We cannot all attend this meeting, but we are all getting resolutions and telegrams. While I think we have to do all we can to feed the hungry people of Europe, and I am thoroughly in favour of any rationing that may be necessary, I find it difficult to answer inquiries that are coming in, because we have never had quite the statement we require to appraise the situation accurately.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will direct the attention of the Minister of Finance to my hon. friend's inquiry.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PATRICK H. ASHBY (Edmonton East): I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister been informed of the bricklayers' strike now being held in Edmonton? If so, would the minister consider immediately the setting up of an arbitration board to settle the bricklayers' strike, which is holding up the wartime housing programme in Edmonton?
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I have knowledge of the bricklayers' strike in Edmonton. I understand that employers and employees have come to an agreement on all points with the exception of one, which is to pay bricklayers, when they work within ten miles of the city of Edmonton, board and transportation in addition to the regular hourly rate. Unfortunately the province of Alberta in its judgment did not adopt the labour relations regulations with respect to provincial activities, and under the circumstances the federal government, the Minister of Labour, has no authority to set up a board of arbitration or even of conciliation. Might I suggest to my hon. friend that he address his question to the minister of trade and industry in Edmonton, under whose jurisdiction is administration of labour relations in the province of Alberta.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Is consideration being given to the restoration of two mail deliveries a day in urban residential areas? In other words, will the war-time practice of sending urban mail carriers on two different walks a day soon come to an end?


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: We still have a large number of employees in the armed forces. As soon as they return in sufficient numbers we intend to resume that service.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. NORMAN J. A. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln): I have just received a long distance telephone communication, and I have had do opportunity of consulting with the

The Address-Mr. Gibson (Comox)
ministers concerned. Perhaps the responsible minister would allow this to stand1 as notice of a question. It appears that in the finishing of soldiers' homes, which in a good many urban centres are being rushed to completion by reason of the cold weather, there is a tie-up through the freezing of plumbing fixtures, bath-tubs and so on. I was informed over long distance an hour ago that there are in the airports in St. Catharines, where I come from, hundreds of units of this equipment. Will the appropriate minister inquire whether it would be possible to release them directly in order to get these houses completed rather than have them sent through the channels of the War Assets Corporation, which is a tedious and tiresome procedure? It is urgent that these houses be completed before the cold weather sets in. Dozens of houses in my locality are in need of this equipment, and I suggest that something be done to expedite matters. The equipment is lying there. The Nobel plant has been mentioned. I would ask the appropriate minister to deal with this matter.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: On Friday of last week the junior member for Queens (Mr. McLure) asked if the seamen on the steamship Prince Edward are entitled to the special bonus. Since then, and before, the senior member for Queens (Mr. Douglas) has also made representations on behalf of the same seamen. I have had inquiries made and am now able to reply to my hon. friends as follows.
The merchant seamen special bonus order, P.C. 3227 of the 3rd May, 1945, provides for the payment of a bonus of ten per cent of earnings of seamen serving on Canadian ships, who have performed at least six months' service in dangerous waters between September 10, 1939, and April 1, 1944.
The definition of "dangerous waters" means waters in respect of which war risk bonus is paid.
The seamen serving on the S.S. Prince Edward have been receiving war risk bonus by a ruling from the national war labour board which came into effect on February 26, 1943. The said seamen would therefore be entitled to the merchant seamen special bonus of ten per cent of their earnings from February 26, 1943 until April 1, 1944, upon making an application in the approved form to the director of merchant seamen, Department of Transport, Ottawa.



WAR MATERIALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. CASE (Grey North):: The Minister of Reconstruction last evening referred in his address to certain war materials that would be lent to schools, the title remaining with the crown. Will it be lent for an indefinite period, and on what condition?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction) :: I believe I stated that it was lent for an indefinite period. There is a special officer of the War Assets Corporation whose duty it is to be in touch with educational institutions. If my hon. friend will write to the corporation he will be referred to the proper officer.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, September 17, 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. J. L. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a feeling of trepidation that I rise to address the house for the first time, but having seen how well the other tyro members have done I am glad to jump in and join in the debate. In this my first address to the house I should like to emphasize the fact that I am an independent. I believe that there has been some discussion on that point. I believe that my ballot paper overseas was marked "Independent Liberal", but I should like to clear up that point and say that I am following along in the tradition of Comox-Alberni as a straight independent, and in my vote in the house I shall try to reflect the opinions and the wishes of the people of Comox-Alberni who sent me here.
The constituency of Comox-Alberni consists of the northern and western three-quarters of Vancouver island. It is the constituency of which Mr. Rudyard Kipling once said, in a masterpiece of understatement, that it was the fairest jewel in the British crown.
At this time I should like to pay a tribute to the gentleman whom I have the honour to succeed. I am quite certain that all the old-timers in this house will recall with great affection and high regard Mr. A. W. Neill, the former member for the constituency. I have been particularly pleased since I came to Ottawa to find in all groups and sections of
*JAS	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Gibson (Comox)
this house, and also among the civil service, that he was very affectionately regarded. As a matter of fact that is just the way we have always felt about Mr. Neill in Comox-Alberni, and I am particularly proud to be here to succeed him. I should like to tell the house at the same time that the only reason I am here succeeding him is that he did not choose to run again.
I should like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your election to the high office of first commoner. I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) and the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Langlois) on the able way in which they opened the debate. On behalf of the Liberals in the constituency of Comox-Alberni, I express my thanks to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and to the members of his cabinet for the able way in which they administered the affairs' of Canada during the past five years. 1 wish also to convey to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), who has taken over the reins of office, the very high regard in which he is held by the Conservatives of Comox-Alberni. To the hon. members of the Conservative party who were in opposition during the last five years I extend the thanks of my constituency for the able job they did at that time.
Now, coming to the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) I should like to say that a number of people in my constituency are adherents of his, and now that I have met the hon. gentleman I must say that I can well realize why he is held in affection by that large number of people-there were more than I expected on election day. He is very highly regarded there.
I come now to the Social Credit party. They have a new leader in the house, and I congratulate him on his election. I should also like to mention the former leader who was in the last parliament. I thank him on behalf of my constituency for the contribution that he made. I am sorry that the philosophy of social credit has not penetrated to the dark fastness of Comox-Alberni. I sincerely trust that my position here, adjacent to the hon. members, will allow me to acquire some of their philosophy.
I was particularly interested in the speech of the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Ashby). He made a suggestion that was very interesting to me. He said it was possible that we might pay an old age pension of $100 a month at age forty. In one more year I shall qualify for that. I was particularly interested as an independent, because the past tradition of independence in this house does

not lead me to believe that- I shall be put out into the lush pastures when I have lost my usefulness; therefore I really believe that he has something there that will interest me greatly.
I was disappointed when I read the speech from the throne, because of its obvious omission. I feel that I would not be maintaining the standards of Comox-Alberni if I did not point out that we were not told anything about our Japanese problem and the solution of it. Hon. members, of course, are accustomed to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni bringing up this vital point. Now that the government's dispersal policy has brought the problem into almost every constituency in Canada, I am hopeful that the British Columbia members-there are eleven of us to whom this is a most vital problem; the other five, of course, are "agin us"-will receive the support of other hon. members in the house.
I should like to make it very clear-and I am not going to take up a lot of time on the Japanese question now, because we shall have time to discuss the problem later-that our opposition 'o the Japanese in British Columbia is not based on the matter of race. If hon. members knew them as well as we do they would find that our opposition is based upon the fact-and I have lived among them for thirty years-that they are not loyal and never have been, and I do not expect they ever will be, to Canada. The Prime Minister felt that it was a wise course to appoint a quasi-judicial committee to look into the matter, but I believe the proper time to judge the loyalty of the Japanese citizens in this country was after Pearl Harbor-about a week after that-and at the time of Singapore, and at the time we lost the Prince of Wales and Repulse. . We could have decided then, and I believe we woidd have had many more of them who would have applied to return to Japan than will do so now after they have had Mr. Howe's atomic bomb.
I would be remiss in my duty to my constituents of Comox-Alberni and to the members of the government if I did not present a true picture of how we feel in our constituency -and I may say I have the temerity to speak for the other ten constituencies I mentioned- if I did not say that I believe the people of Comox-Alberni are definitely determined that the Japanese shall never return to British Columbia again.
I was glad to note yesterday that the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) injected into this debate the subject of the monopoly of the American Can company in British Columbia. As a canner in British Columbia I should like to bring before this

The Address-Mr. Gibson (Comox)
house some of the facts in that regard. I charge definitely that the American Can company could have prevented the loss of fish and vegetables at the time of the strike had they so desired. Make no mistake about it; they were definitely aware that this strike was coming. They could have provided every cannery in British Columbia with all the cans they required to put up all the food we had there at the time. Instead of taking that course they supplied the large canners in British Columbia. It is significant that at the time not one large cannery in the province ran out of cans. Because of the fact that the small canner3 did not find it possible to put up the necessarily large amounts of money required, they were unable to get a large stock of cans ahead to carry them through that strike. Speaking for our own cannery, we are 5,000 cases of salmon short in our pack this year because we did not have enough cans in storage prior to the strike. Definitely that was because the American Can company put their cash dividends and money matters ahead of the necessity of providing food for the people overseas; that is why we are now short a large part of our normal pack of salmon and vegetables in British Columbia. When I mention the figure of 5.000 cases I am referring to one cannery only. Numerous other small canneries were involved to the same extent. Five thousand cases represents 200.000 cans, which means salmon for 200,000 British families for one week. When you multiply that by possibly ten canneries of the size of ours, you can see that it will make a tremendous difference in the food supplies available to people overseas. I am particularly anxious that the small farmers and fishermen of British Columbia should never again find themselves in the position that this large United States monopoly will have a stranglehold on them, as has been the case in the past.
I am glad to see that our new Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bridges) has come into the house, and I particularly want to congratulate him on his appointment to this high office. I hope very soon he may be able to take time off to come out and visit us on the Pacific coast, where I can assure him he will receive a royal welcome. His predecessor as minister, the present Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) has left an enduring monument to his administration in the Hell's Gate fisheries project. I understand about a million dollars was spent there, but I can assure the house that this amount will be returned in new wealth every year as a result of the work done at that point. As yet I have not run into this mysterious treasury board which was mentioned
yesterday by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), but I sincerely trust that in future it will look with more favour upon the estimates of the Minister of Fisheries. Every time during the war years we asked the fisheries department to make any expenditures we were given the same answer, that there were more important things to do in connection with the war; and with that attitude I was largely in agreement. Now, however, the time has come when the fisheries department can make a valuable contribution to the economy not only of British Columbia but of Canada as a whole, and I should like to think that the regime of the new minister will come to be known as the golden age for the fisheries of my province.
Soon the budget speech will be brought down. I share with most Canadians a high regard for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) for the splendid job he has done. I should like to point out, however, that our present system is really one of incentive, and, that being so, as long as the excess profits tax remains in operation the incentive is taken away. I may be telling tales out of school, because I know the Department of National Revenue is highly efficient, but so often I have heard of someone who was said to be "taking a trip on Ilsley" or "buying a bottle of Scotch on Ilsley" and so on. Perhaps the Excess Profits Tax Act actually has worked against the best interests of Canada. I should also hope that in the new budget some reduction will be made in the taxes now imposed upon the small wage-earners; surely we can manage that. We should go ahead and finance this year for our ordinary expenditures, but I suggest that extraordinary expenditures in connection with demobilization, reconstruction and so on should be budgeted over a period of five years. You will note that I am expecting the government to remain in office for five years. If a proper job is done during this reconstruction period I should think it even possible that the government might last for ten years.
If I might make another suggestion to the Minister of Finance, I would point out that this year the income of the pilchard fishermen on the west coast of Vancouver island has been almost nil. It seems to me only fair that those engaged in industries where there may be such wide fluctuations should have the privilege of spreading their income over a three-year period and paying their taxes on that basis, just as we have done for those in the fishing industry and in agriculture.
There has been a good deal of discussion here in regard to housing, and in that connection mention has been made of the lumber
250	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Gibson (Comox)
shortage. I was glad to notice that finally, in response to requests from several hon. members on this side of the house, statements were made from the ministerial benches giving us some idea of what may be the policy of the government with regard to housing, which of course ties in with reconstruction. Two days ago I had a telephone call from a British Columbia lumberman advising me that he was short 150 employees. I should like to point out that his plant is only three hours' drive from Vancouver, where at the same time we had thousands of men demonstrating, asking for severance pay and a continuation of uneconomic industries so that they might not have to move out of town. This lumberman's plant is in a large town, which is just as modern as this city of Ottawa, so that there is no reason in the world why men should not move out to those jobs. When I refer to loggers and saw mill workers in British Columbia I should like hon. members to note that the average wage is around 80 cents an hour in our saw-mills and at least SI an hour in the logging camps, so that taking these jobs would not involve any great economic hardship.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the homes for them to live in?


John Lambert Gibson: They are close to the source of supply of lumber, in Port Alberni, and we can build them homes. I think the real solution of this problem must be for the people in the large cities, who have been drawn there to do war work, to get back to where our real primary wealth lies; that is, away from the great centres of population. Those are the places from which these people have come, and those are the places to which they will have to return.
When I speak of the lumber camps in British Columbia I should not like the house to get the impression which was conveyed the other day by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Archibald), who told the house that the loggers on the Queen Charlotte islands were living under the most primitive conditions. I have lived in logging camps for the last thirty years-


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: So have I.


John Lambert Gibson: I think you spent most of your time in the post office.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I worked in the camps.


John Lambert Gibson: I do not think you worked in the camps very much. I would have my hon. friend know that the accommodation and food in the logging camps of British Columbia are infinitely better than in the city of Ottawa. Any time hon. mem-

bers have an opportunity to come to British Columbia I shall be glad to give them a real logging camp meal. Only once since coming to Ottawa have I had anything to compare with it-and I must mention that occasion now because I see my host sitting here in the house. I can assure him, however, that I say this with great sincerity.
I should like to congratulate the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) upon his most able address delivered last night. But, if he does not mind my giving him a slight suggestion, I would say that he has a difficult job on his hands, in the vast department he administers, if he is going to try to run interference for every one of the, let us say, brass hats-I believe I have heard them called that-working under him in his department. I refer to brass hats both in and out of uniform.
The minister is a busy man, and I know, too, that he is very much overworked. Perhaps some time he would be able to come to Comox, and if he does I should like to take him fishing. I know that if he did that it would do him a tremendous amount of good, and provide him with the rest he so badly needs. While we are trolling along I will see that he gets some salmon, and I shall also take him and show him some charred hulks of valuable landing barges we have out there. I do not take the minister to task for this, because I know he has been extremely busy, but I would convey to him the thought that if occasionally some hon. members in the house question the disposal of war assets he ought not to run interference too readily. I believe him to be a man who is extremely loyal to the officials associated with him, and for that I honour him greatly. I suggest to him, however, that the real intention of hon. members sitting over here is that of being helpful, and that they have no desire only to be critical.
Many people have been bothering the Minister of Finance about meat rationing. Just how meat and money go together has always been somewhat of a mystery to me. I say to the minister, however, that the present meat ration when applied to logging camps in British Columbia is entirely inadequate. We hear talk about a man living on a pound and a third of meat per week, but those of us who buy meat to keep our commissaries supplied in the logging camps have found that it takes a pound of meat per man per day to supply their requirements. I do not think we should cut down the ration of those who are doing very heavy work. As a matter of fact, in a masterpiece of overstatement, one mar said that it was a day's work to walk around one of our trees. I suggest that some special

The Address-Mr. McKay
consideration should be given to the men in the logging camps who eat in the camp cook houses, and also to the people who, while occupied in that industry, live in their homes, and go from those homes to their work. They require substantial lunches, and need three heavy meals a day.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about coal
miners?


John Lambert Gibson: I agree with the hon. member, but I have always understood that after working in the mines, and under mining atmospheric conditions, their appetites are not as hearty. But if they require more meat, in view of the heavy work they are doing, they should have it.
Since coming to Ottawa I have been deeply impressed by the many courtesies and kindnesses I have received from members of the civil service in this city. I pay tribute to the members of that service, realizing that all too often people in other parts of Canada do not realize what a fine job is being done here.
I interpret the approaching vote as one of confidence in the government. As I have seen no sign that hon. members on the opposition side of the house could get together and replace the government now in office, I feel that in the present instance I shall vote with the government.


Mr. E. B. McKAY (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate the mover (Mr. Benidickson) and the seconder (Mr. Langlois) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Veterans generally will appreciate the recognition accorded the armed services by the selection of these two very fine young men to lead off the debate. I trust that veterans in the house on every side will cooperate in seeing that our returning service personnel are not only properly housed, but receive decent jobs; and also that those who are disabled as a result of war service receive not only compensation but satisfactory treatment for any injury so received.
I represent the constituency of Weyburn, and in being so selected I feel that I have been highly honoured. It is no easy task to follow in the footsteps of the former member for Weyburn, who is now premier of Saskatchewan, the Hon. T. C. Douglas. It is Weyburn, too, that was the home of the South Saskatchewan regiment, which so ably distinguished itself at the battle of Dieppe.
Most tseople are aware of the fact that Weyburn is a typical agricultural community. Because it is such, it is my purpose at this time to deal with certain facts pertaining to
agriculture, and to outline as briefly as I can some of the policies of the C.C.F. in regard to that major industry.
In spite of our vast war-time development, agriculture is still Canada's No. 1 industry. According to the 1941 census, twenty-five per cent of our workers are still following agricultural pursuits, while twenty-three per cent of the workers are engaged in other industries. Moreover, many of the workers in those other industries are employed in factories which, in order to operate successfully, must depend upon raw materials from the farms.
In a recent bulletin the Canadian association on adult education stated that 126,000 young people left the prairie provinces in recent years to seek outside those provinces employment in industries which are more remunerative than the industry they have been accustomed to serve, namely agriculture.
It is a tragic story that many of these people come from rural homes. The 1931 census, which dates back another ten years, reveals for the first time in our history that there were more people living in urban centres in Canada than there were in rural areas, and during the last decade the trend to the city has been definitely accelerated. Obviously that is a most serious situation. The basic reason, notwithstanding war conditions, is that farming is unattractive to a large part of our population. It holds out few inducements to our young people; and while it has been more profitable within the last few years, owing to a false condition of war prosperity, most farmers realize that it is far from a permanent period of prosperity.
Most young people and their farm parents are all too familiar with the vicissitudes of farm life. They recall all too vividly those distressing days when they received the pittance known as relief. I am sure all hon. members are aware that during the depression agriculture suffered a tremendous loss of income. I wonder just how many know that that loss of income amounted to two-thirds of what it was in normal times. Between 1928 and 1933 it went even lower than that. Many do not realize that since the last war the farmer has never received a fair share of the national income. His share is still too low, even* now, in relation to other sections of our population. In normal times one-third of our people live on the farms, but never since the last war have the farmers received one-third of the national income. During the decade 1930 to 1940, not so long ago, that income fell to one-tenth of the national income. It is obvious, then, that so long as farm folk receive this inadequate share of the national income there will be difficult days for agriculture.
The Address-Mr. McKay

The advisory committee on reconstruction has expressed itself thus regarding agricultural policy:
Agriculture cannot be made attractive to those seeking a means of living unless it can be restored to its historic position of selfdependence and self-respect. The price received by the farmer for his products must be such as will maintain a standard of living comparable to that enjoyed by urban communities and adequate to supply farmers and their families with the ordinary conveniences and comforts of life.
Prosperity for agriculture definitely depends on world markets. The United nations conference on food and agriculture, which met in the United States in 1943, stated:
The world's agriculture must be organized and expanded to provide enough of the right kind of food for everyone.
Statements emanating from the San Francisco conference were to the effect that two-thirds of the world's present population is still underfed. Contrary to the belief of some upholders of free enterprise, overproduction was not thought possible for years to come. This is, of course, provided that the world is to be properly fed. The C.C.F. wholeheartedly supports the' efforts of the food conference to lower trade barriers and to establish a permanent international organization on food and agriculture. Such an organization will have sufficient data, we hope, to plan scientifically to meet the worlds needs in an orderly way. Any other system permitting of disorganization such as we have seen in the past, when our grain elevators in western Canada were bursting with grain, while hundreds of thousands of people in our Canadian cities were going hungry and millions more were going hungry across the seas will only develop into a condition of trade rivalry and economic chaos.
I doubt that security for agriculture is attainable in Canada without the stability provided by external commitments, these arranged through international agreement. We welcome the government's efforts to obtain such agreements. But important as export markets are, the chief demand for farm products is here at home. The consumption of food stuffs has materially increased during the war years, and the reason is obvious to anyone. It is because people now receive more money with' which to buy these goods. Yet in spite of that, many of our people are still living without sufficient of these necessities of life.
Surveys show us that urban dwellers consume less than one pint of milk a day, that in forty per cent of our homes cheese is virtually unknown, and that if everyone had sufficient meat to eat we would consume in Canada more 
than three hundred million pounds of meat more than we do now. It is also interesting to note that three-quarters of our population eat less than one egg a day, the cheapest and most nutritive food we have. Let us then keep in mind this vast home market.
Everyone in this house will appreciate the need for social security measures so that the living standards of our people may be raised, and help provide healthful living for the children of these families. Besides, such measures will definitely increase the demand for farm products.
This group will continue to advocate research in the field of chemurgy. Dyson Carter, in his book "So Man May Prosper" states that one hundred American factories are utilizing the products of the farm to-day to produce synthetic materials. Oil, industrial alcohol, syrup, plastics, are produced in this manner. All of us know that during the great European war just concluded a large number of vehicles ran on rubber made from low-grade grains in urban factories. We are also advised that cotton is a synthetic product that can be made from low-grade grains. This should interest Canadians, who import each year large quantities of cotton for domestic consumption. The western members of the C.C.F. regret in this connection that no branch of the industrial development bank has been established on the prairies. Small industries dependent on raw materials from the farm must of necessity be established in western Canada if we are to stabilize western Canadian agriculture. Such industries would utilize any surplus which may accumulate and do much to balance western Canadian economy. They would also provide thousands of jobs for our young people, who now travel to distant parts of the land in search of work.
Reference is made in the speech from the throne to the government's policy of floors under farm products. Commendable as that may be, we in this corner of the house believe it would be much more satisfactory to establish basic parity prices for all farm products, these prices to bear a direct relationship to the cost of production-not a floor price but a price that varies with the changing cost of production and is related to the cost of goods which the farmer buys and uses.
Buying and equipping a farm costs a considerable sum of money, and operating costs vary little whether the crop be large or small. Canada has been protecting her manufacturing for quite some time. But no protection has been afforded agriculture except during war time. The agriculturists of this country have to compete in a world open market in

The Address-Mr. McKay
order to sell their goods. Protective tariffs have cost this country enormous sums of money. According to the late Hon. Norman Rogers, testifying before a royal commission dealing with the relationships of Nova Scotia with the rest of Canada, these are the actual figures: in 1931 Canadians paid $425 millions more than the world level of competitive prices to sustain their manufacturing plants. That amount was $40 per capita, or $200 per family of five persons, and whether or not a Liberal or a Conservative government has been at Ottawa has made little change in these schedules. Protection for manufacturing has increased our living costs, and if we can afford to do that for a secondary industry I insist that we should do the same thing for Canada's first industry, agriculture. The establishment of parity prices for farm produce commensurate with changing costs of production would do for the farmer what has been done in this country for the manufacturing interests for generations.
In addition to suggestions which I have offered, we of this group insist that better credit facilities be provided for the farming industry. In 1941 the "Canada Year Book" stated that forty-eight per cent of our owner-operated farms were mortgaged, and the average throughout Canada was $2,372 per farm. In the west the situation was even more serious. Credit unions have done us considerable service in western Canada and, I believe, in the province of Quebec, but this excellent cooperative enterprise, while it has rendered outstanding service, has its hands more or less tied. The C.C.F. has long advocated, and still continues to do, that an agricultural bank for western Canada and for eastern Canada be established in order that mortgages may be refinanced at 2J per cent interest. The government did establish an institution known as the industrial bank. It was apparently to assume the most risky and unprofitable post-war credit operations, namely the financing of small industry. Instead of bringing our credit system under social control, the government hopes that that institution will facilitate the construction of small industries which in pre-war days could not get credit. The efforts of this group at the time the industrial bank was set up to establish an agricultural institution of a similar kind fell on deaf ears.
Another part of our policy would be the appropriation of funds for water conservation and for irrigation of areas, particularly in western Canada, that are subject to drought. Such a programme would preserve our farms and at the same time would provide post-war employment. Projects of this kind in the United States have been particularly successful, and
we are informed by practical and experienced engineers that they are feasible on both the Saskatchewan and the Red Deer rivers. Definitely that programme will be a necessary part of our post-war industrial development, on which the Saskatchewan government has already embarked on a small scale.
In reference to crop insurance I should say this, that those crops, no matter whether they be in western or eastern Canada, which because of the nature of their production carry great risks, should definitely be protected. It is essential to the stability of agriculture. The present government's policy, implemented by the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, of providing a maximum of $2.50 an acre when the area is declared to be an emergency area owing to drought, is excellent as far as it goes, but I would suggest that that amount be increased from $2.50 an acre to $6 an acre and that payments be on an individual farm basis rather than on a township basis as is at present the case. The cost of such a programme could be calculated when computing the basic parity prices set for agricultural products.
Reference has been made in this house by several speakers to the income tax. I suggest that some consideration be given to the position of the farmer's wife who normally performs all the duties of an urban wife together with many heavy burdens of outdoor tasks. Frequently her labour saves the hiring of extra help which normally would be chargeable against the expense of operating the farm unit. I suggest that a further exemption be granted the farmer to take care of this situation.
Last, but not least, it would appear to a good many of us that farming conditions must be made more attractive if young people who are being discharged from our armed services are to return to the farms. While serving in the Royal Canadian Air Force as a personnel counsellor, in a period of three months I had 106 boys come to me who were formerly from farms. Of those 106 only twenty-three indicated any inclination to return to farm life. That seems a serious situation, but on inquiry the reason seemed obvious. Briefly, I will put it in this way. They have seen urban life, and they too vividly recall the days of distress they went through at the time of adolescence. Roughly speaking, only twenty per cent of our farm homes have electric current with which to do labour. Only one per cent of our farm homes have flush toilets. Only one farm in three has a telephone, and despite the need for transportation there is only one car to every two farmers.
I trust that in some small way I have shown the needs of agriculture and the urgency of
The Address-Mr. MacNicol

enriching prairie farm life. We can ill afford to neglect the people who till our soil. If that neglect persists the effect upon our national life may well be tragic. Goldsmith, in his "Deserted Village", depicts the consequences of a declining agriculture:
111 fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates, and men decay.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that the necessity should be recognized of Canada adopting an enlightened policy toward agriculture, a policy which not only will meet the needs of the farmer, but rehabilitate Canada's greatest industry.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I have been in this house for fifteen years-five years of that time on the government side and ten years on the opposition side of the house. During the last ten years I have been here, the work devolving on members of the official opposition has been strenuous, because until lately there were fewer than forty of us. But this session is altogether different. A large number of capable and brilliant men have been added to the Progressive Conservative ranks, and I wish to say a word of appreciation of those who have spoken on our side. I have not time to mention the new members who have spoken from the other parties, but a number of them have done very well also. On our side, however, the hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. Bracken) had held1 for a longer period than any other man the premiership in a British legislature. He has surely lived up to our fondest expectations and, in my judgment, has conducted himself on an eminent plane since coming here this session. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt), the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell), the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), the hon. member for London (Mr. Manross), the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy), all new members, have given addresses which have not been excelled by those of any other new members in my time during the past fifteen years. They will all add greatly not only to the strength of the opposition but to the debating powers of this parliament.
So far three ministers have spoken in this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I will not make any comment on the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). I will refer briefly to the remarks of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton) and at greater length to the words of the bon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Howe). I simply 
wish to make an observation or two with reference to the remarks of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. I will tell him of something I heard on Sundaj^ last while on a visit to western Ontario. I heard this from a gentleman by whom I had the honour to be driven to a meeting which I was to address. He is quite well off and has two sons. Speaking about the family allowance, he said, "I am putting in the bank money sent me in the form of family allowance for my two sons for their future education in the event of its being required at some time. But I am wondering how it will help the education of the sons of the humble man, the son of the blacksmith, the machinist, the carpenter or any other artisan, and the humble farmer. I hope that if you have an opportunity you will mention this to the minister and suggest that he consider some means whereby something can be laid aside for the sons of those who are not as well privileged as my sons."
I thought that was a happy suggestion, because in my experience the sons and daughters of humbler people, wherever they have had a chance, have given a great account of themselves in this life.
This gentleman mentioned another matter with which I agree. It has to do with the soldier. In fact, I myself had a similar experience on Saturday last with a young soldier who is the counterpart of the one mentioned by my friend. This young man came to me on Saturday and seemed to be in distress. He said, "I have been six years overseas and hardly know what to do with myself. Everyone I speak to talks about something with which I am not familiar. They talk about baseball, golf, bridge, and one thing and another, whereas my last six years have been spent with guns, shells, cannon and bayonets. I cannot get my head down to thinking about a job." I suggest to the minister that in considering provision for returned soldiers special consideration be given these men; that the greatest sympathy be exercised and every effort made to get them back on their feet, and until they are back on their feet they should be taken care of in the manner in which soldiers who served four or five or six years, or less for that matter, should be cared for. That is all I have to say in reference to the remarks of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.
With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur, I shall have to disagree with some of the statements he made. The hon. member for Port Arthur, the Minister of Reconstruction, has a habit of making all-embracing statements. I have had long experience in employment. Not many in this

The Address-Mr. MacNicol
house have had more; perhaps none has had more and perhaps not many have had as much. So that I know something about employment. I was therefore surprised to hear the hon. member for Port Arthur, the Minister of Reconstruction, make the statement yesterday that at this moment two jobs are open for every applicant for a job. In my opinion that is absolutely impossible. I do not for a moment say that the minister was making a misstatement; he was just enthusiastic. It is not possible under normal circumstances, however, and much less under the present circumstances. There is no such thing as such a number of jobs going at the present time.
A little further the minister said that in 1946 we can expect an expansion of peacetime industry comparable with the expansion of industry generally during the war years.
I was in big industry during the last war; I was in big industry following that war, and again I say that statement cannot possibly be correct. I am not saying the minister intended to make an incorrect statement, but from my experience what he suggests is not possible. Everyone knows that, during this war, industry has been operating at many times the capacity it did during peace time. How, therefore, can the industrial fabric of Canada again in peace time take care of the number of positions which the minister has suggested in his statement? As I say, the minister is all-embracing in his statements about employment.
The brilliant young cartoonist of the Globe and Mail, of Toronto, Jack Boothe, on September 8 had a cartoon which in my opinion should attract the attention of the entire nation. The word "jobs" is perhaps the most important in the English language, and he emphasized this fact. He showed how allimportant it is at the present time. The cartoon, which was a classic, depicted jobs as monumental, gigantic and all-impressive; and they are. Anyone who has not a job or has been out of a job for any length of time knows how important it is to him to obtain one.
Two days later, to be exact, on September 10, backing up the cartoon of the young cartoonist, a large delegation of workers came here. They would not have come if the statement of the Minister of Reconstruction were correct, namely, that there are at present two jobs for everyone wanting a job. No; they came here because jobs are scarce and are getting scarcer. As every one knows who was there, they filled the railway committee room on that morning. Those who heard their remarks could realize their anxiety and their grave fears that the situation will become worse
and that more and more men will be laid off. I know that in my own constituency of Davenport, which has a large number of factories, some of which are large and some not so large, ever since the capitulation of Germany, and particularly since the capitulation of Japan, some factories have been laying off twenty hands, or perhaps a few dozen or a hundred or several hundred, and in one case a thousand or more. Now, that does not bear out the statement that there are two jobs for every one who wants one. My own experience, which has been gained from people coming to my door to get me to write letters for them to this place or that to get a job, is that the situation is not at all like that represented by the Minister of Reconstruction. I hope that he will not keep that frame of mind, but on the contrary that he and the government will do their utmost to organize and prepare in every possible way not two jobs for one but a job for every one, which will be amply satisfactory.
The minister also spoke about government plants. I presume he had in mind plants that the government had a lot to do with so far as their organization is concerned, wartime plants, and I intend to speak about two of them. I shall refer briefly to the Polymer plant at Sarnia. I spent quite some time in that plant, and having a knowledge of chemistry and engineering I could plainly see through all the various chemical operations that are carried out in that plant to produce the rubber.
In passing I wish to compliment all who have had anything to do with either the planning or organizing and completion of the Polymer plant. It is a credit to Canadian engineers and Canadians all round that they were able to build a plant to produce rubber in the satisfactory way in which the Polymer plant produces it. I am not going to take up the time of the house to say much about it, because there are other matters on which I wish to touch. The Polymer plant would be a subject for a forty-minute address in itself; but it was intensely interesting to watch the two different chemical reactions that produced the two different kinds of rubber, one kind for the tube and the other kind for the casing. On Sunday last I met a doctor at a memorial service I was attending. He had come over from that part of the province, and in the course of our conversation we talked about the Polymer plant. He told me that he had four tires which were made at Sarnia, that he has now driven them thirty thousand miles and that they have given him eminent satisfaction.

The Address-Mr. MacNicol
I suggest to the Minister of Reconstruction and to the government the imperative necessity of keeping the Polymer plant in operation in some way for the making of rubber if it is at all possible so to do. I hope the time has come when we Canadians can make at least some of the rubber we require. For the sake of trade perhaps we shall have to import some of it from outside Canada, but if the four thousand men and women now employed in the Polymer plant can be kept making rubber it will be an excellent thing for Canada. I hesitate to think what it would mean to the county of Lambton and the fine city of Sarnia if the Polymer plant ceased to make rubber. I suggest to the minister and to those associated with him, in view of the fact that the government has provided fifty million dollars to build and put that plant in operation as a war work, that if it is necessary to keep the plant in operation they allow whoever is operating it now or will be operating it in the future to use that capital investment on a long term and low interest rate. I would go so far as to suggest that the interest be not collected if that would keep the plant in operation. If it will keep four thousand men and women employed and give us our tires and rubber at the same price as that at which we can buy them elsewhere-and I am told they would be able to do that; I am not in favour of the Canadian people paying more for rubber than they can buy it for elsewhere -under those circumstances I am not opposed to the government letting the investment lie, not demanding the interest and not capitalizing the interest unless returns permit it.
I now wish to say a word or two about another great industry in a section of the country in which I spent some time this summer, namely, the lake St. John area in Quebec. The province of Quebec has a vast treasure in the lake St. John area. It is a fine agricultural section. I did) not know that before I went there. I had the idea it might be a barren, cold area, but I found it wholly the reverse. I found fine farms and prosperous farmers. So far as I could see, the whole area was ,a good agricultural area. It is an area that is rich in forest resources. There are a number of pulp and paper mills, such as at Jonquiere and Chicoutimi, and I have forgotten the names of the other places. It is a fine area both industrially and agriculturally. In the midst of it is that great lake, not so large as lakes go, but still a substantial lake of four hundred square miles area at the highest water level-not the normal but the level maintained by the dams at Isle Maligne. It is a beautiful picture. From the air the whole area looks like a flat bowl and in the

centre the lake. In fact the Indian name for lake St. John was Peguagomi, meaning "flat". We now call it by the beautiful name of lake St. John, from which runs a magnificent river. That river is not very long; I believe it ends about thirty miles south of the lake, because from there on while it is still called the Saguenay river it is really an arm of the sea, with the tide rising at the mouth of the river and going right up beyond Chicoutimi to the foot of the Shipshaw power plant discharge. In that thirty miles the water drops 320 feet.
Here is one of the most remarkable demonstrations of the ability of Canadian engineers, of whom I believe the principal one, whom I knew quite well, was the late Mr. H. G. Acres. His was the conception, I understand, of the final magnificent simplicity of that great power plant, which is almost inconceivable. I can picture how the first engineers, looking at the discharge at lake St. John (past) Isle Maligne and the other islands, watching the rushing waters go down Chute a Caron, must have been staggered by the magnitude of the task of harnessing that river; but thanks to the late Mr. Acres and those associated with him, whose names I cannot recall at the moment, this remarkable undertaking was carried out.
The first power plant is immediately south of the lake, at Isle Maligne, where there is a drop of 110 feet. From there down to the canal above Chute a Caron the water is level, because of the dams and two power plants at Shipshaw. At No. 1 plant the water drops 160 feet and at No. 2 plant it drops 210 feet. These power plants, taking water from the same canal, I believe represent the greatest concentration of power development at the present time in a single plant anywhere in the world. I am thoroughly conversant with Grand Coulee and Boulder dam, neither of which, so far as I know, is yet complete as to power installations. When Grand Coulee is completed it will be able to produce about
2.700.000	horse-power. Boulder dam when completed will produce about 1,835,000 horsepower. These three plants on the Saguenay river really are all one combined power plant, though the one at Isle Maligne is twenty miles up the river, since they all draw water from the same source. The day I was at Shipshaw the plant at Isle Maligne was producing
540.000	horse-power; No. I plant at Arvida, adjacent to Shipshaw and drawing from the same canal, was producing about 260,000 horse-power but could produce another 130,000, since they have the positions ready for the installation of two more generators, and at Shipshaw itself the production was
980.000	horse-power. I was surprised to find

The Address-Mr. MacNicol
that the name "Shipshaw" is just a name for the whole development. The Shipshaw river flows right in there at the very' place where the tide itself stops, and the first proposal was to deliver the water out of No. 2 plant into the Shipshaw river, which is immediately below it. But the engineers felt that the Shipshaw valley would not be large enough to take the water from that vast power plant, so they just turned the plant around and delivered the water into the Saguenay at the base of Chute a Caron falls, where the tide ceases. As I said, the day I was there No. 2 plant was producing 980,000 horse-power, so at that time the three plants were producing a total of something less than
1,800,000	horse-power; and that was not their full capacity. They could produce a great deal more than that. I believe if they added another storage reservoir to the three they now7 have they could raise their production to 2,500,000 horse-power, which would make this larger than any other plant in the world, barring Grand Coulee alone; and it may be some time before Grand Coulee produces anything like that.
The engineers deserve unstinted praise for what they have done. To have power of this kind it is necessary to have a continuous flow of a stated amount of water. I believe that with the reservoirs they have adjacent to the Saguenay river they can maintain a constant flow of 42,500 cubic feet per second. They are able to do this because away up the Peribonka river they built a large lake. That river was made famous by a noted writer, the author of Maria Chapdelaine, whose name I forget at the moment.


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: Louis Hemon.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That river has on it a lake one hundred miles long, about what is called Passe Dangereuse; I suppose in English we would call it Dangerous Passage. The lake behind that dam contains a reservoir of 183 billion cubic feet of water in storage. Not far from that, on a stream which runs into the same river, they have created what they call lake Manouan, in which they have another 78 billion cubic feet of water in storage. In other words, on those two rivers or in those two reservoirs they have about 260 billion cubic feet of water in storage; and by raising lake St. John itself, with its own area when raised of 412 square miles, they are able to store another 170 billion cubic feet of water. So that they have behind their power plant an almost inexhaustible supply of water in storage.
Many times I have wondered what we are going to do to keep that vast power plant in operation after the war is over. If it can 47696-17
be so organized I believe that in this area, with the power available, we can locate enough industries to make up a large city, and still be able to send out to Quebec city and other cities in that vicinity such volumes of power as would make them all grow-because nothing in the world will make a city grow faster than cheap power. If that area is given the support it should be given, then I say that there is destined some time to be there a vast manufacturing industry.
At the present time, and I believe for some time to come, the aluminum plant at Arvida will use all the power available. The set-up of thaL plant is marvellous. I hold in my hand a piece of bauxite I took from one of the boats which come to Port Alfred. This is nonmetallic, but because it produces metal I should imagine it would be classified as a metallic ore. The bauxite is light enough, but we know that out of every ton of bauxite brought in from Demarara-British Guiana, half a ton of aluminum is manufactured. It is most interesting to watch a ship unloading bauxite, and later being loaded with paper from the Jonquiere paper mill, and from other paper plants in that area. After being loaded, the ship sails for England. Upon reaching there it is loaded with merchandise, and sent back to British Guiana. That is real trade! That is the kind of stuff to bring to Canada. Through the labour of about 8,000 men and women at the Arvida plant about half a million tons of aluminum is turned out each year.
May I say a word on behalf of the company operating at that point. It has built fine houses for its employees. A worker is permitted to buy his house at a low rate, I talked to several men and found them very happy in their employment at Arvida. The houses are heated and plumbed. Some of them are of stone, and all are beautiful. They range in size from four to six rooms, and I believe that about 1,800 have been built in that city. Arvida is a beautiful city, a credit to Canada, and particularly to the province of Quebec. The houses are rented at rates as low as S13.50 a month, running up to $34. That, indeed, is a low rental.
And that is the way it should be. A company of that description should go the limit- and, so far as I can see, it is doing so-to care for its employees. I believe it is taking the best of care, and is looking after the welfare of its employees. I, for one am going to urge as strongly as I can upon the minister in charge that if at some future time all the power there available cannot be used in the making of aluminum, some effort should be made to use it in the manufacturing of other commodities, so as to give employment to Canadians.

25S
The Address-Mr. MacNicol

Last night the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) spoke about the coming conference, and I believe other members of the government who have preceded him in the debate have made a similar reference. But we cannot be sure that the conference will be a success. I, for one, would ask that the ministers should not put all their eggs into one basket and base their hopes for employment upon something which may never materialize. The problem is too serious to neglect or to leave entirely to a conference.
I recommend that a careful survey be made of the report of the committee on reconstruction and rehabilitation which has met during the last three or four sessions of parliament, and over which at the last session the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) presided. That committee has tabled two excellent reports, to which reference was made yesterday by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). He was one of the most active members on the committee. He and I saw eye to eye on almost everything, with the exception of politics. When it came to jobs we were unanimous. The hon. member made reference to the work of that committee when he addressed the house yesterday, and had I the time I should like to do so to-day. However, I would point out briefly that no less than twenty splendid opportunities are set out in that report for the providing of jobs in a big way.
Every provision should be made to provide men with jobs, men from Toronto and elsewhere who are out of work. I say that projects should be ready to provide jobs. For instance, mention has been made about irrigation, one of my pet subjects. I am sorry to say that up to the present time very little can be done for Saskatchewan from the Saskatchewan river. Two or three years ago I recommended strongly in the house that the government should set up forthwith a Saskatchewan river authority, organized along the lines of the Tennesee valley authority, because that great Saskatchewan river runs through three provinces and should be given special attention. Certainly if all the water is taken out of it before it reaches Manitoba, then Manitoba will be left holding the bag.
Such an authority could state what volume of water should be taken from the river and at what points it should be taken. If such an authority were set up Saskatchewan should most assuredly receive from the South Saskatchewan river all the water required to irrigate west of Regina. This would mean the construction of large dams. But we are not ready to do that; why? Had I been the minister of the responsible department-and

perhaps I should not say this-I should have had) plans ready. I was a business man, and as such did things in a business way. Business men do not monkey-doodle and fiddle around, but go straight to work and do things.
Had I been minister I should have had ready at least the plans and specifications for the dams where required. Now look at the box we are in! While it may be said that nothing can be done for Saskatchewan, the same cannot be said about Alberta. We must do something. I ask the responsible minister to tell the house why he has not plans and specifications ready for the building of the Spring Coulee reservoir, which should and must be built, if we are to retain for Canada the water rights on the St. Mary river. Those plans should be ready.
I have surveyed the site carefully; I have made careful examinations there, and I know that the engineers have stated the position correctly. A dam can be built there and water can be conserved. Let me add that water is a most priceless heritage for the prairie provinces-and yet to-day we are letting billions and billions of cubic feet of it flow off down to Hudson bay, thereby making no return whatsoever to this country, when water required should be taken our of the river in Alberta- and might as well be, because in the states south of the boundary line they are taking it out, for purposes of irrigation.
The minister should be ready to send men at once to do that work. I would ask him this: What are the boys from the prairie provinces going to do when they come home? Last night he said:
Just as it took many months to move people from one locality to another into war jobs, it will take a shorter period to redistribute our people into peace-time jobs.
I presume a great many of the people who came from Saskatchewan to work in factories at Toronto, Stratford, Hamilton, Galt, Brants ford, and other eastern1 cities, will want to return to the west. What will there be for them to do? The minister should have his programme ready. Many are engineers. Many of them know something about the making and pouring of concrete, and how foundations should be set. The programme should be ready, so that those brave lads who rendered such high service on the plains of Europe, in the skies over Europe and on the seas, boys who had never seen ships or aircraft before they enlisted and were compelled to operate them, may have something to do when they return bo their homes.
Orders would soon be coming back to the factories in eastern Canada, and in that way

The Address-Mr. Maybank
men would be employed east and west. I would not hesitate to support a programme of 8100,000,000. What is $100,000,000?. It is hardly the price of a super-battleship, and nobody makes any fuss over the sinking of one battleship. But a programme of $100,000,000 would rehabilitate the whole of the three western provinces, particularly Saskatchewan and Alberta, and provide them with power and irrigation, and water for such fine cities as Regina and Moose Jaw, so that they could maintain their identity, and the power that would be developed would lead to the establishment of many industries in the western provinces. Irrigation now planned would put into productivity approximately 3,000,000 more acres of land. Look what that would mean all along the line, right down all the way from the irrigated area itself to eastern Canada. I have been out west many times, and my observation of all the towns and cities in the west has been that perhaps the city of Lethbridge is the finest example or at all events an extremely fine example of the prosperity which comes to a town or city in the centre of an irrigated area. The benefits flow all along the line from that thriving, prosperous and healthy city of Lethbridge.
In conclusion, may I say that I have deliberately refrained from saying anything of an acrimonious nature because from long association with workers and employees my heart goes out to them and I want to see them continued in employment and security. All of us together, every member of the house, should be devoting his time not to such debatable subjects-I mean in these times, perhaps I should call them educational subjects- as a new flag or a new anthem for Canada. Our minds should be concentrated on the production of jobs to take care of the thousands and thousands of our boys who are coming home and those thousands and thousands who are going to be thrown out of employment in this country.
It is all very nice for the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply to say: I can see one million jobs. Well, I cannot see them, and no other living man in this country can see them. A man came to me for a job some days ago and I told him, "I have just read that selective service state that there are 143,601 jobs vacant" -I am using just an arbitrary figure-"and there are only 31,275 applicants"-again an arbitrary figure. This unemployed man said to me, "The figures should be turned around the other way."
Last night the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply said something like this-and again 47696-17i
I am using arbitrary figures-that there are 232,601 jobs vacant and only 73,000 applicants. But you go to selective service for a job and what sort of job do they send you to? To a pick-and-shovel job or something of that sort. They are not sending men out to take a job as an engineer or machinist or as a chemist or other professional man. Oh, no; there are lots of so-called pick-and-shovel jobs, but not the kind1 of job a man wants to take who has a wife and family to keep and a home to maintain that he is purchasing. While on that subject I am going to suggest to the responsible minister that it is time that some plan be put into operation so that the unemployed worker will not, as he did during the depression, lose his equity in the house he is buying merely because he has lost his job and is unable through lack of earning power to keep up the principal and interest payments. Men are buying houses to-day at inflated prices, and they are inflated prices. A man that I know well boaight a house some days ago. I would not give $3,200 for it, and it cost him $7,800. He never will be able to pay for it. If he loses his job he may lose all his equity in the house. I hope that that will not be allowed to happen again. It was the most heart-breaking thing I saw during the depression. Yet I saw it happen to so many of our finest citizens, whole-souled, thorough Canadians, who had invested one or two or three thousand dollars in the purchase of a home which they would have been able to own some day had1 their jobs continued, but many of them, lost their jobs and, in due course, lost their equity Jn the homes they had been buying. It was one of the saddest things I have seen, and I hope that the government will take steps to see to it that workers unfortunate enough to lose their jobs do not also lose their equity in their homes, that at least they will get back the money they have put into the property.


Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the last speaker (Mr. MacNicol). I think the whole house always enjoys hearing from the hon. member for Davenport. We always have an informative speech from him, and I know that so far as the members from western Canada are concerned they are glad to hear what he has to say because he shows that he is interested in problems right across Canada. Sometimes it has seemed, the problems of the prairies claim his special interest. When he presents a picture to us it is always clearly painted. I was disappointed for a little while this afternoon when he stayed away from the
The Address-Mr. Maybank

prairies for so long, for I feared that we were not going to hear from him to-day on our part of the world. But I was glad to see him come at last to the Saskatchewan river. I was reminded, as he spoke, of the old story of there being no mill by the dam site. We can only hope that he is wrong in his fear that irrigation will not soon be developed in the west.
In my first words, I wish to speak of two famous regiments. Reference was made to them yesterday by my colleague from Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch). Respecting these regiments I wish to make a suggestion, indeed a straight request of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott).
The final turn of the scroll of the tragic drama that we call Hong Kong is being unwound, and the closing scenes bring some compensation for all the horror of that terrible episode. Equally those closing scenes remind us of the heroism of that episode. Greater even than the horror is the heroism. The final scene to-day shows that we have reunions in the city of Quebec, and reunions in my prairie city of Winnipeg. The Grenadiers will again meet their loved ones in my city, and the Royal Rifles of Canada will embrace their dear families in historic Quebec.
The whole picture as I review it leads me to make this specific request of the government through the Minister of National Defence. It is this, that in determining the composition of the permanent force of Canada for the future he will make sure that the identities of these two brave regiments will be maintained. It is my submission that the names of these heroic units should be kept in the Canadian army, before all the people, as a daily reminder to us of the imperishable deeds which are associated with their names.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South yesterday paid his respects to the new leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), and thanked him for getting out and giving him his house to live in. I wish to pay my respects to the leader of the opposition, he being for a long time a distinguished citizen of my province. I am sorry to see him in his present plight, but still, since he apparently desires it, I congratulate him upon the leadership of the Conservative party. That term "Conservative", I may say, comes most usually to my lips although I have no constitutional bias against using the expression "Progressive Conservative". I realize that nobody will be fooled by the prefix, so what does it matter?
Well, I congratulate him not merely upon leadership but upon the speech he made in this house a few days ago. It is not the first time I have heard the hon. gentleman

discourse. In fact I have heard him a number of times, and it has always been my view that he spoke with clarity and sometimes with the force of conviction. I feel that he is to be congratulated to-day upon his usual clarity.
I underscore at once that my congratulations are upon the form of the speech, not the subject matter.
Adding-to what I have said, I should like to review some of the leader's statements; and the first one to which I will refer commands my whole support. The hon. gentleman said as reported in Hansard at page 28:
I want to say, with all the emphasis at my command, that this nation will not stand for any chiseling down of the promises and commitments made to service personnel while they were fighting our wars abroad.
In these words the leader of the opposition was absolutely right, although why he should have adopted, as I thought, a minatory tone was rather hard to see. It must be admitted,
I think, that Canada has enacted already the best veteran legislation there is in the world. In spite of that, we all know there are still some blanks to be filled in and some improvements to be made. This must be done, and I do not think there is any disagreement about it.
Certainly the Canadian people are against "chiseling" in this matter; and I think that is why a great number of the Conservative old guard were left at home, because the electors remembered the chiseling operations of the Conservative government between 1930 and 1935, and they were not going to be fooled by the fact that the party had chosen a new leader and put a prefix to its name. However, the main point I wish to make is that we are all agreed that there must be no chiseling, that the administration of veterans' laws must be characterized by the utmost generosity.
I want now to offer a warning to the speaker whom I have quoted; I think it will not be out of place. I believe that he should tread warily in offering any criticisms of veterans' legislation. He should be careful not to suggest or seem to suggest that somebody else might do some chiseling. When he was premier of Manitoba he was the first person to take away a tax exemption which had been granted to veterans by the government which preceded him. But he who later admitted that he was "the most continuously successful political leader the British empire has produced in this century", was the first responsible statesman in this country to do a little chiseling on the veterans of the last war; and it is not likely to be forgotten.
I should like to make a further short analysis of the hon. gentleman's remarks.

The Address-Mr. Maybank
We all know that the opposition do not have to formulate policies when they are criticizing the policies of the government. Nevertheless it is not unreasonable to expect that a national figure will declare his belief or his disbelief on some points, or that there will be a positive assertion about something, to be found at some place in a speech which he makes. Now, perusal of his speech will reveal that never from start to finish did he declare himself as being favourable to an action or definitely against some action. There was only one exception; this was when, he said he was in favour of a reduction in the income tax. Of course everybody is in favour of a reduction in the income tax, nobody, probably, more profoundly or firmly than the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) himself. So that it is hardly worth while to give the leader o>f the opposition a score for that one positive statement of belief.
When the hon. gentleman dealt with meat rationing, for example-and this is illustrative of the whole thing-his unwillingness to commit himself was very noticeable indeed. He says, the people are asking so and so; the people are wondering what about this; they think such and such a thing ought to be done; they are going to be disappointed if so and so is not done. Never once did he state that he was against meat rationing; never once did he state that he was in favour of meat rationing. He says that if rationing is necessary it is due to some former fault of the government. Well, suppose that is admitted for illustration's sake. Even so, the situation has to be dealt with. If some sin of this administration in bygone days is the reason that meat rationing is necessary, still the problem is there, and he does not seem to be willing either to condemn or to approve.
Thinking over the whole speech, I was reminded of a poem of Kipling. I do not remember the name of the poem, but it was the story of a man who had died. He went to heaven seeking admission. Upon examination up there it was found that he had never done very much harm in his life, and prima facie it would appear that he was entitled to entrance; but on the other hand he had never done any good, and St. Peter slammed the door in his face. So he went down to the other place. But when he went down there the same sort of thing developed. St. Peter having thrown him from the one place, Nick interviewed him at the other; and sure enough he found he had never done much good and therefore he appeared to be entitled to admission to hell; but on the other hand there was no great evidence of depravity or wrongdoing in his life and Nick, being more robust in sin than usual that day, chased him off the premises of
hades and he was not admitted there. He was too neutral for either place. I do not remember just what did become of the soul after that; he moved back and forth, I think, between the two stations. While I cannot say for certain the subsequent facts, it has occurred *to me that perhaps there is something in the doctrine of reincarnation. This neutral soul perhaps entered the body of another person, or if that be not so, he will yet do so and will be back in this life before long. If already back, I presume he has already been chosen as leader of the Conservative party, and if he is not already reincarnated I expect that before long he will be chosen as leader of that party when in a couple of years' time they are shopping around again to get another leader. In a couple of years they will have to have some person else to carry their burnt-out torch.
I do not wish to emulate the leader of the opposition by leaving any uncertainty as to my views on the subject of meat rationing. I do not believe in pussy-footing about it. I recall that Jesius spoke with approval of those who had fed other people who were hungry and who had clothed other people who were naked. I know of no better doctrine than that, and it directs me to support the plans of to-day. I know there may be a difference as between the Christian concept of charity and the aim of serving our own convenience, but in any such case I am going to be guided by the. former and not the latter consideration. I wish to add, although I think it unnecessary, that if any economic justification is needed you will find it in this, that the wheat we already sent to Greece will pay dividends to us and to our children, great fat dividends, for many years to come.
If we are to feed the hungry we shall have to see that there is fair play with regard to the remaining food in this country. We cannot just leave it to be purchased by the more well to do in the community. We have to have some plan for dividing it up. That means rationing.
I think it is probable some changes will be found necessary in the plans at the present moment. It would be an odd thing if such were not, the case. But the need of rationing, when you have induced scarcity, surely must be apparent to all. There may be quarrelling about some detail or another, but if we are to feed the hungry we must have a plan of division for that part which is left. I believe that after what I have said no one will be in any doubt as to my view. Whether my stand will be satisfactory to all or most, I do not know, but 1 do not want anyone to be in doubt as to where I stand on this matter.
The Address-Mr. Maybank

One of the troubles of the Minister of Finance is that people ask for tax reductions and also ask for expenditures. I am>
afraid I would have to plead guilty if a charge of that kind were made against me. However, the expenditure I wish to recommend to the government is an urgent one, and on the other hand I believe it is not a large one.
What I wish to recommend is that the insurance principle with relation to pensions should be extended to those of the forces who have seen Canadian service. I have already met with a considerable number of cases of injustice where veterans who, through no fault of their own-and mark that, that is one important point I would put forward-did not have overseas experience, and are disabled, which almost certainly would not have been the case if they had not been in the forces. Worse still, there have been cases of death and widows are without pensions by reason of the law as it stands to-day. It seems to me that the extension of the insurance principle is a most important piece of legislation.
Moreover, the cost of this can now be seen. It could not be seen in 1940. It will not all come at one time. It extends over a period of time, and I believe it is absolutely necessary in the circumstances to-day.
About the reduction in taxation, as I said, everyone is in favour of it. I have been satisfied all along that every possible reduction in direct taxes would be made. I have a feeling that the Minister of Finance cannot do as much in 1945, when the budget comes down so late in the year, as can be done next year, but I feel sure that the government is well seized of the fact that we cannot have a satisfactory reconversion, a reconstruction; we cannot have a recreation of productive life and consequent employment unless there is a substantial reduction in rates.
I hope that indirect taxes will not be overlooked. They press most heavily upon those who are least able to pay. Indirect taxes pyramided on top of one another result in a great increase in the final cost of the articles people use. A friend of mine had to get two chains for his bicycle in the United States. The cost was $6, and by the time he got them it was $10. Shotgun shells and other types of ammunition are prohibited from import by reason of indirect taxes. I am not suggesting that the articles I have mentioned are weighted heavily in the cost of living chart or schedule. But they illustrate facts covering a very long list of articles that people have to buy and that figure often quite importantly in the cost of living and increase it greatly.
(Mr. Maybaiik.J
Another thing about indirect taxes-and this applies particularly to tariff taxes-is that the government often does not get the tax anyway. It very often goes to some local manufacturer instead of going to the government.
Since I have said a word about both expenditures and taxation, I should like to make a suggestion tending to harmonize the two apparently conflicting ideas. It is this. Search for waste and unnecessary expenditure, and be vigilant in searching. There must have been lots of waste during the war and I do not think anyone is very critical about it. When a six thousand million dollar business or machine is quickly developed and is made to function it is inevitable that there must be a great deal of waste, particularly when the purpose of the machine is to save the liberties of people. People are not going to be too finicky about the careful conservation of a dollar in these circumstances. The situation has changed now, however, and I submit that economy should be the order of the day from now on.
Here is an example of waste. John Doe is going to be discharged from the air force. He is located at Saint John and is on furlough in Winnipeg. He is going to be discharged; that is decided. Why should he not be discharged from Winnipeg? No; it cannot be done. He has to go to Saint John, the reason given being that he has to turn in his equipment. No business concern would operate in that way. There is no business man in the world who would put himself to the expense of bringing a man back from Winnipeg to discharge him in Saint John in order to give him signature for some articles he has in his possession. Of course, expenses have to be paid both ways, from Winnipeg to Saint John and back again; and other expenses besides travelling expenses are paid. In addition you have a loss to the community of that man, who is not engaged in the .production of wealth when he could be. I believe such acts can be carried out more expeditiously and cheaply. Economy should be the order of the day. I Know that officers who are making rules will impose all kinds of objections, but when officers are told that such and such a thing must result, it generally results. As a matter of fact, in the particular case I have mentioned, if all the equipment that John Doe had were lost it would not add up to as much as it cost to take him to Saint John and back to Winnipeg again.
Finally, I wish to say how much I welcome the policy of the government, as evidenced in the speech from the throne, of the recognition of a growing spirit of Canadianism in the country. For a great many years it has irked

The Address-Mr. May bank
me that if I said I was a Canadian my assertion could not end there. In effect it was claimed that there was no such thing as a Canadian. Like millions of others I thought and spoke and felt and acted1 like a Canadian, but I imagine I was not one because there was no such thing. This people within the bounds of what is called Canada-there cannot be any argument about the name of the territory-is great enough to declare that there is such a thing as a Canadian, and the world will certainly respect it. Our stature in the eyes of the world is greater than it has ever been before, and it has grown apace in the last few years. I welcome particularly the legislation that is forecast, which is thus a recognition of Canadianism, the law respecting citizenship, the law adopting a national flag of suitable design and the law adopting a national anthem.
There is another step we should take. We should devise a method for ourselves of amending our constitution, and we should do it soon. We could have done this long ago but we gave preference to other things. Not merely is it inconsistent with our own dignity as a nation to leave matters as they are, but it is putting an improper onus upon the parliament at Westminster. We have been and are treating the British parliament like a chore boy. Moreover, there may some day be an application for a constitutional amendment in the manner that we have so far been following which will be a highly contentious matter; the parliament over there or the government of the day over there will be placed in a highly embarrassing position in being required to decide between two contending factions in Canada, and we have no right to impose that burden. We should make sure that it will never occur; we should make sure by taking into our own hands the power of amending the constitution.
I am not at the moment going to suggest what formula we might adopt. Some sections of the constitution might be amended by the mere passing of resolutions in these houses of parliament; resting a certain period of time on the table, as the expression is, and no objection being taken, they would then constitute amendments. That would apply only to minor matters. On the other hand, it may be that we would have to work out some voting method-I think that is the most likely plan to be acceptable-such as they have in the United States and in all federal countries. The late Ernest Lapointe at one time spoke with approval of a plan, namely, that if two-thirds of the provinces advocated a change
in constitution, that would effect the change, provided that it did not impinge upon racial and religious rights, and if such rights were touched, then unanimity of the provinces would be necessary. That plan would probably be acceptable across Canada. I am not advocating it especially, but it is one of the plans that could be considered as soon as we decide that we shall take the constitution into our own hands. All I wish to urge to-day is that we must turn our attention to becoming masters of our own constitutional law. From that much more can follow in the way of progress and improvement.
As a footnote I should like to point out to you, sir that the various interprovincial conferences we have been having these last few years have been adopted really as a cumbrous substitute for constitutional amendment. Of course that is a dangerous and unsatisfactory method of getting along in this country. As all hon. members know, as the situation now stands, practically any person out of ten people can upset any possibility of agreement. Remember what happened a few years ago. Three men did not wish to sit in a conference; result, no agreement. Over the last several years this government by dint of tremendous work has overcome to a certain extent the difficulties that have resulted from the breaking up of that interprovincial conference. It has been a heavy task, and we cannot hope to carry on our governmental business in this country by various makeshift agreements, one following upon the other. We cannot run the risk of progress being held up by one, two or three wilful men.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: You had better change your system, then.


Ralph Maybank: Well, I do not believe that this funny money system from Alberta will do any good in that regard.


John Horne Blackmore: Men like you would not


Ralph Maybank: The way toward greater progress is to give to the people of Canada full control over their basic legislation just as they already have complete control over their ordinary domestic laws.


Mr. W. F. KUHL (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to just about all of the speeches which have been made thus far in this debate. I would say as a general comment that there is complete unanimity in all parts of this house in the expression of the desire for a better Canada. I would say, however, that there is not the same unanimity as to what constitutes a better Canada. Certainly I do not consider that some of the
The Address-Mr. Kuhl

policies which have been advocated thus far, if applied to our nation, would make Canada a better nation. Furthermore, I believe there is also a lack of complete unanimity as to the means to be employed to bring about a better Canada.
Mention has been made by a few of the hon. members who have thus far spoken of the fact that we have not yet established a national objective. It has been suggested that before we can proceed logically we must lay down some fundamental objective to attempt to attain in the future. Personally I recognize that we must pass through a period of transition, and that during the period of reconversion we cannot hope for the things we may expect later on. Nevertheless I believe we should certainly indicate what we consider to be the long range objectives we are hoping to achieve, and do all in our power to implement them gradually as we pass through this period.
What is the objective that has been enunciated more frequently than any other thus far in this debate? I would say that with the exception of the members of the Social Credit group each hon. member in turn has enunciated an objective which I consider to be both impossible and undesirable. What is that objective? It has been proclaimed on the hustings as well as here in the house. Each individual member, in monotonous repetition, has proclaimed that the thing we must have abqve all else in this country is full employment. Hon. members have been talking about a new order, a new way of life and a new outlook. Well, I beg to ask: what is new about full employment? Work is the oldest thing in the world; it is as old as Methuselah. Most hon. members may have been elected on a programme of full employment, but I can assert that I was not. As I listened to radio broadcasts and such public speakers as I had the opportunity to hear, invariably they said, "Elect me and I will put you to work." Personally I did no such thing; I told my electors that if they saw fit to reelect me I would do everything humanly possible to put everybody out of work, and I think I spoke to as great a cross-section of the electors of my constituency as most hon. members did. 1 addressed no fewer than forty-nine public meetings during the campaign; I do not know whether any hon. gentleman here did better than that. But I can say that on' every occasion I made the same statement, and the electors of Jasper-Edson saw fit to reelect me as their spokesman in the House of Commons for the third consecutive time with a greater majority than ever before.
I have already asked the question: what is there new about work? If all we want out
[Mr. Kuhl 1
of this life is full employment and a job, why did we ever dispose of Adolf Hitler, who was the greatest provider of work the world has ever seen? He could create more jobs in one day than the Prime Minister of this country could create in his lifetime. Not only did he put all Germany to work; he put all Europe and eventually the whole world to work. I say that at least as far as my constituents are concerned, they are looking for a holiday. Some of them have worked for one hundred years and have not had a holiday yet. I should like to suggest as an antidote to the phrase "full employment," the slogan "full enjoyment."
As I have said already, I believe those elected on the platform of full employment have been returned on a programme which is impossible as well as undesirable. Why do I say it is impossible? As I listen to hon. members take part in this discussion, I am amazed. One would think we were still living in the oxcart days, when people made their living with their bare hands. Every hon. member, whether he is an industrialist, a professional man, a farmer or whatever he may be, must know we are living in the greatest age of machine power and mass production methods man has ever seen. Everywhere you go in industry to-day, whether into a manufacturing plant, a mine, or on a farm, you see one man with one machine doing the work of hundreds or perhaps thousands of people. Jusl consider the position during the war. We had approximately two million of our ablest producers out of work, as far as the production of the essentials of life was concerned. They were not producing those things which would have enriched our lives; they were producing things which were destroyed and wiped out of existence. Yet with those two million of our best producers out of production the rest of us carried on and provided all the essentials for ourselves and for them as well, on a grander scale than has been enjoyed by most people in the last fifteen or twenty years. Surely this indicates that there has entered into our national life a factor the like of which has never before been witnessed in the history of mankind; that is the power machine. No doubt yesterday hon. members received in their mail, as I did, copies of a publication entitled "Timber." I should like to draw to their attention-probably they noticed it, but did not get the full significance of it-the illustration on t-he first page of this publication. It seems to me particularly applicable at this time, inasmuch as a great deal of the discussion in the debate has centred around housing.

The Address-Mr. Kuhl
On this page I find two illustrations of lumber-piling machinery, and under one of those illustrations I find this statement:
Paul Bunyan, the legendary Hercules of the woods, was just a piker! Here's a man equipped to lift up to 15.000 pounds of lumber to a height of 171 feet from bottom of load to ground. He can trundle that load around the yards at speeds up to 35 miles per hour and manoeuvre like a jack rabbit.
Then the descriptive material in respect of the second illustration, which shows a lumbercarrying machine, is as follows:
Or take the lad in photo B. He straddles 6 tons of lumber, picks it up and rolls away with no more muscular exertion than Paul Bunyan selecting a toothpick.
This publication came into the hands of hon. members only yesterday. I point out, however, that probably they do not get the significance of what is involved in these illustrations.
Turning to a later page in the magazine, I find an illustration of a chain saw, and the following advertising material:
A well deserved tribute, for its speed in felling and bucking is almost uncanny .	.	.
enabling one crew to do the work of 20 men using cross-cut saws.
Those are only a few of the illustrations 1 chanced upon in looking through this publication. In addresses I have had the privilege of making in this chamber I have placed on record page after page of statistics indicating the extent to which the modern power machine has displaced human effort. I shall not worry the house on this occasion by repeating what I have said earlier. However, I think every hon. member must be aware of the fact indicated by these illustrations, because time and again they have seen the actual machinery in operation. These labour saving devices are typical of every industry, including farming. To-day one man and his son can accomplish on a farm what it required crews to accomplish only a few years ago.
The same is true throughout all industry. I ask, in all sincerity: How can hon. members suggest logically that we can have jobs for everyone who is willing and able to work, in the face of such circumstances. They must realize that there are only so many hours of work to be done. Regardless of what is to be produced, only so many hours of work are required for that production. If it takes four hours to produce a certain unit, how can anyone insist logically that it must take eight? Yet that is what hon. members are implying when they are insisting that we must have full employment.
I have heard it argued before and probably before the conclusion of this debate it will be argued again, that machines make more rather 47696-18
than less work. About the only come-back ever made to me in respect of machines displacing human labour was that of an hon. member who pointed out on one occasion that someone has to make the machines. Well, for goodness' sake, are the machines made with bare hands? No; machines are made with machines.
To-day employment has become largely that of button pressing and lever pulling. During the war I had the pleasure of going through a number of industrial institutions, and I can say that most of the work boils down to just *that.
I have before me some statistics indicating the truth of the assertion that the necessary number of hours of work is constantly decreasing. and that machines are putting men out of work. These figures are taken from a United States publication entitled "Man-hours and Distribution," and I refer particularly to a table taken from a study entitled "Machinery, Employment and Purchasing Power" made by the national industrial conference board in the United States.
This publication gives statistics in respect of the number of hours of work and the material produced over a period of years in the United States. The figures show that at the turn of the century, 1900, the number of man hours per unit of production for all industry in the United States stood at 6-3. Then, leaving out the intervening years, we find that for 1935 the figure under the same heading is 2-31. Does this not indicate that the use of machines is having the effect of decreasing the number of hours of necessary work?
It will be noted that the last figure set out in the table is for 1935. While I have no figures for 1945, I should not be the least bit surprised if the figures stood at about one man hour per unit of production. These figures show that to-day with the use of machinery it is possible to produce in one hour about six times the quantity produced in the same time at the turn of the century. Or, to put it another way, to produce an article today only one-sixth of the time is required that was required at the turn of the century.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. MEAT RATIONING



CONFERENCE BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND MEAT DEALERS ASSOCIATION

Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house I should like to answer a question that was

The Address-Mr. Kuhl

asked this afternoon in my unavoidable absence. The question was whether the meeting to-morrow between the retail meat merchants and the wartime prices and trade board would be open to the public. I have given this consideration. Since the meeting is for the purpose of trying to obviate grounds of complaint or objections to the meat rationing system as it now operates I have come to the conclusion that we would be much more likely to make real progress if the meeting were held in private, and that is the decision.


Mr. FLEMING:: Does that mean that the press will be excluded?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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.
Walter Frederick Kuhl: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was endeavouring to establish that the future welfare of Canada must be predicated upon a sound objective, and I had indicated that the objective which was being proclaimed by most hon. members was that of full employment. I challenge that objective as being either sound or desirable. I think we have not yet decided in this house or in this country whether full employment is a means to an end or an end in itself. As I listen to hon. members discussing the subject in the house I find them constantly confusing the two. I have not heard anyone yet clearly and distinctly indicate whether he believes in full employment as an end in itself or merely as a means to an end, and I think it ought to be made definitely clear by every hon. member who speaks on this subject. So far as I am personally concerned I consider that full employment is not an end in itself, but a means to an end, and it should never be regarded as anything else.
From time to time in this house hon. gentlemen, including such members as the member for Davenport, (Mr. MacNieol) who spoke this afternoon and others, arise and indicate the tremendous number of public works projects of one kind and another that are feasible and desirable in this country. I commend them for all these suggestions, and in particular the hon. member for Davenport,

who has rendered valuable service to this house for the work he has done in that regard. But the question I wish to ask him is: What is his objective in all of these suggestions? Is his objective the schemes he has in mind, or is it that of merely providing jobs for people? Do we want to build roads to put people to work or because we want roads? Do we want to build bridges to put people to work or because we need bridges? Do we want to build homes to put people to work or do we want homes in which people can live? I suggest that the only logical and sensible attitude to take is to build roads, homes, bridges, schools and hospitals for the sake of the object itself which is being built, and not merely for the sake of giving work. If all these projects can be carried out by a few individuals sitting in their offices and pulling levers and pushing buttons, then let it be done in that way. That is just about the stage we have reached at the moment in our production system.
I have asked on previous occasions-and I do so again and shall continue to do so just as long as this subject is discussed in the manner it has been-hon. members when they rise in their places and discuss full employment to define that term which they use. I think much of our discussion is fruitless largely because we do not define our terms. We debate and discuss subjects and each of us has a different definition of the terms we are using. I would ask those who assert that we must have full employment, what have they in their minds as to what constitutes full employment? The general term used is a job for everybody who is willing and able to work. What does that mean? Does it mean that there is available or can be made available an eight-hour day for everyone from sixteen to sixty years of age? Or what does it mean? I shall not dwell on this angle much longer. But I wish to indicate that for my part I consider full employment is only that work which the power machine cannot do. I consider that sound and sensible and logical, and if it is not, I want to be told why it is not. Is that the definition which hon. members have in mind when they speak of full employment?
I have pointed out in times past, and supported it with statistics, that if in this day and age we use machine power to the maximum possibility'-this was true before the war and it is certainly more so since the war-the manhours of work necessary to produce the highest possible standards of living in this nation need be very few. I indicated by statistics that an income of over four thousand dollars' worth of consumable goods for every family of four in

The Address-Mr. Kuhl
this nation could be produced with no more necessary hours of work than four hours a day four days a week by those between the ages of twenty-five and forty-five. I am not going to take the time to produce that evidence which I gave to the house on a previous occasion. I simply mention it now to indicate a different angle to the subject from that which has been discussed so far in the house in this debate.


John Horne Blackmore: And let anyone disprove it who thinks he can.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: The Liberals and Conservatives in this house have been championing the cause of private enterprise. I wish to do so too, because as a Social Crediter I believe in private enterprise. But I believe that the Liberals and Conservatives have unknowingly done private enterprise a great deal of harm by reason of the fact that they attribute a responsibility to private enterprise which is not a responsibility of private enterprise, and by so doing they leave themselves open to a first-class charge by the socialists and the communists. They assume that it is the duty and the responsibility of private enterprise to provide jobs and employment. They assume that responsibility on behalf of private enterprise, and then the socialists come along and say, Well, you had ten years before the war to prove it, and you did not do it; there was more unemployment than ever before in the history of the nation. And what come-back have the Liberals and Conservatives? Well, they have not any, but they should have, and the only way they can have a come-back is by denying responsibility for full employment. Speaking on behalf of private enterprise, I deny that it has any responsibility to provide jobs for anyone. That is not the purpose of private enterprise. I would ask hon. gentlemen of the C.C.F. who have businesses of their own, those who have farms, do they hire men on the farm when they do not need them? Do they hire them for the fun of it? No, they hire men only when they need them, and when they are through with them they dismiss them.


Mr. LOW:: To make a profit.


John Horne Blackmore: And to produce goods.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: I assert that it is not the duty or the responsibility of private enterprise to provide jobs for anyone. It is the duty and function of private enterprise to produce goods, and it has no other function.


Mr. HANSELL:: They can do it better than the government can.
47696-18J


Walter Frederick Kuhl: We must reconcile ourselves to two conditions. The first is that we are faced with an ever-decreasing number of manhours of work. I granted in my preliminary remarks that in a period of readjustment we probably cannot hope to achieve what we should as a long-range objective, but I believe we are here laying down long-range objectives, as well as policies for the immediate future, and I repeat that we must reconcile ourselves, because we are in a power machine and mass production age, to an ever decreasing number of man-hours of work.


John Horne Blackmore: And an ever increasing amount of goods.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Along with that, as my colleague points out, an ever-increasing amount of goods. That has been the trend all the way through. Another thing to which we must reconcile ourselves is a new source of income. The concern which I have for the people whom I am privileged to represent is not that they shall have jobs but that they shall have incomes, and that is a vastly different thing.


Mr. LESAGE:: How will you do it?


John Horne Blackmore: That is the thing you have to learn.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: I want to know. I did not hear it yet.


Solon Earl Low: Just keep your ears open and you will hear.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: The reason we must reconcile ourselves to that fact is quite obvious. If one machine displaces 100 or 500 or 1,000 men it is obvious to anyone that it also displaces the pay cheque. But the goods go on piling up; the prices are still on them, but the people have not incomes with which to purchase those goods.
The first thing we must do is to set up a national balance sheet. As a nation we have never done that. We must discover what we have in real wealth on the one hand and what purchasing power the people have on the other, and compare the two, and I am satisfied we shall find that the people are short just about forty to fifty cents on the dollar. I have not time to attempt to prove that, but as time goes on during this session we of the Social Credit group are certainly going to elaborate on that aspect of our policy. I grant that if that premise is destroyed the basis of the whole Social Credit proposals ceases to exist, but I am satisfied that it cannot be disproved. What we are suffering from and will suffer from more and more as time goes along is an actual physical shortage
The Address-Mr. Kuhl

of purchasing power, and not a maldistribution. We hear a lot, particularly from the socialists, about a redistribution of profits. I challenge them to redistribute all the profits and they will still be short of money to distribute the goods. The greatest false assumption which is made in economic thinking is, that for every dollar's worth of goods there is somewhere a dollar in money, and that if you divide up the money you are automatically dividing up the goods. The conclusion would be true if the premise were correct, but the premise is not correct.
So we must reconcile ourselves to a new source of purchasing power. No adjustment of wages or prices either to the primary producer or to the secondary producer can effect a cure. There must be a source of income outside of wages and outside of prices, and that source of income must arise through the national bank of Canada. National money must be issued to the people direct in the amount of the deficiency which exists between total production and total buying power. The issuance of national money direct to consumers in this fashion is not something for nothing. When the government through its national bank issues purchasing power direct to consumers it is doing nothing more or less than monetizing the wealth which already exists, which has been produced and belongs to the people, but which they cannot acquire because there is no money anywhere in existence with which to buy it.
I shall not have sufficient time on this occasion to develop fully the thought which I have introduced. There is one other important point I should like to make before I resume my seat.
Most of the discussion which has taken place thus far has centred around providing or enabling the people to enjoy security. Each member in turn has indicated how he believes the people should be enabled to become secure, but how much have we had said about the freedom of the individual? How many hon. members have dwelt at any length on the freedom of the individual? I thought that was largely what we fought this war for. I should like to hear hon. members define freedom. What is freedom? When is a man free and when is he not free? If one may judge from the remarks of some hon. members it seems that all that is involved in freedom, as far a3 they are concerned, is a full belly and a warm back. I consider that there is more to freedom than that. That is the freedom of a slave. I consider that no one has freedom unless he has the freedom of choice, as was indicated by my colleague the hon. member for Edmonton East. Freedom of choice means

freedom to choose or to refuse one thing at a time. Canadians will never have freedom of choice until they are first secure. They must be enabled to enjoy their heritage, which is substantial, whether they work or whether they do not. In addition to that, they must have the right to add to their purchasing power by securing the necessary work of their choice.
A few government supporters have pleaded for patience with the government on the part of opposition members. I am willing to be patient for legitimate reasons. I grant that there are physical limitations which it is impossible to overcome; but as I listened to some of the ministers, notably the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Claxton), I detected' something that I suspected I would be hearing before long. He said something about creating appetites which could not be satisfied. It will not be very long before I expect to hear members of the government side, each in turn, saying that we cannot do this and cannot do that because we have not the money. To establish a new order it is not necessary to throw out the whole of the old. Let us preserve the best in the old order, remove the abuses and take care of the deficiencies and it will work to perfection.


Mr. LEWIS MENARY (Wellington North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate you on your elevation to the high office you hold. I am sure you will fill it with distinction to the house as well as to yourself. I am one of the many new members who have come to the house this year and I have enjoyed the wonderful addresses made by different members. It has indeed been a treat. I have also enjoyed the barbs of sarcasm that have been good-naturedly leveled by each side. Especially do I remember the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), addressed to our side of the house, that we were unfortunate enough to come in third position on the soldier's vote. This reminds me of my boy coming running to me when he thought I had done something wonderful, "Daddy, daddy, how did you do it?" 'But that is the way with children.
To-day in my mail I have twelve letters which I have received from butchers and meat-merchants in my riding and none of them is praying for the government to retain the controls on the rationing of meat. To some of these men the loss is largely in cooked meats. If you take this list and add it up you will see that they have lost in the past few weeks possibly 3.000 pounds of cooked meats, and some of the butchers say they will not continue in business. One of them says it is impossible

The Address-Mr. Menary
for him to do the work he has to do. He serves his customers, and it takes him so long to explain the rationing system, and the bookkeeping afterwards again takes up so much time that he cannot do the work.
I am sure that all citizens of Canada are willing to help the mother country. We have plenty of cattle to do this and after that commitment is filled we have enough for ourselves. There are great herds of cattle in my riding. I can name three farmers within, a radius of four or five miles of my local town. One farmer has 100 large steers weighing around 1,300 pounds each; another farmer, his neighbour across the road, has about sixty steers and forty head of dairy cattle; and a third farmer-I will mention his name, Frank Gamble-has 325 head of cattle on the grass. There does not seem to be a scarcity of cattle but we want a market.
This is common throughout my riding, and I may say that last week there was a load of cattle returned from the stockyards to that part of the country because of the glut caused by bad marketing. There is no shortage of cattle. Take the statistics for 1944 and look at the marketings of different stockyards across Canada. For the first thirty-seven weeks of
1944	there were 933,736 head of cattle marketed, and for the first thirty-seven weeks of
1945	there were marketed 1,168,157. That does not show any scarcity of cattle.
In my opinion the government should remove these controls because, as I have said, we have an ample supply of cattle to fill our commitments to the mother country and after that is done we can open the gates to the United States. We do not want a continuance of the stockyards being glutted with stock with the result that prices fall and farmers lose money. A farmer takes in his cattle expecting to receive 11, Hi or 12 cents and after keeping them for a week he sells them at 10i cents. I know a farmer in our district who took ten head of cattle to the union stockyards. He sold nine head, and one bullock was left for two weeks and finally died. This man could not get any insurance and he had a loss of over $100.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) last week mentioned something about the weighing of cattle at the stockyards. He stated that the capacity for weighing was only 4,000 cattle a day. As we are conversant with stockyards and have sold many thousand of dollars worth of produce to them, I would say that this could easily vary. For instance, if they weighed these cattle by the carload I am sure they could weigh 10,000 head of cattle in one
day; but if they have to weigh them by one or two to a lot, or two or three, it takes up more time.
They have four scales in operation at the stockyards and I do not think the trouble is in the matter of weighing. It is a matter of the packers going into the country and buying cattle and shipping them into their own yards and to the stockyards and the public are not aware of this fact. This condition can only be corrected by the government under their emergency powers.
The people of Canada to-day want to do everything possible to help to feed the multitude of people who are starving in Europe and who have suffered so much in this terrible struggle. I believe that all parties in this house desire to see this accomplished. To-day we are witnessing in Canada and throughout the continent one of the biggest strikes in history. I believe that the great trouble of this mass unemployment in the big cities is partly owing to living conditions. There are no gardens, no lawns, no playgrounds for the children. I have always believed and advocated that no city should grow over a hundred thousand in population and that manufacturers should spread their manufacturing plants over the rural sections where certain parts could be manufactured and shipped into a central point to be assembled. In that way the labouring man could have an acre or half an acre of ground and could keep some hens, a cow or something like that. In that way he would be a more satisfied man and the farmer would also have a market for his products nearer to his home.
I wish to speak on the income tax. I should like to say a few words here in regard to the farmer's income tax. As a farmer I know something of the difficulties of the farmer, the poor remuneration he receives for his work, and so forth. He possibly works longer hours and has less opportunity to take a vacation than individuals in any other occupation. He can do his best in cultivating the soil and planting his seed, but he has no control over the rainfall or the dry weather, or the pests that prey on his crop. He suffers more than anyone else from extreme variations in prices. When he has a large crop there is usually a lowering of the price level. If he has a poor crop he gets probably a higher price but he may have very little to sell. His only opportunity to make any money is when he happens to have a good crop and there is failure in other districts. His average earnings over a period of years are only very moderate, and therefore it is unfair to have to pay income
The Address-Mr. Menary

tax on the years when he has a fair return unless the years of poor return are taken into consideration-.
I think it would' appeal to everj'one, and all fair-minded persons would agree that the ordinary farmer should get some redress as to his income tax, because in the good years he pays out and in the bad years he gets no rebate. Probably in, no other business do values fluctuate so radically as in the case of the farmer. The ordinary farmer with a hundred acres or less should not have to file an income tax return as far as his farming operations are concerned, if he is solely engaged in farming.
I should like to say a few words about the adoption of a new flag for Canada. My riding views with alarm the matter of a new flag and a new national anthem. I represent a great constituency which has sent overseas over one thousand boys, many of whom have not returned to the families who loved them.. We offer our deepest sympathy to them. These boys went to fight that we might in the future be saved the horrors of war that other nations have suffered, and more especially the continuous bombing, the restrictions on food1, clothing, housing and other necessities which have been the lot of our mother country and during which they have shown such wondrous endurance. This has awakened our sympathies and admiration for these brave people. We cannot forget the great work of the British navy or the great fight put up by her soldiers, assisted by soldiers of the British commonwealth, in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, France, Holland	and	Germany;	and	I am
sure my constituents will not be satisfied with any flag that does not display as a most important part of its design the old union jack which has braved a thousand years the battle and the breeze, and which throughout the past through all the world has stood for bravery, integrity and fairness of the British people.
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES	(Winnipeg
North Centre):	Mr.	Speaker,	like	otherhon. members	from	Winnipeg	who	have
spoken in this debate, I should like in my first words to give expression to the deep sense of gratitude that is felt in our city over the release from imprisonment of those heroic Canadians who fought at Hong Kong, including the Winnipeg Grenadiers. As has been said already by others who have preceded me, the fact that people in Winnipeg are now receiving messages from their loved ones, the fact that some of these men are already arriving home, has touched the heartstrings of the people of our city in a way we can all understand.

I have looked over the lists of the men who have been freed as they have appeared in our Winnipeg papers these past few days, and I have been struck once again by the large number of the men in the Winnipeg Grenadiers who came from the constituency I have the honour to represent. I cannot forget that many of these young men, enlisting as they did in the early months of the war-many of them went to Jamaica before they went to Hong Kong-are young men from homes that experienced the deepest bitterness of the depression this country went through in the 1930's. Nevertheless these young men were prepared to do their part, and I trust that this parliament will take a solemn vow that they must never again return to the conditions they and their families went through in those tragic thirties.
I wish to join with those who have urged the government to make suitable recognition of the experience through which these Hong Kong heroes have gone. I support particularly the suggestion made by the leader of this group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), when he urged that any special pay and allowances or other provisions that were to have been given to soldiers in the Pacific war should be given to these men, retroactive to the day they embarked in 1941, and that amounts due a deceased soldier should be given to his next of kin.
Mr. Speaker, as I understand it the purpose of this debate is to permit hon. members to discuss the government's proposals and activities in the light of what we believe to be the desires and the best interests of the people we represent. I shall endeavour to gear my remarks to that purpose. Perhaps before I launch into the main body of what I have to say I might offer the comment that it seems to me in this debate we have had more than we needed of rehashing the last election. Particularly has that been true of my hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative party. Time and again they have simply rehashed what they thought were the issues in the election.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: That was the last
session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend refers to the last session. Their speeches in this debate have sounded veiy much like the last session to me.


Arza Clair Casselman: We are a new parliament now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With typical enthusiasm comes "hear, hear" from across the way. It is perfectly true that my hon. friends opposite won a majority of the seats in this house, and if we had done so or if the Progressive Conservatives had done so, I dare say some of us would be boasting of that fact just as they ire doing. But it does seem to me that the seriousness of conditions in Canada at the present time calls for a realistic approach to our problems rather than that sort of complacency. As a matter of fact, I dioubt if any government in this country ever had less reason than the present government for being complacent. They won the election; yes, they won a majority of the seats in. this house, but one should take into consideration, and the government members especially should consider, the way the people of this country voted. Taking the country as a whole, thirty-nine per cent of the people of Canada'voted for the Liberal party. Without giving the breakdown for the other groups the fact is-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Why not? Break them down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The fact is that sixty-one per cent of the people of all Canada voted against this government.


An hon. MEMBER:: And ten per cent for the C.C.F.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since you want the figure, it was sixteen per cent; and I suggest to the members of the Liberal party opposite that the fact that a total of sixty-one per cent of the Canadian people voted against the Liberal party should sober them far more than it is apparently doing.


Mr. BROOKS:: Sober is the right word.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not blame hon. members for being particularly impressed with the way the vote went in their own constituencies or their own parts of the country. Hon. members who have come to this house from parts of Canada that went predominantly Liberal feel that everything in the country is Liberal, but they are sadly mistaken. I come from western Canaaa, where only thirty-four per cent of the people voted for the Liberal party and sixty-six per cent voted against this government. Included in that sixty-six per cent
were thirty-two per cent who voted for the C.C.F. I shall have to make a slight correction, Mr. Speaker; I have been quoting the figures for Manitoba only.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will have the laugh in a moment; I am now going to quote the figures for the whole of western Canada, where the percentage was even higher. In western Canada as a whole the vote was twenty-nine per cent for the Liberal party and seventy-one per cent against it. If that does not sober my hon. friends across the way sufficiently I suggest that they look at the figures for the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre, which I have the honour to represent. They will find that there we enabled all four of our opponents to contribute their $200 deposits to the federal treasury. The total vote against the government was more than eighty per cent, while the vote for the C.C.F. in my riding, with four candidates against us, was more than fifty-five per cent of all the votes cast, and our majority was the largest in the history of the riding.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Do not hold that
against Manitoba.
Mr. CRUICKSHANIv: What about seats? That is what counts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friends across the way, who seem to be enjoying this picture of the precarious position in which they find themselves, are asking about seats in western Canada. Very well, I will give the figures. The people of western Canada sent to this house twenty-seven members of the C.C.F., nineteen members of the Liberal party, eleven members of the Progressive Conservative party, thirteen Social Creditors and two Independents.
I have made reference to these facts concerning the last election-and there are more I could give, particularly the soldier vote, which gave the C.C.F. first place overseas, but I had better watch my time-.not just for the amusement I seem to have caused but to suggest to the government that this is no time for complacency on their part. Not only have they serious problems with which to deal, but they have a country in which the majority of the people lack confidence in the present administration. They have a real task on their hands. They must deliver the goods.
Another reply that I feel we have had all too often from the government side of the house is that the war is just over; that V-E day was only in May and V-J day only in August; that the surrender of Japan was
The Address-Mr. Knowles

signed only two or three weeks ago, and we axe asked to be patient and give them time. Well, Mr. Speaker, that was not the attitude in September, 1939, when war broke out. There was a war to be won and something had to be done about it without delay. I suggest that peace has broken out and that the time to win the peace is now, before we lose it by allowing the problems of housing, insecurity and unemployment to pile up until their solution is made that much more difficult. So I urge that we have done with this complacency, with this stalling for time, and that the government get down to business and deal with the problems confronting the country right now while we are in session.
As I indicated earlier, I believe the purpose of this debate is to provide a chance for us to discuss some of the proposals the government has made. One of the fields in which we have had such proposals is that of social security. The other night the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Claxton) spoke on this matter, dealing particularly with old age pensions. He expressed great pleasure in the proposal that had been made of $30 a month for all those over seventy, and rejected any suggestion of a larger amount or a lower age limit on the ground that it would cost too much money, at the same time making the elaborate statement that Canada would soon lead the world in social security. I earnestly hope that day will come, and it will come when a C.C.F. government is across the way.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But while the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his enthusiastic friends over there are boasting about a proposal of $30 a month, they have not told us when it is to commence. Incidentally, it is still only a proposal, and all the figures with reference to it in the proposals made at the dominion-provincial conference, and all the figures given by the minister in his address the other day, referred to the year 1948. I wonder why 1948; is that the year of the next election?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. CLAXTON:: May I answer that now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest that we should have something more than proposals for the distant future.


Brooke Claxton: May I answer the question now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall be glad if the minister will.
TMr. Knowles.]


Brooke Claxton: Most of the figures for the proposal put before the conference were based on the year 1948. That was the first year following the war when we thought full conversion from war to peace would be in effect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the government or the minister or anyone speaking on behalf of the government given any indication that the proposal of $30 a month is to come into effect any sooner than 1948?


Brooke Claxton: It will come into effect
as soon as the provinces agree to the proposals.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There we are, right back to the old problem of agreement between the dominion and the provinces before we can move anywhere. I submit that the government by making these proposals, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare by boasting of them, have admitted the rightness of the request which has been made not only from this corner but from all sides of the house that changes should be brought about in the old age pension legislation; that the amount should be raised and the age lowered; that the means test should be done away.with; that liens against property should be abolished, and that the residence qualifications should be eased. In other words, every suggestion contained in the government's proposals is an admission that we have been right. They have now admitted we are right. Then why the delay? The government has power to make these increases and to make these changes now, and that is what the people of Canada are expecting.
The other night the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Claxton) said that we must be careful-I' am quoting from memory, but I think this is right-not to whet people's appetites and then find that we cannot satisfy their desires in connection with what they hope they are going to get. I want to tell him I am already having to answer letters from old people asking me if the new amount of $30 a month is to come into effect on January 1, 1946. They have the idea that this is something they will get while they are still alive. I have to write back to them to the effect that, no such announcement has been made by the government, but that we will do our best on the floor of the house to persuade the government to make such an announcement soon. If the minister meant what he said when he argued against whetting people's appetites for something they cannot be given, I suggest that he should pull all his weight toward bringing this $30 a month proposal into effect as soon as possible, because he has already whetted their appetites.

The Address-Mr. Knowles
Incidentally I want to say to the government that I am glad the administration of old age pensions has been transferred from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. My saying this has nothing whatever to do with the personalities of the two men involved. But it has seemed ridiculous to me that, prior to this time, the Minister of Finance in his capacity of administrator of old age pensions, in the event of wanting more money had to argue with himself in his capacity of Minister of Finance as to what he should do about it. The result has been a sad story for old age pensioners. However, we now have a separate minister to argue with the Minister of Finance on behalf of old age pensioners. I believe he is interested in their welfare and I hope he will put up a real fight along the lines I am suggesting to-night.
Even when we get this $30 a month, which I hope we will get before 1048, I am afraid the Minister of National Health and Welfare will find that he must go still farther, if indeed he is going to achieve his ideal of a Canada leading the world in measures of social security. I am going again to refer to the country of New Zealand-and I suppose that already someone is trying to think up some wise-crack as soon as I mention New Zealand.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: Why not Saskatchewan?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Saskatchewan is doing a
good job too.


James Sinclair: Let
us hear about it, then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are plenty of Saskatchewan members here; they will tell you about it.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: You will not give
them a chance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the New Zealand parliament at the present time the government, has proposed, and we have reason to believe that its proposal will carry-


James Sinclair: Why?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what happens
here. The government's proposal in New Zealand is to increase old age benefits at the age of 60 years to two pounds sterling a week. Let us do a little simple arithmetic. I checked carefully with two banks in this city to-day to make sure that there could be no mistake as to the rate of exchange. At both banks I was told that the New Zealand pound at the present rate of exchange is worth $3.60 in Canadian dollars.


James Sinclair: It
used to be worth $4.86 before the labour government took office.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute, and my hon. friend may stop laughing. That two pounds, therefore, amounts in Canada to $7.20 a week, or $31.20 a month.
I secured from the library to-day-and, by the way, it was quite a trip, going back and forth through all those hidden areas where so many books are kept; we might well spend a little money to improve the facilities of our own parliamentary library-a copy of the International Labour Office Year Book of Labour Statistics for the years 1943 and 1944. This book is published by the International Labour office, and it is not C.C.F. or New Zealand propaganda.
In this book will be found statistics as to the cost of living index for various countries and at page 207 is found the latest data available, that of October, 1943, for comparing Canada with New Zealand. At that time the trend was rising, and from that I conclude that if we had the figure for to-day it might be worse. These statistics show that at that time one dollar would buy in New Zealand, in food, what it takes $1.79 to buy in Canada.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Nonsense!


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are not arguing with me; you are arguing with the International Labour office.


Mr. REID:: Quote the rest of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have given my hon. friend the title of the book and the page number from which I am quoting. I have stated that information fully. I am giving every opportunity to any hon. member who wishes to take this book and review it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Are you afraid to put the rest on Hansard?


Arza Clair Casselman: You do not know
what is in it, anyway.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order; when an hon. member-


George Alexander Cruickshank: You are not on the back bench either.


James Horace King: Order; I must remind
hon. members that when an hon. member has the floor, no interruption is allowed without his permission.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for
Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruiekshank) has asked me to put it all on Hansard. May I explain that there are pages and pages of statistics and that it would take two or three days to

The Address-Mr. Knowles
put them on Hansard-and then I fear the hon. member would not understand them,
anyway.


Thomas Reid: I wonder if you would allow
a question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


Thomas Reid: Have you any figures to show what farmers in New Zealand are getting for that cheap food? That would be most
interesting; let us have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have not farm income figures here at the moment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You need not laugh; we will give them to you gladly. There are many more speakers in this party who can give that information as this debate proceeds.


Thomas Reid: And I will give plenty, too.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will give the answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, the old age benefit of two pounds a week translated into Canadian dollars and related to the cost of living index in the two countries has an equivalent value, in terms of food, of $59.28 a month in Canada.
I suggest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that his proposal of $30 a month at seventy years is hardly leading the world. The New Zealand benefit it at sixty and the new rate goes into effect this fall. I suggest, therefore, that Canada is hardly leading the world-although she will some day-in social security.
While I am speaking about what they are doing in New Zealand at the present time, may I point out that the parliament now in session in that country has before it a government measure to increase the benefits to be given to widows. In Canada we have no widow's benefits, except. mothers' allowances for widows with children. Even those allowances are only provincial in this country. The New Zealand government is increasing to one pound and ten shillings a week the benefit to widows. That is the equivalent, on the same basis I have outlined, of $44.46 a month in Canada.
A widow with two children will receive two pounds for herself and ten shillings for each child, making a total of three pounds a week or the equivalent in Canada on the same basis, of $88.92 a month.
In addition to these benefits, another im-crease is being made, and this time it is with respect to the special benefits given to wage earners who are sick or unemployed. This 
benefit is being increased to two pounds a week for the father, plus two pounds a week for the mother, plus ten shillings for each child. In other words, a family of four would receive five pounds a week when the wage-earner is unemployed either because of sickness or for some other cause. This, on the same basis I have already given, is the equivalent of $148.20 a month in Canada.
All this is being done in a country with only about 1,500,000 population, as compared with our 11,500,000. One has only to reflect upon that to realize the economic problem they must have in a country as small as that. It will be realized that their problem is much greater than ours, in our larger economic unit.


Humphrey Mitchell: Would my hon. friend tell us something about taxes? Let us see the other side of the medal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not mind doing that, except that it does take up a good deal of time from other subjects that I had wished to discuss. The fact of the matter is that when the New Zealand Labour government has gone to the country with its taxation programme, and has set against its taxes its increased benefits and its wider arrangements for social security, the people have returned them to power. That is the test.
I should like to refer for a moment longer to the question of old age pensions. The other day the Minister of National Health and Welfare objected to a proposal of an old age pension of $50 a month at the age of sixty years on the ground that it would cost $850,000,000 a year. That was the final answer to the proposal so far as he was concerned. This parliament from time to time has heard many objections to improving old age pensions on the ground that we cannot afford to pay an improved pension. In 1939 the Hon. Charles Dunning, then minister of finance, objected to a slight increase then proposed by this group on the ground that it would cost an additional $18,895,000. Now, the government itself makes the proposal to spend not $18,000,000, but more than $200,000,000-[DOT]


An hon. MEMBER:: And a good thing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A good thing is right. It is an exceptionally good thing. Eighteen months ago I rose in my place in this house and made a proposal respecting better old age pensions which so far as I could compute from the statistics and figures available to me would bring the total cost of old age pensions to $206,000,000. I made the proposal very seriously and pressed it as hard as I

The Address-Mr. Knowles
could, but unfortunately my motion was ruled out of order by the Speaker. However, the Winnipeg Free Press-


Mr. HOMUTH:: What is that? A paper?


Stanley Howard Knowles: A paper in the city from which I come, taking note of what I had to say-


James Sinclair: Is
that not the same paper which urged the people to vote for Mackenzie King in the last election?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It never did anything else. What a question to ask a Manitoba member!
I was going on to say that a few days after I had made my proposal in this house which would have brought the total expenditure on old age pensions to $206,000,000 the Winnipeg Free Press ran an editorial headed "A Mere $206,000,000", in which the member for Winnipeg North Centre was taken to task for his irresponsibility in proposing to spend so large a sum of money. $206,000,000-it could not be done. Now the government itself, only eighteen months later, comes down, I am glad to say, with a proposal that is going to cost $200,000,000 for the men and women over seventy years and another thirty or forty million dollars for those between sixty-five and sixty-nine. I hope the Winnipeg Free Press will call me irresponsible again to-night if it means that eighteen months from now the federal government will pay an old age pension of $50 a month at the age of sixty-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to note that I have support from across the way, and I hope that the members of the Liberal party will express that support most vehemently in their own caucus.
Mr. CRUICKSHANK. I did so yesterday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear. Let us take a look now at that sum of $850,000,000 which the Minister of National Health and Welfare quoted the other day. It sounds huge. I find in Hansard of February 11, 1944, that on that day the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) asked us to vote certain moneys for the war appropriation, That was the last full year of the war, and included in that war appropriation bill was the sum of $985,270,670.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And seventy cents.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. Seventy dollars.
No cents.


An hon. MEMBER:: How do you spell that?


Mr. MacINNIS:: Wrong again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that I should get an extra five minutes for all these interruptions. That sum of money was needed for pay and allowances for the members of the three armed services. Please note what we were doing. We were taking three-quarters of a million men and women out of productive activity and providing them with food, clothing, shelter, medical and dental care, personal supplies, everything they needed, and on top of that we paid them more than $985,000,000 in good hard cash. Did the country go broke as a result of that? No, we had the most prosperous year in our history, and I submit that if we can pay, when we have to, $985,000,000 a year to a large body of our citizens for purposes of war, we can pay $850,000,000 to our respected aged citizens for the purposes of peace, so that they might enjoy the kind of retirement they are entitled to and so that the country as a whole might reap the economic benefits of such a policy.
Since my time is passing, I shall refer only briefly to other subjects upon which I wished to touch. I want to say a word about housing. This is a subject in which anyone coming from Winnipeg North Centre is keenly interested. We have had a lot of talk in this house about housing. We have had arguments about whether private enterprise or a public authority is best able to provide homes for our people. That has been threshed out fully. Members of this house know quite well where I stand on that matter, and I think events are proving that private enterprise cannot be counted upon to provide the homes our people need. I think the day is fast coming when even this government will have to set up a public housing authority to deal with this pressing problem.
I want to bring this thing down to cases by suggesting that the government, through a public housing authority, should, if it means business, take a constituency such as the one which I represent and do something about the housing problem right there.
Many hon. members who in the course of this debate have spoken of their constituencies have told of the beauty of the ridings they have the honour to represent. I am proud of my constituency. I am proud of the people who live in it. They are a people who know the score. They have done their share and more than their share in the conflict through which we have just passed. And I say with real pride that they are the people
The Address-Mr. Knowles

who do the worlds work. They are industrial workers, and while there are parts of my constituency that have lovely homes there are other areas in my riding-well, Mr. Speaker, come to Winnipeg and I will take you in my old car and drive you around, and you will hang your head in shame that Canadian citizens who do the world's work to the extent that it is done by the citizens of Winnipeg North Centre have to live in the kind [DOT] of places that some of my people live in and bring their children up in the environment and atmosphere that is to be found in parts of the city of Winnipeg, in my own riding, and some other Winnipeg ridings as well. I have no lakes and mountains in my constituency such as other hon. members have spoken of, just working people who live in homes which they try to make worthy of the name, but many hundreds of them should be torn down and new ones put in their place, and I suggest to the government that if it means business it should go into an area like Point Douglas, or an area like that along the C.P.R. tracks, or go to Brooklands, where good streets, yes, sewer and water, are sorely needed, and in place of some of the dwellings to be found there now let us set up a model housing community. The people who live there work in the C.P.R. shops, for Dominion Bridge, Manitoba Bridge and the Vulcan Iron Works. They work in factories and offices of all kinds. They do the heavy work of the world and produce tremendous wealth. For whom? Do they get back what they produce? They get only a pittance on which to live; that is all. This country should provide for them the best homes that architects and engineers can design, with all the conveniences and advantages that go with a modern model community. I have no hesitancy in making this plea for my constituency, realizing quite well that it might prompt other members to do the same for their constituencies, and if it does, hear, hear; all power to them.
Every constituency in Canada which has a housing problem such as mine deserves consideration by the government of a project such as I have suggested-clearing out the slums, building model communities, with all the best medical, recreational, and educational advantages human beings should enjoy. Let us have a little imagination. Let us go to work and really win the peace.
There is in some of these areas to which I have referred, such as Brooklands and Weston, a keen community spirit. In Weston, for example, there is a move at the present time to build a community centre as a memorial to the many lads from that part of the city who have given their lives in the conflict 
which at last has ended. These people are finding it difficult to raise the large amount of money they have in mind for a suitable memorial. It seems to me that they should be encouraged in that project, and that other communities across this country should similarly be encouraged so that we may beautify not only the national capital-I am all for that, too-but so that we might beautify every city in this country, with suitable memorials, and above all, proper homes.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are edging to the front of your chair. I shall be just a minute or two. I should like to say that I hope we shall begin to get something concrete soon in the matter of employment. I listened with interest to the speech which the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) made last night, but I think the day will come when the government will be sorry he made that speech. It sounded well, but nothing specific was in it. It was simply added to the election promises which they must now fulfil. I hope he is right in saying that he has a million jobs; we need two million; but I suggest that what we want is, not flamboyant speeches full of enthusiasm, but the delivery of the goods, or in other words, actual jobs.
Not only must we have jobs, but the time is long overdue for some real indication that we are going to achieve industrial democracy, which surely was one of the aims of the war! No reference to it is to be found in the speech from the throne. The references to it in the go\ ernment s proposals to the dominion-provincial conference are very scant, and only in terms of temporary expedients which, to my way of thinking, are not at all in keeping with the fine words of the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) the other night when lie said that the government is determined to maintain the position labour has gained. Words are not enough. If the government means these thing* let them deliver the goods, not with complacency here in this house, not with boasting about the fact that they won the election, but with performance equal to its promises.
With this last word I sit down. I join with others in support of the proposal for a distinctive national flag and for the other measures designed to make more real and definite our distinctive Canadian citizenship, and I trust that these very desirable steps will be achieved with a large degree of unanimity in this house.
I hope, however, that, having done that, we shall put new meaning and real glory into Canadian citizenship by establishing in this country security, justice and freedom for all our people.

The Address-Mr. Mclvor


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne because I think I have something sensible and true to say. The speech suits me for several reasons. First, I find in the opening words this expression:
As you assemble at the opening^ of a new parliament, I join with you in giving humble and grateful thanks to Divine Providence for the deliverance which His mercy has vouchsafed to the peoples of our own and other lands.
That utterance, whether by the Governor General or the government, is sensible, because you cannot explain in any other way the victory and the peace which we now have. You cannot explain Dunkirk and the successful evacuation of our men from that place unless you believe in an answer to prayer. You cannot explain why Hitler did not wipe old England off the map unless you believe the same thing. You cannot explain why Hitler attacked Russia when he did unless you agree that the Great Architect of the universe did not think that Hitler was fit to rule the world. For these reasons I congratulate the government upon having this sentence in the speech from the throne. Also, they did not omit to give thanks to God for victory, because with peace came the declaration of a day of thanksgiving all over the British empire. The speech also gives credit to our Canadian forces for having a part in that victory. I find also plans to help those who are destitute, and it is a Christian programme to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those who are sick and help those who are in prison. These things we are trying to do now. Those who do not agree with rationing should think the whole thing over again in the light of putting that programme into practice.
I find, too, in the speech from the throne proposals for making Ottawa a little more beautiful, perhaps, than any other city in Canada. This is as it should be, because the cream of Canada meets in this city, at least part of the time, and'it is in keeping with the conception of the late Queen Victoria that our capital should be more beautiful than Toronto or Montreal. I will, however, throw out this suggestion to the government, that all the money for a community centre should not be spent in Ottawa. We are planning a community centre in Fort William, and we think we have as good right as Ottawa to some support for the beautification of our city. It is not second in natural beauty even to Ottawa. In pursuance of a plan for a community centre we have raised nearly $SO,000
in cash, so that we are helping ourselves before we ask the dominion or provincial government to help us.
The dominion government took away our skating rink. We have no home for our national hockey game; they turned it into a big armoury; it was necessary then and perhaps is necessary still. So that I warn the government through the ministers who are here and I shall not be treading gently on somebody's toes if we do not get back somewhat more than the $20,000 which was paid in compensation for that rink.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is supporting a declaration which he made before the meeting of dominion prime ministers in London, that Canada is a nation, that we have a right to our own national anthem, that, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) said, we have a right to make and control our own laws; and we think we can rule ourselves better than any jurist from the city of London or old England.
Again, we have a right to have our own flag. I know some of our boys were in England, and-I Say it with all respect-they did not have the same respect for England that we of the first generation that came from the old land had, because they did not like it when some of the officers whom they refused to salute called them "bleeding colonials". We are not colonials. We are a nation and we have a right to our own flag-and I am going to show you what some people in Ottawa think should be the flag of Canada. I have it here. I showed this to members of the Liberal party about a year ago and I flew this very flag in Fort William on victory day. I thought it was all right. Whether it will be the future flag of Canada or not, at any rate Fort William got a foretaste of what some manufacturer in Ottawa saw fit to design. Here in this flag you have the red, white and blue, and those hon. members who believe just as strongly as I do in the flag can still sing, "Three Cheers for the Red, White and Blue." There is a stripe for each province; there is the Canadian coat of arms, and there is the green maple leaf, which, is the natural colour of the maple leaf. Not only that, but green is the "go" sign of Canada as well as the "go" sign of Fort William.
I have not spent any time in congratulating anybody, but I was greatly proud to think that one of the northern members tvas chosen to move the address in reply to the speech from the throne. He demonstrated, what we know, that northern men are men still. We had an election in' Fort William and I
The Address-Mr. Mclvor

would say that there was not a cleaner contest in all Canada. I did not see a man anywhere at any time who seemed to have had too much ginger ale. Those who were opposition candidates were kind enough to me, so kind that they did not advertise a single mistake that I had made, either while I was in this house or while I was out of it. I must say I am eternally grateful, because I have made a few mistakes. I am grateful to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I do not know whether he had anything to do with this, but when we needed workers in Fort William, a good many workers came from the province of Saskatchewan, and there weTe good enough Liberals and people with sufficient common sense to elect me. I pity the C.C.F. when they go back to Saskatchewan, because there is going to be a change.
Some people think that all we have in Fort William is fresh water, rocks and lake Superior trout. But I can assure you sir, we have in that part of the country one of the best farming districts in Canada. We have an experimental substation, that is paying for itself hundreds of times over. We have the best potato land. We have a 500 bushel to the acre club in Fort William. Just think of it, an Irishman coming from the old sod and raising 500 bushels of potatoes to the acre I We have the champion potato grower in Canada seventeen miles west of Fort William. Cape Breton and the mari-times are not in it.
Again, we have proved that the district will grow first-class fruit. I am sorry I was not in the house when the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshanik) was advertising his peaches. I congratulate him; but wait until he comes to Fort William; we will give him a peach that will make his mouth water.
We have in Fort William one of the best feeding grounds for fattening cattle because in the fall of the year it is damp and cool and we have fine, healthy grass. It is a splendid place for finishing cattle.
We have a great boom just starting in mining about 55 miles west of Fort William where there is opening up another gold mine- a find they call it-and the people are going there. I do not need to speak of Steep Rock, with its hematite iron ore, the best on the American continent. I do not need to speak of lumber, nor do I need to speak of our elevators, which constitute the breadbasket of the world. We have a new industry springing up in Fort William where the waste of the sawmills from pulp and paper is being pressed and manufactured into a very
[Mr Mclvor.]
fine type of fuel. When the estimates of the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) are up I will show' him a sample.
There are two or three things we need to get in Fort William. We want to get the transcanada highway along the north shore of lake Superior. We want to get it finished because it would mean a great tourist boom for Sault Ste. Marie, for Schreiber, for the head of the lakes, for Kenora and Winnipeg. We believe that is needed, and since the tourist trade is the third best trade in Canada we think we should get it.
Take again the great lakes waterways. This ought to come, and we are encouraged to know that President Truman of the United States is prepared, to support it. We are prepared to support it and I do not think there will be opposition in this house.
We need hospitalization in Fort William. We expect to get cheap money and I expect that the Social Credit members will support us in that. But whether they do or not, we believe that our government has common sense enough to help us in getting our new hospital.
I now come to what I consider the best part of my remarks. There was a considerable lay-off in Canada Car. I believe 3,600 were laid off. That plant had been empty since the last war, but the Minister of Reconstruction stood by us in great shape. He got us orders for planes when neither England, France nor the United States would allow any of their better type of plane to be made by anybody else. One thing followed another until there were over 6,000 people employed in Canada Car, and I would say that the work done by that plant is second to none in any of the war plants of Canada. In fact we think it is just a little better. The day came, however, when the war was over, and thank God it is over and we can turn our thoughts to something else. The Minister of Reconstruction came along and helped us splendidly in getting orders for buses of a fine type. Not only that, but he will stand behind us, because the Minister of Reconstruction is the man that stood behind us when we were fighting for holidays with pay and when we wanted cooperation between the management and unions and workers. He is the man who stood behind us when we needed help. I find in Hansard that the minister has invited more leaders of labour than any other minister ever did in the history of Canada to cooperate with him. He has called upon the head men of these union organizations and has meetings with them regularly, and he will take their advice and the findings of their judgment. I wish

The Address

Mr. Mclvor
to pay a tribute to the labour leaders of Canada because from the very first time I met my old friend Tom Moore I had a profound respect for these leaders. They compare favourably with the leaders of any of the parties in this house. They have been through the mill; they know their own capacities, and they have sympathy with the toiler.
When war broke out hon. members will remember how often the Minister of Reconstruction heard and how often we heard it said that the attitude of the government was, "Too little and too late". And it was true, because democracy is never ready for war. It is a difficult thing to turn peace industries into war industries, but to my mind it is not so difficult to turn industry back into peacetime pursuits. Notwithstanding that, we at the head of the lakes are grateful as are others in Canada that the Minister of Reconstruction is the man who will have the opportunity of putting industry back into peace-time production.
The minister said yesterday that he was hopeful of having full-time employment. I would say that he has good reason for that, and so have we because of the number of jobs there are waiting for somebody to take. I should like to say that sometimes I am disappointed with the Minister of Reconstruction. Just before the session opened I and a number of men from Port Arthur and Fort William tried to make an appointment with him for the 4th or 5th of September. He turned us down. I then found out that he was in Toronto having just the thing that he tried to give to the workers of Canada, a holiday. I have nothing to say in favour of the labour leaders who did not treat him with the respect that he deserved, because he wanted to have a holiday before he had the meeting with them that he had arranged for in the city of Ottawa. I was surprised at the minister's patience because, as you remember, Mr. Speaker, the newspapermen said that his putting was poor that day. He came in there and he missed a glorious opportunity to make a hole in one. He did not do so, but he was more courteous than I would have been in the circumstances. I would say to any man, whether on the government side of the house or anywhere else, that if you try to meet the Minister of Reconstruction no man will meet you more courteously and efficiently and send you away with a warm spot in your heart than he, but if you try to put something over that is crooked, try to get something to your advantage that hurts somebody else, I can tell you *hat you will get an answer just as plain and polite as you deserve.
So far as Canada Car is concerned, we who support the labourers and workers say that wages should be kept up. President Truman said: "We can never go back to forty cents an hour." I do not think any man can have a home, a wife and family, earn a living and educate his children on forty cents an hour. We have no right to go back to that. I am one of those who will fight as far as possible to give a man a full day's wages for a full day's work.
I believe that on the other side there are some leaders of corporations that do make men sore and I was almost going to say they make them see red. I think of a big abattoir where I was once able to secure work for a bright young man. He worked for eighteen years and was then directed to go to another town. In reality it was a demotion instead of a promotion. He refused to take the position, and of course this man in the corporation who was more interested in profits than anything else said, "If you do not take the job, you know what to do." The young man said, "I do, and you can give my job to somebody else." He then came back to Fort William and within a week he had a better job than that which he had worked up to in eighteen years with Canada Packers.
I was disappointed when the warehouse operators at their convention a while ago said that their only hope was to get wages reduced, and their only hope of getting wages reduced was to get men to come back from the war. Any corporation that will use the sacred life of our boys, who went over there and fought for us and then came back, in this manner, and ask them to take a reduction in wages, is not fit to get the support of the people of Canada; it is a disgrace to civilization.
I listened to the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Rose) and I agreed with him in some things. I was terribly disappointed when he quoted a statement that appeared in the Montreal Standard as coming from the president of Canada Car. I shall read it as it appears at page 169 of Hansard of September 13, because we need to know it. It is a newspaper report that I hope is not true. If it is true, then the sooner Canada Car gets out of Fort William, the better it will be for us. This is the quotation:
The party is over. Not only will there not be enough jobs, but wages will have to be brought down to former peace-time levels. If the employees won't take a cut in wages, the plant will have to close down. We can't afford to have our profits cut into by paying the high war-time wage levels.
The Address-Mr. Mclvor

Who would not get hot under the collar after reading that, ''The party is over"? The cream of Canada, the boys and girls, men and women went over there, but they did not go to a party. They fought for your freedom and mine, and with the help of God you and I will see that they get fair play. The party is not over; the party is just beginning and we are going to have a fine time.
I should like to compare these two corporations with another corporation. I suppose some hon. members have been reading about it. Perhaps they do not know any more about it than I do, but I got my information at firsthand. There is a firm called "Jack & Heinz" of Cleveland, Ohio, who treat their employees like human beings. They pay good wages. They supply recreation at the expense of production. The first thing they do with a new employee is to get him a pair of new boots. They send him to a specialist to have his feet examined and get him a pair of boots in which he can stand and work and do an honest day's toil. There is no time clock in that manufacturer's concern, but if anybody is not there on time then the workers look after him. There is no loafing and no smoking on the job, because if a worker does either he gets enough catcalls to make him sick and he goes back to his job again. During the war they paid large bonuses and were taken to task for it; but they showed that they could pay those bonuses to their workers and do more and better work than people like Henry Ford.
Hon. members may think I am speaking at random, but I went across the line last weekend and it was reported to me that the Ford people have been sending out groups of investigators to investigate the workers to find out if there is a streak of red in them, or if they lean that way. These are the people that put on the drive against the Hebrews in the United States. If they find that these people are communists then they are displaced by men from the forces at a lower rate of wages. What a difference it would be if the Ford people would send out their investigators as this other company did to find out where the distress is, to find out where there is not enough money coming into the homes to feed, clothe and educate the children! If they could find out where there is sickness and distress and practise the teaching of the Master Workman of Nazareth, then Ford would leave behind him a name worth far more than all the money he could pile up. These people are safe and secure, and we think we in Canada also can be safe and secure. I will admit that around each member of this house is a group of friends who are loyal, but I am sure hon.

gentlemen will not be surprised when I say

because I think it is the truth-that the rank and file of the people of Canada do not care a snap of their fingers what party is in power. What they want is a living wage, to be secure, to be treated like human beings, and to do an honest day's work. I would say, too, that the workers of Canada are always entitled to one day's rest in seven. That should be the Sabbath day, so that after toiling all week they may go to some cosy place and listen to music [DOT]that has the strains of heaven in it, and hear something that will take away their cares and leave them disgusted with their sins, ready to face what may come in the days that lie ahead. In my opinion the cure for distress in Canada or any other country is for labour and capital to adopt the principles of the sermon on the mount, to practise forgiveness even unto seventy times seven, to go out and do an honest day's work and to serve our fellow men. If we do that we need not fear what the f ture may have in store for us, because we know we are going in the right direction.
In conclusion, I should like to congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) on having come into this house. I helped elect [DOT]him when he first ran for public office in Manitoba, as a Progressive. The Liberal and Conservative candidates, together with another candidate who called himself by two or three names, were too fond of ginger ale to suit me, so that I voted for the Progressive candidate. I congratulate him on having gone a long way and then having come here. I hope he will practise the principles he followed when he entered the provincial house, and if he does so there will be changes. I should like also to congratulate the Prime Minister on having done what I advised him to do; that is, for having contested the seat of Prince Albert in the last election. I told him it would be better to go there and take a licking than not go there at all. He did take the licking, but only after he had first won, then lost. I am convinced that by the end of this parliament the Liberal party will have shown Canada that- it can provide work and wages, better living conditions and Christian charity, and that it can be forgiving even to the opposition.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I believe most people in Canada were relieved to see the unwieldy majority of the Liberal party in this house reduced following the last election. Certainly that is true of all members on this side of the house, and I do not doubt for a moment that many hon. members sitting on the government benches realize that this result will be of benefit to the country. I make that state-

The Address-Mr. Quelch
ment because in future it will not be quite so easy for the government carelessly to disregard public opinion in this country. In other words, it is to be hoped that in future we will have a more democratic form of government than we have enjoyed in the past, and one that will be subject, at least in some degree, to the will of the Canadian people.
During the past year there has been a rather bitter campaign waged in this country against socialism, a campaign in which members of the government have participated. Yet it is well to realize that the growth of socialism has been stimulated in this country largely as a result of the failure of the policies of the Liberal party and their predecessors, because socialism and all other isms are always stimulated in times of extreme poverty and want. People in this country to-day, remembering what occurred after the last war, remembering the conditions that existed during the hungry thirties, are fearful as to what may happen in future; and the organized attempt on the part of certain industries to reduce wages at the present time is not increasing the confidence of the people in the immediate future. If the government are really sincere in their desire to halt the growth of socialism in Canada they should realize that the way to do this is not by a campaign of abuse but by action to introduce certain essential reforms which will make the present .system work, so that the resources of Canada may be developed to their full capacity in the interests of the Canadian people, and so that the Canadian people may receive the benefits therefrom together with the greatest possible degree of individual freedom. If that is not done; if instead we allow another depression to come upon this country such as we had in the thirties, then I believe we shall be paving the way for troublous times in Canada; for I believe most of us will agree that there may be a great deal of trouble in this country if such conditions reoccur. I do not believe the people of Canada ever again will be satisfied to listen to the sort of blathering they heard in the thirties, when it was said that no money was available to develop the resources of this country. I must admit that I have been disgusted in the past to find many of those people who so bitterly attacked socialism at the same time being just as bitter against those reforms which are absolutely essential to the successful operation of the capitalist system. Apparently they do not realize that by such opposition they are merely developing the growth of isms in this country; and of course when I refer to essential reforms I
have in mind those which have been advocated in the past by the social credit movement.
There is very little in the speech from the throne to indicate that the government realize any need for fundamental change in their policies. Apparently they are still going to depend to a very large extent upon exports and foreign investments in order to maintain what they call full employment in this country. This was emphasized in a speech on the post-war programme delivered in New York by the deputy minister of finance, Mr. W. C. Clark. It is also referred to in the white paper on reconstruction. Apparently the government still intends to follow the same old road in regard to international policy that has in the past lead us to international friction, depressions, and wars. Before the war that kind of policy was defended in this country on the ground that we were a debtor nation, and that therefore it was necessary to maintain a large favourable balance of payments in order to meet our foreign obligations.
It will be recalled that from 1935 to 1939 we maintained, on an average, a favourable balance of payments of $219 million a year, thereby helping to bring about a reduction in our external debt. But it is also well to remember that during that time we had extreme poverty in Canada. A million people were on relief and a half million were unemployed. At the same time industry was operating only at a percentage of its capacity. Hon. members who sat in the house from 1935 to 1939 will recall how members of this group repeatedly urged upon the government the necessity of introducing large-scale social services and large-scale national projects, so that money paid out for these services would help to create a demand for the imports that could have been brought into this country in return for the credits that we had abroad.
As the demands for goods was stimulated in that way production would have been expanded, so that we could easily have produced sufficient goods to meet our foreign obligations and at the same time raise our standard of living. But hon. members will recall the reply we always received in the house from the then Minister of Finance, the Hon. Charles Dunning. We were always met by his hysterical outburst that the government did not have any money for such projects, and that the only money available to the government was that which they could obtain from the people's pockets. When we used to suggest that it might be possible to have monetary expansion
The Address-Mr. Quelch

for the purpose of meeting those expenditures he used to brand the suggestion as one of crude inflation,
L et, within a few weeks of the declaration of war millions, yes, hundreds of millions of dollars were created by the banking system for the use of the government. Yes, over three billions of dollars were created by the banking system for that purpose during the war.
I know that in the past, especially during bond sales, it has been popular to tell the people that the war is being financed by taxation and bond sales to the public. But let us remember that if we had depended upon those methods alone we would have had a war effort quite different from the one we did have. It is only because just as soon as war came the government was willing to have created almost unlimited amounts of money that we were able to develop the resources of the country to the extent that they were developed.
It is strange that the government was not prepared to create money to meet the needs of the people of this country in peace time; but the minute war came they were prepared to have money created in order to save their skins. The situation to-day, of course, is entirely different. Our external debts have largely been liquidated. In addition to that, we have a number of large credits abroad. So that there is no possible excuse for maintaining large favourable balances of payment in the future. Our aim should be to bring about an even balance of payments, apart of course from those exports that may be required to meet our moral obligations. These would be exports in the form of contributions to the war-stricken areas in Europe and Asia.
So, Mr. Speaker, we should not for one moment tolerate a policy of foreign investments until all the people of Canada are receiving an adequate standard of living. While a policy of foreign investments may help to maintain employment, it is bound at the same time to bring about a reduction in the standard of living of the people to the extent of the investments made.
This attitude of the Liberal party in respect of foreign trade is well illustrated in a full-page advertisement which appeared in the AVinnipeg Free Press. A good deal of this type of propaganda is being circulated throughout Canada at the present time. The one I hold in my hand is number six of a series of advertisements on Canada in the post-war world, and appears under the caption "Can't we keep this up forever?" I shall quote only

a few paragraphs to illustrate the absurdity of this type of policy. The advertisement begins in this fashion:
Do you remember when we had large-scale unemployment in Canada? And now it's gone. And everywhere you hear men saying, "We can do for war what we can't do for peace. Why can't we keep this up forever?" The answer is: We can. If we really want to.
Then the article goes on to say that we have had prosperity in Canada during the war, the reason being that in that time' we have had an almost unlimited market for everything we could produce. Then it goes on to say:
That is in war time. What about peace? We can go on producing at our present rate and we can keep up a high level of employment in the future-when the war is done-provided we find customers who want to buy what we produce.
We can, if we want to, go on producing in peace time and give the stuff away (as we do in war time) if we want to. We can make boots and shoes and pots and pans and crockery and textiles and automobiles and a hundred other things, and give them away, instead of giving away tanks and guns and planes.
But nobody would be better off for that, for we would get no more goods for ourselves than we have now.
Then the writer comes to this conclusion:
Then we will have to find markets for what we make, markets in which we will be paid for what we ship. If we can find markets, we can go on working as hard as wre are doing now, and we will all be better off. Much better off than we are now. But it will depend on trade. If we can get the trade, our boom can go on and on. If we cannot get it, it won't.
Well, in the first place I would ask: Who wants to have to go on working just as hard as we have been working during the war? Ask the farmers in the west who have been slaving sixteen hours a day, because of the absence of their sons, if they want to keep that up in the future.
This advertisement is a good illustration of that hoary, old slogan: "Export or perish."
I agree that we must have markets. But what about the Canadian market? Certainly we can give goods away; but do we have to give them away in foreign markets? Can we not, for a change, give our goods to the Canadian people? Let us recall what it says here:
We can, if we want to, go on producing in peace time and give the stuff away. . . . But nobody would be better off for that, for we would get no more goods for ourselves than we have now.
Does that not depend upon to whom we give those goods? Instead of giving them away in exchange for foreign securities which, in future, may not be worth the paper they are

The Address-Mr. Quelch
written on, why not give them to the Canadian people, in the form of social service or for services rendered?
Speaking yesterday, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) referred to the fact that when in Alberta the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had attacked the Social Credit organization on the ground that we were opposed to international trade. May I emphasize the fact that that charge is absolutely false. At no time has any member of this group attacked international trade. What we have done is something entirely different; we have attacked the Liberal government's policy in regard to international trade, because that policy has always been directed toward maintaining a large favourable balance of payments and foreign investments, while at the same time we have maintained that the correct function of international trade is to bring about an exchange of goods on the basis of mutual advantage to both parties concerned.
I would say that the government's policy on international trade is just about as phoney as was its policy on monetary reform in 1935, when they told the people that we were going to have currency and credit issued in terms of public need to meet the domestic social requirements of the Canadian people, and then for the next five years sabotaged the resources of this country under their deflationary policy, so that upon the declaration of war we found ourselves in the pathetic position of having thousands of men rejected from the army because they were medically unfit owing to malnutrition.
We in this group have in this house repeatedly emphasized the need for expanding the purchasing power of the people to the point where it is possible to maintain an effective demand against our production or the production of other nations for which our own production can be exchanged; and when I say effective demand, I mean an effective market. Therefore we believe that in order to stimulate consumption in this country, and thereby production, there should be as rapidly as possible a progressive reduction in taxation, first of all on the people in the lower income brackets by substantially increasing the size of the exemptions, and second, by abolishing the sales tax, which falls most heavily on the people in the lower income brackets.
We in this group have always maintained that the real purpose of taxation should not be to provide revenue for the government but to prevent inflation, and during the war the government have on repeated occasions acknowledged that fact.
Then we say that to the extent that taxation fails to meet government expenditure there should be an expansion of money through the Bank of Canada, so that the resources of the country may be developed to their full extent without any expansion in the national debt or increase in taxation.
Then, of course, as the transition from war to peace progresses, as the production of peace-time goods is expanded, we shall be in a position to extend social services in this country and carry out various national projects that are now urgently required.
It is true that the government has taken certain steps to expand social services in this country and is, I believe, proposing others, but these proposals are altogether inadequate to meet the needs of the people. For example, take the old age pension paid at the age of seventy years of $30 a month irrespective of other income. Undoubtedly that is a step in the right direction and is a great improvement over what we had in the past. But would anyone suggest for one moment that $30 a month is a sufficient amount of income for anybody to live on? When we realize that these old age pensioners must have resided in Canada for at least twenty years and therefore have been slaving and working in this country during all that period, surely nobody would suggest that a miserable pittance of $30 a month is a sufficient amount. When we recall that the national income of Canada today is around $9,000,000,000, which works out at an average of $3,000 for a family of four, no one can argue that Canada could not very well pay them a substantial amount, and we have therefore urged that a minimum pension of $50 a month be paid at the age of sixty regardless of any other income that the individual might happen to be receiving.
On the other hand I realize that the government is facing an almost impossible task when it attempts to finance a balanced programme under a debt creating system. You often hear it said by people throughout the country that we found the money for war, and therefore we would have no trouble finding the money for peace. You may say that we can finance the peace in exactly the same way in which we have been financing the war; but can we? These people apparently think the Liberal party have found some new way of financing during the war. Unfortunately there has been no real change in policy. The government is still depending upon taxation and borrowing. The only difference is that instead of depending on the borrowing of the savings of the people, it has been financing quite heavily by borrowing newly created money from the
The Address-Mr. Quelch

banking system. As a result of that policy, the national debt has risen from a figure of arrund 3-J billion dollars as of December, 1939, to around fourteen or fifteen billion dollars as at the end of 1944. Does anybody really believe that we can continue to expand the debt in that way? Some people may be optimistic and say: Well, there is no reason why in the future we should not be able to reduce this debt. Yet what is the record of Canada in the past? In no year since confederation have we ever reduced the amount of public debt in this country. I know that the assistant to the Minister of Finance last year mentioned that from 1924 to 1930 we had a balanced budget and reduced Ihe national debt by $250 million. But he should have added that during that period, owing to the policies of the federal government, the provincial debt increased by $500 million, so that on balance the public debt, instead of being reduced by $250 million, was expanded by $250 million. That has been the growth of public debt in Canada. Year by year ever since confederation the public debt has steadily grown. So does anybody really think, now that our debt burden has been multiplied many times, that we are going to find it easier to finance in the future than we have found it in the past under this type of financial policy?
I was interested in the statement made by the principal of McGill university, Doctor James, to the reconstruction committee a few years ago. He said that if we want to maintain full employment and an optimum standard of living for our people we would have to adopt an entirely new budget philosophy. He said that in so far as current expenditures and revenue are concerned the budget could be balanced, but so far as capital expenditures are concerned we would have to be prepared to maintain an unbalanced budget, that we might have to expand our debt every year by three or four hundred million dollars, and be prepared to see that go on for the next one hundred years. The only quarrel I had with his statement was, why say one hundred years, and not for ever so long as we maintain our present financial system? So that if, according to Doctor James, it is necessary to expand the national debt by three or four hundred million dollars every year, what hope is there that we are ever going to pay off the national debt? Yet the Minister of Finance had the audacity last year to bring down a paper in which he said that the government after the war would introduce a scientific scheme of budgeting so that the national debt could be paid off. I think all of us will be interested when the budget comes down in hearing the Minister of Finance explain how in the future 
they are going to pay off the national debt through some scientific scheme. I agree, of course, that they may be able to do so if they are prepared to leave the road they have been travelling in the past and adopt the policy we have been advocating, which is that to the extent that taxation fails to meet government expenditures, national money should be issued through the Bank of Canada so that we can finance without any increase in debt or taxation.
And so we find that the government, in their confusion, in trying to remove the surplus production from this country, not surplus to the needs of the people but surplus to their ability to buy, in order to maintain full employment, are going to carry out a policy of large-scale foreign investments. This merely means that the standard of living of the people of this country will be reduced to that extent. That is why this group have always quarreled with the term "full employment" unless it is at the same time coupled with the words "in order io maintain an optimum standard of living", because we can very well have full employment and at the same time a lower standard of living, by exporting goods which are required by the people and not bringing imports back in return; that is, by a policy of foreign investment.
Notwithstanding anything I have said, I want it thoroughly understood that we of this group realize that we have a moral obligation to make goods available to the devastated areas of Europe, to the war-stricken nations. For that reason we have always supported in the house the principle of mutual aid and such measures as UNRRA. But we must keep this fact in mind: some day those areas will no longer be destitute. The day will come when these countries will rebuild their factories, and when that day comes these nations will desire to pay for their exports with their exports. At that time we must be prepared to accept freely the exports of other nations in payment for the exports we ship them. I would say that the real test of the economy we are building to-day will come four or five years from now, when these nations desire to pay for their imports with their exports. The test will come, whether or not we have built up an economy in which we have an effective demand against the production of the country and the production of other nations for which our own production can be exchanged. If we have not done that we shall be visited with a situation which may very well develop into a serious depression.

The Address-Mr. Quelch
The speech from the throne states that we are to be asked to approve a measure to provide for Canada's participation in the final act of the Bretton Woods agreement; that is, to join in the international monetary fund and the bank of reconstruction. Without any hesitation I can say that in so far as this group is concerned the government will get no support from us in that programme. We shall oppose the measure because, in the first instance, it means a restoration of the gold standard. I know some will siy, Les, but it is a different gold standard." Well, the gold standard of 1925 was different from the gold standard of 1914, but still it was a gold standard. The main difference between the gold standard of Bretton Woods and that of 1925 is that the former is of an even more vicious character. Second, we shall oppose it because in its present form it is bound to create international friction. I have heard many people say, "Do you not realize that the experts of forty-four different nations signed that agreement and consented to participate in this scheme, and did so voluntarily? Is it likely that these experts would have been willing to participate in that scheme had they thought it would be detrimental to their countries?"
In the first place, let us realize that these experts did not necessarily represent public opinion in their own countries. But there is another matter of even greater importance. To show what I mean I should like to quote from an editorial which was published in the Fundy Fisherman of August 28, taken from the New Zealand Mirror, to show to what extent these agreements are being signed voluntarily:
The lend-lease agreements which the various nations were obliged to sign before obtaining supplies contained a provision which was not in the legislation enacted by congress. This laid down that the debtor nations were to enter into agreements directed to the expansion, by appropriate international and domestic measures, of production, employment and the exchange and consumption of goods, etc. The international money plan is the first of these measures. It is one thing to consider the plan on its merits. It is another matter altogether to discover what the consequence of rejection will be.
In the London Economist of July 21 we find
this statement regarding the situation in which Britain is being placed by having to say "yes" or "no" to this agreement:
As a matter of plain economies, there would seem to be a clear balance of argument against the Bretton Woods scheme-that is against the monetary fund. . . . But as a matter of politics or (if the word is taken to imply something sinister) of amicable relations between governments, there is almost everything to be said in its favour. How much economic hazard is
a reasonable price for continued generosity and friendship or at the least for avoidance of American disappointment and resentment? It all depends upon the size of the hazard and the intensity of the friendship.
I would say, "some friendship!" The sincerity of a friendship which demands economic chaos as the price of its maintenance may indeed be questioned. In other words, we find that nations which are acquiescing in the Bretton Woods agreement are indulging in a policy of appeasement, and surely this war has shown that appeasement never pays; a showdown has to come, and the longer you appease the other nation, the greater will be the showdown when it comes; it is far better to have it at the start.
I am not going to say any more at this time about the Bretton Woods agreement, but when th measure is before the house we shall have quite a bit more to say.
The speech from the throne refers also to a measure to establish a veterans' charter. This charter is to embrace, I understand, the various orders in council which have been passed in regard to soldier rehabilitation. \\e are strongly in favour of a committee being appointed to investigate that charter and to suggest any necessary amendments. Most people realize that to-day there is a good deal of confusion and dissatisfaction with regard to veterans' affairs. Let me add that much of that confusion is to be found right amongst the officials of the minister's own department.
I want to briefly refer to the Veterans' Land Act. My reference to it will be brief because no doubt the time to discuss it will be when the matter of setting up a committee is brought up; that is, if a committee is appointed, which I trust will be the case. I was on the committee in 1942 when we discussed the new Veterans' Land Act. I realized at the time that the new act was a great improvement on the old Soldier Settlement Act; nevertheless I recognized that there were certain weaknesses in it. I pointed them out at the time. Unfortunately many of them still exist. I am going to refer to this now because I hope the minister will take steps to remove these evils and not wait until a committee is set up.
I have in mind especially section 13. I am not surprised that that section was labeled "13," because it has been and is a hoodoo to many returned men who hoped to benefit under it. The director of the Veterans' Land Act, Mr. Murchison, has stated that he does not consider this is a matter of very great importance, because, of one thousand soldiers settling under the Veterans' Land Act, only six have gone under section 13. Well, naturally
The Address-Mr. Quelch

no soldier would go under section 13 if he could possibly avoid doing so, but I am quite certain that if that section is amended as it should be we shall find that a very large number of soldiers will take advantage of it.
Section 13 provides that where a soldier has a farm with a mortgage on it he can obtain a loan from the soldier settlement board in order to pay that mortgage back. He will not, however, receive any of the other benefits of the act. He will not receive any grant. I pointed that out in the committee and I pointed it out in the house. The Minister of Veterans Affairs will remember that the leader of the opposition at that time asked him whether my statement was correct, that there was discrimination, and the minister himself admitted that there was. But unfortunately nothing was done about it.
This is the situation. You may have a soldier with a half-section of land valued at $5,000, with a mortgage of $3,000, in which case he has an equity of $2,000 in that land. All he can do under the Veterans Land Act is to get a loan to pay off that mortgage with interest at 3i per cent, but he does not get benefits beyond that. He does not get a grant but merely a loan. On the other hand, if a veteran returning has, instead of an equity of $2,000 in a half-section, $2,000 of an equity in bank deposits or $3,000 in bonds, he can get the benefit to the full extent of the act and can get an outright gift of around $2,300.
I maintain that the soldier who has a farm with a mortgage on it representing an equity of $2,000 should be able to sell that land back to the board and take advantage of the Veterans Land Act and get the full benefits of that act. Why should he be treated differently from the soldier who has his money tied up, not in: land but in bonds?
The minister recognized last year that discrimination existed, but so far nothing has been done. Unfortunately, however, that is not the whole story. If a soldier obtains a loan to pay off a mortgage he loses the whole amount of the reestablishment credit. I could not believe that because, according to the act, he could lose it only to the extent that the benefits he receives are greater than the rehabilitation credit. But I telephoned the deputy minister regarding this and he informs me that if a soldier comes under section 13 he loses the reestablishment credit.
No one would argue that when a soldier receives a loan he is receiving more than his rehabilitation credit. Apparently they are taking the stand that a loan of $3,000 is the same as a gift of $3,000. The soldier does not

receive any gift when he receives a loan; the only benefit he receives is a reduction in the rates of interest. Therefore the soldier who comes under that section should be entitled to the full amount of the rehabilitation credit, although it states that when he comes under the Veterans Land Act he loses those benefits. So long as he is under section 13 he should receive the full amount of the rehabilitation credit, and1 the minister will find, I believe, that the members of his staff are fully in accord with that suggestion. However, since we shall be discussing this question later on I will go into greater detail then.
One more question that I would refer to in this connection is the question of the merchant marine. Unfortunately the merchant marine is excluded entirely from all benefits of rehabilitation unless the seaman has received a disability while serving on a ship. That is as I understand it. We discussed this question in the soldier rehabilitation committee in 1942, and the opinion of the majority of the committee was that the merchant marine should benefit under the Veterans Land Act. But the minister then pointed out that it would not be in the interests of the country to encourage the seamen to leave the sea at the end of the war. The seamen would be needed, and therefore they could) not make the act applicable to the merchant marine, but at a later date that might be done.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has my hon. friend seen the order in council passed last year in regard to merchant marine benefits? If he has not I will send him a copy to-morrow.


Victor Quelch: Does it apply to the
Veterans Land Act? Do they benefit under the Veterans Land Act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, but there are lots of other benefits.


Victor Quelch: That is what I am referring to. I am glad to hear that sailors dio now receive certain benefits.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If pensionable.


Victor Quelch: Yes, provided that they
suffer a>
disability while serving on a ship. But the soldier or the airman need not have received any disability in order to get the grant or the rehabilitation credit or any other rehabilitation measure. Why, therefore, should the merchant marine have to suffer a disability? All hon. members realize the tremendous service which the merchant marine has given the country.

The Address-Mr. White (Middlesex)


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should) be giad if
the hon. member would defer this part of his remarks until I can send him a copy of the order in council to-morrow. I am afraid he has not seen it.


Victor Quelch: I was informed by an
official of the department that a man had to be pensionable to get the benefits. He had to receive a disability.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not for some of the
benefits, but for the land act.


Victor Quelch: The minister admits that
so far as the Veterans' Land Act is concerned the merchant marine are not eligible. The minister remembers that when this matter was discussed in the committee it was felt that at the earliest possible date the merchant marine should be eligible. Perhaps right now it is felt that these men are needed at sea, but as soon as we can spare them from the sea, then the act should be made available to them. In all sincerity I would say to the minister that perhaps the best way to encourage merchant marine seamen to stay am the sea would be to maintain a decent wage and not to do as the Park steamship company is trying to do, to bring about a drastic reduction ini wages. That is not the way to encourage seamen to remain on the sea.


James Horace King: Order. I must remind
the hon. gentleman that he has spoken for over forty minutes.


Victor Quelch: If I might have one minute longer, I should like to have said a few words regarding the necessity of putting into operation certain national projects for irrigation. I understand from what the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) said yesterday, and from the white paper, that it is not intended to make a large expenditure in that regard now. They are going to build a shelf of national projects to take care of unemployment if it should occur in the future. In other words, national projects apparently are omce more to become relief projects. I feel that where it can be shown that there is absolute need for implementing a certain project, that project should be carried out to-day just so long as the men and materials required can be found.


Mr. H. O. WHITE (Middlesex East):: In rising to address the house for the first time I wish to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on the high office to which you have been elected. I wish also to thank you for the kindness you have extended to new members in overlooking some of their shortcomings. I know I shall be needing some of that consideration myself.
I represent the constituency of Middlesex East, the area surrounding the city of London, and while surrounding the city of London I have not yet been able to surround the member for that constituency.
I am in a rather peculiar industry, possibly. While I am a farmer, I am surprised at the lack, shall I say, of words in appreciation and support of the farmers' position in the country. Not only am I a farmer, but I am engaged, as I say, in a peculiar industry in that I am able to steal a living from my neighbours. I am in the business of producing honey and those who want to get my product must line up and produce coupons.
A good deal has been said about housing and sanitary facilities, but no one seems to think about the men and women on our Canadian farms who have done without things for years, while at the same time producing the food to feed starving Europe. According to a survey, there are 125,000 sub-standard farm homes and it is also well known that there are hundreds of vacant homes throughout the farming areas of Canada. One only needs to drive through western Ontario to realize that conditions must change. We see weeds on every hand, fences and buildings in need of repairs. There is no shortage of things to be done. There are jobs for all. The very fact that this government subsidized farm products is an acknowledgment that the farmer is not receiving adequate prices and at a time when consumers generally are more able to pay for food than ever before. Farmers fear, above all else, that agriculture may be allowed to descend to the level of European peasantry.
It is my wish to direct the attention of the house to the noticeable absence in the speech from the throne to any specific plans for agriculture. This lack of plans for agriculture is noticeable in many instances, but more particularly in the present situation with regard to cattle marketing and failure to maintain hog production in face of the professed need for meat products. It is in the best interests of this house that the representatives of the people get back to earth occasionally. Anyone who was among the farmers and the people last week could not but understand that the farmers are up in arms over the cattle marketing situation.
The statement of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) on Friday, that the weighing facilities were responsible for the congestion at Toronto yards, is not the opinion which I received from A. M. Stewart, the oat king, one of the directors of the stockyards, residing in Middlesex county-


Mr. GARDINER:: Partly responsible.
288	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. White (Middlesex)


Harry Oliver White: -and which was to the effect that 6,000 a day could be weighed. He stated that so far they have weighed without delay every lot that has been purchased and were prepared and equipped to handle all the cattle that come into the yards.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the president of the organization said that the number was 4,000.


Harry Oliver White: Farmers
resent the strikes planned by labour in food processing plants which are timed at the most critical marketing periods, and apparently neither labour nor management care how great a loss these strikes are to the farmer. Labour is entitled to support in obtaining its high levels of employment, for decent hours and fair pay, but the farmers expect fair treatment as well. Information is not available as to the number of cattle sold directly to the packing houses, while hundreds of cattle are left in the stockyards unsold, to be purchased later at a loss to the producer.
A farmer acquaintance of mine, living near the Montana border in Alberta, told me that in the five years of war, the difference in price of cattle between Alberta and Montana has cost him about twenty thousand dollars.
There is a need for all the meat that we can produce, but farmers must not be forced to take a loss of from ten to twelve dollars on every good beast. On the other hand, small butchers and grocers are objecting to the complications and extra work the ration entails. Small operators are being sacrificed to the large packing companies. We hear considerable about the decentralization of industry. The best interests of the country are served when as much as possible of the processing can be done nearest the area of production, and not as the farmers are compelled to do under the present regulations, which send their produce to the plants of the big packers.
The much heralded free enterprise must also include free markets for our cattle and produce. George Bernard Shaw once said that this planet was the insane asylum of the universe. I think this is the only explanation of our meat ration and housing situation as it exists to-day. Some of its more erratic patients are in charge of those plans.
Let us take one look at the soil of Canada. Soil fertility is not an ever-flowing spring that is renewed each year by the snow and the rain. Every farm product that is sold off the farm removes certain essential elements of fertility. A glimpse of things to come along this line may be found in the decreasing yields of farm crops. The numerous deficiency

diseases of plants, animals and humans are but an indication of the lack of these essential elements, as is the enormous increase of weeds which in a way is nature's attempt to repair soil depletion, by the return of humus to the soil. History has shown that man cannot disregard this important matter. Many once fertile areas of the old world are now deserts. Ever westward moved the farmers of America. Let us plan to maintain our soil, the basic wealth of this country. The farmer under present conditions is unable to make provision to maintain soil fertility. The government of Canada must not again permit the farm income to fall to such a low level that the farmer will be unable to buy the needed material for rebuilding his source of income.
A word or two about free enterprise. The farmer, to my mind, knows better than most just what free enterprise means. To him it means freedom to market his crops and sell his live stock where he pleases and at the best possible prices. He does not ask for state controls that hamper all his activities. He does ask for protection from the government in his dealings on the markets so that he may hold his own. We, as the parliament of Canada, must see that he gets that protection. We do not want conditions such as would drive him in defeat to the socialist way of life; conditions where he has to sell to the big packer at a loss on his cost of production when he could sell elsewhere at a profit, for instance, in the United States. Socialism thrives on a defeatist attitude and our farmers must not be allowed to fall into it. They have their hopes pinned on us. We must fulfil their expectations.
Farmers are not looking for social security. All they have ever asked for is an opportunity to sell their products at a parity price with the things they have to buy. Given a parity price, they will be able to equip their farms and homes to modern standards; they will be able to educate their children; they will be able to have leisure time; they will be able to lay something aside to provide for their old age Just as in the case of the worker, where real social security means the right to a good job at good pay, the farmer can provide his own social security if he is given the opportunity.
I wish to say a word or twro about the Veterans' Land Act housing. Veterans' Land Act houses are a menace to rural municipalities. They must be the dream of a bachelor. Municipalities are going to be saddled with these houses. Drainage, roads and many services will be demanded. Fortunate are the municipalities that are without these rural

House oj Commons
slums. There is something the matter when good hundred acre farms with house and barns in Middlesex, Lambton, Huron, Perth and many other counties sell for less money than these veterans' land houses of questionable value. Before the veteran has paid for the house, he will certainly have lost his equity in it.
With the war over, we all want to see a reduction in taxation and in our national debt. With gratuities and the social security measures planned we shall not find this easy. It must be done, however, if we are to go forward in the post-war period. Canada needs selected immigration. If our population were double what it is now, our debt per capita could be cut in half. If prices of farm products and basic industries are allowed to fall to one-half their present level, that would be the equivalent of doubling our national debt.
I wish to say a word about the transatlantic conference lines. Prior to the war I was engaged in exporting honey to the United Kingdom. At that time an agreement existed between the principal steamship lines in regard to rates from Montreal and other seaboard ports. Owing to an oversight Toronto was not included in this agreement, and small Norwegian freighters could come to Toronto, pick up freight and deliver it in the United Kingdom for much less than the conference rates. With the advent of a Canadian merchant navy owing to the war and, at some future date, the deepening of the St. Lawrence river, let us be in a position to market our Canadian produce in Canadian boats, at rates which are not set by any cartel or outside shipping monopoly.
On motion of Mr. Belzile the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Wednesday, September 19, 1945.