Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following message from the Assistant Secretary to His Excellency the Governor General:
Ottawa, September 11, 1945.
Sir:-I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Thibaudeau Rinfret, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Wednesday, September 12, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.
The Honourable,
The Speaker of the House of Commons, Ottawa.



INCOME WAR TAX ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre) moved the first reading of bill No. 5, to amend the Income War Tax Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Mr. Speaker, this bill would add to the appropriate section of the Income War Tax Act the following words:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall operate to prevent a minister of the crown from communicating to the Senate or to the House of Commons any information obtained under the provisions of this act.
The purpose of this amendment would be to remove the restrictions as to secrecy now imposed by subsection 1 of section 81, which in my view have the effect of denying to the house information which at times ought to be readily available.

Standing Committees
This amendment would also affect the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, since sections 40 to 87 of the Income War Tax Act are, by-section 14 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, made to apply thereto.


Mr. CHURCH:: Communicating information from the cradle to the grave.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 6, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. FAIR:: Mr. Speaker, paragraph (i) of section 8 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, reads:
-in selling and disposing of wheat as by this act provided, to utilize and employ without discrimination such marketing agencies, including commission merchants, brokers, elevator men, exporters and other persons engaged in or operating facilities for the selling and handling of wheat, as the board in its discretion may determine.
In my opinion and in the opinion of many farmers of western Canada, the present elimination of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange from the business of handling wheat should be continued forever; and this amendment is introduced for the purpose of releasing the Canadian wheat board from the restrictions imposed under this legislation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 7, to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1938.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Robert Fair: I have introduced this amendment on other occasions, and I feel that this is the appropriate time to re-introduce it, in the hope that, during this session it will be treated as it should be. Section 14 deals with the disqualification of electors, and subsection 2, paragraph (k), states:
[DOT]-in any province, every person who is an inmate of an institution which is maintained by any government or municipality for the housing and maintenance of the poor, if such person is by the law of that province disqualified from voting at an election of a member of the legislative assembly of that province, and did not serve in the military, naval or air forces of Canada in the war of 1914-18.
In the near future, Mr. Speaker, we are going to deal with the question of citizenship. I believe that before our deliberations on that matter are completed, this paragraph should be deleted from the Dominion Elections Act-Let us have democracy throughout our country.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



STANDING COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to make a suggestion to the Prime Minister and the government with regard to the standing committees of the house. I would preface this by saying that in my opinion the present standing committee set-up of this house could be improved. If the suggestion I offer receives the approval of the government, consideration ought to be given to this point before the special committee now preparing the list of members to serve on these committees makes its report to the house.
Two of the most important subjects with which the house must, deal are labour and external -affairs. Under the existing arrangements both these subjects fall within the jurisdiction of one committee, the standing committee on industrial and international relations. At this and succeeding sessions these two subjects must receive far greater attention than has been the custom in the past, and I believe the work is too heavy and too important to be placed upon a single committee. In my opinion there should be two standing committees, one on labour and industrial relations and the other on commonwealth and international affairs. Thus we would be assured of the opportunity for more adequate study by duly constituted committees of both these vital subjects, which have now achieved an importance far greater than at the time the existing committee on industrial and international relations was first established.
Would the Prime Minister and the government give consideration to presenting to the house an amendment to standing order 63 to give effect to this proposal?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I may say to my hon. friend that the suggestion he has just made

War Appropriation Bills
is one which, if my recollection serves me aright, has been made at previous sessions and I think is one dieserving of very careful consideration. When industrial and international relations were referred to one committee, it was felt that most industrial problems had become more or less world problems, and equally, that the most perplexing of the world problems were related in one way or the other to industry. So it was thought that the committee which would be considering the one subject would naturally be interested in the other. I agree with my hon. friend that at the present time there are no questions more important than those which relate to industry and those which relate to international affairs. If there were two separate committees therefore it might and I believe would improve the opportunities of hon. members to give careful study to these questions. I shall be very happy to consult with my colleagues immediately as to the desirability of instituting two committees instead of one.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: I should like to ask a question
of the Minister of Finance with respect to item No. 5 on page 12 of the order paper. During war time the government in bringing down the war appropriation, bills has, with a considerable measure of agreement by the house, departed from the usual parliamentary procedure in dealing with money bills. In presenting such bills in the past few years it has been the practice of the Minister of Finance to provide the members of the house with what one might call' a "fluid schedule" which was debated at great length at the resolution stage before the bill was introduced. This schedule, as I understand it, was submitted only as a guide to the house, but was not made a part of the bill introduced. It did not, therefore, restrict the government in the use of the total appropriation. There were, no doubt, reasons for proceeding in that way during war time. Now that the war is over my question to the minister is this:	Will he
not now revert to the usual peace time practice with respect to money bills, and have the schedule of expenditures attached to and printed with the bill? If that procedure is reverted to, the members of the house will have the printed bill before them and the breakdown of expenditures in the form of a schedule to the bill.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, very full and extended consideration was given to the proposal which the hon. member has now put in words. On the earlier occasion it was not made by him, but rather by members within the government itself, and was given full consideration. Eventually we came to the conclusion that it was too early to revert to the practice of itemizing estimates, and that the situation now is scarcely less predictable, with accuracy and certainty, than it is in time of war. It was felt that there must be some power-and a very considerable power-in the changing of plans in respect of expenditures. That is to say, suppose we give the house an indication of our intention to spend, say, $150 million for a certain purpose. It may turn out between now and the end of the fiscal, year that the amount required is only $75 million, but that a larger amount than we now intend to spend for some other purpose will be required..
May I add that the same question must have arisen at the end of the last war. The armistice was on November 11, 1918, and in June of 1919, a date within the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the war ended, the government of that day decided it would have to continue the practice of providing for some fluidity in respect of intended expenditures. If the leader of the opposition will look at the 1919 statutes he will find there a demobilization appropriation act based upon the same principles as our war appropriation acts, and indeed using the same words as our acts.
I admit at once that just as soon as possible we should get back to a position where items are passed, and where the government is strictly limited in its expenditures to each item passed. As Minister of Finance I should like to see that position resumed at the earliest possible day. It is a protection to the treasury; it is good in principle and it is a right practice to follow. I am quite unable, however, to recommend that we follow it at this moment or at this stage. We are in the middle of the year in which hostilities have ceased, and at this time many of the items we are going to place before the house, while perhaps a little better than guesses, are not what one could call estimates in any true sense of the word. Nothing like the degree of certainty is possible in respect of these estimates that is possible concerning the estimates for civil purposes.
I hope the leader of the opposition will believe that this matter has been approached with a deep sense of responsibility. It has been canvassed with the senior officers of the

Prairie Farm Assistance
various departments, and while there might possibly be a very human desire on their part for a certain freedom in respect of expenditures, yet they have been most sincere in the advice they have given unanimously that this year we should follow the same principle with which we started the fiscal year, namely, that we should have a lump sum appropriation which we can apply to this, that or the other purpose, provided that those purposes are connected with the war.


John Bracken: I should like to thank the minister for giving the reasons for bringing the measure forward in this fashion. I can understand that there is considerable justification for it under present conditions. I would strongly urge, however, that this be the last time the government proceed with a measure of the kind in this way. When may we expect a break-down of the items to be presented to the house in connection with this matter?


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the debate in reply is completed to-day, I would expect to introduce the resolution to-morrow.


John Bracken: And the minister would have a break-down then?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I can have a break-down then, which can be placed upon Hansard.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Reconstruction. I sent him notice of my question before eleven o'clock this morning. Has the minister cancelled a meeting which was to have been held this afternoon, Wednesday, of representatives of management and workers in the steel industry, to consider employment and related problems? If so, why?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction) :: For the past several months I have had a number of meetings with representatives of labour from various industries. These meet ings have been arranged by a committee composed of high officials of the several labour congresses and federations of the country. Some weeks ago I held such a meeting to discuss the problems of the steel industry. In the course of the meeting Mr. Millard asked me to arrange a meeting between a group from labour in the steel industry and a group from the industry itself. At some considerable inconvenience I arranged a meeting-and had to use a good deal of persuasion to do it.
Four or five days ago a number of clippings were put on my desk stating that Mr. Millard, in addressing a labour meeting at Toronto, had said that he would not attend the meeting I had arranged unless I apologized for something or other. It then appeared to me that the purpose of the proposed meeting was undoubtedly political, rather than constructive. For that reason I cancelled the meeting on the ground that I am too busy at this time to attend political meetings in my own office.


Major James William Coldwell: When it was suggested to me that I make this inquiry I asked the question regarding the alleged statement by Mr. Millard, to which the minister has referred. I am informed that neither Mr. Millard nor the union nor any member of the union authorized any such statement. I am informed, further, that they intended to attend the meeting, if it was called, and that the press report is entirely incorrect.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Major James William Coldwell: I think the minister should know that, though.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture arising out of the report of a statement made by Mr. Sinclair, one of the officers in Regina administering the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. His statement was to the effect that he anticipated an emergency year would be declared this year, because of the drastic reduction in crops in Saskatchewan and other parts of western Canada. Is the minister in a position to give a report as to the probability of an emergency year being declared.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: The act provides that a decision must be made by the government before November 1. The matter is considered each year prior to that time; and when it has been considered an announcement will be made.
The Address-Mr. Ross (Souris)



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, September 11, 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. A. ROSS (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all offer my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Benidickson) and the seconder (Mr. Langlois) of this motion for an address to His Excellency. I wish to compliment them on their able presentations on their first appearance as members of this house despite the fact that they failed to see any of the shortcomings of the government of the day. Like my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt), I was surprised to notice that last evening the government were ready, in fact seemed eager to have the vote on this motion proceed when there are so many perplexing or vexing questions before the people of this nation and when as yet responsible ministers had not made statements in connection therewith. It has been pointed out that while the address was quite lengthy it is rather vague and I had thought some of the ministers would have made statements on some of these vexing questions.
The first matter I should like to deal with or at least ask questions about is that of meat rationing which was introduced again in this country on September 10, while this parliament was in session and without any statement on the situation being made by any responsible minister of the government. Some reference was made, I think perhaps by accident, by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) when he was answering a question which had been asked on hog production. His remarks will be found on page 24 of Hansard. He stated that there was a great surplus of meat in Canada at the present time and that we were called upon to supply approximately six per cent of the requirements of the devastated countries. One reading that statement could not help gaining the impression that he did not favour meat rationing in this country at this time. I am glad he is in his seat and if I am wrong in my belief I know he will correct me.


James Garfield Gardiner: As the press stated, I did not mention rationing at all.


James Arthur Ross: I think anybody reading the remarks of the minister would gain the impression I have mentioned. He is at

liberty to state now whether or not he favours rationing at this time. According to Mr. Donald Gordon, head of the prices control board, who is in charge of rationing, the great surpluses of meat are to be found at the present time in Canada and the United States. I should like to refer to a report in the New York Times of August 18, 1945. The secretary for agriculture, Mr. C. P. Anderson, who I think is recognized as the czar of food controls in the United States of America, is the sole authority in determining the need of civilian rationing. According to this article he has stated that meat rationing might well end this fall because of the cut-backs and the heavy runs of grass-fed cattle in that country.
I want it to be clearly understood that I am heartily in accord with the idea of supplying all the meat and foodstuffs possible to Britain and the devastated countries of the world, but as I have stated no reasonablt explanation has been given to either the producers or the consumers of this country that we are following the proper course to see that these people obtain this much needed meat and foodstuffs. In fact statistics and experience would indicate that meat rationing at this time is an improper course to follow.
It is true that as a result of government policy hog production is down over thirty per cent at this date, but beef cattle production has increased over thirty per cent since 1939. That is the increase which has occurred during the war years. In many cases the producers have found great difficulty in marketing their stock at the various yards throughout the nation. We had meat rationing from May 27, 1943, until February 29, 1944, and during that time processed meat was allowed to accumulate and spoil at the cost of the Canadian taxpayer. It was estimated that more meat was consumed in Canada during that rationing period than had been consumed previously.
Along with other members, I have been receiving telegrams during the last few days. I happen to represent a constituency which is not entirely wheat producing. The people in my constituency are mixed farmers and I would estimate that half of them harvest their crops with the old threshing machine in order to save their straw for their stock. Among other telegrams I received one from a local processor, a butcher, pointing out that the local rationing board had not received any meat coupons for transients. This meant that during this period no farmer in the locality could purchase meat for his threshing crew. One can understand what that would mean during this busy season with the prevailing shortage of man-power.
SEiPTEMBER 12, 1945	113
The Address-Mr. Ross (Souris)
The first thing I did was to get in touch with the office of Mr. Taylor, the food administrator, who had made this announcement to the people of Canada. I was directed from one office to another, about a dozen in rotation, but I finally found a man who said that he understood the local situation and that these coupons should have been there. He assured me yesterday that he would have this matter straightened out through the Winnipeg office. This gives one some idea of the great bureaucratic set-up we have and the enormous number of officials and inspectors employed in the carrying out of such an undertaking. I trust that this matter has been satisfactorily settled and that these people will be able to procure much needed rations. I do not know of anyone more deserving than those who are working long hours in the harvest fields producing other forms of food.
The producers of meat in Canada are extremely anxious to have as much meat as possible go to Britain and the other devastated countries in order that future markets may be established. However, they do not consider that meat rationing is the proper course to follow at this time and they are vitally concerned. We could better supply that demand on a quota basis rather than, have this rationing set-up.
During the past summer and early autumn we had strikes in the packing plants across Canada which lasted for many days. During that time no meat was processed for anyone in this country or overseas. The government of the day took no action whatever. The producer who happened to have stock at the yards during that period took his trimming when settlement was made for the cattle or hogs. During those days national selective service failed miserably.
Under our prices set-up for beef why should the producer have to take at least one and one-half cents per pound less in early August for animals which had grown and were in better condition as compared with what he would have received early in July? That is what occurred at the various markets across the country and I imagine it may be worse before snow falls this winter. During the past few years there has been a racket in our marketing policy which has affected the level of prices paid to producers of meat.
The Minister of Agriculture was requested t.o institute a permit system covering exports to the United' States of America in case there should be a heavy live stock rim. This could be done quite satisfactorily on the same basis as export permits are granted for barley and oats being shipped to the United States. The
differences in price are very great, usually at least fifty per cent more being paid there than is received in Canada, but that difference could be pooled for the producers. It would be very simple to handle and the producer would not be taking the licking that he has been forced to take every time these runs occur in the yards throughout this country. By so doing we would preserve our price control system for the Canadian consumer, so that no fault could be found in that respect. I believe that some such provision as this should be made immediately. As I have pointed out, we have over thirty per cent more cattle in the country to-day than at the beginning of the war, and many of our farmers will be forced this fall by force of circumstances to market almost their entire herds in certain parts of the west. Therefore it is imperative that some such step as I have proposed be taken for their protection.
We should also endeavour to obtain world markets. If we go along much further as we have been doing, the United States and other markets will be lost to the producers of this country.
As I have said, this is a vexed problem for many people in Canada, both producers and consumers, and a statement should be made by a responsible minister of the crown before we are asked to vote on this motion. We should not be asked to content ourselves with statements made by people, many of whom might not be able to have themselves elected under a democratic form of government such as we have in this country. The war is over, whether it has been declared over or not, and our people expect something different. They expect to hear from their democratic representatives.
A few words on another matter. It is quite apparent, despite all the government propaganda about its reconstruction plans, propaganda put out, by the way, at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer, that the government's plans are at this date non-existent.
My colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), in speaking of demobilization yesterday, gave emphatic proof of the unfairness of the present demobilization system, especially with reference to the overseas men who have done so much for us during the past five years and more. He also pointed out how the present system of demobilization operates to the advantage of many of the members of our second army, the N.R.M.A. men, which I think is unfortunate.
At one period of the war men in the army were allowed upon discharge a clothing allowance at $35; later on, the clothing allowance
The Address-Mr. Ross (Souris)

was raised to $65, and at the present time it is $100. I sincerely trust that the government will see that all the men discharged eventually receive the same clothing allowance. I think that can justly be expected of the government.
With respect to members of the armed forces wishing to take university training it is recognized in my province at least, that grade 12 is the equivalent of first year at university, and in my little town-and the same is true of many towns in the province-grade 12 is taught in collegiate. But we had a statement from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott) the other day that grade 12 will not be recognized as first year at university, and that these men must attend the university.
I noticed a statement in this morning's press by the president of the great university of Toronto that over 900 applications had been received to attend that university this fall, 600 of which were from the armed services. He said that they could accommodate only 400. Therefore I urge, Mr. Speaker, that this matter be reconsidered and that these young men be allowed to take their first year university training in their own home districts. Many of them are young chaps with no position to support them and, if this suggestion were adopted and they could take their first year's training at home, their parents would not be out of pocket for their son's living expenses.
I wish to refer to national housing. As was so well said by my leader, the present situation is a blot on the record of the government, and worse. In the prairie provinces, outside of the large cities, it is an absolute washout. The finance companies, and the insurance companies whom the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has been consulting, refuse point blank to have anything to do under the act with housing in the towns and villages of the prairie provinces, so that the plan is entirely inoperative in any shape or form outside of the large cities. Tliat is true of every town and village west of the great lakes, where there is an urgent demand for housing to-day. Canada's housing requirements are probably half a million houses short of being met to-day. We have national housing under the Minister of Finance and we have wartime housing under the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe). It has been charged in recent days by responsible lumbermen that certain finishing materials have been frozen for wartime housing, where the material is actually not required as yet. If that is the case these materials should be released. In my neighbourhood-and I think the same is true all across the country-many people have begun to build their homes which they intended to occupy this winter, and now they find they 
cannot proceed to make them habitable for the winter months because of lack of materials. That is a very serious problem for many people. In the three prairie provinces seventy per cent of the population is rural; yet under our controller system there is a priority for the cities of the prairies of 70 per cent of the lumber available. The whole thing is just wrong end to. The result is that the individual cannot get the finishing materials which he urgently requires at this time, and some statement clarifying the situation should be made by a responsible minister. I trust that the responsible minister will be able to do something toward decentralization in this matter. Centralization seems to be growing in every department of the government, but now that the war is over, theoretically at least, it is time that we moved toward decentralization in many government undertakings, and the government should at least tell the people what they may expect in the matter of housing during the coming months and in the nearfuture years because the people are much perturbed over the present situation.
Another matter on which I should like to say a few words is the transferable vote, and this is a personal thought of my own. I know there is difference of opinion in all groups about the transferable vote. When the Prime Minister accepted the leadership of his party in 1919 he set forth in his chart the subject of election reform. It is passing strange that at this late date he has made no move in that respect. He has told us that this is his last parliament, and yet no move has been made by him to institute the transferable vote in our dominion elections. We have had the transferable vote in Manitoba for many years and it has worked most satisfactorily there. They have it in Alberta also, I think, and it has worked well there too. In a democracy such as ours surely the will of the majority should prevail to the fullest possible extent. But what happens under our present system? In the last dominion parliament we had seventy-four members who were elected on a minority vote. In this parliament we have 149 members who were elected on a minority vote. Provision should be made in our election machinery for the transferable vote, so that where a number of candidates are contesting a riding the voter can indicate his second choice and the will of the majority of the electors prevail. I have always thought we should have that in a democracy such as ours, and I trust that the government will do something along this line.
I was surprised at the way in which the Prime Minister wandered around in his remark? the other day, following the speech

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
so ably delivered by my leader. I could understand, of course, that the right hon. gentleman might be very tired after the load he has carried. Nevertheless I had expected more of the Prime Minister than what we heard. He spoke of having received his second mandate, although he did not go into detail and tell us how he had received it. True enough, his party received more votes than any other group, but they received very far from a majority of the votes. He did not tell us of the appeals he had made to sectionalism, both during the war years and during the campaign, pitting the wishes of certain sections of the country against those of others. I am very proud of my leader; he conducted a statesmanlike campaign from coast to coast in Canada; he was prepared to stand or fall by his principles as a great Canadian. Of that I am very proud, and I would be just as proud had I been defeated in my riding.
As to the soldiers' vote, they were so confused, that the vast majority of them never cast a ballot. I can understand that to some extent. The government in power, with their propaganda at the expense of the taxpayer, and their set-up to get it across to the troops, so befogged many of the soldiers that, as I say, the majority failed to cast a ballot at all. I am very happy to be able to point out that, despite the government propaganda, I for some reason received a complete majority over both of my opponents, as did my leader, the hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. Bracken).
I think I should follow the example of the leaders of the groups and endeavour to be brief on this occasion. But there are some vexing problems before the people at the present time, and I again appeal to the responsible ministers to make some statements on them for our guidance.
I shall support the amendment moved by my leader. I will not take time to read it; it will be found on page 34 of Hansard. I do not believe that any member of the house of any group dare stand up and tell his constituents that he is opposed to any one of the three sections of the amendment and that he is satisfied with the efforts of the government in any one of these three respects. Therefore, if they are to vote conscientiously, no matter where they sit in this house they should support the amendment.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: The speech of His Excellency delivered at the opening of this parliament has received some criticism and some praise. There is, however,
one paragraph in it on which all hon. members can agree, that is the first paragraph, which reads:
You will rejoice with me that the opening of the twentieth parliament of Canada comes at the moment of the victorious conclusion of the war.
I believe that not only all the members of this house but all the people of Canada and the peoples of the united nations who, with us, carried on this victorious conflict rejoice at the ending of the war.
However, it seems to me that our rejoicing is not complete. Our people are not entirely happy. They have fears and forebodings, which were discernible for a. considerable time before the war ended. The men and women in the services and the men and women in the war industries were hoping for the end of the war, but fearful of what was going to happen to them when the war ended; and I submit to you, sir, that if we consider the. ten years preceding this war, and the fact that the men and women who went into our armed forces and into our war industries were recruited in the main from that section of our population which came to maturity in the ten years prior to 1939, it is no wonder that they were fearful of what they would come back to when the war was over.
I think, although perhaps he did not intend it in that way, that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt) in his forceful speech yesterday evening proved this point, although he did not draw from it the full conclusion that he should have drawn. He said, as reported in yesterday's Hansard, at page 105:
What we do need, and wThat we have not had in my adult life-and what I fear we can never have from this government-is "action'' to give us full employment.
I do not know my hon. friend's age, but I imagine it is somewhere between thirty-five and forty. Consequently his adult life was not only in that period when this government was in office but also in the period when his own party was in office, and the full employment we are looking for to-day was just as far distant then as it is to-day.
That brings me to the next point I wish to make, and that is that this war, the last one, and the period in between the two wars have proven one thing, and proven it beyond the possibility of a doubt, namely, that the capitalist system can give full employment only in time of war; it has never given full employment in time of peace, and it never can give full employment in time of peace because its operation depends upon a reservoir of unemployment to keep it going.
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis


Mr. HOMUTH:: Oh, no.


Angus MacInnis: Say your "oh' s" some-were else.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: "No, no," not "oh, no".


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It was both.


Angus MacInnis: I wonder if my hon. friends will take the word of a more respectable authority than myself.


Mr. FRASER:: Not "more respectable", surely.


Angus MacInnis: I accept the compliment, but I still insist. I have in my hands a copy of the report of the governor of the Bank of Canada to the Minister of Finance for the year 1943; and in the section where he refers to our victory bond sales he says this:
For many individuals, victory bonds and war savings certificates purchased during the war period represent the first significant backlog of saving they have ever been able to build up. . . .
I think that is conclusive. That is not the full sentence; I will read the rest of the sentence, which gives us another sidelight on the capitalist system which is no better, indeed, but perhaps worse than the one I have already mentioned. But it is strange that we had to have a war in order that our people might be able to set a little bit aside for that rainy day which we are told always comes at some time in our lives. The next part of the sentence is this:
. . . and it is apparent that some high pressure promoters of dubious or worthless securities are attempting to exploit these savings.
That is capitalism.
I shall touch briefly on two or three points in the speech from the throne. The first item with Which I wish to deal is the paragraph which reads:
Preparations for the demobilization, rehabilitation and reestablishment in civil life of the men and women in the armed forces were well under way when Germany surrendered. The same is true of measures for the reconversion of the economic life of our country from a war-time to a peace-time basis, and for the maintenance of a high level of employment and national income. The plans thus developed to meet the requirements of the period of transition are now being put into full operation.
There is something wrong here. That paragraph is either a mis-statement of facts or the references that we hear throughout the country to the unpreparedness of the government, and the references that have been made in this house, are not correct. I maintain that this paragraph is a gross misrepresentation of the facts as they now are. As a matter of fact the government has no plans and it cannot
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
have any plans on the procedure that it is following, because it does not take under its control or direction the economic life of this country on which depends the reestablishment of the returned men and the full employment and prosperity of our people.
In the copy of "Post-war Planning Information" which came to my office yesterday the government gives its objectives as high and stable employment and income, and a greater sense of public responsibility for individual economic security and welfare. Here is what they say:
(1)	To facilitate private enterprise to produce and provide employment.
I want hon. members to note the wording of that statement. It is not employment that the people of this country need. What they need is production; but we are going back to the psychology of the nineteen thirties. We are thinking in terms of employment and not in terms of the things that people work for. Let us look at the different attitude that was adopted during the war. We got full employment during the war, but we did not get full employment by trying to provide jobs for people; we got full employment by providing the needs of the war. I submit to you, sir, that we can never get full employment in Canada by just thinking of making jobs for people. We have to think in terms of the people's needs and then plan and organize to fulfil those needs. If we do that, we shall have full employment; and when there are no needs to be filled, if people are unemployed so much the better.
The other objectives are:
(2)	To promote bold action by the state in those fields in which the public interest calls for public enterprise in national development;
(3)	To provide, through public investment, productive employment for our human and physical resources when international and other conditions adversely affect employment; and
(4)	To provide, on a basis of small regular payments against large and uncertain individual risks, for such hazards and disabilities as unemployment, sickness and old age.
I tell you, sir, that the government can never meet the situation that confronts us at the present time with a policy of that kind. The hon. member for Yancouver-Burrard said last night that laissez-Saire was dead. I go further than that and say that the capitalist system is dead. It reminds me of the old nursery rhyme:
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses and all the king's men Couldn't put Humpty together again.
And we are not going to put it together again with a policy of that kind.

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
The next paragraph in the speech from the throne to which I should like to refer is just as far off the mark as what I have read. It reads as follows:
Through the joint efforts of the government, industry and labour, the conversion of war industries to civilian production is taking place with a maximum of delay and inconvenience.


Mr. GREEN:: It is "with a minimum of
delay".


Angus MacInnis: Yes, "with a minimum of delay and inconvenience." I did not wish to be unfair to my hon. friends across the way.
I do not know just when this speech was put together, but I imagine that it was before we had that fine example of cooperation at the Lambton Golf club.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Since when did your labour leaders travel with reporters and camera men?


Mr. GILLIS:: They did not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They did.


Mr. WRIGHT:: No, they did not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was there.


Angus MacInnis: Then it can be assumed as logically that the reporters travelled with you; you were there too. That does not prove anything, it is the manner in which they were received that is important. Those of us who have been closely associated with the affairs of labour since the war began, and long before that, know the difficulty that labour had in getting any cooperation or recognition in industry. It was one continual battle. In 1941 the government refused point-blank to sign a contract with a trade union; and it was not until the fall of 1942 that it passed an order-in-council-I do not know why it was necessary-to permit itself to sign agreements with a trade union.
If any other proof of the lack of cooperation is required I cannot do better than read a statement made by the Minister of Reconstruction at the meeting of the Trades and Labour Congress in Toronto in 1944. And may I say before I read this that I have the highest regard for the minister's ability and the work that he has done during the last six years. He has been told that from this side of the house on many occasions, but there are more things required in life than just ability. Talking to the delegates he said:
You will say at once that I could have proposed this close association during my period as Minister of Munitions and Supply. I look back over the last five years and admit that better results could have been obtained had a closer exchange of views been arranged. My excuse for not having taken the initiative in making arrangements of that kind is that there
have not been hours in the day sufficient to do everything that should have been done.
We all learn by experience-
Some more than others.
-and sometimes an opportunity comes to reorganize in a way that will profit by that experience. Therefore, in reorganizing the Department of Reconstruction I intend to ask you, who represent organized labour, to take an active part in the work of that department.
That department has been organized. I do not know exactly who are the officials now, but in April 1945 all the officers of the Department of Reconstruction had been appointed. I have their names here, and I do not find the name of a single representative of labour among them. Here they are: Mr. R. A. C. Henry, who I think was deputy minister in the Department of Munitions and Supply, on leave from Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated; J. H. Berry, director-general of war supplies, on leave from General Motors Corporation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has no right to say that. Mr. Berry has not been associated with General Motors for some five years, and he is not on leave from that company. Mr. Henry is not on leave from Montreal Light, Heat and Power.


Angus MacInnis: Very well; I take the word of the minister for it, but I still say there is not a representative of labour among the officials of this department. Each of them is or was a representative of big business. I will read the names. If my hon. friend is so touchy on the matter that he does not like me to read the names of the companies with which they were associated, I will leave that out. The other names are: Hon. J. A. Bril-lant; H. J. Carmichael, both names which are familiar to most of us; A. A. Mackay, F. M. Ross, H. Carl Goldenberg and F. W. Bruce. That is the kind of cooperation that has existed between management, the government and labour since the war began; and the feeling in the labour movement to-day is that there is a conspiracy between the government and big business to reduce wages as quickly as possible.


Mr. MITCHELL:: My hon. friend himself knows that is not true.


Angus MacInnis: I do not think my hon. friend has any right to make that sort of remark, and I ask that he withdraw it.


Humphrey Mitchell: Very well; I will withdraw it.


Angus MacInnis: I am not stating anything here that I do not believe to be true. I am not built that way.
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
OOMiMOiNS


Humphrey Mitchell: I will put it this way, then; I do not think it is true.


Angus MacInnis: Very well; it will be for my hon. friend to prove that.


Humphrey Mitchell: If I may say this to my hon. friend on a question of privilege; he is casting a reflection upon all the ministers sitting here when he says there is a conspiracy on the part of government and big business to break down the wage structure of this country. That was the language he' used. I think that is a reflection upon my character and upon the character of every minister in the House of Commons. My hon. friend is not out on a soap box in the market square; he is facing his peers right here, and he should not forget it. I am not going to stand for that sort of thing.


Angus MacInnis: I did not say that. I said that was the opinion of labour. There is a suspicion in their minds, and usually where there is smoke there is fire.
The next words in the speech from the throne to which I wish to direct attention are these:
Our country will ever remember with pride the heroic exploits of Canada's fighting men and merchant seamen.
To-day Canada has a fairly large merchant marine. I have in my hand a booklet issued by the Minister of Transport, which states that at the present time there are about 180 large ocean-going cargo vessels, requiring skilled seamen to the number of some 12,000. The number of seamen in our merchant marine before the war, that is under government control, was 1,400. The wages paid at the present time by the crown company, Park Steamship company, under whose control most if not all of these vessels are operated, are also given in this booklet. I have raised the question of the wages paid on Park Steamship company vessels on a number of occasions in this house.
I have shown that they were out of line, being lower than the wages paid on any other line in Canada and away below those paid on similar vessels in the United States. The last time I spoke of this matter was on the estimates during the session of 1943. I am not sure whether or not the wages have been increased since that time, but the wages paid an able seaman as of 1944, according to the Minister of Transport, were, basic wage, $89.93 per month, with a war risk bonus of $44.50, making in all a wage of $134.43. Now I think there is an application by the Park Steamship company to discontinue the bonus.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does my hon. friend know that to be true? I am the minister responsible for the Park Steamship company, and I am sure I have no knowledge of any such application from Park or anyone else. If my hon. friend is going to make that statement, which has been made several times, I hope he knows whether it is true. Has he ever seen the statement or application?


Angus MacInnis: I have been so informed; I have not seen the statement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Bring your evidence before you make any such statement.


Angus MacInnis: Does the minister deny that any such intention is in mind?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have never heard it suggested by Park or by any official of any Canadian steamship company, and I have never seen any intimation that this move is contemplated. If my hon. friend does not know anything at all about it I think he had better say so.


Angus MacInnis: Then I ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). Is there an application to that effect before the national war labour board?


Humphrey Mitchell: I understand there is, but I did not get the implication of what my hon. friend said.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Humphrey Mitchell: Just wait a moment and give me a chance. You are not out on the stump now. My hon. friend has been doing mental gymnastics all afternoon trying to prove his case. No one knows better than he that this House of Commons is not the place to argue a question of wages that can properly go before the national or a regional war labour board.


Major James William Coldwell: This is the place to argue anything.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know that is what my hon. friend says, but when you establish machinery representative of labour and the employers, with an impartial chairman-


Angus MacInnis: Just a moment. Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the minister asking a question, but I am not going to stand here-


Mr. McCANN:: You asked the question and he is answering it.


Angus MacInnis: He answered it.


James Joseph McCann: You asked it.


Angus MacInnis: He is not answering it now; he is lecturing me and he is not going to do that.

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis


Humphrey Mitchell: Just a minute, now-


Angus MacInnis: He cannot do that on my time. He answered it and he should sit down.


Humphrey Mitchell: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Howard Charles Green: Order; Mr. Speaker is on his feet.


James Horace King: I understood that the Minister of Labour asked the hon. member who is now addressing the house if permission would be given to ask a question. Permission was given. If the hon. member now-wishes to withdraw that privilege, it is his right to do so.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will close the matter this way-; if the hon. member does not want the story I shall sit down. But let us be fair about it. I have been asked a question and in answering it I was doing the best I could to educate the hon. member. Goodness knows he needs it. But if he does not want to know, I shall sit down.


Angus MacInnis: If the ministers could only get together before they begin contradicting me, rather than after, we would make much better progress. The conference they are now holding should have been held before they came into the chamber. In any event I shall leave the matter there.
The next point I should like to discuss is that of housing. I am not going to deal with it at any length, because it has been dealt with by several hon. members. It was referred to by my leader, and undoubtedly further reference will be made to the subject in the house, unless something is done very quickly.
So far as housing is concerned, conditions in Vancouver are deplorable. Housing conditions in most cities of Canada were bad before the war. They have continually become worse. I am not blaming the government for that, because it was inevitable that that condition should develop. In British Columbia, since the beginning of the war there has been a great increase in population. From 1941, when the census was taken, to 1944, the population increased from 818,000 in the earlier year to an estimated 932,000 in the latter year. It is considered that over 60,000 of those people are settled in Vancouver. The situation grows worse daily as many of the men from the armed services who enlisted in other provinces are taking their discharge in British Columbia, or are coming to that province after being discharged. That happened after the last war, and it is happening again this time.
The government is leaving the matter of housing to private enterprise. I hold in my hand a news item from the Vancouver Daily Province, dated July 16, which says, "Ilsley introduces vast scheme to provide veterans' homes. Ottawa guarantees builders against loss." I thought my friends favoured private enterprise, and urged that private enterprise had a right to its profit because it was prepared to take risks. But the private enterprise we have to-day asks the government to take the risks while it takes the profits. Surely that is a poor sort of private enterprise. And when it reaches that stage I say it ceases to be private enterprise and should receive no further consideration from anyone.
When during the war we needed so many planes, so many tanks, so many ships and so many guns the government planned for the production of them. So far as it was able it did not permit anything to interfere with that production-and it had wonderful success, bur when veterans need homes, when war workers need homes, when our people generally need homes, why in the world can we not decide how many homes we need, and then plan and organize to build them? Why should we leave those things to private enterprise, while we guarantee them against loss, if they should have any, and at the same time permit them to take a profit, if there is one? We cannot carry on the business of making provision for our people that way.
In the short time remaining to me may I make the admission that perhaps the reason for the mental gymnastics of which the Minister of Labour complained a few minutes ago is that I have been trying to understand the social and economic philosophy of the official opposition. During the election and since that time I thought they wanted the removal of controls, and a return to private enterprise so fast that it would make one's hair stand on end. But since coming to parliament and listening to them I have decided that their tune has changed. Perhaps when I say that I am not altogether correct. In my view they have two tunes, if I have caught the strains correctly, one of which is entitled Throw the Controls out of the Window, and the second of which is Let the Government Get Action. But they cannot have both. The authority which is going to get action must have control. If we want the government to act-and this group does want it, and is willing to give the government the authority and control for action-it must have control. But hon. members to my right want it both ways. I should like to quote their position as it was placed before the house last night by the hon.
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt'). This is what he says as reported on page 107 of Hansard:
The end of laissez-faire means another thing. It means that the government are no longer solely the administrators of the affairs of this country; that they can be content just to let things go. The government are ultimately responsible for every part of our national life, and there is no ill which befalls the people of this country which it is not the duty of the government to correct. If they are to correct all those ills, they must get a new outlook.
Somewhat earlier in his address-and as I said before, his maiden speech was a good one-the hon. member said we do not want a new social order. Now it seems we must have a new outlook without a new social order.
Mr. FRASER; What Canada needs is a new leader.


Angus MacInnis: But if the new leader
has the old leader's outlook, where does it get us? As a matter of fact, my hon. friends are in an impossible position. They want to keep in with those who want the old and also keep in with those who want the new. You cannot have it that way. This group is asking for a fundamental change in our attitude toward our social and economic problems because we are convinced that it is only by economic and social changes comparable with the changes that have taken place in our means of production that we can meet the problems with which we are confronted today.
Mr. J. H. BLAlOKMORE (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, may I in commencing my remarks congratulate you upon having been selected for the high and responsible position which you now hold. I have observed since you have commenced to read the prayers in this house that you have read them with a sincerity which is quite noticeable. It seems to me that you have approached the tasks which you are endeavouring to perform with a humble trust in divine providence. This i? a fine example which you have set for the members of this house and the people generally throughout the country.
I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Benidiekson) and the seconder (Mr. Langlois) of the address in reply. They did very well under extremely trying conditions. As these two splendid young boys spoke I could not help recalling the last war and the boys who returned from it, my classmates, my chums. The youth of my generation had the challenge thrown to them; the call went out; they rose and marched and stood-sufficient in their generation. Once more in my lifetime I have seen a noble generation of British

youth rise and prove itself equal to its testing. For those who have come safely home, for those who are impaired in health and limb, for those who have laid down their splendid young lives for freedom, for those whose lives are blighted in bereavement, there is comfort I think in a line which I discovered quoted in a little poem left us by an airman whose shattered young body lies buried in Lemnos. This line goes:
Now God be thanked who has matched us with this hour.
The boys of the last war were told that they would have "homes for heroes;" a disturbing percentage of them were unable to obtain or maintain even hovels for heroes. They were told that they were fighting a "war to end wars;" they found on return that someone behind the scenes had contrived to make another war inevitable. They were told that they were fighting a war to make the world safe for democracy; they found that behind their backs the world had 'been made impossible for democracy. The boys of this war have won the world one more chance to make good. It is a comforting thing that in this house there are so many returned men, so many of the boys of this war. By careful study they will discover the difficulties which confront a government, of a country like Canada in times like these. That will be a help.
One thing that is disturbing is that they are so dangerously divided. I sat here and listened to four on the Liberal side who simply adored the grand old Liberal party and appeared to believe that in it lay the hopes of the future. Then we listened to one on the Conservative side who believed that there was no need at all of a new order. Apparently his devotion to the Conservative party was equal to the devotion of the other four to the Liberal party. To what extent there is a difference between those two parties I am not at the present moment going to pronounce. We heard also a returned man from the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group who was certain that- change must come in the social order.
These boys are all united in their objective, on whatsoever side of the house they are or in whatsoever party, but they will have to learn that they will have to be united in the method or the technique to be employed or their enemies will defeat them. I fear that thus far in this debate our returned boys have not given the house such hope as we wished we could have had that they will be effective in this house.
Somewhere there is a way of doing the things which the boys wish to have done. This country is able to produce all the food, all

The Address-Mr. Blnckmore
the clothing, all the shelter, all the health services, all the educational facilities, all of everything which is necessary to give every one in Canada that high standard of living to which we as a people have a right. Everybody wants them to have that high standard.
I doubt if there is a member in this house who does not want them to have that high standard. The trouble is that we have not yet determined what technique should be applied to enable the people to attain their desires. I commend to the returned men that the first important task for them is to determine what that technique shall be and come to agreement on it.
So far in this debate several hon. members have been rather touching in the beauty of their expression of the lofty ideals which actuated them in coming into this house. Those ideals are all to the good; they are all dreams of a bright new world. But new wmrlds and new orders cost money. The main problem confronting the members of this house is where to get the money we need. There is no need for members of any party in this house to rise and rail against the members of the government. I doubt if there is a member of the cabinet who is not just as eager to give people the things they want as the people are to get them. But in the last analysis they must find the money, and I would suggest to my friends of the Conservative party and my friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation that they would save themselves a lot of time and the house a lot of time if they would concentrate on the problem of where to get the money.
In the world into which we are now emerging the Canadian parliament must find much money. There are four main purposes for which it must find money.
In the first place it is going to be the duty of Canada to supply more and more goods abroad. It is going to become our duty, and is our duty, to maintain a high standard of military strength in this country, as well as in all the countries of the British commonwealth and empire. It is going to be the duty of this parliament to maintain a high standard of living in all Canada for all Canadians. At the same time the government must find increasing sums of money to pay for the government services which are daily becoming more and more urgently demanded by the people. Without going into details I tli ink it is easily observable that the demands on our purse are great.
First, with respect to the amount of goods that we must send abroad, and by the goods we must send abroad I do not mean the goods that we trade abroad. As hon. members know,
we were all brought up in our schools on the doctrine of trade, and now we find ourselves embarrassed, if not confounded, as soon as we learn that the people who need goods from us happen to have insufficient goods to return to us in repayment. We are facing a situation which is rather new throughout the world. This whole need has existed throughout the war and has been taken care of by the United States through its lend-lease arrangements, and by the Dominion of Canada through an extensive Mutual Aid programme. Let us not carry away the idea that lease-lend and Mutual Aid came to stay only while the war was on. They foreshadow a new technique which will have to be employed in the post-war world. The money to pay for Mutual Aid is not going to be a negligible item in Canada's budget. We must provide our share of the goods for the nations of the world, for the peoples of the world as a whole. Otherwise how can we possibly discharge our responsibilities under the Atlantic charter by which we were committed to a policy of freedom from want? We assume freedom from want for all mankind. And now we must provide goods for the liberated countries, for there is upon us a special responsibility with respect to them. Until they can get on their feet, as we say, to the extent that they can carry themselves we must contribute our share toward carrying them.
Then we must see to it that the members of the British commonwealth are not deprived of any goods which they need that we can produce in surplus. Especially must we remember Britain. Britain has exhausted herself during the war just past as she has never exhausted herself in her history. She has had to liquidate all her foreign investments upon which she depended for great quantities of raw materials imported from abroad. Her factories in large measure were transformed into war factories and continued operating as such until so near the coming of peace that they will be several months behind the factories of such nations as the United States or Canada, which countries have been engaged meanwhile in great measure in producing consumer goods.
Then, again, Britain's supremacy in the carrying trade of the world has been in large measure impaired owing to the tremendous percentage of her shipping that was sunk in carrying goods to all her allies on the far-flung battle-fronts of the world. Long before she can overtake her previous position in shipping, there is some indication that great concerns in the United States will have entered the field with air transport and taken over the business upon which Britain to a great extent depended for raw materials from abroad.
The Address-Mr. Blackmore

These are the factors which have contributed to the "economic jam" we hear of in Great Britain. The damage to Great Britain's economy I fear is in a considerable degree permanent. The whole condition calls for a Mutual Aid scheme, extensive, comprehensive and in large measure perpetual. If we do not provide for such a scheme we shall be neglecting to protect the standard of living of the matchless British commoners. We shall, moreover, be failing to provide an outlet for Canadian surpluses other-wise unmarketable abroad, and w-e shall be failing to ensure a strong, hopeful Britain, a fearless, unconquerable outpost guarding our frontiers for the future. Where should we have been in this war had it not been for that same outpost? Is it to be supposed for one moment that the babes who now toddle around our cradles will not have an equal need for Britain when their time of testing shall come? And what sort of improvident creatures shall we prove to have been if we neglect to foresee and to provide what is required? Therefore we must find much money for goods which are to be distributed abroad, quite regardless of the goods which we shall trade abroad.
We must make sure that we of the British commonwealth shall at all future times be strong, strong enough to discharge to the full our responsibilities for maintaining the peace of the world. Let us never forget the lessons of the League of Nations. Let us not be deluded by all this wishful thinking and talking about the security council. Let no one interpret my remarks as indicating that I have any objection to the security council; I merely suggest that if we trust too far in the security council we shall probably find it weighed in the balance and found wanting, just when we need it.
Far too many of us trusted far too much in the high-sounding phrases of collective security dreamers. We permitted ourselves to become unprepared. Tens of thousands of the noblest youth our people ever produced have died by reason of the foolhardy blunder w-e made in leaving them unprepared. The men who left the British peoples unprepared betrayed a whole generation of the youth of over 600,000,000 of the British peoples. While we talk about German and Japanese war criminals, perhaps we should give a little attention to British, Canadian and United States war criminals and others who neglected to keep their countries prepared. Let us remember, while we are discussing all the other things which require our attention, not to allow this important matter again to fall into disregard.
fMr. Blackmore.]
Why did the British commonwealth leaders leave their peoples unprepared? Partly at least because they were deluded into believing that there was no money. Why was the Mag-inot line not completed to the point where it should have been? Why was construction stopped at just the point where the Germans would enter? Well, it was reported that there was no money. Why did the Bennett administration between 1930 and 1935 allow much of Canada's already meagre military strength to be dismantled? This fact must sober my Conservative friends. It happened. Well, they thought there was no money and they must economize; and flesh and blood and life paid the price of their folly. They were not alone in their error. They were the victims of a mentality. The all-important thing for us, is to see to it that we also do not become victims of the same mentality.
There are at least four reasons why we allowed ourselves to become unprepared. The first was the money reason. The second was the strange subversive doctrine of pacifism, foremost among the exponents of which, I regret to say, were the leaders of the movement which is now the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. They were deluded; yes, and they deluded a lot of others, and once more flesh and blood and life paid the price of the folly. Then there was the League of Nations delusion, the idea that somewhere or other there was a body that could take care of our troubles for us, so that we all began to think, "let George do it". Well, George didn't do it, and finally we had to do it. That is likely to occur again. Lastly, there was the doctrine of appeasement.
In this question of no money, this notion of pacifism, this delusion regarding the League of Nations, and this false doctrine of appeasement we must seek the causes of our unpreparedness. But the foundation of most of this fallacious thinking was the no-money complex; and that is likely to be the most compelling of all motives in future, unless we seek and gain enlightenment regarding money.
As to the serious responsibility which is upon this parliament of maintaining a high standard of living in the Dominion of Canada, I shall not go into details. Everyone in the house will readily recognize the significance of the items I mention. We must manage to guarantee, both to producers and to consumers, prices which will stimulate production and consumption. We must manage to maintain in this land a wage structure which will again stimulate production and consumption and will give people that high standard of living for which we all long. Then we must .provide for allowances on a generous scale.

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
The miserable pittance which we now give our old age pensioners is a scandal. I would hesitate to tell you what I think in fifty years people on the floor of this house will be advocating in the matter of old age pensions;
I would be considered an impossible fanatic, and I am afraid the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) would have to go to an institution for his nerves if he were to hear what they will be talking about in fifty years regarding old age pensions in this country. Then we must provide pensions for the blind; pensions for others who for some reason or other are unable to gain access to the wage stream and are consequently unable to purchase the goods which the producers of Canada stand ready to produce in greater and greater abundance. When we provide them with incomes to buy we shall provide ourselves with a market to the extent to which we provide the incomes. All this is involved in maintaining a high standard of living in Canada.
The health standards which obtain in this country are an utter disgrace. I need not go into detail. All hon. members know. We all know how many people have gone year after year without visiting a doctor for extremely important medical examinations simply because they dreaded that they would hear they were sick and would have to go to a hospital; many of them have continued until they died of disease. In this wonderful Canada of ours such things must not be.
Also our educational standards in the country are far, far too low.
All these things we must undertake in this parliament to provide for in some way or another on a standard which is fitting, fitting not only for the boys who have come home from this terrible war and their wives and children, but fitting for the mothers and fathers who raised those boys, and fitting for the mothers and fathers who raised those mothers and fathers, whom we are now relegating to garrets and basements in little dark, dingy unseemly places in our cities where they-I hesitate to use the word which would describe the kind of existence they have to eke out at thirty dollars a month. Remember they are the mothers and fathers of the mothers and fathers who raised the heroes of to-day.
Another major item for which we must provide money is that of discharging the responsibilities of the government with respect to our debt, the costs of government, and so forth. I shall leave that without further comment. But I believe it all adds up to this simple fact, that we are faced with a problem of providing money which is positively bewildering.
What does the government say is the source of the money we shall use? We can have no more money than that which we can wring out of the people of Canada by all sorts of taxation; the amount of money they haippen to have in their pockets is the absolute limit, beyond which it is impossible for Liberals to go. Never mind how much wheat we can produce, how much milk and cream and cheese and meats and fruits and vegetables and every other kind of food we can produce; never mind how much clothing we can produce, or how much furniture, or how many buildings or how much building material, or how vast our resources, or how willing our people are to work, or how skilful they are in the performance of their work; never mind how great our industrial equipment, we simply cannot in any way, according to these gentlemen, increase our income for our government beyond that which we can squeeze out of the people by merciless and tyrannical taxation, a process which in its very application decreases their purchasing power and thereby decreases the markets within Canada. Such is the Liberal government; such are the brilliant gentlemen who managed to trick the people of Canada into voting them back into power on the grounds that they fought the war well. I would not in any way decry the way in which they fought the war. Generally speaking, most people of average intelligence can do a pretty good job if you give them a wideopen purse; and I think the government will have to grant that they had a wide-open purse. Never a dollar that was ever asked for in this house or in a loan campaign across the country but was oversubscribed if the request was made that .such be the case; therefore they had a wide-open purse, and the debt which now is accumulating against the name of the Dominion of Canada clearly indicates that they used it rather freely. Therefore let us temper the praise we give the Liberals for their war effort with the reminder that we have paid rather freely for it. Not only that, but we have committed ourselves to taxation for the future, so that most of the splendid boys who come back from fighting the war have to take off their coats now and deprive themselves for the rest of their natural lives to pay the cost of the war after already paying for it in blood and sweat, risk and suffering.
There is another group of gentlemen who are identical with the Liberals, namely, the Conservatives. They, too, believe that the only possible source of even a cent in this country is what they can wring out of the people by taxation. If I am doing the hon. gentlemen any injustice I trust at the earliest
The Address-Mr. Blackmore

convenient moment they will rise and assure me that they have begun to see the light and that they see another source of money than taxation. There you are. That is what you have on two sides of the house. I think there is no difference 'between the Liberals and Conservatives. I am challenging any member of the Liberal party or the Conservative party to rise and show a single iota of difference between the two parties. In fact I would judge that the Conservatives are probably ju9t a little more liberal than the Liberals and the Liberals a little more conservative than the Conservatives. I think I have not been unkind.
Now we come to the socialist concept. Here I tread with a measure of trepidation because I am not entirely sure I have been able to learn from the speeches I have heard and the books I have read just what socialism stands for. But my idea-I speak subject to correction is that they depend on taxation and borrowing just as the Liberals and Conservatives do. There is no difference at all in that respect between them. But they do say that if they had the government take over the industries so that the government could acquire all the profits which industries are making that would constitute another source of revenue for the government; and if they should see fit to raise the price a little on the goods coming out of the factories they would be able to tax the people in that manner too. Therefore they have another method of taxation through government ownership of industry. If I have been unfair to them I should be glad to be answered in great detail.
I have endeavoured to be courteous in my analysis of the situation.
Is there not some other way? Should not the amount of money which is available to a government depend' directly upon the goods and services which the nation can produce? If we think of the goods and services producing capacity of Canada and we contemplate our ability to produce enough goods and services to supply our people with all the food, clothing, shelter, housing, education and health services that they need, and to produce enough goods and services to take care of our costs with respect to armaments and to produce enough goods and services to discharge our responsibilities with respect to goods which have to be shipped abroad, and to produce enough goods and services to pay the costs of running our government, immediately hope fills our hearts. We think of the great stretches of grain-growing country and all the other resources which we have; of the tremendous machine equipment which has develfMr. Blackmore.]
oped during this war, and the skills which we have acquired, including all the different technological plastic advances, and we say. surely we can produce enough goods and services to accomplish all these things. Let us go forward in faith, happiness and good cheer. But the minute we think of paying for them by taking all the necessary money out of our pockets, then, Mr. Speaker, we are immediately overcome with despair.
I should like to commend to the young men and the new members who have come to this house the proposition, that it is possible to turn into money the goods and services which the nation can produce. It is possible to turn these into money within the nation. What is physically possible is financially possible. And may I commend to them this proposition for most earnest study? May I suggest to them that through this device, through this technique, lies the way to the new order.


Mr. BONA ARSENAULT (Bona venture):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks shall be brief, as I had no intention of taking part in this debate. I represent in this house the county of Bon-aventure, which is situated in the eastern part of the province of Quebec adjoining New Brunswick. Its population of about 40,000 people are descendants of Acadians, empire loyalists, early traders and fishermen from France and the English channel, Irish, Scottish and English. Racial harmony has ever prevailed in that county, and the majority of the people speak both languages. I am thankful indeed to that constituency for having elected me to this house by a substantial majority. One of my predecessors representing that county here, one who certainly will be remembered by the older members of this house, was the late Hon. Charles Marcil, who was elected for the first time in 1900 and represented Bonaventure without interruption for thirty-six years.
As I mentioned a moment ago, I did not intend to take part in this debate until yesterday, when the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) made certain references to service men seeking their discharge from the army.
I should like to quote briefly from the address of the hon. member at page 78:
A soldier may go up to the sergeant-major, and if he cannot speak French all he has to do is to shrug his shoulders and say, "Me no speak English" and he is out-out to go and seek a job before the long-service men come back from overseas.
The hon. member for Nanaimo, who I understand has been in charge of the Pacific command for a certain period, should know better; but there is another aspect to this matter

The Address-Mr. Arsenault
which I should like to stress very briefly before this house. For many years a certain element in the Conservative party could not find any better solution for some of our most crucial problems than to play one part of the country against the other, than to stir up and spread prejudice against one-third of the population of our country, and to capitalize week after week, month after month upon the resentment which they themselves help to develop in certain sections of Canada against the province of Quebec. Yet to-day they wonder why that party has not had a chance to come back into offlce more than once during the last twenty-five years. They wonder why they were so badly defeated on the last polling day; and they wonder why an ex-Conservative like myself should be standing now on this side of the house supporting the Liberal administration. In referring to the service men in the terms he used yesterday the hon. member for Nanaimo was keeping in line with the familiar Tory way of playing ball. From 1939 to 1942 the shares of the Conservative party were so low in the minds of the people of this country that some drastic measure, some radical move had to be undertaken in order to save that party from total disappearance. In the fall of 1942 a convention of the party was held at Winnipeg, in which I actively participated in a last and vain hope that the party to which I had belonged all my life and to which I was very strongly tied by family traditions, would be regenerated. That was where and how the old Conservative party became overnight the young and up-to date Progressive Conservative party; at least I, together with many others throughout this dominion, strongly held that belief. A new leader was elected, certainly an outstanding man and, I must admit frankly, a man for whom I still have a great deal of admiration. A certain platform was adopted, and the younger generation in the party thought that at last it had got rid of the Tories and all their reactionary influence wu.iin the party.
For about a year and a half the new leader of this party succeeded in quieting down that element, so much so that at one time the name of John Bracken was popular not only throughout the other provinces of Canada but even in the far distant rural sections of old Quebec. But then came the Saskatchewan provincial election and the sweeping victory of the C.C.F. over the Progressive Conservative candidates, while the Bloc Populaire apparently was making decisive headway in the province of Quebec. That was enough for the highly inspired strategists of the Progressive Conservative party to change their
mind about Winnipeg and throw into the waste paper basket the gentleman's agreements which had been arrived at there after long days and nights of laborious discussion in committee rooms. This change of mind is confirmed by a Toronto weekly, Saturday Night, in an editorial which appeared on June 24, 1944, from which I wish to quote a brief extract:
In spite of Mr. McTague's clever pleading this new attitude-
They mean the attitude of the new party.
-is definitely a change of mind, and a change back in the mind of Mr. Meighen and the element which had charge of the party before South York. . . . It means in effect that the party has decided to capitalize on the resentment against Quebec and to abandon all idea of obtaining any Quebec support for many years to come.
Then followed my resignation as president of the Progressive Conservative association for Quebec and the announcement that I was leaving the ranks of the party;
Again I refer the house to a brief extract from an editorial published by' the Toronto Saturday Night. While this was published over a year ago, on July 1, 1944, it looks as if it had been written to-day:
The action of the Progressive Conservatives in tossing Quebec into the discard in order to improve their position in other provinces is probably, from the Liberal point of view, a more interesting development than even the Saskatchewan election itself.
It will make it extremely difficult for any French-speaking members from Quebec to cooperate with any other party than the Liberal, even if they do not admit to being Liberals themselves in the next parliament; and after the McTague speech they are unlikely to do anything that would bring into power a party which is practically going to the country on a platform of teaching Quebec what's what.
The short term result of such an attitude has been to consolidate the Liberal party's hold on Quebec, without lessening it to any substantial extent in Ontario where the Liberal vote was barely 5i per cent below the Conservative, in spite of the results of the provincial elections held in that province one week prior to the federal vote.
As a long term result, the Progressive Conservative party has thrown away the best chance it has had since 1930 to take office, and has thrown that chance away for a long period of years to come. In the past any attempt to lessen in the minds of the people of Canada the magnificent war effort performed by Quebec in the last five tragic years of war has not paid dividends to the Progressive Conservative party.
Turning to volunteer enlistments, I would challenge from my place in the house any hon. member outside Quebec to place beside
The Address-Mr. Arsenault

the record of the county of Bonaventure, which I represent, the record of his constituency in respect of the number of volunteers for the army, the navy and the air force, on a pro rata basis of population, and I am satisfied the comparison would reflect no discredit upon my riding. The same condition has obtained in the neighbouring county of Gaspe, and also in Dorchester and very likely in many other constituencies in my province.
Despite her two cultures, Canada has made a tremendous contribution to the war effort in the last five years. It is most doubtful whether the adoption of any of the drastic measures advocated by the Progressive Conservative party would have added materially to that contribution. On the contrary, I am sure that in the long run it would have torn confederation apart.
Mr. Speaker, you have now been told why I stand to-day on this side of the house pledging my support to what I believe to be the only national party in Canada, the only party the policies of which are accepted generally by all sections of the country and all classes of our population.
One point which must not be overlooked, but which must be recognized, is that the leader of the government has performed an outstanding and almost superhuman task under most adverse circumstances. During these long and tragic years of war he has spared no effort in shaping the development of an extremely powerful military and economic war effort, while at the same time safeguarding in all ways humanly possible that measure of Canadian unity, understanding and friendship which is the basic fundamental of that true and sincere collaboration shared by citizens of Canada of different racial origins. I firmly believe that this Liberal government is the one government which can bring about the best understanding in Canada, and lay the most solid foundation of a great Canadian nation of the future.
In conclusion, I should like to make a special appeal at the beginning of this session to all members of the house, both new and old, and to ask them to do their utmost to bring about goodwill, better understanding and sincere friendship among Canadians of different racial extractions and different creeds. I appeal to all true Canadians to lay aside past dissensions and to join hand in hand in building up on this continent a great and prosperous Canadian nation.
This war has taught us many things. It has taught us, for instance, that Canada is a nation among the nations of the -world. It has taught us also, that what we lack most in Canada at this time is Canadian-minded

Canadians. We now know things that we did not know before the war. We know that Canada is capable of great achievements. In the past perhaps we have suffered from a lack of a spirit of enterprise, a lack of vision and of initiative. Now that we have learned how to use men, money and machinery, our generation will undoubtedly benefit from that knowledge. We have used men, money and machines for war-time purposes and we must continue to use them for peacetime progress. Our society must be given the conscious purpose of inspiring peace-time devotion as well as war-time sacrifice. This aim, this objective can be attained by collaboration between the different nations of the world, but it can be obtained in the first place and more surely by cooperation by individuals. That is why I stand for cooperation. I never stood and I do not stand for a separated Quebec in a disunited Canada. I am a Canadian-minded Canadian and I stand for a united Canada which will secure the full benefit of our British connections.
The diversity of racial origin in Canada to-day should not be a problem. We have so many other problems to deal with. Why try to divide the French and English speaking people of this country on five per cent of our differences when we should stand united on ninety-five per cent of our resemblance, of our mutual interests and of our common ideals? After all, we are proceeding, sometimes perhaps by different roads, toward the same goal, toward the same aim, which is the greatness, the progress and the prosperity of this country. It is the combined efforts of all the elements of our beautiful land carried out in a spirit of justice, mutual understanding and mutual loyalty that will guide us Canadians, French and English speaking, toward glorious realization.
Mr. Speaker, may I add just one word to thank you, as well as the hon. members of this house, for the keen attention which you have had) the kindness to give me, and to assure you, Mr. Speaker, of my full cooperation.
The needs of the constituency I represent are many. I shall no doubt have the opportunity of pointing them out to you in the debate on the budget, but to-day I do not wish to dela}' any longer the proceedings of this house.
Mr. PAUL-EDMOND GAGNON (Chicoutimi) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, your nomination as Speaker is a tribute of esteem and an unequivocal mark of confidence on the part of the hon. members of this house. I take pleasure, with the hon. members who have spoken before me, in tendering you my most
SEiPTEMBER 12, 1945
The Address-Mr. Gagnon
sincere congratulations and my best wishes of success in the discharge of your important functions.
The mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) carried out his task with a brilliance and a skill which portend splendid successes for the future. His performance has given me much pleasure.
No one could have lauded or eulogized the right Iron, the prime minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his government more sincerely or with more enthusiasm than did the seconder of the address, the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Langlois). I congratulate him, without however envying him, for having felt the liberal grace at such an early age, and I wish he may have perseverance. May he always see, in life and in politics, only the bright side of things.
No one in this house is more delighted than myself to hear that at long last, the government intends to provide the Canadian nation with a flag of its own. If the supreme consolation of pressing to their dying breast the glorious emblem of their race and country was denied our gallant soldiers, we who shall reap the fruits of their sacrifice shall joyfully feel our hearts thrill to the sight of the glorious symbol whose folds will ever show the stain of their blood and sweat.
The plan to make Ottawa a gigantic memorial in commemoration of our -brave fighters who fell on the battlefield was a happy thought. I heartily endorse it, but as a finishing touch to this magnificent scheme, I should like to see an isolated1 plot of soil -of sinister and mournful aspect set apart for the raising of a cold unadorned pillar, similar in the style to a government order, in honour of all the civilians victimized by the wartime prices and trade board and selective service, so that the memory of the countless dictatorial annoyances and vexations borne during the war by the people on the home front may be kept alive.
I hope that the government will codify the social legislation it will submit to the approval of the house during the present session so as to grant equal privileges to every Canadian citizen. In this sphere, we -already have the family allowances act which is excellent in itself but vitiated in its form and application to French Canadians. That is why the Duplessis government, hoping to supplement the federal act and to remedy its shortcomings, has decided to contribute a part of the allowance and thus ensure to large families the benefits which accrue from this security measure.
This family allowance measure is a striking example of things to be expected in the legislative and economic fields were we to allow the federal government to centralize our sources of income together with the privileges now held by the provincial administrations.
If, on the one hand, we have reason to commend the wisdom and excellence of the measures forecast in the speech from the throne, I believe that, on the other hand, the deficiencies noticeable make it an incomplete and unfinished document. I realize that the government cannot give at the opening of a new parliament, a thorough outline of all the steps contemplated; however, I think the greatest attention and the first place should have been devoted to the problems inherent to the transition from a war-time to a peacetime economy. The people of Canada want work. The earnest desire of the man on the street is to bring home a pay envelope sufficiently full to take care of his needs and those of his family. I know the worthy workers of my constituency. They are skilled men closely grouped together and who ask nothing but the opportunity to earn a living honourably, but I know that in the event of a return of unemployment, of a decline in the number of jobs available, which is the case at the present time, our workers will not relish the total or partial closing of their plants, even though the national flag be unfurled over the buildings.
Chicoutimi constituency, which I am honoured to represent in this house, besides being one of the most beautiful in the country, is among those who have been foremost in helping and speeding the war effort. Not only have we supplied, for the armed services, numerous recruits who have fought courageously on every battlefield of the world, but, by the intensive production of aluminium at Arvida, by the surprising volume of our agricultural output, our district, I am proud to say, has been one of the principal factors of victory. Having shared in the battles on all fronts, we are to-day entitled to share in the reward.
In our midst lie tremendous opportunities for industrial expansion. The possibilities for development of the Saguenay region are unlimited. We now have, besides those already in existence, previous to the war, one of the mightiest hydro-electric plants in the world, the Shipshaw power house. Thousands upon thousands of horse-power presently go to waste in the absence of industries which could utilize them. A group of far-sighted and patriotic citizens, concerned about the future of our district, have formed a board of economic guidance to develop an extensive
The Address-Mr. Gagnon

programme designed to attract Canadian and foreign industries interested in establishing their headquarters or branch offices in Canada. However, the aim of these enterprising men of my constituency can be realized only with the help of the government. We ask neither for money nor special privileges; all we want and wish is a proper and permanent job for every member of our working class which would ensure the development and prosperity of one of the most beautiful parts of the province of Quebec. We wish the government to undertake, in and out of Canada, an advertising programme informing capitalists and business men that we possess hydraulic developments awaiting utilization and an available and skilled manpower comparable to any for efficiency and service. We demand to be free from the fear of unemployment, for we wish to live in peace and enjoy the freedom for which our soldiers, airmen and seamen have fought and died.
I believe I am right in presuming that the yearnings of my constituents, both male and female, are shared by the whole population of Canada. Our ideal is that of the youth of our country who at last desire to get their share of happiness and welfare which Divine Providence has placed within the reach of everyone.
Our ambition is to forget the hideous spectre of war and to give a deeper meaning to the word brotherhood; it is to forsake the road leading to misery, pain, hatred and death, to enter resolutely the path of hope, life and love.
Our people must not be left under the impression that war is a great cause of prosperity and that a solution to the probr lems which confront mankind must always be sought on the graves of our sons.
Therefore, I say that the great task facing the government, and which is one of its main concerns, is to strive unremittingly to achieve a prompt and smooth reconversion of our war-time economy to a peace-time one.
And one of the most powerful means of providing our country with a permanent and real standard of prosperity is to possess a merchant marine which will enable us to export our manufactured goods to all the countries of the world and especially to South America.
I therefore support wholeheartedly the suggestion of the hon. member for Gaspe who has made interesting and timely remarks in that respect, and I feel that the government should regard this matter as a vital one. One need not be a great economist to know that if we have a favourable trade balance,

the whole economy of our country will benefit therefrom and the lot of all the classes of society will improve correspondingly.
(Text): Because I love my country and because I want it to be great, strong and prosperous, my collaboration is pledged to those who assume the responsibility of assuring its greatness, its prosperity and bringing about its financial, economic and moral strength. While keeping my full freedom of thought and action and remaining totally independent of all political parties, I feel it my duty to cooperate with government authorities so as to promote and protect Canada's interest, and I shall not fail to keep my pledge.
On motion of Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North) the debate was adjourned.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Charles H. Larose, Esquire, Acting Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency tile Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the House went up to the Senate.
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for national defence and demobilization.
An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1946.
It being five minutes after six o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, September 13', 1945.